Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 124146
From: mpye@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: Re: Media horrified at Perot investigating Bush!

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> +>I can't find my source.
> +>But.  If you state that you will retract your claim, I'll go dig one up
> +>at the library.  Fair enough?
> 
> 	ARE YOU SERIOUS?  I'm not talking about retracting anything until
> you have produced SOMETHING.
> 
> 	If you were not just talking off the top of your head, I would
> assume that you have SOME memory of what your source is.
> 
> 	PUT UP NOW without conditions!


Yes, very serious.  I claim that I can substantiate my statement that
Rudman says he doesn't believe Perot was investigating him.  You claim
Perot was investigating him.  If you will state that you were in error
on this point, provided I produce the source, I'll go dig it up.

Now give me one reason why I should go to the trouble if you won't
agree to this?  It is simple enough you know.  But I don't have time
to waste if you'll just blow it off with more of the tripe you usually
post.



---
Michael Pye
email: mpye@csupomona.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176845
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over

In <C4v13w.Dup@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <bob1.733696161@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <C4ruo8.77r@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>>  Norway (where you appear to be posting from) is just such a 
>>>  place, although it has always escaped my understanding just
>>>  what the appeal, to allegedly rational people, of such a
>>>  scheme might be.  What gives King Olav V (or whoever it is
>>>  now - my atlas is from 1987) the right to any special legal
>>>  status or title based on a mere accident of birth? 
>>
>>To begin with, it's quite inexpensive compared to here, what with our
>>having six former presidents still alive, drawing pensions, expense
>>accounts, and secret service protection.

>  Maybe so, but they were, after all, President.  In the corporate 
>  world it's SOP for retiring senior executives to be given nice
>  pensions, etc.  The point is that they performed a service and
>  this is part of the compensation package.   The only "service" 
>  royals have to perform for their free ride is being born.

We might be better off had some of our former presidents done nothing.


>---peter



>PS  - . . . which is not to say that some of our presidents have 
>      not provided a service for the country too dissimilar from what
>      occurs when a bull "services" a cow (for those of you familiar
>      with cattle breeding).
>                                                 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176846
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Bill Conklin's letter to A.J.

In article <1993Apr5.040414.14939@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>	Again, the main point.

>	No human being not yet born can be bound to any contract.

Wrong.  It's possible to inherit a debt.

>	Further, no third party can be bound to any contract that
>they are not a party to.

See above.

>	The Constitution *for* the United States is just such a contract.
>No third party can be bound to it. Further, no human who is not specifically
>mentioned in Article 6 and has not taken an oath or made an affirmation
>to uphold said Const can be bound to uphold or obey it.

The Constitution is not a contract.  It is a statute.  Please, 
Mr. Teel, or anyone, show me one case where the U.S. 
Constitution, or any state constitution, is considered a 
contract.

>	The Const is designed to limit the powers of government, not to
>bind THE PEOPLE.

It is also designed to delineate the powers of the U.S. 
government.

>	This argument will be presented in great detail in the next post.

I can't wait.

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176847
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Traffic Case

In article <1993Apr5.140934.876@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>	The [McDonald] case was dismissed in the interests of Justice

On whose authority do you have this and on what grounds was it 
dismissed?

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176849
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!

In article <765445d3219144t87@infoserv.com>,
 jamesdon@infoserv.com (James A. Donald) writes...
>The tax protesters are legally correct, but they are put in jail anyway.

Hello?  What the Sloan decision means is that the tax protestors 
were wrong.

>The weakness of the governments legal position is shown by the fact that when
>someone protesting tax or gun laws on legal grounds gets a federal jury trial
>(very rare) the feds blatantly stack the jury, with the same old faces turning
>up time after time.

Demonstrate, please!  The rules of procedure make this very 
unlikely.

>However Teel should have mentioned that though his advice is legally sound, if
>you follow it you will probably wind up in jail.

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Which makes it legally unsound.  If I were representing Mr. Teel, 
I'd try a procedural approach if I could find one, or recommend 
he plea-bargain.  He's setting himself up to be in hot water.

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176850
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: A demo of Nonsense Talk- and what about all the other lies?

In article <15196@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Homosexuals have been lying about the 10% number for so long that
>the politicians are running scared of them.  Of course, homosexuals
>lying should be no surprise.
>

How can you lie about something that no one knows for sure.  I am the first
to state that the 10% figure may be too high- but it may just be too low,
depending on what you are talking about.

Keep in mind that there are 'practicing' heterosexuals that are actually
gay.  These people chose to take a road that avoids being harassed and
they wanted to 'fit-in' with everyone other 'normal' person.

But let's get off of this irrational behavior of calling everyone a liar,
you cannot even start to support such claims.

>Also, the corrupt, criminal and lying nature of Kinsey's work, which
>provides much of the justification for homosexual "rights" in the modern
>era, should make people step back for a moment and question the rest
>of the crap that they have been force-fed by the news media.

This sure sounds definitive.  How do you label Kinsey's work like this,
from that factually based and scientific journal WSJ?

>-- 
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

This is an interesting statement.  Do you realize how many things you do
your life that are not based on 'mutual consent'- and that it may be
required on occasion that all parties may not be mutually consenting?
This

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176851
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: The Evidence

In article <15177@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <113567@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <cjkC4MCwp.8ox@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
># #If homosexuals did keep themselves in the privacy of their own home, this 
># #wouldn't be a problem.  However, there are various 'cliques' (sp?) that
># #don't.  They want to present the argument that it is just as moral and
># #right as heterosexuality.
># 
># You know, I'm offended by newspapers publicly announcing weddings.
># Heterosexuals should keep their nutpials out of the public eyes. They
># should be banned from wearing wedding rings. From having legal recognition
># of marriage.
># 
># Anything that's public and sexual don't mix.
>
>The difference, of course, is that we are right, and you are wrong.
>If you are a minority that wants freedom, it helps to not be 
>obnoxious about it.  It does not surprise me that as groups like

TRANSLATION- you minorities stay in predesignated areas.  We the majority
are 'right', anything you do is 'wrong', since might makes right, and
the majority always rules.

>Queer Nation become increasingly belligerent in their public 
>demonstrations, that violence against homosexuals rises.  Anything
>that reminds the crazies who like to beat up homosexuals of their
>presence is going to aggravate things.


Oh- crime prevention at its best.  Well let's extrapolate this, maybe if 
you didn't display all of your private property, then those nasty theifs
wouldn't go after it.  And don't carry any money, that way those muggers
won't bother you.

>
>And you still don't realize that either way it is, says that homosexuals
>are very dangerous to children.
>
># 
># So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality?
>
>The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it.  The sexual
>predatory component that glorifies the pursuit of "candy-ass" and
>"hairless cocks" in the words of Le JoJo, the typical homosexual.

Oh I did not know that Le JoJo is a typical homosexual.

Stop making statements about something you know nothing about, that is
gay people.  You make your sweeping generalizations with no grounding 
in reality.


What I hope is not true- That you are a typical heterosexual.  Anyone want
to comment on this?

And if you are typical then I can start extrapolating a lot of interesting
conjectures about heterosexuals.

>-- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176852
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, 3/23

In article <1pprtvINNctl@aludra.usc.edu> sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child) writes:
>arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Apr1.164804.1105@Rapnet.Sanders.Lockheed.Com> babb@k2 (Scott Babb) writes:
>>>Jack Schmidling (arf@genesis.MCS.COM) wrote:
>>>: jac2y@Virginia.EDU (Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>) writes:
>>>: : 
>
>[...]
>
>>>Why do you restrict your condemnation of racial strife to Israel?
>>>Do the situations in Bosnia, Tibet, China, etc. not merit your comment?
>
>>As far as I am aware, we have not sent close to $100 billion dollars to
>						  ^^^
>				Let's not exaggerate.


I notice you did not offer an alternative number.  Try this one on for
size..... by the year 2000, American taxpayers will have given Israel
one dollar for every star in the Milky Way Galaxy.

I will let you look up the number.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176853
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!

dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>Which makes it legally unsound.  If I were representing Mr. Teel, 
>I'd try a procedural approach if I could find one, or recommend 
>he plea-bargain.  He's setting himself up to be in hot water.

Indeed.  Reading the cases of people who've tried the various things
Mr. Teel suggests show that defendants fall into two classes: (1) those
who win on procedural grounds or some grounds not related to their
claim, and (2) those who lose.

Consider Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir.1985), which I've seen
cited by tax protestors other than Mr. Teel as a win for Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff offered $100,000 on TV to anyone who would call in the
show and cite any section of the Internal Revenue Code that says that
an individual has to file a return.

Mr. Newman took him up on it.  Mr. Newman had seen the show in a rebroadcast
the next morning.  Mr. Schiff claimed that the offer only extended to
people who actually say the original broadcast, and so there was no offer
for Mr. Newman to accept, and so no unilateral contract was formed, and
so Mr. Schiff did not have to pay $100,000.

Mr. Schiff was correct, and so won.  So, yes, Mr. Schiff won against a
claim on the $100,000 reward.  However, his win had nothing to do with
the tax code.

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176855
From: starowl@bolero.rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

>Very simple.  An 'Insurance Commissioner' is a bureaucrat - a regulator.
>It is his/her duties to make rules to enforce laws.  

...and to make life difficult for us actuaries..... :-/

-- 
Michael D. Adams	(starowl@a2i.rahul.net)	  Champaign, IL / southeast AL

   "THRUSH believes in the two-party system: The masters and the slaves."
		-- Napoleon Solo (from The Man from U.N.C.L.E)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176856
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Sick and tired (was Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter)

In article <1993Apr4.054843.22307@mks.com> richw@mks.com (Rich Wales) writes:
>Why can't you just cite us a case in which Joe Schmoe, a regular
>employee earning regular wages from a regular company, refuses to pay
>his income tax, gets hauled into court, is convicted of wilful tax eva-
>sion, and then has his conviction overturned by the US Supreme Court
>with a landmark 7-2 majority ruling that income tax is indeed totally
>voluntary?  What, you say?  No such case exists?  Hmmm, I wonder why
>not; why haven't you?

Unless I've got my notes mixed up, 939 F.2d 499 comes close to this.
Regular guy.  Blue-collar worker at a regular company.  Hauled into
court.  Convicted.  Appeals to 7th circuit.  Makes all the right
arguments (his brief is cited by Mr. Teel as an example of a
"winning" brief).  Shot down, 3-zip by the 7th circuit.  Appeals to
the Supreme Court.  And...

...Certiorari denied.  Defendant goes to jail.  Oh well.

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176857
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format 
>   so popular]
>
>Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:

<looking around>  Who?  Where?
Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
conservatives do as well.  

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176858
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Who be Conservative on this.....

In <1993Apr2.154706.15557@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

|Congress is NOT allowed to abrogate the constitutional rights and privileges 
|already enjoyed by persons, however, unless the abrogation has a "rational 
|reason" or a "compelling interest" to it, depending on which standard is 
|applied. This is relevant because granting a right to one class of persons 
|by definition ALWAYS impinges on the rights of another class or classes or
|persons, to some degree. In the case of abortion, establishing rights for
|the unborn impinges GREATLY on the rights of pregnant women. There has yet
|to be presented a sufficient justification for such fetal rights.

Not to your satisfaction. But the arguments have convinced me, and others.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176859
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Rodney King Trial, Civil Rights Violations, Double Jeopardy

In <1993Apr2.182942.22445@husc3.harvard.edu> spanagel@husc11.harvard.edu (David Spanagel) writes:

|Recently it's occured to me that I've never heard of any PERSON ever being
|tried in Federal Court for violating someone's civil rights. Of course
|there have been cases before the Supreme Court in which it was decided
|that someone's civil rights had been violated (e.g., Miranda, Escobedo,
|etc.), but institutions were, de facto, the defendants, not individuals. Am I
|mistaken? Have there been similar cases against individuals in the past? 

I know it was used several times in the south, to prosecute the murders of
blacks, after all white juries had cleared the accussed.

|Furthermore, what are the specific charges against the four LAPD officers? 
|Which civil rights or laws are they accused of violating? 

I believe it is a general charge, that is no specific right is mentioned.

|What about double jeopardy? Has there been any concern that a verdict
|against Koon, et al. might be overturned upon appeal because they're being tried
|again for the same actions? (I thought I heard something on the news about 
|this.)

The SS has previously ruled that since the seperate governments were in
essence seperate sovereigns, then double jeopardy does not apply.

(If this is true, then could defendents also be tried under city and
county governments?)

This mornings paper said that the ACLU has decided to reinstate its
opposition to this kind of thing. They had earlier suspended their
opposition while they examined the King case. There might be hope
for the ACLU after all.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176860
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?

In <1993Apr2.125134.3780@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's dad) writes:

|In article <C4tAuw.Mrz@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In article <1pasrg$ife@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 
|> |	The title is self-explanatory; Isaac Asimov once pointed out
|> |that curious fact.
|> 
|> Are you saying that it should be considered unpatriotic if you do not give
|> everything you own to the state.

|Are you saying that it should be considered unpatriotic if you do not give
|your *life* in battle for the state?  The PC (Patrioticly Correct) certainly
|think so.

|>                                   I thought that kind of system collapsed
|> when the Soviet Union did.

|No, the pentagon is still standing and collecting names for the draft.

|> If that's not what you meant. At what point does paying more taxes cease
|> being patriotic?

|Your money or your life.  Which is more important?

Nice dodge. I give it a 9.2.

Now to answer your questions. I do not believe that there should be a
draft. The armed services should be voluntary. Can you say the same
about taxes.

I've answered your question. Would you now answer mine.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176861
From: jamesdon@infoserv.com (James A. Donald)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!


> Do you have a strange definition of "winning" that you titled this thread
> "Winning Tax Case!"?  Sloan *lost*.  By a unanimous 3-0 decision that tore
> his arguments to pieces.  He went to prison using these arguments.  See
> United States v Sloan, 939 F2d 499 (7th Cir 1990), aff'g 704 F Supp 880.

The tax protesters are legally correct, but they are put in jail anyway.

The weakness of the governments legal position is shown by the fact that when
someone protesting tax or gun laws on legal grounds gets a federal jury trial
(very rare) the feds blatantly stack the jury, with the same old faces turning
up time after time.

However Teel should have mentioned that though his advice is legally sound, if
you follow it you will probably wind up in jail.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                       |
James A. Donald        |  Joseph Stalin said: "Ideas are more powerful
                       |  than guns.  We would not let our enemies have
jamesdon@infoserv.com  |  guns, why should we let them have ideas."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176862
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Ashish Arora) writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
|> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
|> [...]
|> 
|> >    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
|> > the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
|> >  
|> > Brett
|> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.
|> 
|> cheers

Actually not.  Brett himself has actually posted the data previously.
What declined from 84 to 89, as I remember it, was _percent
increase_in_deficit_growth, i.e. the rate of growth of the deficit 
(2nd derivative of total deficit with respect of to time) decreased.
Brett apparently has numbed himself into thinking that the deficit
declined.  If you keep spending more than you earn, the deficit keeps
growing.  If you keep _borrowing_ at a lesser rate than you borrowed
previously, the deficit increases.  You only decrease deficits when your
income exceeds spending and you use the difference to pay off debts.

Figgie's book paints the real data, pictorially, in gory detail.  Each
president, essentially ran up twice as much total debt, in half the time.
Reagan/congress was simply awful.  Bush/congress was unbelievable.

As a really rigorous aside to this thread.....

During pledge night the other night on the public channel, there was an
"economist" who gave an hour or so presentation.  His data was predictive
and based largely on population data. I don't know his name, but his
arguments were brilliant.  He confirmed, with data, what many of us know
with common sense -- the boom of the 80's has nothing to do with government
policy, particularly "supply side" policy, since taxes do not "cause" 
economic activities.  People cause economic activity.  More can be 
explained by watching population waves roll through the years and 
create cycles.  He has made models and predictions for years well into
the middle of next century.  It will be neat to see how accurate he
is.

Paul Collacchi

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176864
From: hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians


Wasn't it Tricky Dick who issued stern warnings to Bush & Clinton
not to 'Lose Russia'?  (a la 'Who lost China?')


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176865
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Price Controls for Medical Care (WAS Re: We're from the govt...)

In article <SLAGLE.93Apr5075759@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.185755.17803@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>> Thanks to Kim for following up.  I was hoping that someone would bring up
>> the issue of cost compensation.  The problem with the argument is that it
>> fails to explain why kidney dialysis (RD) services have expanded massively in
>> the last decade.  After all, no one is forcing private providers to offer
>> this service.  If they are losing money on the treatment (which according 
>> to information I've collected from several providers they are not) why
>> would they not simply limit their losses by cutting back on services
>> (engage in effective rationing of supply) rather than expand the coverage
>> to a larger market that must then be compensated by raising prices in
>> other areas?
>
>Perhaps there is a competitive advantage in there after all.  Would
>not reputable and dedicated physicians prefer to affiliate with an
>institution that offers dialysis services?  Would they not therefore
>tend to admit patients in greater numbers to an institution that 
>offered a full range of diagnostic and treatment options?  

Undoubtedly.  In fact, it is the fact that hospitals frequently compete
for physicians rather than for patients that (in part) complicates and 
undermines a simplistic free-market analysis of the market for medical care.

>Hospitals tend to lose money on all sorts of high-tech, high-price 
>machinery. They manage to make it up on other charges.

Once again, there is no evidence that this is true in regard to kidney
dialysis.  Although price controls have promoted an expansion of services
to a much greater volume of patients, RD is still a profitable service.
Otherwise, one would expect to see evidence of rationing rather than the
vast expansion that has occurred.

>
>> Remember, the notion that you can lose a little on each treatment but
>> make it up in volume is not good economics even in a free market. :) 
>
>Then how do you explain why grocery stores routinely offer an
>array of products at prices below cost?  Are not grocery stores
>embedded in a relatively free market?

Can you spell "loss leader?"  I knew you could.  Grocery stores do not
attempt to make up the loss on an individual product by selling more of
it.  In fact, your argument above is that kidney dialysis is a loss leader 
for other medical treatments where lost revenue can be regained.  

But the evidence does not support this contention.  Rather, it appears that
price controls have disciplined the market by forcing an expansion of
service and development of improved lower-cost technology to provide 
comparable benefits.  Providers continue to profit from RD, they simply
make less on each treatment than they would have if the price had 
risen at the rate that uncontrolled treatments have.

There is no question that had price controls forced the price of RD 
substantially below its actual cost that some or all of the doomsday
predictions of free-market advocates would have been seen -- restriction
of service, lagging technological development, etc.  Likewise, it appears
that in the VA and armed forces medical care systems, where providers 
are government agencies, some of these negative impacts may occur.  
(RD patients in the VA system in Spokane, for example, must travel to
Seattle, 300 miles away, for treatment.)  

The bottom line, however, is that this is an example of government 
intervention (of a rather extreme sort) that appears to have had beneficial
results for both providers and consumers.  Claims that "government
bureaucracy" inevitably leads to undesirable outcomes in the marketplace
should take such such cases into account.

jsh

>
>=Mark
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176866
From: richw@mks.com (Rich Wales)
Subject: Sick and tired (was Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter)

Replying to A.J. Teel:

	Well, the two nifty letters giving concrete proof that the
	Income Tax is voluntary and giving specific procedures for
	stopping withholding, et cetera have been out there for a
	while now.

Humbug.  Those letters don't provide "concrete proof" of anything at all
in the absence of any case law that demonstrates the method will actu-
ally work for ordinary people in everyday situations.

Specifically, show us some case law in which the courts have ruled that
income tax is illegal and/or that ordinary working types do not have to
pay income tax (and that they can legally avoid paying income tax with-
out declaring themselves to be churches or some such silliness).  This
issue is sufficiently important that I think we have a right to expect
something squarely on point from the US Supreme Court (in the case of
federal tax) or a state's supreme court (for a state's income tax).

Unless you can do that, I for one am unwilling to call your material
"concrete proof".

	There has been no refutation to date.  Have the nay-sayers
	finally given up as defeated?  Sure would like to hear their
	reasons for disbelief at this point.

Refutation??  Refutation of what?  You haven't made a case yet.  You've
posted plenty of claims, but you haven't given us any valid reason to
believe that any court in the US will agree with you.  Your claims seem
on the surface to deviate so radically from the legal mainstream that I
feel the burden of proof is still on =you= to show that your arguments
have any merit whatsoever.  And the cases you've cited involve such
strange situations that I see no reason to assume that the rulings are
applicable to anyone else, or that they will ultimately stand on appeal
to the Supreme Court.

Why can't you just cite us a case in which Joe Schmoe, a regular
employee earning regular wages from a regular company, refuses to pay
his income tax, gets hauled into court, is convicted of wilful tax eva-
sion, and then has his conviction overturned by the US Supreme Court
with a landmark 7-2 majority ruling that income tax is indeed totally
voluntary?  What, you say?  No such case exists?  Hmmm, I wonder why
not; why haven't you?

	Shall I conclude that the point has been received and the
	opposition has forfeited the field?

With all due respect, you can conclude anything you want.  I just hope,
for your own sake, that you don't conclude that anyone in a position of
authority in the United States or any legitimate or illegitimate polit-
ical subdivision thereof is going to agree with your conclusions.

For that matter, I confess I'm thoroughly confused as to =why= you would
be looking for court rulings in your favor anyway -- since I thought you
told us earlier that every court in the US has been in cahoots with big
banking interests since the 1938 "admiralty jurisdiction" coverup thing.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that they'd go to all the trouble
to subvert the system, and yet would still promptly slink back into
their burrows in the face of anyone who knew enough to invoke the right
combination of magic spells and mystic mumbo-jumbo?

Not only that, but why do you even =care= what the US courts say anyway?
Didn't you tell us a while back that you've disavowed all attempts by US
officials to classify you as a "14th Amendment federal citizen"?  When
the FBI comes to haul you away for tax evasion, why don't you just tell
them they're out of their jurisdiction and should go back to Washington,
D.C., where they belong?

Or maybe we should all just go back to mediaeval common law, which you
suggested would be better than all these statutes, codes, and the like.
If you want to renounce society's legal framework, fine; we can just
declare you an outlaw, OK?, and anyone who sees you driving on the roads
with no license plate on your car and no driver's license in your wallet
can just take you like a game animal and stew you for their supper (with
plenty of veggies and a pinch of salt, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207).

Sorry, everyone, it's getting late, and I'm sick and tired of all this
garbage.  If I know what's good for me, I'll just clam up and stop try-
ing to refute this nonsense, and if anyone falls for it and winds up in
jail for tax evasion or what-not, it'll be on their own head.

Needless to say, none of the above represents the opinions of my current
employer -- who, in any case, is a Canadian and doesn't really need to
care too much about US tax law.  I, on the other hand, am a "14th Amend-
ment federal citizen", with a US passport to prove it, and plan to keep
on filing Form 1040's for the foreseeable future (though I will probably
not owe any US income tax due to the foreign earned income exclusion
and/or the foreign tax credit).

-- 
Rich Wales <richw@mks.com>       //      Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (MKS)
35 King St. N. // Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 2W9 // +1 (519) 884-2251

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176867
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

In article <RLM.93Apr2050627@helen.surfcty.com>, rlm@helen.surfcty.com
(Robert L. McMillin) rants:
> The left likes to dodge the issues of morality and behavior, crying that
> anyone who raises them "blames the victim."  Nonetheless, as a recent
> editorial in the {Los Angeles Times} pointed out, the free love
> advocates of the 1960's have demolished the poor.  It's one thing to
> have children out of wedlock if you're, say, Murphy Brown (or someone
> like her), turning over a six figure salary -- and quite another if
> you're sixteen, have no skills, and no income.

And how did the "free love advocates of the 1960's" manage to perform
this demolition--forced breeding programs or something?

> By accepting and even celebrating single, out-of-wedlock parenthood, the
> 1960's radicals espousing free love set the stage for catastrophe among
> the poor. They must account for this...

Now let me get this straight.  After a nice, long rant about how
people need to take personal responsibility for their economic and
social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals (such as me, I guess)
are responsible for poor people's lifestyles?  Tell me how that
works--or do you think that poor people are just too dumb to think
for themselves?

There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family and
support systems in general among this nation's poor.  Somehow I
don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at the top of any 
sane person's list.

You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural revolution for
a lasting change for the worse, try so-called "relevant" or "values"
education.  Hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time.  How were
we to know you needed a real education first--I mean, we took that
for granted.

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
05 Apr 93   ****** ******   16 Germinal An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176868
From: akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous)
Subject: Re: Chrysler bailout

In article <1993Apr5.195216.27893@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) writes:
>
>     Plug this one in- I'm a Conservative, I *hate* Pee-Cee's (although I
>have to use one at work), and am a proud owner of a NeXT Station.
>
>The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler)
>so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?
>-- 

You have just reminded me of an old Tom Paxton song...

I"M CHANGING MY NAME TO CHRYSLER
(Tom Paxton, 1980)

Oh the price of gold is rising out of sight
And the dollar is in sorry shape tonight
What the dollar used to get us
Now won't buy a head of lettus
No the economic forecast isn't right
But amidst the clouds I spot a shining ray
I caneven glimpse a new and better way
And I've devised a plan of action
Worked it down to the last fraction
And I'm going into action here today.

Chorus:

  I am changing my name to Chrysler
  I am going down to Washington D.C.
  I will tell some power broker
  What they did for Iacoca
  Will be perfectly acceptable to me.
  I am changing my name to Chrysler
  I am heading for that great receiving line
  So when they hand a million grand out
  I'll be standing with my hand out
  Yes sir I'll get mine

When my creditors are screaming for their dough
I'll be proud to tell them all where they can go
They won'y have to scream and holler
They'll all be paid to the last dollar
Where the endless streams of money seam to flow
I'll be glad to tell them all what they can do
Its just a matter of a simple form or two
It's not renumeration it's a liberal education
Ain't you kind of glad that I'm in debt to you

Chorus

Since the first first amphibians crawled out of the slime
We've been struggling in an unrelenting climb
We were hardly up and walking before money started talking
And it's sad failure is an awful crime
It's been that way for a millennium or two
But now it seems there's a different point of view
If you're a corporate titanic and your failure is gigantic
Down in congress there is a safety net for you.

Chorus...



Perhaps Steven Jobs should take Paxton's advice and change his name to
Chrysler, or perhaps set himself up as an S&L, maybe Neil Bush could
give him a hand?

================================================================
akasacou@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca

No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn...
                                      J.Morrison

The opinions expressed above are mine.  Like anyone else would
admit to them.
================================================================


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176869
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)

In <C50FHG.MEA@ocsmd.ocs.com> mark@ocsmd.ocs.com (Mark Wilson) writes:

>Yuri Villanueva (elmo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu) wrote:
>: pbray@envy.reed.edu (Public account) writes:
>: 
>: > In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  
>: > as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>: >> In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>  
>: >> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>: >> 
>: >>We are told, by U.S. congresswoman Barbara Jordan, that we are biologically
>: >>incapable of compassion.
>Personally, I doubt she said anything of the kind, but if
>someone can provide the ORIGINAL quote, IN CONTEXT, WITH SOURCE
>(for, ahem, cross-checking), I would we willing to agree
>she is full of sh*t.  Naturally, if no one can provide these
>bits of data, the paraphrase listed must be disregarded,
>and its poster regarded as full of sh*t.  OK, so which will it be?

I followed up without a thought of double-checking...if I double-checked
every fact people vomited onto the table here on the net, I'd never have
time to sleep.  But to pass the buck to the person who originally posted
that quote...

...well, Michael?  Take it away!  (wild applause)

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176870
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)

julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
|> In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
|> >  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format 
|> >   so popular]
|> >
|> >Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:
|> 
|> <looking around>  Who?  Where?
|> Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
|> conservatives do as well.  
|> 
|> Julie
|> DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Yes, it was Nixon who was most vocal about giving money to Russia.  It
makes me proud to be a libertarian.  It appears both conservatives and
liberals prefer to cold war until you win, then nurse the enemy back to
health for another go around.

It's like subsidizing the wealthy countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) with
free defense, and then trade-warring with them because of the economic
competition.  It's like subsidizing tobacco farmers while paying
bureaucrats to pursuade people not to smoke.

I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.

Roger Collins

"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap,
 we would soon want bread."
	-- Thomas Jefferson

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176871
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Subject: Re: $50,000 Reward!

ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:

>	If you are a "United States' Citizen" and a "resident" of the
>state, then your citizenship is in D.C. and thus are a 14th Amendment
>Citizen. Are you a Citizen of the State in which you live? If you are
>a "resident" then you *are not*.

So the only people who are citizens of a state are ones who don't live
in that state?  So am I a "citizen" of 49 other states since I live in
California?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176876
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Motor Voter


>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> When I entered 1st grade, Eisenhower was President and John F. Kennedy
>> was just a relatively obscure Senator from New England.  So how old do
>> you think I am now?

And we all hope, Teddy, that you will graduate from the first grade
while Clinton is President. Keep trying.


--
Disclaimer: :remialcsiD

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176877
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr03.102200.4802@armory.com> rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>In article <C4tI6G.8C3@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>>In article <C4oBCK.761@unix.portal.com> drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes:
>>>There is something that bothers me about this whole arguement.
>>>
>>>
>>>5) Could someone please CALMLY explain why homosexuality is such a great sin?
>>>   Without giving the standard "Just because God sez so". Almost all of Judeo-
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks for your posting, I enjoyed it.
>>
>>The reason Homosexuality is a sin is because the Jews were a struggling
>>group of people trying hard to survive and differentiate between
>>themselves and their oppressors.  This led to several things.
>>
>>1. Worshipping one god.  All their foes were polytheistic.
>>
>>2. All sex was put in to a moral context.  All their foes were perverts
>>   and spilled their seed liberally.  
>--------------------------------
>It's just as easy to spill seed or spread it thin heterosexualy, why then
>the specific prohibition on homosexuals, especially since the answer to
>everything back then was stoning to death, doesn't help population growth
>much. Also to just say that "their foes were perverts" begs the question,

The key word is `spilled'.  If semen was spilled anywhere where there
was a chance of procreation it was OK.  If it was spilt on the ground or
in to a man it was a big sin, ditto with animals. The jews said sex=pro-
creation.

Homosexuals didn't breed, there fore they are evil and should be stoned
to death.  


>
>>3. All sex was directed towards breeding.  The jews were few in number
>>   and their foes many.  To survive everything had to go into multiplication.
>--------------------------------------
>Like I said, stoning to death doesn't help population much. It sounds more
>like a set of prejudices that already existed and were blown into a religion
>to emphasize the differences of Jewish culture and enshrine some pretty


Stoning non-breeding population was fine.  Only the breeders were
considered to be worth much.

>>   1% Jesus, 70% Judaism, 29% original (prejudiced) Bullshit.
>-------------------------------
>I'll buy the bullshit. He was a profound misogynist as well. He might have
>been bitterly gay himself. No record of marriage.
>-RSW
>
>>>Ben Gibson
>>Xavier
>
>
>-- 
>* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *


Xavier
-- 
* Xavier Gallagher*************************** Play  ***************************
*     Cheap       * Part time Dark Overlord *  by   ** s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ******
* World Wide UUCP *    Of the universe      * email ***************************
* Feeds & E-mail  *************************** =-->  Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176878
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: So Why Does Clayton Cramer Fixate on Molesting Children

In article <93093.073457RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
>-
>-2. The homosexuals have gotten a law passed in California that
>-makes it illegal to discriminate against a person in employment
>-based on their sexual orientation -- and not defined sexual
>-orientation.  Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
>-
>





GOT HIM!  Cramer is now claiming that pedophilia is a sexual orientation
rather than a chronicly homosexual condition.  This changes the whole
argument in as much that is pedophilia is a sexual orientation all
of its own peds cannot be called homosexual.  Peds are peds who
may have a preference as to the sex of the child they molest (though
most do not have a preference) but that is a subset of their basic
ped nature.

Cramer has as much as admitted that peds and gay men are different
orientations.  All we need now is to get him to admit that
the apparent similarities he keeps on about are just optical illusions.

xavier
-- 
* Xavier Gallagher*************************** Play  ***************************
*     Cheap       * Part time Dark Overlord *  by   ** s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ******
* World Wide UUCP *    Of the universe      * email ***************************
* Feeds & E-mail  *************************** =-->  Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176880
From: jac2y@Virginia.EDU ("Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>")
Subject: Re: Damn Furriners Be Taken Over

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu  writes:

Kaldis, you are a worm.

> Rank balderdash!  America's reputation abroad has become tarnished
> because of feckless and pusillanimous cowards who apparently do not
> have the requisite gonads to stand up for American honor and dignity.

Translation-  It's them DAMN liberals again!

> The American Way may not be the only way, and you may not consider it
> to be necessarily the best way, but, by God, it's _OUR_ way and we're
> going to stick with it!  If you can't go along with the program, then
> perhaps you should consider moving elsewhere.

Who gave you the authority to create and enforce this rather
hazy thing called "the American Way"?  This is a democracy, and
we don't need to stick to it or stick up for it unless we so
choose.  Remember that, Ted, from Civics class in Greeley, CO?

> That is exactly the _PROBLEM_ with Canadians!  They don't stand for
> anything with certitude.

Nice generalization.

> You pipsqueak!  You mouse!  If you are sorry to intrude then why do
> it?  Don't you have the courage of your convictions?  Hell, do you
> even have any convictions to start with?  What kind of example of
> manly dignity is this?  Sheesh!

Coming from such a crass example of "manly dignity," he must
feel _really_ hurt.

Jon, jac2y@virginia.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176881
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?


In article <C4z3xw.3EF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu writes:
| I like the way people call it "cruel and unusual punishment", as if
| imprisonment isn't cruel, too.  Lethal injection pales in comparison.
| And, they have a death sentence because they were convicted of a cruel
| and unusual *crime*.

It's not what they did that matters.  It's what *you* do and
what *I* do and what *we* do in response that matters.  Do we
lessen ourselves by killing in response to killing?  It's
vengeance.  That's all.  It's no deterrent.  It serves no
purpose but to slake somebody's blood lust.

| It would be nice, though, if we never convicted someone of a crime they
| didn't commit, and it would make the death penalty much more justifiable.

Yeah yeah yeah... and sure would be nice if we didn't apply the
death penalty disproportionately to minorities.  I'll revisit my
opinion on the death penalty when there are more whites up for
it than blacks.  I.e., when hell freezes over.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"The people causing the trouble were socialists and homosexuals,
the typical sort of person who opposes us."  --Don Treshman, 
ex-Klansman, leader of the "pro-life" group Rescue America, 
on BBC TV, 2 April 1993.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176882
From: nadja@weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: ProLifer Or Terrorist Threat

In article <C4zA0H.IHD@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes:
>In article 1pamhpINN7d3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
>>I'm prepared to instruct individuals in the proper use and 
>>handling of firearms.  

>>As a Desert Storm vet with six years in the National Guard, I have a
>>great deal of experience in handling weapons and tactical training. 


>ps: anyone up for a discussion of counter sniper operations?
>Security drills, Your Friend the Counter Terrorist Operation.....


If twit promises to train them in tactics and weapons handlings, I doubt
any of them will last long enough to become terrorists. Look for a sudden
rise in firearms accidents among the Fiends of the Fetus, though.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176883
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:

[ edited ]

Now that's funny!  (remembering that good humor always dances
uncomfortably close to the truth) 

I can't wait to see the inevitable flames.  :-)

--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176885
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes:

>Nigel Allen (ndallen@r-node.hub.org) wrote:
>: Here is a press release from the California Department of Insurance.
>: 
>:  California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to
>: Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
>----------------
>I may be a little dense but I would have thought that protecting consumers
>from scam insurance companies would be the prime objective of something 
>called the Cal insurance Commission. If they aren't accomplishing that now
>then why do we need them?

Very simple.  An 'Insurance Commissioner' is a bureaucrat - a regulator.
It is his/her duties to make rules to enforce laws.  He/she cannot
make laws.  If there is no law that covers a specific subject, say
scam insurance companies, a regulator cannot create one.  So they have
to go to a proper legislative body to get such a law enacted.  For
the California Insurance Commissioner, there are two possible legislative
bodies:  the California State Legislature and the U.S. Congress.  We all
know how little the California State Legislature accomplishes, esp. 
along the lines of insurance reform legislation (negative movement).  So
Garamendi wants the feds to do it, because: (a) he has a better chance
of getting a federal law through, and (b) since many of the scam
companies work across state lines/national borders, it is better to
have a law that reach out into other jurisdictions.

>John Eaton
>!hp-vcd!johne

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176886
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993

In article <1993Apr5.201051.15818@dsd.es.com>  
Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Waldrop) writes:

What did this have to do with SF?  And please don't answer
that a number of libertarians are SF fans or vice versa. I know a 
number of SF fans who are also baseball fans but I don't plan on 
posting the Red Sox schedule.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176887
From: gal2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Jacob Galley)
Subject: Clinton's sister, Shalala


Last night I heard something about Bill Clinton's sister being
involved in a marijuana bust, and the news being suppressed. I also
heard something about her being an "ex-con". This source is not
reliable, though. (It was a collage/booklet advertising a local band.)

Can anyone on the net verify this or provide more details? I'm
surprised I haven't seen anything about this in this newsgroup.

Also, does anyone know what happened to the charges that Shalala was a
regular pot smoker when she was in college? This ghastly accusation
was reported on CNN Streamline News the day she was nominated, then I
never heard anything about it again.

It's almost enough to make me want to start an Act-Up type campaign
to invade the privacy of closet smokers! (If only this type of
publicity didn't violate people's rights. . . .)

Jake.
-- 
* What's so interdisciplinary about studying lower levels of thought process?
				  <-- Jacob Galley * gal2@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176888
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?

In article <1pkkidINNsrj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Mar30.181636.22756@pmafire.inel.gov>, 
>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) said:
>
>> A real world data point: A person has a much stronger legal claim for
>> harrassment (sexual or otherwise) if they make it clear to the
>> offender that their behaviour is unwanted.  If the behaviour persists,
>> harrassment is much easier to demonstrate, due to the fact that the
>> offender knew that the behaviour was unwanted.
>
>No argument here... my original query regarded the question of why the
>_first_ sexual proposition made by Person A to Person B would be
>considered to be sexual harassment by some/many people.  (Assuming, of
>course, that there does not exist a power relationship between A and B
>such that the proposition carries strong implications of extortion right
>from Word One.)

I can only say that those people are wrong. The word harass means to 
irritate or torment persistently; I'd hardly consider one time to fall
under the definition of persistent.  Additionally, there is no basis
to assume the behaviour is unwanted, unlike an illegal proposition.
>
>> Of course, I think the original question of offering money for sex is
>> inarguably harrassment, because the activity is illegal, and could be
>> presumed to be unwanted by the average citizen.
>
>I have to take issue with this viewpoint... given that (a) prostitution
>is a victimless crime and (b) there are literally millions of Americans
>who participate in some sort of victimless activities which the state
>has defined to be criminal (e.g., prostitution, obscenity, gambling,
>using certain recreational drugs, having non-mercenary sex with persons
>not one's spouse in certain states, having "unnatural" sex with people
>regardless of marital status or exchange of money in certain states,
>etc.), I'd have to say that the idea that an activity may be presumed to
>be unwanted by the average citizen merely because it is illegal is the
>sort of sophistry that only a judge could indulge in with a straight
>face.  (He said, speaking as a law student who's read his share of
>judicial opinions in which reality was not only denied but, in fact,
>actually inverted in order to make the universe conform to the writer's
>politics.)

I was speaking from a legalistic viewpoint.  What you say is true, but
the law, in order to make what little sense it manages to make, has to
make *some* assumptions.  Assuming that an illegal activity is unwanted
by the average citizen I think is reasonable.  Certainly, I would need
a preponderance of evidence on the side of the propositioner that there
was a reasonable belief that the proposition was welcome.

The number of people who participate in "victimless" crimes notwithstanding,
the fact reamins that under the law, the activity is illegal.  To presume
that the proposition *is* welcome simply because a large number of people
indulge in it is the type of sophistry only a lawyer could indulge in
with a straight face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176889
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians


In article <C513wJ.75y@encore.com> rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>|> In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>|> >  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format 
>|> >   so popular]
>|> >
>|> >Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:
>|> 
>|> <looking around>  Who?  Where?
>|> Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
>|> conservatives do as well.  
>|> 
>Yes, it was Nixon who was most vocal about giving money to Russia.  It
>makes me proud to be a libertarian.  It appears both conservatives and
>liberals prefer to cold war until you win, then nurse the enemy back to
>health for another go around.

Enemy?  Sounds like that's the viewpoint of the stereotypical rednecked
conservative -- 'always been commies, always will be.'  I suggest you
listen very carefully to the stuff Yeltsin and his people are saying
and compare that with the very anti-West slogans coming from his
opponents in the Russian congress.  I sure know who I want to back.

Oh, BTW, Germany has sure come back as a terrible enemy after WWII,
hasn't it?
>
>It's like subsidizing the wealthy countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) with
>free defense, and then trade-warring with them because of the economic
>competition.  It's like subsidizing tobacco farmers while paying
>bureaucrats to pursuade people not to smoke.

Better to let them degenerate into civil war?  Remember all those
nuclear weapons in Russia.  I cannot imagine that they would not
be used in a civil war.  If nationialists take over and, even if
they prevent a civil war, most feel they must take back large
parts of land that are in other countries (like Ukraine.)  I also cannot
imagine Ukraine giving up land without a fight, possibly nuclear.

How does this affect us?  Well, we are on the same planet and if
vast tracks of Europe are blown away I think we'd feel something.
A massive breakup of a country that spans 1/6th the planet is
bound to have affects here.  (Of course, there is also the
humanitarian argument that democracies should help other
democracies (or struggling democracies).)

>
>I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
>stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
>was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
>constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
>from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.

Seriously.  Everyone has different opinions on what is stupid.
My two "causes" are aid to Russia and a strong space program.
Someone else will champion welfare or education or doing studies
of drunken goldfish.  That is why we have a republic and not a
true democracy.  Instead of gridlock on a massive scale, we
only have gridlock on a congressional scale.

BTW, who is to decide 'stupid?'  This is just like those who
want to impose their 'morals' on others -- just the sort of
thing I thought Libertarians were against.

Actually, my politics are pretty Libertarian except on this one issue 
and this is why it is impossible for me to join the party.  It seems
that Libertarians want to withdraw from the rest of the world and
let it sink or swim.  We could do that 100 years ago but not now.
Like it or not we are in the beginnings of a global economy and
global decision making. 

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176890
From: rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy)
Subject: Re: So Why Does Clayton Cramer Fixate on Molesting Children


In article <1993Apr04.071624.14068@armory.com> (talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,soc.men), rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
] In article <93093.073457RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
] >     I think the dialogue would go better if (at least some) gays
] >showed awareness of a practical issue.  For example. men and women use
] >different toilets.  Hence men who are likely to abuse girls have that
] >avenue closed to them.  There are many other situations where it is easy
] >to prevent sexual abuse BETWEEN the two sexes through such measures and
] >social conventions.  It is harder to prevent it with gays but if those
] >gays who do not abuse children (nor want to) became aware that this is
] >a practical problem that we can solve with good will on both sides, then
] >we can have protection for parents and children at the same time as
] >protection for gays in those ways that are of importance to their
] >pursuit of happiness in their own way.
] >
] >Just a thought
] >
] >Rohit Parikh
] -------------------
] Sorry, Rohit, but you are responding to someone well-recognized as a
] flaming nut, i.e., Clayton Cramer. He must have been abused by a man and is
] living his life in an attempt to vilify all men who like sex with other men
] something slightly similar to the way his assailant liked it with him. He
] will alter or misrepresent anything he finds to try to prove that there are
] homosexuals who wish to rape little boys like he was coming out of the
] woodwork. There is no hope for him. In all probability he is secretly gay,
] which compounds his neurosis in his own mind, by thinking that someone else
] made him that way. I don't personally see how someone like him could walk
] and chew gum at the same time, as mentally crippled and dominated as he is
] by his fantasies.
] 
] He would have you believe that the figures on the percentage of people who
] like to do it with the same sex sometime or all the time is way smaller
] than it is, but then he will virtually assert that everyone's queer and
] they're trying to get him. He actually believes, despite all evidence that
] homosexuals do some huge disproportionate amount of child sexual abuse,
] even though he insists that there may be as few as 1% of them in the male
] population! If there were that few of them in the population, San Francisco
] would currently be empty, because a significant portion of them have sought
] a tolerant atmosphere in that city, and the numbers simply do not work when
] you add up their home town origins. There is nothing to be gained by
] communicating with Clayton Cramer, he is unable to listen to anyone.
] -RSW
] 
] 
] --
] * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
] * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
] * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
] * Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Sorry, but I don't see how the response applies to what was posted.

Unless I am badly mistaken, Rohit is suggesting that protecting boys
from men is different than protecting girls from men. There are situations
in which boys and girls are apart from members of the *opposite* sex
(due to social convention or whatever) and thus are safe (in at least
some sense). These same situations don't (necessarily) protect the
children from abuse by members of the *same* sex.

If we can understand that, it's not such a tremendous leap to suggest
that if we all think about it hard, *someone* may come up with a
practical solution (or even a partial solution) to some of the situations
in which children are made vulnerable to homosexuals who wish to abuse
them. By working together "with good will on both sides", we may be
able to start solving problems without restricting anyone's freedoms.

Mr. Walz on the other hand is using Rohit's post as an excuse for
personal attacks on Mr. Cramer. While Mr. Walz hasn't (by a *long*
stretch) been the only one to flame Mr. Cramer, it is no less childish
and it only serves to weaken any other arguments he may make in the
future.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Roy       Usenet: rick@howtek.MV.com       America Online: QED
Disclaimer: My employer's views are orthogonal to these.
The early bird got worms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176891
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>There is a deeper reason. Taxes,  by their very nature, are un-American.
>One need only look at the birth and history of the US to see this fact.

So that's why the 13 newly independent states all had tax systems...

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176894
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP> a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:
)MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes:
)
)
)>The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE 
)>to submit to sexual intercourse."
)
)Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states
)had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised
)as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but
)was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only,
)uniformly throughout the U.S.

I agree mostly with Chris.  It is (unfortunately, IMO) true that the *FBI*
figures for rape based on the 'uniform crime report' report only female
rapes. However, some states (such as Illinois) are not tabluated because they
refuse to comply with this sexist definition!
-- 
The worms crawl in
The worms crawl out
The worms post to the net from your account

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176895
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C4vrII.H2@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15150@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <C4oBCK.761@unix.portal.com>, drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes:
# #They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them,
# #rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings
# #or beliefs of the other person.
# 
# Cramer, you are off your target again.  The law *forces* no one to obey
# it.  At every point any individual may stand up and say *this law
# sucks*.  Even you could say this.  Gay men and women have not *forced*

You mean they passed a law that does nothing at all?  No enforcement
mechanisms?  As usual, you are wrong.

# any off this.  Changes in the law have been brought about by
# democratic* processes, those same processes are the ones that protect
# you from certain abuses.

Yeah, right.  I guess the next time a homosexual complains about
sodomy laws, I can just echo your stupidity about "democratic
processes" and he won't have any basis for complaint.

# #I must admit that I never understood why it is referred to as an 
# #abomination, until I started to read soc.motss, and started finding
# #evidence that homosexuality is a response to child molestation --
# #which is disproportionately done by homosexuals.  (Just to make
# #Brian Kane happy -- 30% of molestation is done by homosexuals and
# #bisexuals, but it is possible that this is because homosexual/bisexual
# #molesters have far more victims than heterosexual molesters.)
# 
# No it isn't.  No it isn't. No it isn't and it depends on the subset
# (note *subset*) of abuse you look at.

Repeating it three times makes it more correct?

# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
# 
# * Xavier Gallagher*************************** Play  ***************************
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176896
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr3.165155.1@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz>, quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # I thought I was clear.  Because homosexuals support laws to force
# # employment of homosexuals against the will of some employers, they
# # are attempting to interfere with private acts between mutually consenting
# # adults.
# 
#    Ok, I'll leave others to discuss your use of statistics, but I think I'm
# able to discuss liberterian ideas.
#    The ideas are good. They seek to maximise individual rights by keeping
# governments out of transactions between consenting adults. If an employer wants
# to discriminate against a group, she/he should be allowed to to maximise their
# freedom. The discriminatees can go elsewhere.
#    Unfortunately, it doesn't relate to maximising total individual rights
# within a community. If an employer or shopkeeper or whatever can discriminate
# in this way, then the freedom of the discriminatee goes down. Because people do
# not live in perfect economic conditions, with perfect mobility, unlimited
# numbers of potential employers of their skills, unlimited places to buy goods,
# the liberterian argument leads to a *decrease* in the amount of liberty in the
# community. 

You mean, if a large part of the population supports discrimination 
against homosexuals, they will be injured.  But if a large part of the
population supports such discrimination, how did that law get passed?

# Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176897
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP>, a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:
> MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes:
# #The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE 
# #to submit to sexual intercourse."
# 
# Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states
# had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised
# as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but
# was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only,
# uniformly throughout the U.S.
# 
# -Chris

There may be some confusion here.  The Uniform Crime Reports program
run by the FBI defines rape as a female victim only crime -- even
though some states have the laws de-sexed.  I suspect that this causes
male victims of rape to be left out of the UCR data.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176898
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws

In article <1993Apr3.201408.4999@hobbes.kzoo.edu>, k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Unfortunately, homosexuals don't believe in this concept of freedom.
# #They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them,
# #rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings
# #or beliefs of the other person.
# 
# Allow me to point out that Clayton is once again unfairly lumping an
# entire class of people, as if they all have one will.  Having completely
# dived into the abyss of believing that there are no queers in the world
# who think differently from the child-molestation-advocating minority on
# soc.motss, he doesn't even notice that he's starting a sentence with
# "They believe" when the referent of that "they" is millions of people.
# "...so few as to be irrelevant..."

If you don't want to be lumped together as a group, stop insisting
on being treated as a member of a group.

# dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
# # Force people to hire?  No.  Require people to give them a fair 
# # look?  Yes.
# 
# cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #You give them a fair look.  You decide that you don't want to hire
# #the guy wearing the NAMBLA T-shirt.  He files a lawsuit.  You lose.
# #Yes, such laws force you to hire homosexuals.
# 
# Pedophiles, as well?

Sexual orientation is not defined by the anti-discrimination law
that was passed last year.  Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation?

# And, Cramer, let me describe how you'd have it, and see if this is
# accurate.  I apply for a job at a computer company.  They see I'm
# wearing some article of homosexual adornment, I dunno, maybe a
# "Silence = Death" pin or something.  They turn me down because of
# that.  I can't do a darned thing and have to go look somewhere else.
# Am I correct in assuming that you wholeheartedly approve of the
# company's actions, or at least that you wholeheartedly support their
# right to take that action?

I wholeheartedly support their right to take this action.  I wouldn't
do it myself, unless it was something like the NAMBLA T-shirt.

# How about:  a black man applies for a job at a bank.  The bank decides,
# based on statistics, a black person would be more likely to steal
# money, and denies the man the job.  Would you support the bank's right
# to this freedom?  If not, explain how this differs.

I support their right to do so (just like I support your right to 
engage in sodomy with consenting adults), but I think they are doing 
something wrong.  I wouldn't do business with such a bank.

# Clayton has repeatedly said that California's statutes classify
# pedophilia as a sexual orientation, and that discriminating on the
# basis of sexual orientation is illegal.
# 
# If true, I'm frankly amazed.  But I don't trust Clayton to give me
# the whole story.  Would someone clarify for me whether this is true,
# what sort of discrimination Clayton's talking about (jobs? housing?
# hate crimes?), and whether the effect of the law is really that
# a daycare has to hire an admitted pedophile.
# -- 
#  Jamie McCarthy		Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Here's the law that was passed and signed by the governor:

     The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

 1       SECTION 1.  The purpose of this act is to codify
 2  existing case law as determined in Gay Law Students v.
 3  Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 24 Cal. 3d 458 (1979)
 4  and Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 235 Cal. App. 3d 654
 5  (1991) prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
 6  orientation.
 7       SEC. 2.  Section 1102. is added to the Labor Code, to
 8  read:
 9       1102.1.  (a) Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit
10  discrimination or disparate treatment in any of the terms
11  and conditions of employment based on actual or
12  perceived sexual orientation.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

13       (b)  This section shall not apply to a religious
14  association or corporation not organized for private
15  profit, whether incorporated as a religious or public
16  benefit corporation.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176899
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <gc3g2B6w165w@honour.welly.gen.nz>, radagast@honour.welly.gen.nz (Radagast) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # Unfortunately, homosexuals don't believe in this concept of freedom.
# # They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them,
# # rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings
# # or beliefs of the other person.
# 
# <ha ha ha#, oh, Clayton, you're so good, so consistent, so predictable,
# yup, that's right, they, these homosexual people want to FORCE you to
# ignore what's none of your fucking business.  IE. <I will explain slowly#
# their sexual orientation should be irrelevant, as irrelevant as their
# gender, skin colour, religious affiliation, attitude to hand-gun ownership,
# etc.  They want to FORCE you to hire the best person for the job, rent the
# accomodation to the person who will look after it, do business with whoever
# will make you money..

Yet, when a law was proposed for Virginia that extended this 
philosophy to cigarette smokers (so that people who smoked away
from the work couldn't be discriminated against by employers),
the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't
give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power
play.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176900
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Hilter and homosexuals

In article <ericsC4x1K9.Apz@netcom.com>, erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:
> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
# 
# #Are you saying that:
# 
# #(1) People voted for Hitler, and he became Reich Chancellor, in good
# #part because he used bully boys to attack communists,
# 
# Hitler did not become become Reich Chancellor because people voted for
# him. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that or not, but I just thought
# I'd bring that up.
# 
# Eric Smith

Hitler became Chancellor because people voted for his political
party.  That's not a huge difference in a parliamentary system.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176901
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <1993Apr3.185448.13811@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <kmitchelC4wA87.HLz@netcom.com> kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
# #Slavery makes economic sense (it NEVER makes MORAL sense) when human
# #muscle power is an economically valuable asset. Agricultural slavery might
# #have lasted right up to the first mechanical cotton reaper, but no
# #further; reapers are cheaper than slaves, and don't have to be fed during
# #the winter. 
# 
# This argument makes a several fundamental errors.  First "agricultural"
# slavery was not limited to production of cotton.  In the American south
# slave labor was used extensively to grow tobacco, sugar, and rice, all
# of which remained labor intensive enterprises well into the 20th century.

And of course, in states like Kentucky and Virginia, not well-suited to
large-scale plantations, slave labor was used to make one of the most 
valuable agricultural products of all: more slaves.  In some ways, this
treatment of humans beings as breeding livestock is the most horrifying
aspect of American slavery.

# Second, although mechanization of cotton production could be expected to
# reduce the demands for labor eventually, it was only in the 1940's 
# the mechanization of cotton production in the South largely eliminated
# the labor intensive character of the operation, long after the "first
# mechanical cotton reaper" was invented.

This is an interesting question.  Steinbeck's _Grapes of Wrath_
(published in the 1930s), uses agricultural mechanization of cotton
production in Arkansas as the cause of the Joad family being evicted
from the land.  How many years were involved in the mechanization of
cotton farming?  When did this first appear?

# #Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the
# Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176902
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Was Re: Top Ten Tricks...)

In article <1993Apr4.005634.24695@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <1993Apr3.002339.22888@rigel.econ.uga.edu> depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr2.154232.29527@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
# # "labor" is a tough one. Labor is defined, economically, as the efforts,
# # both mental and physical, of humans. Capital is defined as intermediate
# # goods used to create other goods and services. Now, if a slave is considered
# # an intermediate good, then the slave has now been dehumanized and is 
# # simply a machine. Not good for the anti-slave (i.e. pro-human rights) 
# # argument. So, slaves are humans, and they produce labor. 
# 
# Sorry.  The question of defining slave "labor" is no "tough(er)" than 
# defining the "labor" of a horse, an ox, or any other livestock.  Both
# legally and economically in a slave-economy, "slaves are (NOT) humans,"  
# they are livestock.

Can you provide some evidence that the slave states regarded slaves as
not humans?  They were "outside our society" and similar phrases that
basically meant that they didn't have to recognized as having the same
rights as a free person, but they were never considered "not human" to
my knowledge.

# Like a horse that pulls a plow, a slave's "labor" is the return on the
# capital required to purchase and feed him.  The parallel is so obvious
# I'm not sure how you missed it.  After all, its was the "liberty" to 
# use their "property" as they saw fit that motivated Southern planters
# to emphasize the importance of "states' rights."

If that were the case, the slave states would not have passed so many
laws that restricted the freedom of slave owners to do as they wished
with their property.  Examples: laws prohibiting manumission without
legislative grant; laws prohibiting teaching slaves to read & write.

# #Craig.
# Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176903
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <1993Apr2.055109.5833@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes:
> In article <1993Mar31.224355.21442@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
# #The argument that "slavery was a dying institution" was often made by
# 						     ^^^
# 						     (IS)
# 
# #historians, mainly Southerners, who sought to divert attention from the 
# #institution as the central issue of the Civil War.  In fact, however,
# #the argument is specious, at best.  More recent scholarship from the 
# #last 20-30 years demonstrates rather conclusively that the cotton/sugar/
# #tobacco economy and its reliance on slavery was increasingly dominant in 
# #the South prior to the Civil War.
# 
# This is because the South did not receive the massive momentum of capital
#  intensive growth that the Northern states did. Compare the Northern
#  agricultural system with the Southern and you will see a major difference 
#  in the capital to labor intensity.

Capital and labor are one and the same in a slave economy.  Except that
capital doesn't reproduce quite as readily as slaves did.

Slavery was a dying institution before the cotton gin, yes, but not
in 1850.

# #It is true that cotton suffered from price depression in the 1840's -
# #the period used to claim that slavery would not have lasted in the 
# #South.  
# 
# That is not the argument that I have heard. It would not have lasted because
#  the growth in the North would not have been sustained for much longer without
#  spilling over to the Southern states, i.e. Northern industry would have 
#  migrated capital to the Southern states, and with that would have come 
#  immigrant labor to the ports of the South, e.g. Charleston, Savannah, Mobile,
#  New Orleans, etc. This would have put the breaks on the slave market and
#  slavery would have been out-moded by the capital intensity of competing 
#  agriculturalists. Those that insisted on keeping slaves because of their
#  "Cruel Hearts and Hatred for Black People" would have been driven out of
#  business. Simple capital to labor ratio...read Michael Parkin _Microeconomics_
#  2nd edition, and any other basic economics book.

This assumes that the slave holder dominance over state governments
would not have caused the passage of laws to keep out capital from the
North.  Since slave holders were prepared to do almost anything else
to destroy free markets in order to maintain slavery, I do not doubt
that they would have passed laws to cripple any serious competitive
threat.  Thomas Sowell's _Market and Minorities_ argues that the
maintenance of slavery, and the costs it imposed on state and local
governments, discouraged not only capital formation, but also outside
capital investment in the Southern states.

# 	Craig A. Depken, II
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176904
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <1993Apr2.154232.29527@Princeton.EDU>, glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
> In article <1993Apr2.055109.5833@rigel.econ.uga.edu> depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes:
> [to which is concluded...]
> >The South only wanted FREE TRADE!!! 
> 
> No, they wanted slavery.  If free trade was in their economic interests
> under that regime (which it was), then free trade they wanted too.  But

> Gary L Hewitt                          glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu

Of course, free trade and slavery don't make much sense together in
a phrase anyway.  Perhaps Mr. Depken meant, "low import tariffs," but
that is quite a bit less than "free trade."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176905
From: tak@leland.Stanford.EDU (David William Budd)
Subject: Re: Rodney King Trial, Civil Rights Violations, Double Jeopardy

In article <C50puL.CL4@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Apr2.182942.22445@husc3.harvard.edu> spanagel@husc11.harvard.edu (David Spanagel) writes:
>


>|Furthermore, what are the specific charges against the four LAPD officers? 
>|Which civil rights or laws are they accused of violating? 
>
>I believe it is a general charge, that is no specific right is mentioned.


I don't think that this is accurate. I believe, and could be wrong, that
there IS a specific right allegedly to have been violated, like the
14th or due process or whatever.

>|What about double jeopardy? Has there been any concern that a verdict
>|against Koon, et al. might be overturned upon appeal because they're being tried
>|again for the same actions? (I thought I heard something on the news about 
>|this.)
>
>The SS has previously ruled that since the seperate governments were in
>essence seperate sovereigns, then double jeopardy does not apply.
>
>(If this is true, then could defendents also be tried under city and
>county governments?)
>
>This mornings paper said that the ACLU has decided to reinstate its
>opposition to this kind of thing. They had earlier suspended their
>opposition while they examined the King case. There might be hope
>for the ACLU after all.
>-- 

Double jeopardy does not apply, but not for the reasons you quote. Double
jeopardy states that a person may not be tried twice on the same charge.
However, the police are not on trial for the crime of excessive force
or assault. They are NOW on trial for the DIFFERENT crime of violating
Mr. King's civil rights. 

AS for the city and county or state trying you more than once, 
it most likely will not happen. This is because cities and states
have separate laws governing behaviour. For example, in some states,
it is an offence to carry marijuana, but not a city offence. Also,
I think murder is against federal, but not some state laws. 

===============================================================================
 !           \                                                                 
 !       1-------1                     
 ! \     1_______1           __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 !  \    1_______1     /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !       !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
 !       !    \/       /   ---------     and put a bullet through his head.'"
         ! /    \/      |   |  \   \                                  
                        |  / \____/| 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176906
From: schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz)
Subject: Re: 19th Century Capitalism

In article <31MAR199317363332@jane.uh.edu>, mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris
Struble) wrote:
Christian Struble writes:

> Some people are not very good at getting the best deal for their 
> effort, and others are unwilling to put forth much effort, even in
> the face of economic incentives. There will always be some people 
> who are stupid or lazy, relative to the ability or effort of most 
> others. The question is what do you do with them? There are three 
> options:
> [...]
> 2) Kill those who are not productive as a drain upon "society". 
>    This is the communist ("All who do not toil shall not eat" - 
>    Lenin) or fascist approach.
> [...]

    You're being too generous to the communists, I think.  In practice,
communism has "solved" the problem by killing off anybody who is _too_
productive, and who therefore raises embarrassing questions about why the
rest of the group is a bunch of sluggards.  The mass butchery of "kulaks"
in the USSR is a good instance of this.
    A poor second best is to have a neighboring capitalist country to which
people of politically incorrect skill and ambition flee.  I often wonder
just what Castro would have done if the Cubans presently in Miami would
have been forced to remain in Cuba.  Would they have revolted and killed
him off, or been killed?
    Best of all is to build a wall locking the citizens of your country in,
load it up so heavily with attack dogs, barbed wire, and land mines that
most people fleeing over it die, and then give everyone the choice of
obedience, prison, or flight.  This would be a bad science-fiction novel,
if the East Germans hadn't actually done it.  The last person to die
crossing the wall, as I recall, was an unarmed woman who was shot in the
back.  Erich Honecker was going to go on trial for that, but he fled to
socialists in Chile.
    It's good to be kind to one's intellectual opponents, but sometimes
it's a sheer waste of time.

--Erich Schwarz / schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176907
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In article <C513wJ.75y@encore.com> rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>...
>I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
>stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
>was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
>constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
>from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.
>
>Roger Collins
>

Since you asked, Article I Section 1.  Article I Section 8.  Article I 
Section 10.  Article II Section 2.  Article VI.  Sixteenth Amendment.

With this as a guide, try reading it yourself.

jsh

--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176909
From: riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)

In article <1pkvcl$nu0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>In a previous article, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) says:
>
>>so much land, and in the long run, we have a zero sum game going. Someone,
>>somewhere, is going to make a killing from nosediving real estate
>>markets. The worst thing to do is panic. The best thing you can do is
>>to ride out deflation to the end. It hurts, but you're better off 
>>than if you sell short and donate to someone else's inheritance.
>
>
>      Sad.  Paradigm Shift is coming, chum.
>     Ride the WAVE!

	I don't believe in the "Wave Theory".

>
>     " There's only so much land ".   Oh, God, is this Mike Zimmer's
>    replacement?!

	My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, doesn't believe in 
money at all. She started out as a real estate developer, and now raises
horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock
in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.

>
>     Here, let me spell it out for you.
>
>     Can you spell TWO TRILLION DOLLAR BANK BAILOUT?

	Maybe you'd like to invest in some foreign currency.

	Which one would you guess to come out on top ?

	(Sigh - speculators never learn.)



Bill R.

--

"The only proposals in the Senate that I         "My opinions do not represent
have seen fit to mention are particularly        those of my employer or
praiseworthy or particularly scandalous ones.    any government agency."
It seems to me that the historian's foremost     - Bill Riggs
duty is to ensure that virtue is remembered,
and to deter evil words and deeds with the
fear of posterity's damnation."
- Tacitus, _Annals_ III. 65

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176910
From: riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Subject: Losers (Was Re: Stop putting down white het males.)

In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>
>
>>  I don't know what you as a white male did. I do know what white males,
>>as a class, have done.
>
>>  They've invented the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, printing with
>>movable type, photography, computers, the electric guitar. anasthesia, rocket
>>powered space flight, the computer, electricity, the telephone, TV, motion
>>pictures, penecillin(sp), telescopes, nylon, and the X-Ray machine.
>
>Two glaring errors here.  First, white males don't do anything as a "class." 
>INDIVIDUAL white males invented those things, which means nothing to white
>males as a whole.  Second, you neglected to mention Charles Manson, Hitler,
>McCarthy, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and a whole slew of individuals who
>have done horrible, evil things.  If white males can take the credit for
>our fellow white males' boons, we must also take the blame for our
>fellows' blights.  I claim we deserve neither credit nor blame for these
>things.
>
>
>>  We are told, by U.S. congresswoman Barbara Jordan, that we are biologically
>>incapable of compassion.
>
>She's full of shit.
>
>>  We are told by Susan Brownmiller that we're all rapists and that's ALL
>>we are.
>
>She's full of shit.
>
>>  We're told by Catherine Comins that a false rape charge is actually good 
>>for us.
>
>She's full of shit.
>
>>  We are told by the feminist lawyers that we are not to be trusted with 
>>children. 
>
>They're full of shit.
>
>>  We are told, by Newsweek magazine, that we are "poor sports" if we complain.
>
>Newsweek is full of shit.
>
>The point, ladies and gents?  Michael is not entirely correct in his theory
>that because members of our race and gender made great advances, the race
>and gender as a whole deserve more respect than they receive.  White males
>DO deserve to be treated better than they are being treated, but not for
>that reason.  And the male-bashers he quoted are repugnant hate-mongers, no
>better than the chauvinists they despise.  So no one's right, as usual.
>
>White males need to wake up and realize that they're being unfair, yes.  But
>everyone else needs to wake up and realize that being unfair right back is
>disgusting, racist and sexist.
>
>Why can't we learn to treat everyone fairly, without generalizing?  What
>stupidity gene makes this so difficult?  "I'd like to buy the world a
>clue..."


	The word that is missing in this whole discourse is not the "B"
word, or the "H" word, or even the "N" or "W" words. It is the "L" word -
LOSER !!

	That's right. When we boil all the crap out of this argument, it
is all about WINNING and LOSING, and nothing else. Let me explain.

	Remember the eighties ? No excuses. Nobody who can handle a mail
buffer can claim they are "too young" to remember Ronald Reagan - yet.
The eighties were about "How America Learned to Win Once Again". Then
(wouldn't you know), we won so well that there was nothing left to win.
No Cold War to endure. No nuclear holocaust. No more worlds to conquer
(We forgot about outer space long ago). The kind of overwhelming, no
holds barred success that killed Alexander the Great. Yes, there were a
few "little" problems along the way - stock market meltdown here, an
S&L bailout there, a few revolts and crazy Middle Eastern dictators to
contend with, but as Tacitus would tell ya', the God Augustus never had
it so good. 

	In the meantime, there is guilt for winning, maybe a fear that one
doesn't deserve one's bounty - or success. So there is a "kinder and gentler
type of politician these days, Bill Clinton, affirmative action, and lots of
discourse about people who "don't get it". For those of us in the winning
business, this kind of talk is mildly irritating, but there is still no 
suggestion of losing.

	But what do we find now ? To put it mildy, the stereotype of our 
"white male" non-winner is Woody Hayes in the Rose Bowl, punching out 
photojournalists when those California fruits and nuts steal another one
with a "Hail Mary" pass in the Fourth Quarter. (The whole idea behind 'three
yards and a cloud of dust' is to wear your opponent down until he collapses
in the final period) But Woody just used his fists - Uzzies seem to be the 
weapon of choice these days. 
	
	Who is D-FENS, anyway ? The answer is as plain as the horn rims on 
your face. The guy is MICHAEL DOUGLAS, posing as a LOSER. This 
is known as controversial casting. But that baggy short-sleeved white shirt 
sure does look natural on Mike doesn't it. Gordon Gekko will never look the 
same. (Though Woody always dressed that way.) Did we really expect Gekko to 
take it easy and enjoy that kind of wardrobe, without putting up a fuss ?

	What we are starting to lose sight of is, that bashing D-FENS is 
the same game as bashing that poor African American slug that Clint Eastwood
used to blow away all the time. As that arch-WASP (male gender) George C. Scott
declaimed, "Americans traditionally LOVE TO WIN. They love a winner, and will 
not tolerate a loser." And so on. 

	The political implications are simple. If, as many socialists - and
Democrats - do, you consider society a finite pie to a apportioned in some 
"equitable" way, then you have to worry about who is a winner and who is a 
loser to tell whose side you are on. That could be black women today, Asian
homosexuals tommorrow, and yes indeed, white men some yet to be determined
day when the balance of the pie has finally swung against that (39%) 
minority.

	Or you can just blow the whole thing off and say - as do most
conservatives and all the libertarians - and act is if you didn't care
who's winning and who's losing. In some cases, you might say something
about make sure the game is fair (equality of opportunity, not of condition).
In the latter case, you might be able to identify yourself as a 
"neoconservative" or a "neoliberal" depending on how much you want to limit
the pot.

	Either way you go, the way of the Winner is no longer the way to be
popular - at least after you graduate from High School (but you'll still
be popular at High School reunions). But it beats being a Nerd, as I 
would imagine Michael Douglas would now agree, and in the long run, it
is the only way to go. (Even in Hollywood, which treats Losers worse than any
other place in America except for New York and Washington, D.C. - and even in
Columbus, Ohio, which produced Alex Keaton, but no champion football teams in
the eighties and the first quarter of the nineties) I'd like to 
see more Winners in this society, regardless of race, gender, religious 
preference, and sexual orientation. Maybe we should even let a few more of 
them be white men !! (We should DEFINITELY let the Buckeyes win the Rose Bowl
someday)



Bill R.

--

"The only proposals in the Senate that I         "My opinions do not represent
have seen fit to mention are particularly        those of my employer or
praiseworthy or particularly scandalous ones.    any government agency."
It seems to me that the historian's foremost     - Bill Riggs
duty is to ensure that virtue is remembered,
and to deter evil words and deeds with the
fear of posterity's damnation."
- Tacitus, _Annals_ III. 65

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176911
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction

In article <1993Apr5.045612.14229@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

> [...]  You're not breathing clean air provided by government
> regulations, [...]

If this doesn't beat all I ever heard!  The above certainly says a
mouthful about the mindset of Ted Frank, and also of statists
everywhere.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176912
From: zippy@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead)
Subject: Re: $50,000 Reward!

In article <5APR199313494915@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
   In article <1993Apr4.105514.11664@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
   >	No, the definition of "resident" is very specific. It is the
   >same thing as "alien". Look it up. Remember that the common usage of
   >the words ARE NOT always their legal meaning.

   This I gotta see some authority for.

from Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Ed., page 1473:

RESIDENCE.  A factual place of abode.  Living in a particular
locality.  Reese v. Reese, 179 Misc. 665, 40 N.Y.S.2d 468, 472;
Zimmerman, 175 Or. 585, 155 P.2d 293, 295.  It requires only bodily
presence as an inhabitant of a place.  In re Campbell's Guardianship,
216 Minn. 113, 11 N.W.2d 786, 789.

     As ``domicile'' and ``residence'' are usually in the same place,
they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are
not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as
in the city and country, but only one domicile.  Residence means
living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that
locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.  Residence
simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place,
while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an
intention to make it one's domicile.  In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S.
209, 148 Misc. 588.  ``Residence'' demands less intimate local ties
than ``domicile,'' but ``domicile'' allows absence for indefinite
period if intent to return remains.  Immigration Act 1917, sec. 3, 8
U.S.C.A. sec. 136 (e, p).  Transatlantica Italiana v. Elting,
C.C.A.N.Y., 74 F.2d 732, 733.  But see, Ward v. Ward, 115, W.Va 429,
176 S.E. 708, 709; Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Craig, 182 Okl.
610, 80 P 2d 221, 224; holding that residence and domicile are
synonymous terms.  ``Residence'' has a meaning dependent on context
and purpose of statute.  In re Jones, 341 Pa. 329, 19 A.2d 280, 282.
Words ``residence'' and ``domicile'' may have an identical or variable
meaning depending on subject-matter and context of statute.  Kemp v.
Kemp, 16 N.Y.S.2d 26, 34, 172 Misc. 738.

     Legal residence.  See Legal.

RESIDENT.  One who has his residence in a place.  See Residence.

     Also a tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and
not to depart from the same; called, also, ``homme levant et
couchant,'' and in Normandy, ``resseant du fief.''

--
Ronald Cole                                     E-mail: zippy@ecst.csuchico.edu
Senior Software Engineer                        Phone: +1 916 899 2100
OPTX International                              
            "The Bill Of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited By Law"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176913
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Hate Crimes Laws

In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com
>(Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>>...
>>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>
>>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>   assault laws.  
>
>So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a
>straight?  

And who's advocating that?  Hate crimes laws are aimed at the motivations
of the acts.  Just like premeditated homicide is treated stricter than
heat-of-passion homicide.

>>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>   charges and multiple crimes.
>
>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>act should never merit more than on charge.  

So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with
more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property
damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.

>Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf


-- 
ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |  his advice is legally sound, if you follow it 
the u of c law school     |  you will probably wind up in jail."
standard disclaimers      |                    -- James Donald, in misc.legal

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176915
From: edo2877@ucs.usl.edu (Ott Edward D)
Subject: E-MAIL

   

does anyone have the e-mail address for the white house. if so please send it to
me thanks a lot.


    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176916
From: zippy@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction

In article <1993Apr5.144853.3842@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
   ... an amazing illustration of disconnection from reality.

Glad to see that you agree that the current Government is reticent
about admitting the sovereignty of the people!  Speaking from personal
experience, I have had judges illegally assume jurisdiction even after
I demanded that the DA prove such jurisdiction on the record, and the
DA stood mute.  I have also had an appellate court uphold such action
and hide behind California Rules of Court, Rule 106 ("The judges of
the appellate department shall not be required to write opinions in
any cases decided by them, but may do so whenever they deem it
advisable or in the public interest.").  That is reality, I agree.




--
Ronald Cole                                     E-mail: zippy@ecst.csuchico.edu
Senior Software Engineer                        Phone: +1 916 899 2100
OPTX International                              
            "The Bill Of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited By Law"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176917
Subject: Re: New Funding Plan for the Military
From: medkeffjs@hirama.hiram.edu (Jeff Medkeff)

In article <C4zI26.34D@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com 
  (drieux, just drieux) writes (about the armed services):
> 
> ps: Maybe even privatize the organization, or consider
> 'out sourcing' various aspects of the DOD as a part of
> the current 'Down Sizing' - Who Knows, Maybe if we 
> Finally Allowed to "Free Market" to take control, we will
> no longer have a military run by the same folks who are
> running the post office.....
> 
> pps: slow down, and think before you flame, Rhetoric is an ArtForm.

Well, uh, actually I agree.


-- 
Jeffrey S. Medkeff      Bitnet-    medkeffjs@hiramb
PO Box 1098             Internet-  medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Hiram, OH 44234         Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight. But
U.S.A.                  Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176918
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Trickle down (Was: 1937 was: Dan Quayle, genius

garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:

>rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls)             writes...

>>Jason K. Schechner (jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

>>: In article <1pf22mINNd7c@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:

>>: >What decade did you live in?  Unemployment dropped during the 80's, 
>>: >inflation dropped during the 80's and interest rates dropped during
>>: >the 80's.
 
>>: 	This all may be true, but we're paying for it now, through the
>>: nose.  Our current recession (and some would argue the world's
                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>First off, we're not in a recession.  We've had a record number of months of
>>straight economic growth.  Even the democrats are admitting that the
>>recession ofcicially ended in March of 1991.

>This months's unemployment rate in California was 9.4%
>Sure feels like a recession to me.

Maybe we should ask the 83,103 people who were laid off this January whether
or not we're in a recession. That was a figure that was reported in the
New York Times. There is no official figure, because the Bureau of Labor
Statistics stopped government tracking of layoffs eight months ago due to
budget cuts.

(The above information was published in Harper's Index, Harper's magazine.)

-----
Eric Smith		|  The day Dan Quayle is our President is the day
erics@netcom.com	|  Shelley Winters runs with the bulls in Pamplona.
erics@infoserv.com	|             - Dennis Miller
CI$: 70262,3610		|


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176919
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Hate Crimes Laws

In article <1993Apr6.043935.27366@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>
>>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>>act should never merit more than on charge.  
>
>So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with
>more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property
>damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.
>
>ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though 

Again, Mr. Frank has come to the rescue with his cool headed reason.  How
about, "One charge per victim?"  Of course I'll think about it in a few days
and find a case where this doesn't apply either.  

What the heck, I don't study law, I just hate lawyers. :)

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  according to the rules of Centrifugal
This University is too Commie-	|  Bumblepuppy. -Huxley, Brave New World
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176920
From: s5ugxk@almserv.uucp (Girish Kumtheker)
Subject: How many $$ beibg spent at Waco by BATF ??

Hi,


Wonder how much money is being spent at Waco by BATF ?

Are we paying because BATF messed up and have made this
a prestige issue ??


Girish



-- 

Girish Kumthekar		Unix Technical Support

E mail address : s5ugxk@fnma.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176921
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?

In article <C4vy56.C0t@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1993Mar31.185128.5668@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>In article <1pasrg$ife@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>
>>>	The title is self-explanatory; Isaac Asimov once pointed out
>>>that curious fact.
>>
>>Well, since tax evasion is illegal, one generally would not bother to 
>>consider whether it was unpatriotic or not.  How often does one think
>>of murder as being unpatriotic?
>>
>>Perhaps a more appropriate question would be "why is tax *avoidance* not
>>considered unpatriotic?".  The answer to this is simple.  Tax avoidance
>>is simply defined as paying the minimum tax you are legally obligated to
>>pay.
>
>There is a deeper reason. Taxes,  by their very nature, are un-American.
>One need only look at the birth and history of the US to see this fact.

Wasn't the beef with the English over "taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION",
not taxation itself?  

From my admittedly dim recollection of US history, most of the problems 
we Americans have had with taxes have been with unfair/unjust taxation
schemes, not with taxes themselves.  It's pretty hard to run a government
without any means of support.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176922
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: response

Fucking news reader... I don't think this got posted...  If it did, ignore
it this time.

(A response to Korey)

------------ begin my response -----------------
In article <1plorlINNslt@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> kkruse@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Korey J. Kruse) writes:
>lamontg@u.washington.edu writes:
>[...]
>>
>>well, i just did a quick medline scan and came up with the following article
>>by Tashkin that reviews the literature, i'd probably start here...
>
>>         Document 13
>>AN   90273700.  9007A.
>>AU   Tashkin-D-P.
>>IN   Department of Medicine, University of California, School of Medicine,
>>     Los Angeles 90024.
>>TI   Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse.
>>RF   REVIEW ARTICLE: 61 REFS.
[...]
>Why isn't this information in the FAQ on marijuana ?    If we expect
>people to think we are telling them the truth about drugs, why does
>this group constantly refute every negative thing about almost all
>drugs.     

Maybe because the claims deserve refute?  The above abstract lists various
possible links to cannabis use (unfiltered almost guaranteed) and lung
problems.  Someone may get overly excited when they see that article, but 
without actually digging up the study and seeing how the studies gathered 
their data it really doesn't tell you shit.  I'm going to track down that
study hopefully tomarrow.

[...]

>I never claimed pot was more or less damageing than
>cigarettes......I was just trying to keep ourselves honest.   If we are
>going to educate kids...and adults...and tell them the truth about drugs
>don't you think a much better approach would be to list the pro's and
>con's of each type of drug.   

What justifies _the_ truth about drugs?  Research?  What sort of 
research?  Correlational data can help establish a theory, but it does not
prove anything.

>How can you expect someone to make a
>decision when the PDFA on one hand says that all drugs are absolutely
>BAD BAD BAD.....and this newsgroup consistently refuses to admit that
>drugs like heroin even have negative side effects.    

Heroin _is_ a relatively safe drug.  What makes it unsafe are IV administration
and shit like adulterants.  There are side effects, like withdrawal, but they
effect people differently.  

>I've seen numerous
>posts claiming heroin has lower addiction rates that cigarettes, which
>might be true, but it is very deceiving, because heroin is much more
>harmful drug to be addicted to than cigarettes.   Heroin addicts are
>far more prone to end up in the gutter and destroy their family and
>friends than people addicted to just cigarettes.    

Stereotypical statement.  I know people who use heroin and opiates that 
function just fine in society.  

>This group does
>provide some very good information to people, but I am worried that
>the pro-legalization/pro-decriminalization movement is being hurt when
>it refuses to admit that any/some drugs are VERY harmful....

Name some of these drugs so we can debate about them more specifically.

[...]
>      I'm all for legalization of most drugs, but when someone asks me
>about relative risks of certain drugs or possible bad side effects, I
>would like to know them....and not be given the run-around by this
>group....which recently tried to tell me that pot was not harmful in
>any manner to people's lungs.     

NO, NO, NO.  (or at least I haven't been arguing this).  there is not enough
data to form a scientific conclusion.  that _doesn't_ mean that cannabis
is benign to users' lungs.  we can form all the theories we want, but they
are only theories.  some theories are supported by more evidence than others,
and that makes them stronger.  

>I think it's time y'all re-examined
>your positions and try to understand that you cannot fight the PDFA
>by calling them a bunch of liars....

the hell I can't!  they state *UN-JUSTIFIED CONCLUSIONS* *AS FACT* as
a *POLITICAL* strategy to stop drug use.

[...]

In general, I somewhat see what you're saying.  And people like Jack Herer
contribute to this.  This has been quite a big mind-fuck for me recently,
and I've pretty came to the conclusion that you can't trust _ANYBODY_ by
word of mouth alone -- my attitude about the general population has
decreased significantly.  

gotta run to class..

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu


>    _   _   _                _       _   _    kkruse@ksuvm.bitnet
>|/ | | |_) |_ \ /     |  |/ |_) | | (_` |_    kkruse@ksuvm.ksu.edu
>|\ |_| | \ |_  |    (_|  |\ | \ |_| ._) |_    kkruse@matt.ksu.edu






Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176923
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993

This is as bad as the "Did You Know"  Japan bashing of 2 weeks ago.  After
finding  this set of postings for the third time I hope no one shows up.

I don't know why fools insist on posting to every group.  It just
agrevates people.  
--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176924
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

Hmmm...intersting (and long) message, but TWICE? Well, I don't care for
libertarianism, but that is a philisophical disagreement, not a tactical
one. Reform of existing laws would be an awfully good idea. You wouldn't
believe some of the outrageous things the guardians of our two party 
system do to shut out dissent. 
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176925
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Part 4 (Re: Looks like Clayton must retract

In article <1ppi1gINNg19@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
    >>>Does the greatly increased rates of incarceration amongst
    >>>blacks show that they are dysfunctional or that the majority
    >>>of them support criminal activity?
    >>>
    >Isn't this a matter of demographics? Doesn't this simply show
    >that since criminal behaviour is common (or apt to be common)
    >in the 18-34 (insert your favorite correct numbers here) year
    >old range and since the percentage of blacks in this range is
    >higher than in other groups, then it follows statistically
    >that more blacks in prison is an expected result?
    >
    >Note that I haven't said anything about blacks being given
    >stiffer or longer sentences than other groups. I'm sure this
    >has to have an effect on the issue of over-representation of
    >blacks in prison...

Blacks have the same (+- 2%) crime report rate, arrest rate, and incarceration
rate for violent crimes.

So I doubt that for violent crimes, that there is any inherent bias mechanism
present.

There is a wider discrepancy for all crimes for blacks wrt to 3 categories.

Interestingly enough, the discrepancy is the largest in the Southern
United States -- where blacks are incarcerated well BELOW the average in
the rest of the United States! Which points to an anti-bias-against wrt
blacks.

In any case, for violent crimes and burglary and drug selling, blacks are
reported 53%, arrested 44%, and are present in jails/prisons 47% (1988).

Considering that 12% of the population is black, 6% are black males, and
some percentage of that is out of the high/low age groups, we do have a
situation where (if I remember my old calculations right) 4% of the
population commits almost half of the really nasty crimes.

Blacks with similar histories (crime) to whites get the same sentences,
except in the South, where they receive around 20% less on paper!!



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176926
From: schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Hillary and Chealsea Don't Like Men in Uniform

In article <C4vxvK.Bxr@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) wrote: 
> Top Ten Reasons Hillary and Chealsea Don't Like Men in Uniform
>                             ^^^^^^^^
> [...]
> 
> 6.  They keep saluting and stuff. Its embarassing.
>                                   ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> [...]
> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993



Ed:

    Before you ridicule the intelligence of other people, LEARN TO SPELL. 
Your typographical errors are, indeed, "embarassing" to those of us who
read alt.politics.libertarian for its allegedly superior ideas and writing.

--Erich Schwarz / schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176927
From: cogsdell@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (tony c)
Subject: GUILTY .. or NOT GUILTY.........(comparitive fault law)

Thanks to everyone who sent replies regarding this case.  A few of them were
very informative and helped very much. 


                     Once again.
 THANKS!                                                  T.C.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176928
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr5.193616.14521@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
    >Now let me get this straight. After a nice, long rant about
    >how people need to take personal responsibility for their
    >economic and social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals
    >(such as me, I guess) are responsible for poor people's
    >lifestyles? Tell me how that works--or do you think that poor
    >people are just too dumb to think for themselves?
    >
    >There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family
    >and support systems in general among this nation's poor.
    >Somehow I don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at
    >the top of any sane person's list.
    >
    >You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural
    >revolution for a lasting change for the worse, try so-called
    >"relevant" or "values" education. Hey, it seemed like a good
    >idea at the time. How were we to know you needed a real
    >education first--I mean, we took that for granted.

The 1960's generation were the most spoiled and irresponsible.

The Depression had create mothers and fathers that were determined that their
kids would not want for anything -- going overboard and creating a nation of
brats.

Consider the contrast between two famous events in July of 1969.

Apollo 11 and Woodstock.

Which group had large numbers of people that could not feed themselves and
reverted to the cultural level of primitives (defecation in public etc.).

And which group assembled, took care of itself, and dispersed with no damage,
no deaths, no large numbers of drug problems ....

-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176929
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

In article <1993Apr5.200623.15140@dsd.es.com>, Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Waldrop) writes:
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> Announcing. . . Announcing. . . Announcing. . . Announcing
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>                     PUBLIC HEARINGS
>
>                on the compliance by the 
>
>                UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
>
>          and the governments of the states of
>
>         FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS, MISSOURI,
>         WEST VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, INDIANA,
>          MARYLAND, OKLAHOMA, NEVADA, WYOMING,
>                   GEORGIA, AND MAINE
>
>      with Certain International Agreements Signed
>     by the United States Government, in particular,
>
>           THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
>                  AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
>                 (signed 5 October 1977)
>
>                         and the
>
>        DOCUMENT OF THE COPENHAGEN MEETING OF THE
>        CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN DIMENSION OF THE
>         CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION
>                        IN EUROPE
>                       (June 1990)
>
>                 A Democracy Project of
>
>                   CELEBRATE LIBERTY!
>        THE 1993 LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
>                   AND POLITICAL EXPO
>
>                     Sept. 2-5, 1993
>              Salt Palace Convention Center
>                     Marriott Hotel
>                  Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>                            
>These hearings will investigate charges that the governments
>referenced above routinely violate the political and
>democratic rights of political minority parties.  Persons
>interested in testifying at these hearings, or in submitting
>written or documentary evidence, should contact:
>
>                       Bob Waldrop
>                     P.O. Box 526175
>                Salt Lake City, UT  84152
>                     (801)-582-3318
>          Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org
>
>Examples of possible information of interest includes
>evidence and testimony regarding: 
>
>(1)   Unfair or unequal treatment of political minorities;
>
>(2)   Physical assaults on volunteers, candidates, or
>      members of minority parties;
>
>(3)   Arrests of minority party petitioners, candidates, or
>      members while engaged in political activity;
>
>(4)   Structural barriers to organizing third parties and/or
>      running for office as anything other than a Democrat
>      or Republican (e.g. signature totals required for
>      petitions to put new parties and candidates on ballots,
>      requirements for third parties that Democrats and
>      Republicans are not required to meet, etc.);
>
>(5)   Taxpayer subsidies of Democratic and Republican
>      candidates that are denied or not available to third
>      parties;
>
>(6)   Fraudulent or non-reporting of minority party vote
>      totals (e.g. stating totals for Democratic and
>      Republican party candidates as equal to 100% of the
>      vote);
>
>(7)   Refusals by state legislatures, governors, and courts to
>      hear petitions for redress of grievances from third
>      parties, and/or unfavorable rulings/laws
>      discriminating against third parties;
>
>(8)   Refusal to allow registration as a member of a third
>      party when registering to vote (in states where
>      partisan voter registration is optional or required);
>
>(9)   Vote fraud, stuffing ballot boxes, losing ballots, fixing
>      elections, threatening candidates, ballot printing errors;
>      machine voting irregularities, dishonest/corrupt
>      election officials, refusal to register third party voters
>      or allow filing by third party candidates; failure to
>      print third party registration options on official voter
>      registration documents; intimidation of third party
>      voters and/or candidates; and/or any other criminal
>      acts by local, county, state or federal election officials;
>
>(10)  Exclusion of third party candidates from debate
>      forums sponsored by public schools, state colleges and
>      universities, and governments (including events
>      carried on television and radio stations owned and/or
>      subsidized by governments;
>
>(11)  Any other information relevant to the topic.
>
>Information is solicited about incidents relating to all non-
>Democratic and non-Republican political parties, such as
>Libertarian, New Alliance, Socialist Workers Party, Natural
>Law Party, Taxpayers, Populist, Consumer, Green, American,
>Communist, etc., as well as independent candidates such as
>John Anderson, Ross Perot, Eugene McCarthy, Barry
>Commoner, etc.
>
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>Representatives of the governments referenced above will be
>invited to respond to any allegations.
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>
>        RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT OF THE
>          COPENHAGEN MEETING REFERENCED ABOVE:
>
>"(The participating States) recognize that pluralistic
>democracy and the rule of law are essential for ensuring
>respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms. . .
>They therefore welcome the commitment expressed by all
>participating States to the ideals of democracy and political
>pluralism. . . The participating States express their conviction
>that full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
>and the development of societies based on pluralistic
>democracy. . . are prerequisites for progress in setting up the
>lasting order of peace, security, justice, and co-operation. . .
>They therefore reaffirm their commitment to implement fully
>all provisions of the Final Act and of the other CSCE
>documents relating to the human dimension. . . In order to
>strengthen respect for, and enjoyment of, human rights and
>fundamental freedoms, to develop human contacts and to
>resolve issues of a related humanitarian character, the
>participating States agree on the following. . .
>
>"(2). . . They consider that the rule of law does not mean
>merely a formal legality which assures regularity and
>consistency in the achievement and enforcement of
>democratic order, but justice based on the recognition and
>full acceptance of the supreme value of the human
>personality and guaranteed by institutions providing a
>framework for its fullest expression."
>      
>"(3)  They reaffirm that democracy is an inherent element of
>the rule of law.  They recognize the importance of pluralism
>with regard to political organizations."
>
>"(4)  They confirm that they will respect each other's right
>freely to choose and develop, in accordance with
>international human rights standards, their political, social,
>economic and cultural systems.  In exercising this right, they
>will ensure that their laws, regulations, practices, and policies
>conform with their obligations under international law and
>are brought into harmony with the provisions of the
>Declaration on Principles and other CSCE commitments."
>
>"(5)  They solemnly declare that among those elements of
>justice which are essential to the full expression of the
>inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
>human beings are the following. . ."
>
>". . . (5.4) -- a clear separation between the State and political
>parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with
>the state. . ."
>
>". . . (7)  To ensure that the will of the people serves as
>the basis of the authority of government, the participating
>states will. . ."
>
>"(7.4) -- ensure . . . that (votes) are counted and reported
>honestly with the official results made public;"
>
>"(7.5) -- respect the right of citizens to seek political or public
>office, individually or as representatives of political parties or
>organizations, without discrimination."
>
>
>                RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
>        INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF 5 OCTOBER 1977
>                    REFERENCED ABOVE
>
>The States Parties to the present Covenant. . . Recognizing
>that. . . the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and
>political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only
>be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may
>enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic,
>social, and cultural rights, Considering the obligation of
>States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote
>universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
>freedoms. . . Agree upon the following articles. . .
>
>Article 2.  (1) Each State Party to the present Covenant
>undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within
>its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
>recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of
>any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
>political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
>birth, or other status.
>
>(2)  Where not already provided for by existing legislative or
>other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant
>undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its
>constitutional processes and with the provisions of the
>present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures
>as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in
>the present Covenant. . .
>
>Article 3.  The States Parties to the present Covenant
>undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to
>the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the
>present Covenant. . .
>
>Article 25.  Every citizen shall have the right and the
>opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in
>article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:  (a) to take
>part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through
>freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected at
>genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and
>equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot,
>guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c)
>to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service
>in his country.
>
>Article 26.  All persons are equal before the law and are
>entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of
>the law.  In this respect, the law shall prohibit any
>discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and
>effective protection against discrimination on any ground
>such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
>opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other
>status.
>
>
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>There will be no peace without freedom.
>Think Globally -- Act Locally.
>Resist Much.  Obey Little.
>Question Authority.
>
>Comments from Bob Waldrop are the responsibility of Bob
>Waldrop!  For a good time call 415-457-6388.
>
>E-Mail:           Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org
>Snail Mail:       P.O. Box 526175
>                  Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-6175
>                  United States of America
>Voice Phone:      (801) 582-3318
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>
>
>-- 
>		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian.
>Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1993 Rich Thomson
>UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
>Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176930
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

Ack! Sorry for the repeat posts: I thought I was posting to the newsgroup
on which this appeared. Couldn't figure out why it wasn't appearing in
my newsgroup. Stupid of me. Slap my hands. Bang my head against the wall.
Sorry! Bloody public anouncements...mumble mumble mumble...
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176931
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

Well, the message was interesting (and long), but TWICE? Oh Well. Personally,
I loathe libertarianism, but my disagreement is philisophical, not tactical.
Election law reform is a good idea. You would not believe what kind of stunts
the creatures of the 2 party system are capable of pulling.
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176933
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Motor Voter

In article <Apr.2.07.48.07.1993.21309@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) wrote:
> 
> When I entered 1st grade, Eisenhower was President and John F. Kennedy
> was just a relatively obscure Senator from New England.  So how old do
> you think I am now?

Ask me whether I'm surprised that you haven't managed to waddle out of
college after all this time.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176935
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds



  Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds

  Washington, DC -- The energy tax and subsidized energy-efficiency
  measures supported by President Clinton and Energy Secretary Hazel
  O'Leary are based on faulty assumptions, a new study from the Cato
  Institute points out.

    According to Jerry Taylor, Cato's director of natural resource studies,
  we are not running out of sources of energy. The world now has almost 10
  times the proven oil reserves it had in 1950 and twice the reserves of
  1970. Proven reserves of coal and natural gas have increased just as
  dramatically.

    When standards of living, population densities, and industrial
  structures are controlled for, the United States is no less energy
  efficient than Japan and more energy efficient than many of the Group
  of Seven nations.

    Energy independence provides little protection against domestic oil
  price shocks because the energy economy is global. Moreover, since the
  cost of oil represents only about 2 percent of gross national product,
  even large increases in the price of oil would have little impact on the
  overall U.S. economy.

    Market economies are, on average, 2.75 times more energy efficient per
  $1,000 of GNP than are centrally planned economies.

    Utilities' subsidized energy-efficiency measurs, known as demand-side
  management programs, encourage free riders, overuse of competing resource
  inputs, an competitive inequities. Furthermore, DSM programs do not
  reduce demand.

    Taylor concludes that government-mandated energy conservation imposes
  unnecessary costs on consumers and wastes, not conserves, energy; that
  subsidizing energy-conservation technologies will stymie, not advance,
  gains in energy conservation; and that central control over the lifeblood
  of modern society--energy--would transfer tremendous power to the state
  at the expense of the individual.

    "Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The Case Against Coercion" is no.
  189 in the Policy Analysis series published by the Cato Institute, an
  independent public policy research organization in Washington, DC.



Available from:
  Cato Institute
  224 Second Street SE
  Washington, DC  20003



---------------------------------------------------------------------------




                        The Cato Institute

    Founded in 1977, the Cato Institute is a public policy research
  foundation dedicated to broadening the parameters of policy debate
  to allow consideration of more options that are consistent with the
  traditional American principles of limited government, individual
  liberty, and peace.  To that end, the Institute strives to achieve
  greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in 
  questions of policy and the proper role of government.
    The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, libertarian pamphlets
  that were widely read in the American Colonies in the early 18th
  century and played a major role in laying the philosophical foundation
  of the American Revolution.
    Despite the achievement of the nation's Founders, today virtually
  no aspect of life is free from government encroachment.  A pervasive
  intolerance for individual rights is shown by government's arbitrary
  intrusions into private economic transactions and its disregard for
  civil liberties.
    To counter that trend the Cato Institute undertakes an extensive
  publications program that addresses the complete spectrum of policy
  issues.  Books, monographs, and shorter studies are commissioned
  to examine the federal budget, Social Security, regulation, military
  spending, international trade, and myriad other issues.  Major policy
  conferences are held throughout the year, from which papers are
  published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal.
    In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts
  no government funding.  Contributions are received from foundations,
  corporations, and individuals, and other revenue is generated from
  the sale of publications.  The Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt,
  educational foundation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue
  Code.

  The Cato Institute
  224 Second Street S.E.
  Washington, DC  20003

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176936
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: SECRET PURPOSE OF FALKLANDS WAR



SECRET PURPOSE OF FALKLANDS WAR;  [with IN-VISIBILITY Technology]

Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER #74 of 80

Digitized by Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net

"AUDIO LETTER(R)" is a registered trademark of Audio Books,
Inc., a Texas corporation, which originally produced this tape
recording.  Reproduced under open license granted by Audio
Books, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R), 1629 K St. NW, Washington,
DC  20006.

   Hello, my friends, this is Dr. Beter.  Today is April 30,
1982, and this is my AUDIO LETTER(R) No. 74.

  It's now been almost one month since war broke out in the South
Atlantic.  On the surface it seems that it's only a dispute
between Argentina and Great Britain over the barren, wind-swept
Falkland Islands and South Georgia Island.  In reality, it's far
more than that.

   The so-called Falklands crisis is just the visible tip of a
giant military operation.  During this month of April 1982,
fierce naval battles have taken place--not only in the South
Atlantic but also in the South Pacific.  Up to now most of the
hostilities have been kept under wraps by wartime censorship on
all sides.  But as I say these words, the naval war in the
Southern Hemisphere is about to come to the surface.

   Beginning today, April 30, a total naval and air blockade of
the Falklands by the Royal Navy has begun.  At the same time a
counterblockade has been declared by Argentina in the same area.

   To be effective, a blockade must be imposed over a period of
time, but the Royal Navy does not have that much time.  Winter is
coming on in the South Atlantic, and the British supply lines are
overextended.  Having come this far, Her Majesty's navy cannot
simply drop the blockade and sail away in a few weeks time
without drawing blood from Argentina.  As a result the British
will be forced to undertake military operations very soon no
matter how risky they may be.

   There is also another reason why the Royal Navy now has no
choice but to engage the Argentine forces in combat.  That
reason, my friends, is that the Royal Navy has already suffered
losses in secret combat this month.  Up to this moment there will
be no way to explain away the damage which has been sustained by
the British fleet.  Only when publicly admitted fighting erupts
will the British dare to admit that they have suffered battle
losses.  To obtain that cover story, the British have no choice
but to sail into combat; but in doing so, they will be risking
even heavier losses on top of those already sustained.  In short,
my friends, Her Majesty's navy has sailed into a trap.

   The events now unfolding in the South Atlantic carry strange,
ironic echoes of the past.  For weeks now we've been hearing
countless commentators referring to the British task force as an
"armada" (quote).  The British of all people ought to be very
uneasy with that description.  The original Spanish Armada 400
years ago was renowned as a seemingly invincible fighting force,
but it came to grief in a naval disaster so complete that it
changed the course of history--and it was none other than the
English navy that destroyed the Spanish Armada.

   The original Spanish Armada put to sea in 1588 during the
reign of England's Queen Elizabeth I.  The Armada was an invasion
fleet carrying thousands of crack fighting men to invade England. 
They were met by the daring sea dogs of Sir Francis Drake.  Drake
and his small, fast ships turned the tables on the Spanish Armada
by changing the rules of battle.  The English fleet was equipped
with new longer-range guns, and it stayed upwind and out of
reach.  From there the English pounded, smashed, and shattered
the big ships of the mighty Armada.  When it was all over, barely
half the Spanish fleet was left to limp back to port.  Drake's
defeat of the Spanish Armada was a shock to the world.  It opened
the door for England under Queen Elizabeth I to start its
expansion into a truly global empire.

   Today, 400 years later, history seems to have come full
circle.  Queen Elizabeth II is witnessing the dismantling of the
world empire whose heyday began under Queen Elizabeth I, and now
the cultures of England and of Spain are once again in
confrontation.  Once again a so-called armada is preparing for
invasion, but this time the armada is British, not Spanish.  Four
hundred years ago Sir Francis Drake was the hero of the day;
today, the ghost of Francis Drake is once again on the scene.

   The South Atlantic war zone is at the eastern end of the Drake
Passage around the southern tip of South America.  The defeat of
the Spanish Armada four centuries ago broke the back of Spain's
naval supremacy, and now the defeat of the new British armada may
well break the back of what remains of the once glorious Royal
Navy.

   My three special topics for this AUDIO LETTER are:

Topic #1--THE MILITARY SECRET OF SOUTH GEORGIA ISLAND
Topic #2--THE SECRET NAVAL WAR OF THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
Topic #3--THE ROCKEFELLER FEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR.

Topic #1--When the Falkland Islands crisis began early this month
it looked at first like a tempest in a teapot.  For a century and
a half since 1833, the Islands have been controlled by Great
Britain.  During that entire time, British sovereignty over the
Falklands has been disputed by Argentina.  There have been
countless threats by Argentina to seize the Islands, which it
calls the Malvinas, but the threats have always come to nothing
in the past and Britain has never even gotten very worried about
them.

   The Islands are four times as distant from Argentina as Cuba
is from the United States, and they are not much of a prize. 
After 150 years of occupancy, the Falklands are home to fewer
than 2,000 British settlers and a lot of sheep.  In short, the
remote Falkland Islands hardly look like something to fight over,
and yet here we are watching another crisis take place.  We are
watching as war erupts between Great Britain and Argentina.

   The Thatcher government is acting as if it has forgotten all
about its usual preoccupation with the Soviet threat at NATO's
doorstep.  Instead, Britain is throwing almost everything it's
got at Argentina---aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers,
submarines, assault ships--you name it.  Luxury cruise ships have
even been commissioned and turned into troop carriers overnight. 
Wave after wave of additional assault troops have been activated
and sent to join the fleet even after it sailed.  Ships and
submarines have been pulled off station from normal NATO duty and
sent to reinforce the task force.  The initial 40-ship force has
grown steadily over the past several weeks into an armada
numbering over 70.  Over two-thirds of the entire Royal Navy has
already been deployed to the South Atlantic off Argentina.

   Watching all this, a lot of people are asking: What's this
fight really all about?  The most popular answer suggested in the
major media is "oil."  Vast deposits of oil are known to exist
under the continental shelf between Argentina and the Falklands,
but that has been known for nearly 10 years.  In no way does it
explain the timing of the sudden military offensive by Argentina
this month, and oil explains even less about the Argentine
seizure of South Georgia Island.

   South Georgia Island is 800 miles east of the Falklands with
no known oil deposits anywhere near it; and compared to South
Georgia, the Falklands are an island paradise.  South Georgia
Island is covered with rugged mountains, treacherous valleys,
glaciers, and semi-permanent snow.  Most of it is uninhabitable. 
On top of all that, Argentina has absolutely no legal or
historical claim to South Georgia Island.  In that respect it
stands in sharp contrast to the Falklands.

   In the early 1830s the Falklands were occupied for a while by
Argentine colonists.  In 1833 the British expelled them and took
over the Island.  For that and other historical reasons,
Argentina argues that the Falklands really belong to Argentina,
not Britain.

   But no such argument is possible for South Georgia Island.  It
has always been controlled by Britain, never by Argentina or
Spain.  The Argentine seizure of South Georgia Island looks even
more unreasonable from a military point of view.  Argentina's
leaders are military men and they think in military terms.  They
were well aware ahead of time that far-off South Georgia Island
could not possibly be held for long.  By seizing it they were
setting themselves up to absorb a military defeat, as the Island
was retaken by Britain.  So the question is: Why did Argentina's
military junta bother with the seemingly worthless South Georgia
Island at all?

   My friends, the answers to all these questions are military,
not political or economic.  South Georgia Island possesses an
enormous military secret.  It's a giant underground installation
buried under the mountains at the northwest end of the Island. 
The real reason for the so-called Falkland crisis is this secret
installation, together with two other similar installations which
I will describe shortly.

   The secret military complexes have been in existence for many
years; they are not new.  What is new is the accelerated nuclear
war timetable of the American Bolshevik war planners here in
Washington.  For the past two months I've been reporting the
details of this new war plan to you as quickly as I can obtain
and verify them.

   The plan calls for NUCLEAR WAR ONE to erupt by September of
this year 1982!!  It is this fast-approaching nuclear war threat
that caused the so-called Falklands crisis to erupt now.

   What is going on now is a coordinated effort to spoil part of
the Bolshevik grand strategy for the coming nuclear war.  The
mutual enemies of the American Bolsheviks here--namely, the
Rockefeller cartel--and Russia's new rulers in the Kremlin are
behind the present crisis.  They are trying to ruin Phase #3 of
the "PROJECT Z" war plan which I revealed last month.  That phase
is to be world domination by the American Bolsheviks after both
Russia and the United States have been destroyed in NUCLEAR WAR
ONE.  As I mentioned last month, the key to this plan is the
existence of secret weapons stockpiles in various places around
the world.

   The American Bolshevik military planners here in America are
working with other Bolshevik agents in key military positions of
other countries to set off war.  Having done that, they intend to
ride out the nuclear holocaust they have caused, safe and cozy in
Government war bunkers!  When the warring nations finally lie
smoldering and exhausted, the Bolsheviks will leave the shattered
remains of their host countries.  They will rendezvous at the
secret weapons installations and bring their weapons into the
open.  They will confront the world with the only remaining
fresh, up-to-date, powerful military force on earth; and using
that military power, they will become the undisputed rulers of
the world--that is, they plan to do all this, and they plan to
pave the way for world domination very soon by setting off
NUCLEAR WAR ONE in a matter of months.  The Rockefeller cartel
and Russia's new anti-Bolshevik rulers are working together in a
race against time to try to head off the Bolshevik war plan.

   Last month I mentioned that the Bolsheviks here are
benefitting from war preparations which were started by the
Rockefellers long ago.  It has only been about three years since
the Rockefellers were dislodged as the prime movers of the United
States Government by the Bolsheviks.  Since that time the United
States Government has been a house divided, torn by internal
power struggles between rival Bolshevik and Rockefeller factions. 
But before that, the United States had been dominated for decades
both economically and politically by the Four Rockefeller
Brothers.

   In 1961 the Brothers launched a new long-range plan for world
domination.  It was a two-prong strategy, half visible and half
secret, which I first described long ago in AUDIO LETTER No. 28. 
It was a plan for the United States to arm to the teeth in secret
while appearing to disarm gradually.  Without repeating all the
details, the basic idea was grandiose yet simple.  By
deliberately appearing weak, the Rockefeller-controlled United
States would maneuver itself into a nuclear war with Russia. 
Then the secret weapons, including superweapons, would be
unleashed to smash Russia and take over the world.

   When they set the grand plan in motion in 1961, the
Rockefeller Brothers were looking ahead to a nuclear war by the
late 1970s.  Their military analysts concluded very early that
the war being planned would have very different effects on the
Northern and Southern Hemispheres.  Both superpowers, the United
States and the Soviet Union, are located well up in the Northern
Hemisphere; so are the other full-fledged nuclear powers--Great
Britain, France, Red China, and India.  By contrast, the
strategic targets for nuclear war in the Southern Hemisphere are
relatively few and far between.  In other words, it was expected
that the coming nuclear war would be essentially a Northern
Hemisphere war.

   In an all-out nuclear holocaust it is known that serious
radioactive fallout will gradually spread to affect even areas
not initially hit by war.  But there are limits to how far the
war clouds can spread.  It was discovered long ago that there is
very little mixing between the air of the Northern and Southern
Hemispheres.  In the northern half of our planet, cold air from
the North Pole works its way southward towards the equator, then
it works its way back to the north as warm air.  A mirror image
of this process takes up the southern half of the planet. 
Northern and Southern Hemisphere air meet in the equatorial zone,
but very little of the air changes places.

   The military conclusion, my friends, is this: the coming
nuclear war could ruin large areas of the Northern Hemisphere for
generations to come; but if the calculations are right, the
Southern Hemisphere could escape virtually unaffected by the war. 
This was music to the ears of the Four Rockefeller Brothers.  A
quick look at the globe of the world shows why.  The Rockefeller
cartel has dominated Latin America ever since World War II.  As I
discussed in my very first monthly AUDIO LETTER, Nelson
Rockefeller solidified the cartel grip on Latin America during
the war.  He accomplished this as so-called "Coordinator of
Hemispheric Defense" for then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 
So that takes care of the South American continent and its
natural resources.

   Then there is the African continent.  There, too, Rockefeller
control was already in effect over wide areas of Black Africa,
especially south of the equator.  All this was thanks to the
efforts of John D. Rockefeller III, as I detailed in AUDIO LETTER
No. 36.

   Looking around the globe, the most important remaining land
masses from the standpoint of world domination are Australia and
New Zealand.  Thanks to World War II, both were wide open to the
Rockefellers.

   The Rockefeller Brothers decided to establish secret military
installations in the Southern Hemisphere for use after the coming
war.  By this means they expected to become the masters of the
surviving southern half of planet Earth after the Northern
Hemisphere war.  Then, as the Northern Hemisphere gradually
recovered from the nuclear holocaust, the Rockefeller empire
would be able to pick up the pieces.  In this way the third
generation Rockefeller Brothers expected their family dynasty to
inherit the Earth.

   In order to control the Southern Hemisphere militarily after
the war, some means would have to be available to project
military power onto any land mass.  For example, revolts against
Rockefeller domination would require troops--not a blast from the
beam weapons on the Moon.  The most critical factor for postwar
military domination of the world was found to be a navy.  A
minimum of two secret naval fleets would be required--one based
in the South Atlantic, the other in the South Pacific.  Since the
reserve naval fleets were to be kept secret until after the
Northern Hemisphere nuclear war, they could not be built in
existing shipyards.  New construction facilities had to be built
and they had to be hidden.  To hide an entire shipyard is no
small task; they take up a lot of space.  On top of that, it was
essential that the ships remain hidden after they were built. 
The best way to achieve that was to combine the shipyard and
naval base into one over-all secret installation.  Finally, the
secret naval installation had to be invulnerable to nuclear
attack; otherwise if its existence were ever discovered
prematurely, the secret navy might be wiped out.

   The combined requirements for secrecy, space, and protection
against attack were formidable; but one day in 1959, while all
these plans were still in the early stages of development, the
answer presented itself.  During a so-called banking trip to
Sweden, David Rockefeller was given a tour of a unique hidden
naval port.  The port is hollowed out from solid granite cliffs
which come right down to the water.  The entrance to the port is
a gigantic hole in the side of the cliff which can be sealed off
with enormous steel doors.  Inside this big doorway on the water
a huge cavity has been hollowed out to accommodate ships.

   The Rockefeller Brothers and their military adviser decided
that a bigger, more secret, better protected version of the
Swedish hidden port was just what they wanted.  A survey of
candidate sites was then initiated.  The site survey covered
coastal areas throughout the Southern Hemisphere.  Many areas
were rejected very quickly because the topography was wrong. 
Other areas were rejected because they were too close to the
equator.  Still others had to be ruled out because there were too
many people living nearby, making the desired level of secrecy
impossible.  Finally, it was essential that the sites chosen for
the secret naval installations be totally secure politically.

   At last the sites for the secret naval installations were
selected.  In the South Pacific, extreme southern New Zealand was
selected.  This is what I was alluding to in AUDIO LETTER No. 71
three months ago when I called attention to New Zealand's extreme
importance in the coming war.

   In order to obtain the necessary space, the secret New Zealand
naval installation had to be divided up into two sites located
close together.  One is at the extreme southwest tip of South
Island where the mountain range known as the Southern Alps comes
down virtually to the water's edge.  The other part of the
installation is built into the northwest tip of Stewart Island,
which is off the tip of South Island.  The Stewart Island
facility is hollowed out within a rise known as Mt. Anglem.

   The New Zealand location met all the requirements.  Ever since
World War II the government of New Zealand has been tied even
closer to the United States than to Great Britain.  The location
is far from the equator, and the installations are buried deep
under mountains, protected from nuclear attack.  They are also
too deep to be reached by particle-beam attacks, and the New
Zealand site is well situated to command the entire South
Pacific.

   In the South Atlantic an even more perfect site was found. 
That site, my friends, is South Georgia Island.  It is located
perfectly for naval domination of the entire South Atlantic.  The
tall, rugged mountains provided a perfect location for the secret
installation at the northwest tip of the 100-mile long island. 
It is controlled by Great Britain whose government, like that of
New Zealand, was willing to cooperate; and South Georgia Island
was virtually uninhabited except for a whaling station on the
northeast coast.  The whaling station was some 50 miles away from
the secret new installation which was being built, but Britain
took no chances.  In 1965 the whaling station was closed down. 
Since that time there have been no inhabitants on South Georgia
Island except for a few dozen alleged Antarctic scientists.

   Construction of the secret naval facilities--two in New
Zealand, one on South Georgia Island--began in the early 1960's. 
The techniques were adapted from those used previously to build
other large underground facilities, such as the NORAD
installation inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado; however these
techniques were adapted in radically new ways to achieve
construction access directly from the sea instead of overland. 
In this way, the sheltering mountain was left undisturbed in
appearance both during and after construction.

   The cuts in the mountain side which were necessary to let
ships in and out were kept as small as possible and were well
camouflaged.  Like the Swedish hidden naval port arrangement, the
entrances to the secret installations can be sealed up.  When
sealed, the entrance is virtually impossible to detect unless you
know exactly where it is; and unlike most large construction
projects, there are no tailings or piles of leftover rock lying
around to attract attention.  The man-made caverns which house
the secret naval installations are enormous, but all the rock and
debris was disposed of at sea.

   Once the secret naval facilities were built, they had to be
outfitted for ship construction and docksite storage.  The fake
disarmament of the United States during the 1960s contributed
greatly to this task.  From 1961 to 1968 one man played a pivotal
role in this elaborate Rockefeller scheme.  He was then-Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara.  All through the 60's McNamara
presided over the public paring back of America's visible
military power.  This included the closing down and dismantling
of entire shipyards.  What we were not told was where all that
shipyard equipment went afterwards.  Where it went, my friends,
was to the new secret installations which were being outfitted in
New Zealand and South Georgia Island!

   The secret naval installations have been used as duplication
facilities to reproduce certain ships and submarines designed and
built here in the United States.  As Defense Secretary Caspar
Weinberger told Congress recently, it is cheaper to build two
ships at a time.  That is especially true if the second ship is
an exact duplicate of the first.  This has become even more true
in recent years through the use of computerized manufacturing
techniques.

   The secret naval fleets which have been built at the secret
installations are made up of duplicates--exact duplicates of
certain other ships and submarines.  They are all nuclear
powered--nuclear "subs"; nuclear cruisers; nuclear destroyers;
and yes, nuclear aircraft carriers, three of them.  A secret twin
was built for the U.S.S. Nimitz, for the U.S.S. Eisenhower, and
for the newly-launched U.S.S. Carl Vincent.  All have been
financed through the gigantic cost overruns, so called, that we
constantly hear about in the Defense Department; and all three
carriers have been provided with a full complement of aircraft
whose manufacture was financed the same way!

   The ships of the secret American Bolshevik naval fleets are
all duplicates of other nuclear-powered vessels.  Even so, the
secret naval ships possess one key difference.

   Last month I revealed that the so-called "Stealth Program" has
succeeded in developing a kind of electromagnetic invisibility
shield.  This technique makes an object invisible from a distance
by distorting light waves in its vicinity.

   A whole new fleet of Phantom war-planes are now going into
crash production that use this principle; and, my friends, all of
the secret American Bolshevik navy ships have already been
outfitted with similar Stealth-field equipment!  The Stealth
principle is actually easier to apply to ships than to airplanes
because there is more room for the powerful equipment that
generates the field.

   After NUCLEAR WAR ONE, the secret Stealth navy of the American
Bolsheviks would be light years ahead of any other navy left on
earth.  It would be perfect for the intended role of world
domination.  The Rockefellers set it all in motion long ago, my
friends, but three years ago they lost control of the United
States Military.  Now it's the American Bolsheviks who are in
control, and they are bent on war.

   These secret naval installations have precipitated what is
being called the "Falklands crisis."

Topic #2--In AUDIO LETTER(R) No. 73 last month I described
"PROJECT Z", the new Bolshevik three-phase strategy for NUCLEAR
WAR ONE.

   An elite group of American Bolshevik military planners here
are flushing out the plan right now at a secret war-room here in
Washington.  It's a plan by which the United States will strike
the first nuclear blow, followed by all-out thermonuclear war
with Russia.

   Having set off the holocaust, the Bolsheviks here and in
certain other countries plan to rise it out safe in comfortable
war bunkers.  Finally after NUCLEAR WAR ONE fizzles out in
stalemate, they plan to leave behind the ashes of the United
States and her allies.  Activating Phase #3 of their grand
strategy, they plan to unveil their secret weapons, especially
their secret naval fleets.  With these they plan to conquer and
rule what is left of the world.  The United States as we know it
will be dead and gone; but in the eyes of the Bolsheviks
themselves, this outcome will constitute victory.

   Up to now the nuclear war timetable which I first revealed two
months ago is still on track.  They are still shooting for
nuclear war to begin by September of this year 1982!  Time is
fast running out.

   The Bolsheviks here are sprinting as fast as they can toward
war; but, my friends, the Bolsheviks are not the only runners in
this race.  They have two deadly enemies, both of whom are
equally determined to trip up the Bolsheviks.  One enemy of the
Bolsheviks here is the Rockefeller cartel; the other enemy is the
new anti-Bolshevik ruling clique in Russia; and now these two
mutual enemies of the Bolsheviks are pooling their efforts in
certain ways.

   In AUDIO LETTER No. 71 three months ago I reported that a
limited, new anti-Bolshevik coalition was in the works between
the Rockefeller cartel and the Russians.  The January 26 meeting
between Haig and Gromyko in Geneva, Switzerland, was a turning
point in the formation of this coalition.  It is now a reality,
and is responsible for the so-called "Falkland crisis" now
dominating the headlines.  It should be emphasized that this new
relationship between the Rockefeller cartel and Russia falls far
short of a true alliance.  They have very major disputes to be
settled between them, but for the time being they have called a
truce between themselves to deal with their mutual deadly
enemy--the Bolsheviks here in America.

   The first priority of the Russians and the Rockefellers is to
slow down the Bolshevik preparations for imminent nuclear war. 
If they can do that, time is on the side of the Rockefeller
cartel in certain political movements which I discussed last
summer in AUDIO LETTER No. 67.  A slow-down in the nuclear war
timetable will also give more breathing space for additional
anti-Bolshevik actions to be implemented.

   The joint Rockefeller-Russian planners decided by mid-February
that military action against the Bolsheviks was essential very
quickly.  No other type of action had any hope of taking effect
fast enough to prevent nuclear war by the end of this summer.

   The exact details of the "PROJECT Z" war plan are not known to
either the Rockefellers or the Russians, but the general outlines
are known to be as I described last month.

   It was decided that military action should be devised that
would undermine Phase #3 of the Bolshevik war plan--that is, the
Bolshevik-controlled secret naval installations and fleets in the
Southern Hemisphere should be attacked and crippled.  By working
together, the Rockefeller cartel and the Russians were able to
devise an attack plan which neither could have carried out alone. 
The Rockefeller group, who built and originally controlled these
bases, provided detailed Intelligence about the best way to
attack them.  The Russians with their enormous military machine
provided the muscle to actually carry out the attack.

   It was essential to devise a scheme that would enable both
secret fleets in the South Atlantic and South Pacific to be
attacked.  Survival intact of either fleet would leave the
Bolshevik war plan still workable.

   Military analysts concluded very quickly that a direct assault
on the New Zealand facilities was out of the question.  There was
no combination of commandos, frogmen, or other military force
which could possibly keep an attack secret from the outside
world.  Any attack on the New Zealand bases would set off the
very war which the Rockefellers and Russians want to prevent.

   But the situation in the South Atlantic was a different
matter.  In a way, the greatest asset of South Georgia Island was
also its Achilles' heel.  The extreme isolation which protected
the secrecy of the South Georgia base also made a covert military
assault feasible.  The key lay with Argentina and her
long-standing claims to the Falkland Islands.

   As I mentioned in Topic #1, the Rockefeller cartel has
dominated all of Latin America for decades.  Cartel operatives
were sent to Argentina to work out a deal with the government
military junta there.  The historic dispute over the Falkland
Islands was to be used to provide a ruse, a military cover, to
enable the South Georgia base to be attacked.  The Argentine
generals were not told everything about the situation by any
means, but they were told enough to make clear what they were to
do.

   As an inducement to cooperate, the Argentine leaders were
promised handsome rewards.  They were guaranteed that after the
shooting was over, the Falkland Islands would remain in Argentine
hands.  This guarantee included the promise of covert military
assistance as needed against the Royal Navy.  And to bolster the
troubled Argentine economy, it was promised that the Rockefeller
cartel will help develop the immense offshore oil reserves.  With
these combined promises of military glory and financial rewards,
the Argentine military junta agreed to the plan.

   On March 19 Argentina carried out Act #1 in the joint attack
plan.  A group of Argentine scrap-metal merchants, of all things,
landed at the abandoned old whaling station on South Georgia
Island.  Supposedly they were there to dismantle the old
buildings and cart them off to sell.  While they were at it they
also raised the Argentine flag over the work-site.  The British,
always nervous about South Georgia Island, promptly reacted as
expected.  The British Antarctic survey ship "Endurance" put 22
Marines ashore.  They drove off the scrap merchants and tore down
the Argentine flag.

   The incident provided the desired excuse for the Argentine
Junta to bring the simmering 150-year-old Falklands dispute to a
boil.  From time to time in the past, Argentina has claimed that
South Georgia is part of the Falklands because it is administered
that way by Britain.  That argument is very flimsy but it now
came in very handy.  It was nothing new to hear this from
Argentine leaders, so there was no hint of what was really afoot.

   During late March, Argentine military forces started
assembling for an assault on the Falklands.  "Nothing new",
thought the British high command.  Argentina has carried out
threatening maneuvers in the past many times.  It was believed
that they were about to do it again; but on April 2 Argentine
forces did the unexpected.  After many past false alarms, this
time they actually invaded and seized the Islands.  All Argentine
public statements emphasized the long-standing historical claims
to the Falklands themselves; but just for good measure, the next
day a small Argentine force also seized far-off South Georgia
Island.  The force was so small that it gave the appearance
initially that it was just a side show from Argentina's point of
view; however, the small contingent of 22 Royal Marines were
overpowered and bundled off the Island along with a group of 13
alleged scientists.  That was the moment of payoff in the joint
Rockefeller-Russian attack plan.

   Thanks to the elaborate distraction staged by the Argentine
forces, a special commando team got onto the Island undetected. 
Based on the detailed Rockefeller information about the base, the
team moved to a location on the mountain directly above the
cavernous secret base.  Special high-speed drilling equipment was
set up by the Rockefeller members of the team while the Russian
members concentrated on military defense.  By late that evening,
April 3, the military high command in London finally learned what
was really taking place.  The secret South Georgia base was under
attack by virtually the only means possible.  The joint
Rockefeller-Russian team were drilling a shaft down through the
mountain toward the hollowed out cavern inside.  It was only a
matter of time until their drill would break through the ceiling
of the giant hidden naval base.  Once the hole was made, the next
step was obvious.  The Rockefeller-Russian team would put a
weapon of some kind through the hole.  The best guess was that it
would be a nerve gas.

   The shock waves that went through the highest levels of the
British government on the evening of April 3 can hardly be
described, my friends.  The Thatcher government, like the
so-called Reagan Administration here in America, is Bolshevik
controlled.  That's why Margaret Thatcher always says, "Me, too"
any time the Reagan Administration says or does anything against
Russia.  Both governments are party to the secret nuclear war
plan in complete betrayal of the people of their respective
countries, and on the evening of April 3 they suddenly discovered
that their precious war plan was in deep, deep trouble.

   Immediately the Thatcher government started assembling a naval
armada to sail for the South Atlantic.  Haste was the order of
the day.  The drilling on South Georgia Island was proceeding
around the clock.  The best estimates were that the drilling
would break through into the roof of the naval base in about
three weeks, on or about April 24.  If help did not reach South
Georgia by then, the secret installation might be doomed.  The
forces stationed at the installation itself were unable to defend
themselves under the circumstances.  Their mighty naval ships
were ships in a bottle.  They did not dare open the bottle to
sail out to fight because the Russian commandos were armed with
tactical and nuclear weapons.  To open the blast-proof entrance
doors would be suicide.

   On April 5, just two days after South Georgia Island was
seized, some 40 naval ships began moving out of British ports. 
The same day Lord Carrington was sacked as Foreign Minister.  He
was forced to resign, my friends, because he had assisted the
Rockefeller attack plan by downplaying the Argentine attack
preparations.

   That same day, April 5, New Zealand, the home of the other
secret naval fleet, broke diplomatic relations with Argentina. 
The two hidden New Zealand facilities had been placed on "Red
Alert."  As a precautionary measure, all submarines at the twin
base were ordered to sea.  Several surface ships were already at
sea undergoing "sea trials", but that still left seven (7) major
ships inside the hidden twin naval base including one of the
nuclear aircraft carriers I mentioned earlier.

   On that busy day of April 5, Argentina's Foreign Minister,
Costa Mendez, was at the United Nations in New York.  He was
alarmed by the deployment of such a large part of the Royal Navy. 
Costa Mendez hurried here to Washington to seek reassurances from
certain officials.  He got them!

   For the next two weeks or so the news was filled with stories
about the allegedly slow movement of the British fleet while
negotiations went on.  That, my friends, was only a cover story. 
The Royal Navy was actually joining up and moving as rapidly as
possible toward South Georgia Island.  If the task force arrived
in time to save the secret base, a major battle was likely.  The
official stories about "slow movement" of the British armada were
intended to give a cushion of time for that battle.  If need be,
the fleet would have several days to retake South Georgia Island,
then it could move on to arrive near the Falklands on the
announced schedule.  In this way the crucial importance of South
Georgia Island would be hidden and the big secret preserved.

   It was initially expected that advance elements of the British
fleet would reach the vicinity of South Georgia Island within two
weeks.  That would have been soon enough to attack the joint
Rockefeller-Russian commando team and stop the drilling before it
was completed.  But Russian Cosmospheres and submarines made a
shambles of the plan.

   Key advance elements of the South Georgia attack contingent
left Ascension Island early April 14, two days before it was
announced officially.  Shortly after they did so, they ran into
trouble.  Russian Cosmospheres and attack submarines closed in on
a single ship which was critical to the planned counterassault on
South Georgia Island.  The Cosmospheres bombarded the bridge and
combat information center of the ship with neutron radiation.  In
moments the ship was without any command, its communications and
radar silenced.  Then a Russian "sub" closed in and quickly
finished off this key British ship with torpedoes.  It broke
apart with secondary explosions and sank rapidly.  So far as is
known, there were no survivors.

   This unexpected shock in the mid-Atlantic produced two
results, both important:

First, it caused a slowdown in the race toward the South Atlantic
by the British armada.  The task force had to be regrouped into a
configuration better suited for an enroute defense, but that cost
valuable time.  Public announcements from London about the
progress of the fleet reflected this slowdown.  The timetable for
arrival on battle stations near the Falklands started stretching
out longer and longer.  All this bought extra time for the joint
commando team on South Georgia Island.  The drilling continued.

The other result of the sinking was equally important.  Word was
flashed to the South Pacific Stealth navy to prepare for possible
action.  It was obvious that the Russian Navy was getting
involved in the Atlantic, which meant that the Royal Navy could
be in big trouble.  During the dead of night, early April 15, the
seven Stealth ships put to sea from their twin secret bases in
southern New Zealand.  They deployed to a secret operational
headquarters area in the Antipodes Islands, 450 miles southeast
of New Zealand.  Their electromagnetic shields were operating to
provide protection from attack.  These shields make it impossible
to communicate with the outside world or even to see it, as I
explained last month; but once they arrived at the Antipodes, the
Stealth ships hooked up to buoys equipped with shielded
communication cables to the Island headquarters.  The Antipodes
headquarters, in turn, was in constant touch with the South
Georgia base by way of a transoceanic cable around the tip of
South America.  The deployment of the available ships of the
South Pacific Stealth fleet was exactly what the joint
Rockefeller-Russian planners had hoped for.  The ships had been
flushed out from their essentially invulnerable hiding place in
New Zealand!

   The British ship's sinking of April 14 was also followed by
other events.  On April 15 the Argentine Navy started moving out
of port.  The same day, Alexander Haig arrived again in Buenos
Aires.  Supposedly he was there as a diplomat, but in reality he
was there as a General, dealing with Generals.  Haig is the top
Governmental operative of the Rockefeller cartel, as I have
revealed in the past.  He was making sure that the Argentines did
not get cold feet and back down at that critical moment.  Four
days later, April 19, Haig left for Washington.  As he boarded
his plane, Haig somberly told reporters, "Time is running out." 
And so it was, my friends, for the secret South Georgia base.

   The very next day, April 20, the drill broke through into the
hollowed-out cavern of the naval base.  Bolshevik military
analysts in London had not expected that it could be completed
until at least the following weekend.  The British fleet was
still out of range.

   The weapon which the commando team inserted down through the
long hole was a small, compact Russian neutron bomb.  When it was
detonated inside the confines of the huge artificial cave, the
effects were devastating.  The intense radiation instantly killed
everyone inside the base.  Also the heat and blast effects of the
bomb are believed to have damaged all the ships inside
sufficiently to badly disable them.

   Meanwhile, Russian Cosmospheres and submarines were converging
on the Stealth ships which were near the Antipodes Islands
awaiting orders.  From a distance, the ships were invisible to
the eye due to their protective shields, which also protect
against beam-weapon attack; but they were sitting ducks for the
tactics which the Russians employed.

   Floating overhead, the Cosmospheres located the seven ships
using their Psychoenergetic Range-Finding equipment known as PRF. 
As I have reported in the past, there is no method known by which
PRF can be jammed.  The Cosmospheres radioed the exact locations
of the ships to the attack submarines.  The "subs" were armed
with special non-homing, non-nuclear torpedoes designed to
explode on impact.  More sophisticated torpedoes would have been
thrown off course or detonated prematurely by the protective
shield of each ship; but these simple torpedoes just cruise right
through each invisibility field to strike the ship and explode. 
Within 15 minutes after the attack began, all seven Bolshevik
Stealth ships were on their way to the bottom, and with them went
their Bolshevik Commanders and mercenary crews collected from
around the world.

   The South Pacific action took place just after sunset local
time.  The time here in Washington was around 2:00 P.M. April 23. 
That evening Secretary of State Haig was seen briefly in public
with the new British Foreign Minister, Francis Pym.  Pym was
wearing the artificial pseudo-smile which diplomats are taught
always to display in public.  But not Haig.  Haig was grinning
from ear to ear, and no wonder.  The joint Rockefeller-Russian
military operation had been a brilliant success.  The secret
Bolshevik South Atlantic fleet had been virtually wiped out,
bottled up inside South Georgia Island; and the South Pacific
fleet, while not totally wiped out, had been badly crippled.  By
working together, the Rockefeller cartel and the Russians had won
the secret naval war of the Southern Hemisphere.

Topic #3--As I say these words, news reports give the impression
that war is about to erupt in the South Atlantic, but the real
war in the Southern Hemisphere is already over.  What we are
watching now is the beginning of its bloody aftermath.  That
aftermath is the battle for the Falkland Islands.  They have been
promised to Argentina as a reward for her role in the secret war.

   At this moment the Bolsheviks here in Washington are pressing
for a public announcement that the United States will side with
Britain.  As soon as that takes place, military action will heat
up fast around the Falklands.  Britain has no choice but to
fight.  She has already suffered casualties which cannot be
explained without a public battle; but by fighting, the
Bolsheviks in Britain are running the risk of a humiliating and
tragic defeat for the Royal Navy.

   Meanwhile, the Rockefeller strategists here are now
concentrating on a fast-building, anti-nuclear-war campaign.  On
all sides now we are hearing about the so-called "nuclear freeze
movement."  There are documentaries, articles, publicity of all
kinds to sensitize us to the terrors of nuclear war.  In recent
months, there have even been referenda popping up on election
ballots dealing with the nuclear war issue.  Medical doctors are
banding together to warn the public about what would happen if
there were a nuclear war.

   We are being told that all this is just popping up
spontaneously.  We are now 37 years into the nuclear age and
nothing like this has ever gained so much momentum before, yet
now we are supposed to believe that millions of Americans have
spontaneously gotten the same ideas at the same time.  If you
believe that, my friends, I give up.  Movements like this never,
and I mean never, develop without leadership, organization, and
money--and plenty of it.

   What we are watching is the Rockefeller public relations
machine at work.  As I've explained in the past, the Rockefeller
cartel cannot afford to let a nuclear war take place.  If it
does, they will lose everything because they are not in a
position to control it.  Instead, the deadly enemies of the
Rockefeller cartel, the Bolsheviks here, will win out if there is
a war; and so the Rockefeller faction is now doing everything in
its power to prevent a nuclear war.

   The present anti-nuclear-war orientation of the Rockefeller
cartel creates certain temporary common interests between them
and Russia; but as Russia's new rulers know very well, this does
not spring from any great moral perspective on the part of the
Rockefeller group.  It's purely a matter of practical necessity
right now for the Rockefellers.

   The Russians regard the United States as a house divided, and
they are exploiting that division by working in careful ways with
the Rockefellers.  Their first priority is to rid the world of
the deadly Bolshevik menace of all-out, even suicidal, nuclear
war; but once that is done, they know that there will be a day of
reckoning with the Rockefeller cartel some day.

   The Rockefeller group is working toward a definite objective
with their new anti-nuclear-war propaganda.  That objective is
renewed power--and power that moves them closer to their old
dream of WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The Bolsheviks here have unwittingly
provided fertile ground for the powerful new Rockefeller antiwar
campaign.  Under Bolshevik control, the so-called Reagan
Administration has become so hawkish that it's scaring people. 
The Rockefeller antiwar campaign is designed to capitalize on
that latent fear as a tool of power.

   These days the smell of war is in the air.  The Falklands
crisis is helping to make that more intense.  The Rockefeller
propaganda machine is now paving the way for the argument that
surrender of sovereignty is the only way to avoid war.  A new
super-United Nations of sorts is now in the works to fill the
bill.  It will have teeth!  As presently envisioned, the new
organization will be based in Geneva, Switzerland.  The working
name, though this may be changed, is the "World Nonproliferation
Council."  The plan is to bring it into being as the outgrowth of
nuclear nonproliferation treaties, but its true purpose will be
to use fear--the fear of war--to control us all.

                       LAST MINUTE SUMMARY

   Now it's time for my Last Minute Summary.  In this AUDIO
LETTER I have reported on the reasons behind the so-called
Falkland Islands crisis.  The crisis erupted because of secret
Bolshevik-controlled naval installations in the Southern
Hemisphere.  These have been attacked by joint action of the
Rockefeller cartel and the Russians in an attempt to slow down
the nuclear-war timetable.  The attacks were successful, but the
results remain to be seen.  One result, though, is that the Royal
Navy has now been drawn into a trap.  Britain's Waterloo at sea
may well be at hand.

   My friends, two factions are struggling for control over our
United States--the Rockefeller cartel and the Bolsheviks.  They
differ in style but both seek to control us through fear.  If we
are ever to rise above their trickery, it must be through the
power of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only hope.  As the Scripture
tells us, our Lord "...has not given us the spirit of fear; but
of power, of love, and of a sound mind."  We must learn to wage
peace.  As our Lord declared long ago, "Blessed are the
peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God."

   Until next month, God willing, this is Dr. Beter.  Thank you,
and may God bless each and every one of you.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176938
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Supply-Sider Lightbulb Joke

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> There was once the following joke:

> How many supply-siders does it take to screw in a light bulb?

> None.  They let the free market do it.

If the free market places an attractive price on the screwing in of a
light bulb, you can bet your bottom dollar that the light bulb will
most certainly get screwed in -- and most promptly at that, too.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176939
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

_TOO_ many.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176940
From: MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr5.233224.10069@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>,
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) says:
>
>In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP> a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:
>)MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes:
>)
>)
>)>The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE
>)>to submit to sexual intercourse."
>)
>)Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states
>)had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised
>)as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but
>)was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only,
>)uniformly throughout the U.S.
>
>I agree mostly with Chris.  It is (unfortunately, IMO) true that the *FBI*
>figures for rape based on the 'uniform crime report' report only female
>rapes. However, some states (such as Illinois) are not tabluated because they
>refuse to comply with this sexist definition!
>--
>The worms crawl in
>The worms crawl out
>The worms post to the net from your account

Insofar as several "liberal" jurisdictions are concerned, the essential
elements of rape are gender neutral. Nonetheless, I decided to provide
a number of references to support my original argument. Black's Law
Dictionary (every law student/lawyer's friend) defines rape as: Unlawful
sexual intercourse with a female without her consent. The unlawful
knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and against her will. The Model
Penal Code (the statute proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners
of Uniform State Laws or other organization for adoption by state legislatures)
defines rape as: A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife
is guilty of rape if he (a) compels her to submit by force or by threat of
imminent death.... (MPC @213.1(1)(a))

Indeed the following jurisdictions/states have statutes similar to the MPC:

Alabama-- Code of Ala. @13A-6-61 (1992)
Arkansas--Ark.Stat.Ann. @5-14-103 (1993)
District of Columbia--D.C. Code @22-2801 (1992)
Georgia--O.F.G.A. @16-6-1 (1992)
Idaho--Idaho Code @18-6101 (1992)
Maryland--Md.Ann.Code.Art. 27 @462 (1992)
Mississippi--Miss.Code Ann. @97-3-71 (1993)
New York (check case law)--N.Y.C.L.S. Penal @130.35 (1993)
North Carolina--N.C. Gen.Stat. @14-27-2 (1992)
Puerto Rico--L.P.R.A. @4062 (1993)

Ta,

Martina

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176941
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Availability With Russian Press 4.4.93





                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                  (Vancouver, British Columbia)
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                               April 4, 1993

	     
                PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
                        WITH RUSSIAN PRESS
	     
                           Canada Place
                   Vancouver, British Columbia



2:46 P.M. PDT

	     	  
	     Q	  I had two questions for both Presidents, so you 
could probably answer for Boris, too.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'll give you my answer, then I'll 
give you Yeltsin's answer.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  The first is that this is the meeting of the 
Presidents, so the money that's being promised is government 
money, and naturally it's going to be distributed through the 
government.  But you've indicated that three-quarters are going 
to be going to businesses.  So the question is how the Russian 
businesses themselves are going to be consulted, if ever?  What 
are the priorities, because there are several association of 
Russian businessmen existing already, so will they be invited to 
participate in setting up priorities for investment?  
	     
	     This is the first.  And second, to you.  We know 
that polls, public polls in America do not show that Americans 
are very enthusiastic about giving this aid.  Like Newsweek polls 
say that about 75 percent don't approve it, and New York Times 
published that 52 percent support if it just prevents civil war; 
42 percent if it fosters democratic reform; and only 29 percent 
if it just personally supports Yeltsin.  How are you going to 
sort of handle this problem that Americans themselves are not 
very enthusiastic?  Thank you.
	     
	     Q	  I have a question, I'm sorry -- is there going 
to be a translation of everything into Russian?  No, just the 
answers.  Just the answers.  Okay.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  The answer to the first question is, 
it depends on what kind of aid we're discussing.  For example, 
the funds that will be set up for financing new businesses will 
obviously go to those businesses who apply and who seem to be 
good risks and make the application.  The privatization fund will 
be used to support the privatization of existing public 
enterprises.  Then there are some other general funds in the 
Democracy Corps and other things which people in Russia will have 
some influence over the distribution of.  
	     
	     With regard to your second question, let me say that 
I would think that there would be people in both countries who 
would not feel too warmly toward simply the American government 
giving money to the Russian government.  There's opposition to 
that in Russia.  And in our country, throughout our whole history 
there has been an opposition to foreign aid of all kinds.  That 
is, this has nothing to do with Russia.  If you look at the whole 
history of America, any kind of aid program has always been 
unpopular.  
	     
	     What I have tried to tell the American people is, is 
this is not an aid program, this is an investment program; that 
this is an investment in our future.  We spent $4 trillion --
trillion -- on armaments on soldiers and other investments 
because of the Cold War.  Now, with a democratic government in 
Russia, with the newly independent states, the remainder of them 
working on a democracy and struggling to get their economies 
going, it seems to me very much in our interest to make it 
possible to do whatever we can for democracy to survive, for the 
economy of Russia to grow because of the potential for trade and 
investment there, and for us to continue the effort to reduce 
nuclear weapons and other elements of hostility on both sides, on 
our side and on the Russian side.  
	     
	     So I don't see this as an aid program; this is an 
investment for the United States.  This is very much in the 
interest of the United States.  The things I announced today, the 
second stage of the program, which I hope to put together next 
week, in my view are things that are good for my country and for 
the taxpayers and workers of my country.  
	     
	     Russia is a very great nation that needs some 
partnership now, some common endeavor with other people who share 
her goals.  But it would be a great mistake for anyone to view 
this as some sort of just a charity or an aid issue.  That's not 
what it is, it's an investment for America and it's a wonderful 
investment.  
	     
	     Like all investments, there is some risk.  But 
there's far less risk with a far greater potential of return than 
the $4 trillion we spent looking at each other across the barrier 
of the Cold War.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, first of all thank you very 
much, indeed, for coming here and talking to us.  In the memory 
of the living correspondents, this is the first time an American 
President is doing this to the Russian press corps, so it's kind 
of a very measured breakthrough.  
	     
	     I have two questions.  One, in your introductory 
remarks of the other press conference, you mentioned in brief 
that you discussed the START II and START I issues.  Could you 
tell us:  Did you reach an agreement with President Yeltsin as to 
what might be done in order to have Ukraine join the ratification 
of START I and the NPT regime?  And my second question is, how 
confident you are that the United States Congress would be eager 
to support you in lifting Jackson-Vanik and other restrictions 
inherited from the Cold War?  
	     
	     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  First, we discussed the issue of 
Ukraine with regard to START I and NPT, and generally, with 
regard to the need to proceed to have the other independent 
states all be non-nuclear; but also to have the United States 
develop strong relationships with them.  We know that one thing 
that we could do that would increase, I think, the willingness of 
the Ukraine to support this direction is to successfully conclude 
our own negotiations on highly enriched uranium, because that 
would provide not only an important economic opportunity for 
Russia, but also for Ukraine, and it would show some reaching out 
on our part.  But we agreed that basically the people who signed 
off on the Lisbon Protocol have got to honor what they did, and 
we agreed to continue to press that.
	     
	     I, myself, have spent a good deal of time trying to 
reassure Ukraine's leaders, specifically the President and the 
Foreign Minister, that I want strong ties with Ukraine, that the 
United States very much wants a good relationship with Ukraine, 
but that, in order to do what we need to do together to 
strengthen the economy of Ukraine and to have the United States 
be fully supportive, the commitment to ratify START I and to join 
the NPT regime is critical.
	     
	     What was the second question?  
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  With regard to Jackson-Vanik and 
COCOM, I would make two points:  First, I have agreed with the 
Republican and Democratic leaders in the Congress that we will, 
as soon as I return, have a list of all the legislative and other 
restrictions, some of them are regulatory in nature, imposed on 
relations between the United States and Russia, that are legacies 
of the Cold War.  And we will see whether they're -- how many of 
them we could agree to do away with right now, at least among the 
leadership of the Congress.
	     
	     With regard to Jackson-Vanik, I think there will be 
an openness to change the law if the Congress is convinced there 
are, in fact, no more refusniks, no more people who wish to 
emigrate who are not being allowed to.  If the fact is that there 
is no one there who would have been -- who the law was designed 
to affect, then I think that the desire to keep the law will be 
much less.
	     
	     With regard to COCOM, my guess is, and it's nothing 
more than a guess, that the leadership of Congress and indeed my 
own advisers, might prefer to see some sort of phased movement 
out of the COCOM regime.  But I think they would be willing to 
begin it in the fairly near future.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. Clinton, when I read your speech in 
Annapolis, I got the impression that you have a completely 
different personal -- and I stress that -- personal, not 
political approach towards Russia, compared to the approach of 
Mr. Bush.  Could you formulate in a few words, what is the 
difference between you as a personality and your approach -- the 
difference between your approach to Russia and the approach of 
Mr. Bush?  And who made you -- why did you cite Akhmatova in the 
last part of your speech?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me say, first, I do not wish to 
compare myself with President Bush or anyone else.  I can't say 
what was in his heart about Russia.  I can say that since I was a 
boy, I have been personally fascinated with the history, the 
music and the culture, and the literature of Russia.  I have been 
thrilled by Russian music since I was a serious student of music 
for more than 30 years now.  I have read major Russian novelists 
and many of your poets and followed your ballet and tried to know 
as much as I could about your history.  
	     
	     And I went to the Soviet Union -- but it was then 
the Soviet Union -- you may know it was a big issue in the last 
presidential campaign that I spent the first week of 1970 alone 
in Moscow and did not return again until three days before Mr. 
Yeltsin was elected President.  But all that time I was away, I 
was following events there very closely and hoping for the day 
when we could be genuine partners.  So I have always had a 
personal feeling about Russia.  
	     
	     I remember, for example -- a lot of you know I like 
music very much.  One of the most moving experiences for me as a 
musician was when Leonard Bernstein took the New York 
Philharmonic to Moscow and played Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony 
to the Russians.  And he played the last movement more rapidly 
than anyone had ever played it before because it was technically 
so difficult.  That is something I followed very closely when it 
occurred.  
	     
	     These are things that have always had a big impact 
on my life.  And I had just always hoped that someday, if I ever 
had the chance to, I could play a role in seeing our two 
countries become closer partners.  (Applause.)
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                               END3:06 P.M. PDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176942
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Public Schedule of the President 4.5.93



                        THE WHITE HOUSE 

                  Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                        April 5, 1993




                PUBLIC SCHEDULE OF THE PRESIDENT
                     TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1993



11:15 AM EST   	    PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS REMARKS with 
                    Egyptian President Mubarek, the East Room, 
                    The White House

               	    Open Press




                FUTURE SCHEDULE OF THE PRESIDENT


APRIL 16, 1993 	    PRESIDENT CLINTON MEETS with Japanese Prime 
                    Minister Miyazawa, the White House


APRIL 26, 1993 	    PRESIDENT CLINTON MEETS with Italian 
                    President Amato, the White House

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176943
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Losers (Was Re: Stop putting down white het males.)

In article <1939@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)        writes...
>In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>>In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>>>  I don't know what you as a white male did. I do know what white males,
>>>as a class, have done.
>>>  They've invented the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, printing with
>>>movable type, photography, computers, the electric guitar. anasthesia, rocket
>>>powered space flight, the computer, electricity, the telephone, TV, motion
>>>pictures, penecillin(sp), telescopes, nylon, and the X-Ray machine.
>>
>>Two glaring errors here.  First, white males don't do anything as a "class." 
>>INDIVIDUAL white males invented those things, which means nothing to white
>>males as a whole.  Second, you neglected to mention Charles Manson, Hitler,
>>McCarthy, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and a whole slew of individuals who
>>have done horrible, evil things.  If white males can take the credit for
>>our fellow white males' boons, we must also take the blame for our
>>fellows' blights.  I claim we deserve neither credit nor blame for these
>>things.
>
>>White males need to wake up and realize that they're being unfair, yes.  But
>>everyone else needs to wake up and realize that being unfair right back is
>>disgusting, racist and sexist.
>>Why can't we learn to treat everyone fairly, without generalizing?  What
>>stupidity gene makes this so difficult?  "I'd like to buy the world a
>>clue..." 
> 
>	The word that is missing in this whole discourse is not the "B"
>word, or the "H" word, or even the "N" or "W" words. It is the "L" word -
>LOSER !!
> 
>	That's right. When we boil all the crap out of this argument, it
>is all about WINNING and LOSING, and nothing else. Let me explain.
>	In the meantime, there is guilt for winning, maybe a fear that one
>doesn't deserve one's bounty - or success. So there is a "kinder and gentler
>type of politician these days, Bill Clinton, affirmative action, and lots of
>discourse about people who "don't get it". For those of us in the winning
>business, this kind of talk is mildly irritating, but there is still no 
>suggestion of losing.
>	Who is D-FENS, anyway ? The answer is as plain as the horn rims on 
>your face. The guy is MICHAEL DOUGLAS, posing as a LOSER. This 
>is known as controversial casting. But that baggy short-sleeved white shirt 
>sure does look natural on Mike doesn't it. Gordon Gekko will never look the 
>same. (Though Woody always dressed that way.) Did we really expect Gekko to 
>take it easy and enjoy that kind of wardrobe, without putting up a fuss ?
>	What we are starting to lose sight of is, that bashing D-FENS is 
>the same game as bashing that poor African American slug that Clint Eastwood
>used to blow away all the time. As that arch-WASP (male gender) George C. Scott
>declaimed, "Americans traditionally LOVE TO WIN. They love a winner, and will 
>not tolerate a loser." And so on. 

Since we are talking in theory and opinion, then I'll put in my $.02.
	First, a rebuttle. Personally, I love under-dogs. Unlike 
bandwagon jumpers, I abandon teams when they start winning. People that
cheer for winners just because they are winners are insecure people who are
afraid to be associated with something negative.

>	The political implications are simple. If, as many socialists - and
>Democrats - do, you consider society a finite pie to a apportioned in some 
>"equitable" way, then you have to worry about who is a winner and who is a 
>loser to tell whose side you are on. That could be black women today, Asian
>homosexuals tommorrow, and yes indeed, white men some yet to be determined
>day when the balance of the pie has finally swung against that (39%) 
>minority.

On this one point, I agree. The reason that people bash WASP's is 
because they have been on top for a long time. Whoever is on top is
going to oppress whoever is below them so that they can stay on top.
If Hannibal had pushed on to Rome after his victory at Cannae we might
all be bashing the blacks for oppressing us peacefull white people 
for all these centuries. I seriously doubt that if the blacks had 
conquered the world that they would have treated their colonies any
better/worse than the whites did.
	The white race did some unspeakable things to the other races of
the world. But they only did what any other conquering race would have done
(ie. Khan). The real question is, should we carry over that blame to the
present generation who didn't participate in the crimes? Would it do 
any good? Has it done Bosnia any good? They are fighting wars that stopped
hundreds, even thousands, of years ago. 
	My opinion is, if there are inequities now, then let's change
them. But don't blame me for what my ancestors did. It wouldn't settle
anything anyway.

>	Either way you go, the way of the Winner is no longer the way to be
>popular - at least after you graduate from High School (but you'll still
>be popular at High School reunions). But it beats being a Nerd, as I 
>would imagine Michael Douglas would now agree, and in the long run, it
>is the only way to go.

That's where you are dead wrong. You don't join up on a side just because
they are winning. That makes you spineless. Winning, in high school and
after high school, is still the best way to be popular, but it doesn't make
you right. All the best causes in history were loosing causes (with only
a couple exceptions). Winning only makes a difference to other people, not
to yourself. And what good is the opinions of other people if they only care
how you appear (ie. a Winner).

	If you can't beat them, fight them every inch of the way. 

>Bill R.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At that moment the bottom fell out of Authur's mind.          Garrett Johnson
 His eyes turned inside out. His feet began to leak out     Garrett@Ingres.com
 of the top of his head. The room folded flat around him, 
 spun around, shifted out of existence and left him sliding
 into his own naval." - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176944
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.5.93






                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                   April 5, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS


                          The Briefing Room


 10:10 A.M. EDT
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know, the President is soon 
to be on his way, on Amtrack to Camden Yards.  He'll be throwing out 
the first pitch.
	     
	     Q	  It's MARC, the Maryland Area Transit, it's not 
Amtrack.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, it's not Amtrack?  Well, he's 
going from Union Station, you're right.  Excuse me.
	     
	     Q	  George, what exactly are you prepared to do to 
break the logjam with  ??? Senate?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, as you know, there are 
discussions between Senator Mitchell and Senator Dole this morning, 
and I think that the President is going to continue to make the point 
that he believes that our investment package, our jobs package needs 
to be passed as quickly as possible.  We need this investment for 
summer jobs, for immunization, for highway construction, for the 
important programs that will put people back to work right away this 
summer.  And the President continues to believe his program should be 
passed.
	     
	     Q	  Will he compromise, that's the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, as you know, the discussions 
are going on this morning in the Senate betwen Senator Mitchell and 
Senator Dole, let's see what they come up with.  But the President 
believes his jobs program should go forward.
	     
	     Q	  George, would the President be willing to accept $8 
billion for one year, which apparently appears to be the compromise 
being offered by --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I don't know what is being 
offered by either side.  The Senate discussions are going on right 
now, let's see what happens today.
	     
	     Q	  Would he go that far -- no matter what the 
Republicans have offered so far, would he go that far, $8 billion per 
year?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that his 
program should be passed at this time.  Clearly, we're going to be 
willing to listen to what the Senators might or might not be able to 
come up with, but I'm not going to get into figures right now.  Let's 
see what happens.
	     
	     Q	  It's reasonable to assume, isn't it, from what has 
happened so far that a compromise is going to be necessary in order 
to get a vote?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the Republicans seem more 
intrested in stopping progress on the President's jobs bill, than in 
doing something to create --  MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the 
Republicans seem more interested in stopping progress on the 
President's jobs bill than in doing something to create real action, 
real jobs this summer for the American people.  I think there's no 
question about that.  There's been some frustration of legislative 
activity over the last few days.
	     
	     Q	  So, you'll need to compromise to get your package 
through?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We'll see what happens with the 
conversations between Senator Mitchell and Senator Dole this morning.
	     
	     Q	     prepared to compromise --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President's prepared to listen 
to what Senator Mitchell has to say this morning after his meeting 
with Senator Dole. 
	     
	     Q	  Does he feel that he has been defeated in his --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not in the least.  In fact, he's 
been very successful so far in the beginning of his term.
	     
	     Q	  How?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He passed his budget in record 
time, in six weeks, and it's a budget which reduces the deficit by 
$500 billion over five years.  And it's a budget which provides for 
important investments in our future.  Right now we've also had strong 
passage of his jobs program through the House.  Simply because a 
minority of Republicans in the Senate choose to perpetuate gridlock 
and hold up action on the President's jobs program is not a sign that 
he is not succeeding overall.
	     
	     Q	  He can't beat this, can he?
	     
	     Q	  The fact is they can do that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the Republicans can stop 
action.  There's no question about that.
	     
	     Q	  What are you going to do about it?
	     
	     Q	  George, what do you know about these alleged notes 
taken by Boris Yeltsin during one of the meetings in which it appears 
that the President told Boris Yeltsin not to trust the Japanese; that 
when they say yes they mean no?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's a complete 
misreading of what happened at the meeting.  The context of the 
conversation was that President Clinton was actually reassuring 
President Yeltsin at the time about his conversations with Prime 
Minister Miyazawa over the Kuril Islands and the Prime Minister's 
belief that Japan would play a constructive role in the G-7 process.  
I mean this was a casual comment about Japanese courtesy and 
etiquette but overall it was in the context of a conversation where 
he was reassuring President Yeltsin that he believed the Japanese 
were serious about their commitment to the G-7 process.
	     
	     Q	   Are you saying that the President said that when 
the Japanese say yes they mean no?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's not -- I don't know the 
exact words and there was a much longer discussion about he did say 
something along the lines that he believes that on this issue Prime 
Minister Miyazawa intends to really go forward with the G-7 process.
	     
	     Q	  Have there been any attempts to explain this to the 
Japanese because apparently the Japanese press has picked this up and 
there appears to be --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I've seen the reports in the 
Japanese press and it actually does put the situation in context.  It 
does talk about the Japanese -- understanding the Japanese points of 
view.  I don't think it's going to be a problem.  I believe that 
there may have been some diplomatic context just to clear things up 
but I'm not positive.
	     
	     Q	  George, was the specific comment that was made 
specific to the Kuril Island situation or was it a general 
observation on Japanese etiquette?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The discussion was about --
	     
	     Q	  The specific comment is what I'm asking about that 
has alleged to have been translated from the Russian notes, "when the 
Japanese say yes they mean no."
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, it was a combination.  I mean 
I don't think that's the whole sentence.  I think that the specific 
comment was a broad, general observation followed up by a specific 
finish to the sentence where he said in this case he believes that 
Prime Minister Miyazawa means to keep the commitment.
	     
	     Q	  Was he saying it facetiously first?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was just a casual 
observation.
	     
	     Q	  And then you say diplomatic contacts were made to 
clear it up.  Has the President sent a message?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, I don't think the President 
spoke; I believe that Secretary Christopher has made some calls but 
I'm not sure exactly how many.
	     
	     Q	  Well, this obviously is a bigger deal than you're 
making it out to be if Christopher has had to make some calls.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no.  It was just that we got 
the reports in Vancouver and the Secretary wanted to make sure that 
it was understood and make sure there was absolutely no 
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- reports in Vancouver, and the 
Secretary wanted to make sure that it was understood, and make sure 
there is absolutely no misunderstanding, and I don't believe there is 
on.
	     
	     Q	  What is our position about the Japanese?  That they 
may have to say one thing, but actualy mean another?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  The position on the Japanese 
is as the President stated to President Yeltsin throughout the two 
days.  He said that he had had a good conversation with Prime 
Minister Miazawa prior to the Summit.  He reiterated the U.S. 
position, the long-standing support for the Japanese position on the 
Kuril Islands, but also reiterated Prime Minister Miazawa's 
commitment to move forward on the G-7 process and to play a 
constructive role.  And I think President Yeltsin was very glad to 
hear that.
	     
	     Q	  After listening to Secretary Christopher on Iraq 
for the last few days, I'm a little confused.  What is the U.S. 
policy?  Do you want to see Saddam Hussein overturned?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's the same policy that Secretary 
Christopher has reiterated, and all of the U.S officials have 
reiterated.  We expect full and complete and unequivocal compliance 
with all U.N. resolutions.  Right now we do not have that compliance.
	     
	     Q	     throwing it out further that if Iraq complies, 
Saddam can't stay in office?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.  I think that that's -- our 
judgment is that it is not possible for Saddam Hussein to comply with 
the resolutions and stay in power.  But the important point is that 
we expect compliance by Iraq with all U.N. resolutions, and we will 
continue to demand it.
	     
	     Q	  And are you concerned the Iran will become the 
dominant power in the area --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Secretary Christopher has also 
spoken to Iran over the last several days, and he says we also expect 
full Iranian compliance with all international norms, and stopping 
support of terrorism.
	     
	     Q	  That's a very glib statement that he won't stay in 
power if he complies with U.N. resolutions.  On what logic do you 
base that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right now Saddam Hussein is not 
complying with the U.N. resolutions at all.  He is not respecting the 
rights of his people, as is required by the U.N. resolution.  He is 
not fully complying with all the resolutions regarding inspections.  
He is not fully complying with all the resolutions regarding 
armaments.
	     
	     Q	  Well, when do you think that if he did comply he 
would be out of power?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, right now his power rests on 
the repression of his people.  If he stopped doing that it would make 
it more difficult for him to stay in power.
	     
	     Q	  George, back on the stimulus package, why is it 
that you and the President accuse the Republicans of playing pure 
politics and perpetuating gridlock?  Why is it that -- what evidence 
do you have that they just don't have a genuine idealogical 
difference with you that's in good faith?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the fact that several times 
in the past the Republicans, many of the ones who are now leading the 
fight for the filibuster, have supported the very funding they now 
seek to stop, most especially, the highway funding.  
	     
	     Q	  George, in regards to that, some of the moderate 
Republicans said that the White House erred by not being more open to 
them during the -- while the plan was put together, that they had 
one, sort of, proforma meeting between the White House and the Senate 
Republicans, and that was it.  Does the Administration look back and 
thinks perhaps it could have done a better job of working with some -
-
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I'm not sure that it's true 
that there was only one meeting.  I mean, the President met with the 
Republican leadership on at least two occasions before the 
introduction of his package.  He met with the entire Senate 
Republican Caucus also for lunch, and went up there.  We are 
continually in contact with as many Republicans as we can find who 
have an interest in the President's package.  We are interested in 
what they have to say, as well.  But we believe that this program is 
important, and we're going to continue to fight for it.
	     
	     Q	     your all or nothing, do it with the Democrats 
alone strategy, did you maybe miscalculate the ability to get it 
through?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I mean, I think that there is 
no question that under the Senate rules a determined minority can 
frustrate activity.  I mean, there is just no question about that.  
You only need 40 plus one to keep going.  40 plus one to keep going 
and to stop any action, and that's what the Republicans are doing.
	     
	     Q	     going to rethink the way you attempt to get 
other things passed as you go through this process for the rest of 
the summer?
	     
	     Q	     work with Republicans and try to woo some 
Republicans into your camp?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we're going to continue to 
look for the support of Republicans whenever we can get it on the 
President's intiatives?
	     
	     Q	  But on this one -- how are you going to do it 
differently than you did it on this one because on this one you 
really did stiff the Republicans from the beginning and made it clear 
that it was a Democratic majority that would get this through and 
could get it through and you really didn't need Republican votes?  
Are you going to take a different tack when you have to go for 
particular votes?  When you have to go through --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't see into the future and 
understand every possible turn in the legislative road.  Clearly the 
President's going to continue to reach out when he can.
	     
	     Q	  You don't have any regrets then about the way you 
have handled it up to now and you don't plan any changes in your 
approach in dealing with the Republicans in Congress based on this 
experience?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Obviously the President would like 
his package passed as quickly as possible and he's going to continue 
to press for that.  We will continue to reach out to Republicans, 
there's not question about that.  And we'll continue to reason with 
them and try and find appropriate avenues for cooperation.  In this 
case the Republicans have chosen to unify around a filibuster, around 
a plan to frustrate action not a plan to move forward.
	     
	     Q	  They're being denied any other legislative means of 
putting their proposals forward.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think they're being --
	     
	     Q	     any ideas.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think their amendments are being 
defeated; I don't know that they're being denied.
	     
	     Q	     to present them.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's not exactly true.  I mean 
they get the votes --
	     
	     Q	     that theirs can be passed though by the 
parliamentary rules under which they're playing.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Unless they get a majority in 
support all the way around, no, that's not exactly true.
	     
	     Q	  George, one more on Iraq.  Is the administration 
backing any of the Iraqi opposition?  Grooming any new leadership?
	     
	     Q	     backing any of the Iraqi -- leadership?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, I -- again, we're pressing for 
Iraqi compliance.  I don't know if we can get into the business of 
grooming leadership.  I believe there have been some contacts, at 
some levels, with Iraqi opposition groups.  I don't know  about 
anything recently.
	     
	     Q	     Jesse Jackson, who, of course, is not the 
President's best friend, has, however, been told that there is to be 
some kind of town meeting, or some kind of involvement by the 
President, pre-empted the ball game -- Los Angeles.  Will he consider 
something like that, or any other kind of intervention there?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, as you know, the President 
appointed Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, about 10 days ago, to be a 
special envoy to California, and coordiante cabinet activities around 
the California economic situation, including the situation in Los 
Angeles.  
	     
	     I believe there will also be visits out to Los Angeles 
by the Education -- or have been visits by the Education Secretary, 
Mr. Riley.  I believe that Transportation Secretary Pena and HUD 
Secretary Cisneros are also going out.  And there may be other visits 
by Cabinet officials over the next several days and weeks.  I 
wouldn't rule out the possibility of a visit by President Clinton to 
California.  Obviously, he is following the situation closely, and is 
concerned about making sure that we make the right long term policy 
decisions that will help create the kind of economic opportunities 
which help prevent disturbances.  But we're going to continue to 
watch it.
	     
	     Q	  George, as a follow-up, Reverend Jackson is also 
supposed to be outside the ball park today, in Baltimore, with a 
group of supporters protesting the lack of minorities in baseball 
management.  Does the President have a position on that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has received 
correspondence from Reverend Jackson.  I know that Reverend Jackson 
has also spoken with the White House Chief of Staff, Mack McLarty.  
He clearly raises serious questions.  There has been some progress in 
baseball over the last several years, but still not enough.  But the 
President intends to continue to go to the ball game.
	     
	     Q	  Is he going to say anything about it today, or see 
Reverend Jackson while he's out there?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if he is going to see 
them, but as I said, the President believes that Reverend Jackson has 
raised some serious questions, and it's something that, as I said, 
even though there has been progress, it's clearly not enough.
	     
	     Q	  Did Reverend Jackson ask him not to go to the ball 
game?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure about that.  I believe 
the characterization the Reverend Jackson is talking about is an 
informational pickett.  I don't know that he asked him not to go to 
the ball game, but he sent a long, detailed, formal letter outlining 
his concerns with the situation in major league baseball and the 
President read it.
	     
	     Q	  George, the Orioles are playing the Rangers, the 
managing partner of the Rangers is George W. Bush.  Is he going to be 
there, and is he going to meet with the President?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.
	     
	     Q	  What is the Mubarak schedule?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I know that President Mubarak is 
coming tomorrow morning for a working meeting, they will have a 
lunch, and I believe that he is having dinner tonight with Vice 
President Gore.
	     
	     Q	  And joint statements tomorrow --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe so, yes.  At the end, 
yes.
	     
	     Q	  Is there evidence, George, that the Egyptians did 
warn the U.S. about a potential terrorist bombing -- terrorist 
activities?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As reported in The New York Times, 
I mean, I think that President Mubarak did say that there has been 
general conversations with the Egyptians, as there have been for a 
long period of time.  We do have general intelligence sharing, I 
mean.  But President Mubarak was very careful to point out that there 
was no specific information on this visit that was passed forward.  
The President will continue to investigate the situation, but he also 
reiterates his belief that we cannot tolerate terrorism of any kind.
	     
	     Q	  George, he did make specific -- or the Egyptians, 
apparently, did issue specific warnings about this individual who, 
forgive me --this individual who, forgive me the name escapes me at 
the moment, and said the Egyptians were more or less rebuffed in 
their attempts to get some kind of action.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know if I would 
agree with your characterization of the Mubarak interview.  He did 
say that they gave general warnings about the possibility of a 
network in the United States and upon which we took appropriate 
action.  But there was no specific information on this specific 
operation at all.
	     
	     Q	  So, the White House doesn't feel that any of the 
law enforcement agencies whether it be the CIA or FBI who would have 
received this kind of information was lax or derelict in its duty in 
not pursuing some kind of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, not at all.
	     
	     Q	  What's next with Serbia?  It got only a passing 
mention in the news conference yesterday --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  You didn't get to ask your 
question.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, exactly.  Was there any agreement on concerted 
action between the two countries?  And even if there wasn't, what 
does the U.S. do next?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the U.S. is clearly going 
to move forward in the U.N. today continuing discussions with our 
allies on a sanctions resolution and we'll continue to look for ways 
to press the Serbians to come to the negotiating table and sign an 
agreement.
	     
	     Q	  George, why do you think sanctions is still an 
option?  I mean the Serbians make it clear that at least the 
leadership is surviving just fine and they feel like they can wait 
you out and even the administration officials we had in the other day 
said there's no evidence that they're going to have an effect any 
time soon.  The Bosnian Serbs have said no to the peace plan.  When 
does no mean no and you have to do something different?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I mean we are doing something 
different.  We're moving forward on further sanctions through the 
U.N. and those discussions will continue.  We're going to continue to 
try and tighten the noose on Serbia, and I think that every 
opportunity we have to do that will have an effect over time.
	     
	     Q	  Are we looking again at lifting the arms embargo? 
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has said that this is something 
that is under consideration.
	     
	     Q	  George, do you have any more on Hugh Rodham's 
condition, how he's doing?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As far as I know nothing's changed.
	     
	     Q	  George, -- week after Mr. Mubarak?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's a little unclear.  I think 
we'll be able to get you more either tonight or tomorrow morning 
after the Mubarak visit.
	     
	     Q	  Is he going somewhere for Easter?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not that I know of.
	     
	     Q	  What more can you tell us about the additional aid 
to Russia that the President plans to ask Congress about?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's going to be consulting with 
the Congress and with our G-7 partners over the next couple of weeks.  
I know that he spoke last evening with Congressman Gephardt and their 
delegation before the -- the congressional delegation meets with the 
Russians this week and those consultations will continue over the 
next several weeks.
	     
	     Q	  Do you expect that package to be of the magnitude 
of the one announced Sunday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not going to discuss the 
magnitude.
	     
	     Q	  How about the list of Cold War restrictions, where 
do you stand on that --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As the President said yesterday, 
he's going to be looking for that list from the Congress this week 
and reviewing it.  He believes -- he's going to try and get it this 
week and he's going to review the list, and we're going to take a 
hard look at it.
	     
	     Q	  But they're making it up?  I mean it's no White 
House involvement, Congress is compiling this list?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he's going to talk to the 
congressional leaders about compiling the list but I'm certain we'll 
be able to get our own researchers working as well.
	     
	     Q	  George, isn't lifting the arms embargo more of a 
probability than a possibility?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's something that's under 
discussion.
	     
	     Q	  Secretary Christopher has said that it's a matter 
of time and -- for months before that happens.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, all I can say is that it's 
something that the President is reviewing.  Right now we're working 
with our allies in the U.N on a sanctions resolution, and we'll 
continue to review other matters.
	     
	     Q	  George, can you tell us anything about the schedule 
this week?  Any travel?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They just asked about that.  I 
don't have anything more beyond tomorrow's visit with Mubarak right 
now.
	     
	     Q	  Are there consultations, George, with any Jewish 
American organizations concerning Jackson-Vanick?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know the National Conference 
of Soviet Jewry has a list of, I believe, 
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- as you know, the National 
Conference of Soviet Jewry has a list of, I believe, 200 Refuseniks.  
We'll certainly take a look at that and continue appropriate 
discussions.
	     
	     Thanks.


                                 ###



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176945
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks on Trip to Baltimore 4.5.93






                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 5, 1993 

                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
        EN ROUTE TO CAMDEN YARDS FOR ORIOLES OPENING DAY GAME
	     
                              MARC Train
                       En Route to Camden Yards



11:45 A.M. EDT
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, what do you think of Jesse Jackson's 
protest today?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think it's an informational protest.  
I think it's fine.  The owners put out a statement few days ago, 
which they say was the first step in, you know, efforts to increase 
minority ownership and minority increases in management.  I think we 
should.  I'm encouraged by Don Baylor's appointment out in Colorado.  
And I think it's time to make a move on that front.  So, I think it's 
a legitimate issue, and I think it's -- like I said, it's an 
informational picket and not an attempt to get people not to go to 
the game.  So, I think it's good.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think they're moving fast enough?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that it was a good first 
step.  And I think you'll see some movement now.  And I think it's an 
issue that deserves some attention, and they're obviously going to 
give it some.  And I think that Reverend Jackson being out there will 
highlight the issue.  So I think it's fine.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, how about the logjam in the Senate 
on the economic stimulus plan?  Do you think they'll be able to break 
that and get cloture?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't know, we're working at it.  I 
mean, it's a classic -- there was an article in the paper today, one 
of the papers I saw, which pretty well summed it up.  They said, you 
know, this is a -- it's just a political power play.  In the Senate 
the majority does not rule.  It's not like the country.  It's not 
like the -- it's not like the House.  If the minority chooses, they 
can stop majority rule.  And that's what they're doing.  There are a 
lot of Republican senators who have told people that they might vote 
for the stimulus program but there's enormous partisan political 
pressure not to do it.  
	     
	     And, of course, what it means is that in this time when 
no new jobs are being created, even though there seems to be an 
economic recovery, it means that for political purposes they're 
willing to deny jobs to places like Baltimore and Dallas and Houston 
and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Portland and Seattle.  It's very 
sad.  I mean, the block grant program was designed to create jobs in 
a hurry based on local priorities, and it's one that the Republicans 
had always championed.  Just about the only Democrat champions of the 
program were people like me who were out there at the grassroots 
level, governors and senators.  I just think it's real sad that they 
have chosen to exert the minority muscle in a way that will keep 
Americans out of work.  I think it's a mistake.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END11:50 A.M. EDT

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176946
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for Evidence, Mr. Cramer

In article <mortalC4wxLn.8s2@netcom.com>, mortal@netcom.com (Sam Lowry) writes:
> In article <15033@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Mar19.142816.15709@rational.com>, kima@excalibur.Rational.com (Kim Althoff) writes:
> >> In article <14992@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## # Gay men constitute at least 20% of all child molestations.  Whether
# ## # this is because gay molesters are unusually common, or have unusually
# ## # high numbers of victims, sort of misses the point, doesn't it?  It
# ## # means that whichever is the case, homosexual men are remarkably
# ## # hazardous to children.
# #
# Clayton says:
# #
# #You are incorrect.  The most recent survey data I can find shows that
# #26% of molestation is exclusively homosexuals, 4% is bisexual (victims
# #are both male and female), and the remainder is exclusively heterosexual.

#     So what you are saying is that 74% of the child molestations are 
#   committed by heterosexuals. I cannot see the correlation you cite

Bisexuals are heterosexuals?  Since when?

#   which concludes that by being homosexual, you will molest children or that
#   by being homosexual you will have the propensity for molesting children.

I haven't said that "homosexual = child molester," simply that is more
likely.

#   If 26% of the molestations are by homosexuals, why are you so concerned
#   about creating a relation between the two? If you had evidence that 
#   95% of the molestations are committed by homosexuals you might find a 
#   relationship. Ok, where is the realtionship you make?        

The one that is shown when NAMBLA marches in gay parades.

#     Also, what is the reason people molest? From Human Sexuality and a 
#   psych class or too I have taken the overwhelming voice says that people
#   commit these acts as power trips and to feel in control. This has nothing
#   to do with sexual orientation. 

You mean that S&M, because it's a power trip, has nothing to do with
sexual orientation?

#   mortal@netcom.com
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176947
From: elliott@optilink.COM (Paul Elliott)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject

In article <C4y3DD.L1n@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
>Anyone with any degree of sensitivity or awareness has to be  
>concerned about the horrendous amount of "child abuse" that 
>exists in this country. [...]
>
>The critical factor here is whether the sexual activity is "forced"  [...]
>
>When a child is "forced" there is often "damage", on the other hand,
>"consensual" relationships are often found to be "positive experiences" 
>for all concerned. [...]
>
>Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
>North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample

Why all the quote marks, Roy?  I can see that they might be appropriate where
there is a legitimate concern that the words are being distorted by context, 
or that they have been appropriated Newspeak-style, but, reading your comments above,
one might be excused if they assumed that you were claiming that "child abuse",
"forced" sexual activity, and "damage" caused by this is non-existant or
greatly overblown.

"Positive experiences", indeed!

-Paul Elliott
(Member in good standing of the Optilink Mafia)



-- 
--------     Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - Petaluma, CA USA      ----------
    {uunet,pyramid,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott -or- elliott@optilink.com
       "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176948
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade

In article <C4xAwp.tAK@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <1993Apr3.041411.23590@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# #  "Abortions destructive of the fetus must be permitted, even
# #   just before birth, if they promote what the [Supreme] Court
# #   calls ``health''
# 
# Yes, Doug, we all know that Roe v. Wade prevents states from prohibiting
# abortions necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.  Only
# very stupid people (such as yourself) confuse a discussion of mental health
# related to "Jane Doe", who was in a mental institution, and attempt to claim
# that this same argument could be applied to a woman who decided she wanted
# an abortion because she was having a "bad hair day".
# 
# As you well know, the facts are that there are about 100 third-trimester
# abortions performed in this country annually, and those are *only* done for
# *serious* health reasons.
# --
# Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Hmmm.  Human gestation period is something like 39 weeks.  That means
third trimester abortions are those done after 26 weeks.  In consulting
a 1989 World Almanac, I see that 1% of abortions in 1983 were done at 
21 weeks or more.  That's about 1268 abortions in 1983 after 21 weeks.
Unless the number of abortions performed has dropped dramatically, or
a LOT of abortions are done between 21 and 26 weeks, I think you are
wrong.

By the way, Roe v. Wade allowed states to adopt very, very broad
prohibitions on third-trimester abortions, but some states, such as
California, declined to do so.  It was reported* that what finally 
stopped third trimester elective abortions in the Bay Area wasn't law, 
but that the only hospital doing them ran out of nurses, then doctors,
willing to do them.  Not surprisingly, the bay area NOW chapter was
terribly upset about this.

I remain pro-choice, but when pro-choicers compare abortion in a
clinic to a religious ritual in a church, you have to start wondering
a bit if the pro-life criticism of abortion as modern human sacrifice
doesn't have a grain of truth to it.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176949
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation

From article <C4zLJ8.Bun@queernet.org>, by rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese):
> In article <15148@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

#>NAMBLA's presence in the SF Gay Pride Parade says quite a bit.
#>It says that either the parade organizers want to show support
#>for NAMBLA, or they themselves have a fundamental misunderstanding
#>of their rights and responsibilities.  I would really, really like
#>to believe the latter, but I would need some help to do so.

> There are dozens of examples of the latter; NAMBLA is an especially
> glaring one, but hardly the only one.

Perhaps, though the exclusion of the Gay Perotistas in the
SF Gay Pride Parade would make me think that they had some
clue in this regard.  Dozens of examples?  I don't know...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176950
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation

In article <C4tz28.Cpp@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
>In <15148@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

##It should be noted that NAMBLA has not been present in the
##other 600 or so gay parades in the nation. While I view this
##as an isolated event, I am very troubled by its reccurence.

>I hope I'm not going to hate myself for getting involved in
>this discussion, but I felt obliged to keep things factually
>accurate.

>Last year NAMBLA marched in the Pride Parades in Boston, New
>York and San Francisco. It was not the first time we
>participated in these parades and it will not be the last. (I
>have marched with the NAMBLA contingent in New York, every
>year, for more than a decade.)

Thank you for correcting the error in my post to the net.
This information came from a newspaper article that was
fuzzy in my mind.  I can only wonder if there have been
similar outcries about NAMBLA's presence in the parades
of New York and Boston.

Yours in Liberation from Molestation,

Mark

North American Micro-Biological Laboratories Association
For a packet containing a sample bulletin, publications list
and membership information send $1.00 postage to...

Note:  Sometimes I do the darndest things while trying to
squelch my desire to flame the living daylights out of
somebody for their beliefs and/or associations, especially
if they are so genial...  Phil, take it away!  :-)
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176951
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In <C50sMA.3GK@voder.nsc.com> matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
>In article 164871 in talk.politics.misc, margoli@watson.ibm.com
>(Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>>I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person
>>>whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with
>>>a functioning brain.
>
>>No, if you want to use legal precedent, you should take a look at the
>>Model Penal Code, on which many states base their criminal code:
>
>My apologies if I was unclear; I was not trying to start a statutory
>debate, since there are many (in some cases conflicting) statutes on
>the books.  I was merely suggesting a paradigm that might make sense
>for a pro-choicer IMHO.

And I was pointing out that legal precedent defines a human being as
referring only to the born, so your suggestion was incorrect.

>>>If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
>>>have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
>>>their children.
>
>>And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children,
>>even if necessary to save the child's life.
>
>There is a confusion here between action and inaction: a parent does not have
>to run out in front of a bus to save their child's life either, but a parent
>IS required to feed his children.

There is a confusion here about what "bodily resources" constitutes.  Blood
transfusions and organ donations involve bodily resources; your examples
do not.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176952
From: starowl@bolero.rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: How many heterosexuals are there?

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>_TOO_ many.

Agreed.  We need more folks to admit they're bi.

-- 
Michael D. Adams	(starowl@a2i.rahul.net)	  Champaign, IL / southeast AL

   "THRUSH believes in the two-party system: The masters and the slaves."
		-- Napoleon Solo (from The Man from U.N.C.L.E)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176953
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <C513wJ.75y@encore.com> rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>|> Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
>>|> conservatives do as well.  
>>|> 
>>Yes, it was Nixon who was most vocal about giving money to Russia.  It
>>makes me proud to be a libertarian.  It appears both conservatives and
>>liberals prefer to cold war until you win, then nurse the enemy back to
>>health for another go around.

>Enemy?  Sounds like that's the viewpoint of the stereotypical rednecked
>conservative -- 'always been commies, always will be.'

OK, I should have said "former" enemy.  I was being sarcastic about what
interventionists want to do.

>I suggest you
>listen very carefully to the stuff Yeltsin and his people are saying
>and compare that with the very anti-West slogans coming from his
>opponents in the Russian congress.  I sure know who I want to back.

Could we back him without forcing others to back him at the point of a
gun?

Have you considered a non-interventionist policy?  If market reform does
happen, Russia will certainly get *private* capital at *private* risk to
help their economy.  They will even have incentive to do so for the same
reason.  If they don't reform, then our government will probably
consider them enemies anyway and rather spend money to hurt rather than help
them.

Then their's the ideological point.  We want to "win" Russia over to
our type of government -- a type where the rulers can rule without limit
over everyone's finances?

>>It's like subsidizing the wealthy countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) with
>>free defense, and then trade-warring with them because of the economic
>>competition.  It's like subsidizing tobacco farmers while paying
>>bureaucrats to pursuade people not to smoke.

>Better to let them degenerate into civil war?  Remember all those
>nuclear weapons in Russia.  I cannot imagine that they would not
>be used in a civil war.  If nationialists take over and, even if
>they prevent a civil war, most feel they must take back large
>parts of land that are in other countries (like Ukraine.)  I also cannot
>imagine Ukraine giving up land without a fight, possibly nuclear.

>How does this affect us?  Well, we are on the same planet and if
>vast tracks of Europe are blown away I think we'd feel something.
>A massive breakup of a country that spans 1/6th the planet is
>bound to have affects here.  (Of course, there is also the
>humanitarian argument that democracies should help other
>democracies (or struggling democracies).)

If a $1.6 billion gift was that important to our well being, couldn't it
be raised voluntarilly?  People already give over $100 billion a year to
charity.

>>
>>I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
>>stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
>>was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
>>constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
>>from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.

>Seriously.  Everyone has different opinions on what is stupid.
>My two "causes" are aid to Russia and a strong space program.
>Someone else will champion welfare or education or doing studies
>of drunken goldfish.  That is why we have a republic and not a
>true democracy.  Instead of gridlock on a massive scale, we
>only have gridlock on a congressional scale.

It seems instead of gridlock on any scale, we have aid to Russia,
expensive space programs, national charity that doesn't help the poor,
and probably, studies of drunken goldfish.  I think *limited* government
is more key than how democratic it is.

>BTW, who is to decide 'stupid?'  This is just like those who
>want to impose their 'morals' on others -- just the sort of
>thing I thought Libertarians were against.

That was an opinion, and libertarians are very big on free speech.

>Actually, my politics are pretty Libertarian except on this one issue 
>and this is why it is impossible for me to join the party.  It seems
>that Libertarians want to withdraw from the rest of the world and
>let it sink or swim.

If you are pretty libertarian except on this one issue then you should
be VERY libertarian.  Consider it a compromise.  How much money would
your fellow Russia-aiders have to give to Russia if those you oppose
weren't using the same government machine to steal money from you
and your group for causes you don't support?

>We could do that 100 years ago but not now.

People have been saying that for hundreds of years.

>Like it or not we are in the beginnings of a global economy and
>global decision making. 

All the more reason to depend on the free market which can more
efficiently process information, than to depend on rulers for decisions
on complex issues.

>Julie
>DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Roger Collins

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government
of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?
Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?  Let
history answer this question.
	-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176954
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> You mean, if a large part of the population supports discrimination 
> against homosexuals, they will be injured.  But if a large part of the
> population supports such discrimination, how did that law get passed?

   An addition to anti-discrimination laws which includes homo and bisexuality
? One would assume it would be because politicians were listening to the people
coming up with rational arguments rather than variations on bigotry. Logic
sometimes prevails.
   BTW, glad to see that you've admitted sexual attraction to children is a
seperate sexual orientation. Didn't think you had that much honesty.

-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, 
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."--gene spafford,1992

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176955
From: popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:

> Besides which, we don't *want* Clinton assasinated, because that would make h
> a martyr a la JFK.
> 
> It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after
> watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down t
> toilet.
> 
> Assuming, of course, that the riots a fortnight from now don't do it for him.


He'd have to go a far ways to run things down as bad as Reagan and Bush 
did.  We didn't have riots but Bush got dumped out on his spotty Behind.


We'll see in 4 years.


Pope Charles Slack in our time!

?s


--
popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176956
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't
> give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power
> play.

   "Women are only interested in clothes and shopping"
   "Whites are imperialist colonial fascists"
   "Blacks are lazy uneducated scum"
   "Men are rapists"
   "Homosexuals support child-molesting"

   Slogans, my dear Cramer, are not an adequate substitute for thought.

-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, 
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."--gene spafford,1992

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176957
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Hate Crimes Laws

thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com
>>(Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>>>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>>>...
>>>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>>
>>>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>>   assault laws.  
>>
>>So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a
>>straight?  

>And who's advocating that?  Hate crimes laws are aimed at the motivations
>of the acts.  Just like premeditated homicide is treated stricter than
>heat-of-passion homicide.

But you still get into trouble. For example - how often are crimes
of violence not "hate crimes"? The question is then who are you
hating? If its another gang member, then its better than if
the person you hate is of a differnt color? 

Also, is it realistic to declare that crimes of hate are worse
than crimes of gross negligence? (Like random drive by shootings
where they can't be hate crimes because the shooter doesn't know
who he is going to hit - he just shoots into the crowd).

>>>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>>   charges and multiple crimes.
>>
>>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>>act should never merit more than on charge.  

>So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with
>more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property
>damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.

First, I heard today that there is a good chance that the U.S. instead
of New York is going after the bombers. This means no capital punishment.

Secondly, double jepardy does help keep the government from going after
you for first one murder, then the next, etc. A "sovereign" has essentially
one chance with a single fact pattern (such as the World Trade Center bombing).
That is why the bombers will in all probability be tried for all the
deaths, as well as the property damages, as well as conspiracy, at once.
Of course, as we discovered in the Rodney King case, there are two
"sovereigns", neither of which can try you twice for the same crime.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176958
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In article <h3lnrb8@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>vengeance.  That's all.  It's no deterrent.  It serves no

It seems to deter those who are executed from future criminal activity.

>Yeah yeah yeah... and sure would be nice if we didn't apply the
>death penalty disproportionately to minorities.  I'll revisit my
>opinion on the death penalty when there are more whites up for
>it than blacks.  I.e., when hell freezes over.

Why don't you compare the rates at which blacks and whites commit crimes?
Blacks commit crimes disproportionately, so in a perfectly fair penal
system, blacks would be disproportionately represented.

(Note: black vs. white crime rates is not a racial thing.  It's probably
an economic thing: poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and blacks
are more likely to be poor.  The way to reduce the proportion of minorities
in prison is to increase the wealth of minorities.)

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176959
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: US Government Sanctions Sacrilege

William December Starr writes...

in a typical lawyer baiting fashion, as usual. 

(All the while ignoring every principle of the ACLU.)

Good to see your still out there WDS. Surely we've
been around the ring enough by now, that you know 
you can't spin me up with expletives. 

Let's see if there's anything left worth responding to...

>Cyrus' "Achy Breaky Heart" ad infinitum until either Koresh surrenders or
>the rest of the state of Texas is totally depopulated... :-)

E for effort. Heard about the folks who live around foghorns and 
airports?

>> Erect an Inverted Cross, or a Star of David broken asunder, out in
>> front of the Davidians to provoke them. Or boom out Islamic prayers.
>> Or worse. What temple would you destroy?  What books would you burn?
>> Will you kill clergy? Will you mock the Spirit of GOD before the
>> innocent??
> 
>Sure I would.  Why not?

Seems right in character to me -- creature of the state. 
Btw, are you still happy with your presidents?

>> If you in government have no respect for other's faith, and no respect
>> for the lives and well being of those innocent children caught in this
>> hell you've created -- why should anyone respect your lipservice of
>> "rule of law?"
> 
>What does rule of law have to do with respect for anyone's religious
>faith?  

See the part about the children following the "and" in the first line
above. 

As to a connection, your "cult" is "faith in rules". 

>> No matter who the criminals are, or what they've done (and it looks
>> like there are criminals on both sides of the matter) -- their
>> conviction is not worth the abuse you're causing.
> 
>What abuse?  Please be specific.

Sure. My concern is the well being of the children.  

>> If you are willing to ignore the children, or heap abuse, insult, and
>> sacrilege on the children inside the Davidian house -- then GOD REBUKE
>> YOU. Best you learn directly from the Lord the corruption you're
>> committing. In GOD's good time and way, the LORD judge you -- I can
>> not. For truth be told I would send you all straight to hell -- and
>> GOD would be right in sending me right along with you.
> 
>Oh, fuck you and the God you rode in on, Stephen.  If you can show the
>legitimacy of God's claim of sovereignty over man, please do so.
>Otherwise stop ranting and raving about him already.
> 
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

{Interesting that you would respond "emotionally" in defense of the 
government. Maybe there is a beating heart there.}

For the record though, the biggest-baddest goverment on earth claims 
the most sovereignty over man. Best I can tell God allows anyone to
go to hell who wants to. Omnipotency logically determines that "allowing"
and "sending" mean the same thing.  (Mere human concepts of course.)

So come on WDS. Why bother to try some flimsy facade of logic. Waco
proves it's not needed -- the demonstration that government can walk
over it's own rules in the name of justice has been made. No problem 
by me. Noted and announced -- for the record. Just giving the govern-
ment it's due, and getting back to more worthwhile non-government 
concerns. 

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176960
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Background BRiefing in Vancouver 4.4.93





                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                 (Vancouver, British Columbia) 
______________________________________________________________


                       BACKGROUND BRIEFING
                               BY
                 SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS


                          April 4, 1993
	     
                          Canada Place
                  Vancouver, British Columbia  


9:40 A.M. PST
	     
	     
	     Folks, we're about to start the BACKGROUND BRIEFING 
on the aid package.

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Good morning.  The 
President -- President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed 
yesterday on a series of American initiatives to support economic 
and political reform in Russia, and it's valued at $1.6 billion.  

	     Before taking your questions and running through the 
basic outlines of this package, I want to make a few points.  
First, this is the maximum that the Clinton administration can do 
with available funds to support Russian reform.  All of the funds 
have been allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  There is 
no need for the administration to go back to the Congress to fund 
any of these programs.  All our Fiscal Year '93 funds currently 
are available, so in effect, all of these programs can begin 
tomorrow.
	     
	     The second point is that this package is designed to 
support Russian reformers.  All of the initiatives in the package 
are directed at reformers and for their benefit, and all have 
been worked out with prior consultation with the Russian 
government.
	     
	     Third, the President is determined that we will 
deliver on these commitments this year.  The package is designed 
to maximize our ability to support reform.  In designing it we 
wanted to avoid making commitments that we could not meet, and we 
feel very confident that we can meet all of these commitments in 
front of you.
	     
	     Fourth, I'd like to note the special importance of 
trade and investment.  I think it's fair to say that Russia's 
capital and technology needs throughout the next decade extend 
well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.  No collection of 
governments can meet those needs; only the private sector can do 
so.  And so the President and President Yeltsin agreed to make 
trade and investment a major priority in the relationship.  
	     
	     They also agreed that there would be a new joint 
commission on energy and space formed, headed on the U.S. side by 
Vice President Gore; on the Russian side by Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin.  And the goal of this effort is to break through 
the barriers to trade and investment on both sides and to promote 
a vastly expanded relationship.
	     
	     If it would be helpful I'd be prepared to run down 
the first page, which is a summary of U.S. assistance, and just 
give you some general background on what these programs are.  
I'll do it quickly and then I'll be glad to take questions.
	     
	     The first group of initiatives are humanitarian food 
and medical assistance.  This is part of our effort which has 
been underway for several years to provide basic humanitarian 
grant food assistance so that the Russian government can assure 
there's at least a minimal amount of bread on the shelves in the 
major cities.  That's $194 million in grant -- that is from Food 
for Progress, the grant portion of Food for Progress.  We'll also 
be continuing our grant assistance in medicines and 
pharmaceutical supplies, and that's $30 million.
	     
	     The second item is concessional food sales.  As you 
know, the United States has had a long-term grain relationship 
with Russia.  It's important to us and it's important to Russia 
that we continue that relationship.  The President has chosen the 
Food for Progress program which is a concessional loan program.  
The value over the next seven months is $700 million.  These are 
concessional terms.  The exact terms have not been worked out, 
but I think it's fair to say there will be a grace period on 
principal of six or seven years, and concessional rates 
thereafter for the life of the deal.
	     
	     The third program is a collection of private sector 
support.  We think this is one of the most important things we're 
going to do.  Privatization and the creation of small businesses 
is the number one priority of the reform government in Moscow.  
And so the President has decided to create a Russian-American 
enterprise fund capitalized this year at $50 million.  And the 
goal of this fund is to make direct loans to small businesses in 
Russia, to take equity positions in those businesses.  
	     
	     The President has also decided to create a 
privatization fund which would work directly with the Russian 
government in its priority objective of trying to convert state 
enterprises from a state-owned basis to a private basis.  He has 
also agreed -- the President has also agreed to establish a 
Eurasia foundation.  This would be a private foundation led by 
prominent Americans to fund democratization projects in Russia.
	     
	     The fourth grouping you see there in the summary 
page is democratization itself.  I think it's fair to say that 
this administration has given a new impetus to the goal of 
pursuing democratization in Russia.  You see that we have a total 
of $48 million in programs, various programs.  The detailed 
tables give an indication of some of the programs that we're 
launching.  
	     
	     The President is also calling for the development of 
a democracy corps, which will be an overarching umbrella group to 
try to incorporate all of the disparate private and public 
efforts now underway from the United States to support reform in 
Russia.
	     
	     The fifth program you see is Russian office of 
resettlement.  This is a new initiative created and 
conceptualized by this administration.  This is a demonstration 
project.  What we'd like to do is work with the Russian military 
to help resettle Russian officers returning from the Baltic 
states and other parts of the former Soviet Union.  We want to 
make sure that we work out the best way to do that, whether it's 
with Russian labor and Russian materials or using prefab American 
construction.  And so we've decided to fund on a demonstration 
basis the construction of 450 housing units.  We'll be working 
very closely with the Russian military on this.  And I would say 
that we have a long-term commitment to this project.  
	     
	     The sixth area is energy in the environment.  They 
are two issues that the President feels strongly about.  Our 
initial efforts will be feasibility studies to look into the 
possibility of enhancing their energy production, both oil and 
gas; and equally important trying to cut down on the leakages in 
the oil and gas pipeline systems, which cause so much 
environmental damage.
	     
	     I've talked a little bit about trade and investment, 
about the new group being created that the Vice President will 
chair on our side.  Secretary Ron Brown will also be cochairing 
with Deputy Prime Minister Shohkin, a business development 
committee, which will work in all other sectors of the economy, 
to break down the many barriers that currently exist and impede 
trade and investment.  We are also going to appoint a full-time 
investment ombudsman in the American government to work on this 
problem full-time.  
	     
	     And the point I'd like to make here is, trade and 
investment in the 1990s is every bit as important, to draw an 
analogy, as arms reductions was in the '70s and '80s.  And we 
just thought that in looking at this we needed to make a 
commitment within our own government to have people work on it -- 
senior people on a full-time basis, because it is terribly 
important.
	     
	     You'll notice that the United States is going to 
support Russia's membership in the GATT.  Russia has had observer 
status.  Russia has requested our support and, in fact, requested 
our advice in becoming a member of the GATT.  We think that the 
long-term goal of drawing Russia into the global economy is 
paramount, a very important goal.  And that is why we are 
supporting the membership in the GATT.  We are also supporting 
their access to GSP, the Generalized System of Preferences.  
	     
	     You'll note that Ex-Im has extended $82 million in 
credit for a caterpillar deal in Siberia, that OPIC has extended 
$150 million in credits and loan guarantees for a Conoco oil 
project.  I'd like to emphasize that we are very close to an 
agreement between Russia and the United States for a $2-billion 
framework facility through the Ex-Im Bank that would finance 
Russian purchases of American oil and gas equipment and services. 
We think this is a very important development.  We think we'll 
get there by April 14th, which is the opening day of the Tokyo 
conference, the G-7 conference.
	     
	     Before I take any further questions, I'd like to 
defer to my colleague, who will review the security assistance 
objectives with you.
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Our major 
unfinished agenda with the Russians and with their counterparts 
in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus is in the area of the safe and 
secure dismantlement of the nuclear arsenals on their territory 
under the terms of the START I and START II agreements.   
Recently we completed in Moscow three, I think, very important 
agreements that devote a significant chunk of Nunn-Lugar funding 
to three important programs.  The first is the program of $130 
million for the strategic nuclear delivery vehicle dismantlement 
program.  That is for submarines, for ICBM dismantlement and for 
bomber dismantlement -- $130 million.
	     
	     The second is a $75 million tranche of funding for 
the construction of a facility to store nuclear materials removed 
from the warheads as they are dismantled.  This will essentially 
contribute to the overall design and the early phases of the 
construction of that storage facility.  
	     
	     And finally, a $10-million tranche of money to help 
in the establishment of a monitoring system for the nuclear 
materials as they are withdrawn from the weapons system.  So we 
add that $215-million total to the extant Nunn-Lugar assistance 
which has been flowing -- about $150 million for some overall 
safety improvements for various kinds of equipment and safety 
measures that we have been working out with the Russians over the 
last couple of years.  
	     
	     So this is an area where we will be going a lot more 
work with not only the Russians but with the Ukrainians, Kazhaks, 
and Belarussians.  Belarus, for example, has just, in the last 
couple of weeks, received up to $65 million in FY'93 funds for 
safety, security and dismantlement programs on Belarussian 
territory.  And this was in the wake of their ratification of 
START I, an agreement to accede to NPT. 
	     
	     So we are working very hard with all the parties to 
the Lisbon protocols, and will continue to work very hard with 
them.  And I look upon these three recent agreements with Russia 
as a very important step in that process.
	     
	     Q	  The OPIC funds to -- is that for the field in 
Kazhakstan -- and Conoco already signed this deal with 
Kazhakstan.  Why do you feel now it is necessary -- if it's the 
same one, why do you feel it's necessary?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It's not the same 
deal.  Chevron signed a deal with Kazhakstan, the Tenges oil 
field.  This is a new investment project.  It's a polar lights 
oil development and renovation project, and it's being announced 
today.  So it's completely new.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us more about what's involved?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.  Conoco, like 
other American oil companies has been searching for ways to do 
two things.  One, to prospect for new oil in Siberia, west 
Siberia; and two, to try to get into the business of renovating 
oil wells and renovating pipelines, both oil and gas, in Russia.  
The objective here, obviously, is to take advantage of the 
natural resources in Russia, increase energy production, which 
will, in turn, increase hard currency revenues, which is what 
Russia needs.
	     
	     So we think this deal is very, very good development 
for Russia.  The Russians do as well, and it's good for an 
American company.  And the American government has played a 
leading role in pulling this together through the credit facility 
in OPIC and through the loan guarantee.
	     
	     Q	  So it's to search and also to renovate fields 
that are already there?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's right.
	     
	     Q	  On that point, should other American companies 
expect to get administration support for such deals, or should 
they now go to the Ex-Im and try to get the money out of the $2 
billion?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as you know, 
Ex-Im is part of the U.S. government and various parts of the 
U.S. government have been pushing, including the State Department 
and the White House for this deal to be consummated.  And we 
think it will.  And if we arrive at this agreement by April 14th, 
there will be $2 billion in financing available for American 
companies to sell their equipment and sell their services.
	     
	     Q	  That should take up all of the rest of the 
deals and their won't be -- and their will or there won't be 
support for OPIC sort of deals such as this Conoco?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's a 
tremendous amount of interest on the part of American oil and gas 
companies to invest in Russia.  We think that the Ex-Im oil and 
gas facility, the $2-billion facility, once it is concluded, will 
soak up a lot of that interest.  But I think the interest may 
even extend beyond that.  And if so, the government will respond.
	     
	     Q	  What's the current year budget costs of that 
$2-billion agreement should it go forward?  And is there any 
current year budget costs --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'll have to refer 
you to Ex-Im for that.  I don't know the details of that.
	     
	     Q	  The concessional food sales -- is there any 
current year costs to that, or is it delayed until the years in 
which the payments are due?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The concessional 
food sales are from Food for Progress, which is a USDA program.  
USDA has the funds, we don't need to go back to the Congress to 
expend those funds.  There will be a hit in the budget.  I'd 
refer you to USDA and OMB for the details on that.
	     
	     Q	  Can you talk about the Democracy Corps?
	     
	     Q	     and the private sector -- how many folks are 
going to be involved in that?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Why don't I start 
with the Democracy Corps first.  I think the administration felt 
coming into office that there were literally thousands of 
organization, private organizations in the United States that in 
one way or another were working at the goal of trying to achieve 
democratization in Russia, helping on a farmer-to-farmer basis.  
And there were literally 10 or 15 U.S. government agencies that 
had a variety of programs in this area.  And so the 
administration felt -- the President felt it was important to try 
to draw all of these initiatives together under one group to give 
some coherence to the efforts and to give some impetus to the 
efforts.  And so this is a presidential initiative.
	     
	     It will be headed by Ambassador Tom Simons who will 
soon take up his duties as the coordinator for U.S. assistance in 
the former Soviet Union.  And we're very hopeful that we might 
use this Democracy Corps not only to draw upon the resources of 
our own government, but the resources of the American private 
sector and schools and communities across the nation.
	     
	     Q	     any kind of commitment yet, any kind of word 
yet on FY'94, and any new money that needs to be appropriated 
besides the $300 million the President talked about?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The administration 
is requesting additional funds in FY'94 of $700 million.  What 
the President has done this weekend is to consult really 
intensively yesterday with President Yeltsin about additional 
measures the United States could take in some of these areas to 
support reform.  He'll be consulting with the Congress.  When he 
returns to Washington, he'll be consulting also with the other 
ally governments, and we'll make a decision at that time.
	     
	     Q	  Two questions about the $700 billion 
agricultural money.  First of all, I thought it was the sort of 
consensus that what Russia did not need was more loans for food.  
So why did you decide to do it that way?  Secondly, could you 
explain -- agriculture has been stopped from making further loans 
for food because of Russia's inability to pay.  How does this fit 
into that situation?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As you know, the 
United States for a long time has been a major supplier of grains 
and food commodities, agricultural products to Russia.  I think 
between 1991 and '92 we had extended -- a little bit of history 
here -- about $5.5 billion in credits, credit guarantees, through 
the Commodity Credit Corporation.  That was the principal vehicle 
to ensure the sale of American grain products.  On December 1 of 
last year, '92, the Russian government stopped its payments on 
that program.  They are now in arrears to us on that program, and 
therefore, by law, the United States cannot continue that 
program.  And so the President, working with Secretary Espy and 
other officials in the Cabinet, looked for other ways that we 
could promote American grain sales.  
	     
	     And I think we have two ways to do that.  We've 
announced today $194 million in grant food assistance through the 
Food for Progress program.  But we do not have sufficient 
authority to spend $700 million in grant food, and so we looked 
for a concessional loan program.  
	     
	     I think everybody agrees that Russia -- that a 
short-term loan program for Russia would not make sense now, but 
a long-term concessional loan program would.  And that is what 
this program is.  It will provide, once the final details are 
worked out, for a six to seven-year grace period on payments of 
principal.  And then from years seven through 15, which is the 
life of the deal, it will provide for concessional rates of 
interest -- generally around three to four percent.  And so we 
believe and the Russian government believes this is a good deal 
for them because it will avoid the imperative of early payments 
and put them into the out years, but it will also continue this 
very important grain relationship, which is important for them, 
and it's important for the American farm community.
	     
	     Q	  I gather from what you say that this could make 
it explicit -- the Russians' failure to pay the interest on ECC 
loan does not in any way affect this kind of loan going through, 
is that right? 
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me be explicit 
about that.  We are prevented under the law to from continuing  
the Commodity Credit Corporation short-term credit program 
because of Russia's arrearages to the United States.  All of you 
know about those arrearages.  They total about, I think, around 
$640 million.  USDA can give you an exact figure.  So having 
taken that into consideration and wanting to preserve American 
market share and a long-term grain relationship, wanting to 
respond to a specific request from the Russian government for 
major food assistance, knowing that we couldn't take it from the 
grant programs because we don't have sufficient authority there, 
we looked at Food for Progress, which is a program we've used to 
great effect in other parts of the world.  And we consulted with 
the Russian government and arrived at this solution.  
	     
	     I think the Russians are pleased because it provides 
them with the food, but also gives them a little bit of relief on 
the short-term payments.
	     
	     Q	  Where do those funds actually come from?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They come from the 
Food for Progress program, which is a program under USDA's 
authority.  USDA has the authority to spend these funds.  We do 
not need to go back to the Congress for these funds.  And I want 
to make that general point again:  Everything in this package, 
the $1.6 billion package, comprises funds that have already been 
allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  The administration 
can begin to spend these monies tomorrow.  And it's very 
important in our eyes that we expend all the funds this year, 
that we meet these commitments.  And we are confident we'll be 
able to do so.
	     
	     Q	  How did you arrive at the figure of $700 
million -- does that max out that program, or did you actually 
have a range from 0 to --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's a reason 
for it.  The reason was that the Russian government told us 
that's about the amount of grain that they needed between now and 
harvest time.  And so the idea is that we would begin the 
shipments probably $100 million per month from now until the 
harvest in the autumn, at which time Russia won't require the 
same level of food imports from the West.
	     
	     Q	  I would imagine there's going to be some 
considerable envy and jealousy on the part of some of the other 
republics because of the size and the scope of this with Russia.  
Have you given any consideration to advancing negotiations for 
the same kinds of projects with the Ukraine, with Georgia , with 
some of the other republics?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, we're very 
conscience of the fact that we also have an interest in extending 
American support to the 11 other countries of the former Soviet 
Union.  We have told ourselves, and we have planned that in the 
area of technical assistance, the grant technical assistance that 
you see, roughly 50 percent of the funding will go to Russia and 
roughly 50 percent to the other countries. 
	     
	     In the area of food sales, we have been active with 
Ukraine, in grant food assistance with Georgia and Armenia.  We 
will continue that.  And I think it's fair to say that after this 
summit we will go back and look at all of our programs with the 
other countries to ensure that they are adequate and they are 
productive and they're hard-hitting.
	     
	     Q	  Has anything happened at the summit to lead 
American energy companies and other companies to believe that 
Russia is going to be more user-friendly toward them in terms of 
taxing, legalities, bureaucracy?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, one of our 
primary objectives coming into this summit was to highlight,  not 
only the economic agenda, but also trade and investment.  And I'd 
like to refer to the point I made at the beginning.  We're 
convinced in talking about this problem -- the problem of how to 
support Russia long-term -- we're convinced that no collection of 
Western governments have the financial resources over the next 
decade to fuel the continuation of reform, that only the private 
sector can do that.  
	     
	     We look at our own society and we see tremendous 
capability in resources in the oil and gas sector.  It is a very 
good match with what the Russians need now, which is financial 
investment in the existing oil and gas wells and pipeline and new 
technology and new capital to finance new production.  
	     
	     That's what the Russian government has told us it 
wants to do, and so that's why we have made such a major emphasis 
on it.  That's why trade and investment was a prominent issue on 
the first day of these talks, and in fact, figured prominently 
last night in the meeting between President Yeltsin and President 
Clinton.  And we're hoping that together we might send a strong 
signal to the American business community that we support their 
efforts to invest in Russia, that the United States, through Ex-
Im and OPEC and the Department of Commerce, will be there to 
support them.
	     
	     Q	  My question is, is Yeltsin in any position to 
deliver on making Russia a more --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We think he is.  I 
would note that President Yeltsin's Prime Minister, Mr. 
Chernomyrdin, worked for 30 years in the Russian oil and gas 
sector.  He will now chair a high-level commission with the Vice 
President, Vice President Gore, to try to break through the 
barriers that currently exist to Western investment in the oil 
and gas sector.  We believe we have a commitment to make that 
committee an important committee.  And we're looking forward to 
the work.
	     
	     Q	  What type of mechanism is already in place to 
administer the private sector portion of the program?  And will 
the U.S. be directly involved in the tail end of distribution of 
the actual funds or is the money simply turned over to the 
Russian government for distribution at their will?
	     	    
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Are you talking 
about the variety of programs listed here?  It depends on the 
program itself.  In most cases, though, we are either working 
through American PBOs or American government agencies to ensure 
that the money obviously is well spent, that the money gets to 
the intended source.  That's an obligation we have to the 
Congress to ensure the money is well spent and that we can 
account for the money.  We have done that in the last couple of 
months intensively and we will continue to do it for each of 
these programs.
	     
	     But they are all quite different.  For instance, in 
the area of grant food and medical assistance, for grant food it 
is carried out through USDA and USDA accounts for the delivery of 
the food.  For grant medical assistance, we've been working 
through Project Hope which is a private organization.  For the 
housing -- for instance, the resettlement of Russian officers, 
we'll be working with a group of American PBOs.  On some of the 
democratization projects, we're working directly with Russian 
private individuals and private foundations.  We're working with 
journalists in Russia on a media project that you may have 
noticed.
	     
	     So we literally have here 30 to 40 different 
activities under all these rubrics and they're all going to be 
carried out in slightly different ways.  Some directly with the 
Russian government, some with Russian citizens.
	     
	     Q	  The Jackson-Vanik restrictions that remain and 
on the COCOM restrictions that remain, can you tell us what the 
President has to do on that?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as George 
noted yesterday, President Yeltsin raised these as irritants in 
the relationship.  The President has noted that.  I think it's 
fair to say we will go back now in our own government when we 
return to Washington and look at both of these questions, and 
we'll get back to the Russian government.
	     
	     Q	  You were not prepared for these questions when 
you got here?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We were prepared 
for these questions.  We've looked at them.  But we're not 
prepared to make a quick decision this weekend.  They require --
let me just explain, particularly on Jackson-Vanik.  They require 
consultation with the Congress.  They require consultation with 
the American Jewish community.  And we're very sensitive to those 
concerns.  And so we'll want to go back and talk to them before 
we take any action.
	     
	     Q	  Is this package designed so that you will not 
have to go to Congress for anything at this point?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As I said at the 
beginning, the advantage of this particular package is that all 
the funds have been allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  
So the administration will not have to go back to the Congress to 
seek any additional authority to fund any of these efforts.  In 
effect, they can all begin tomorrow, and I know that many of the 
agencies responsible for these projects will begin tomorrow.  And 
that's the advantage of this particular initiative.
	     
	     Q	  If this, as the President says, is a long-term, 
long-haul thing, and members of Congress are at this moment 
heading for Moscow, why aren't you talking about going to 
Congress and suggesting to the President of Russia that you are 
prepared to go to Congress for various things?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think we've been 
clear about that.  The President is discussing this weekend with 
President Yeltsin some additional ideas that we have for American 
funding of additional projects, and ideas that he has.  We have a 
major congressional delegation that left last night, headed by 
Representative Gephardt and we'll want to consult with that 
delegation and other members of Congress before doing anything.  
And we'll also want to consult with our allies.  So that's where 
it stands now.
	     
	     Q	  We've been told repeatedly that a number of 
these items represent different or new ways of spending the money 
already appropriated.  Could you just tick off which of these 
items represents reprogramming or at least spending money in ways 
that it was not previously set to be?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that we've 
said that these are all projects that either Congress had 
allocated money for through the Freedom Support Act; there were 
some funds that were left over from FY'92.  And this 
administration took office and had some new ideas about how the 
funds might be expended.
	     
	     We didn't use just the Freedom Support Act funds or 
the FY'92 funds.  We went into some of the agency allocations --
Ex-Im, OPIC, and USDA -- and tried to look for creative ways to 
further our programs.
	     
	     And example of that is the Food for Progress 
concessional loans.  We had hit a brick wall with another type of 
funding through USDA.  We could not go forward legally, and so we 
looked for a more creative way to ensure continued American 
market share and ensure continued grain sales, and we think we 
found it.
	     
	     Q	  Where, for example, are you getting the money 
for this Russian officer resettlement --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's from the 
Freedom Support Act funds.
	     
	     Q	  In other words, all of the money is being 
directly spent in new ways, so to speak --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Most of the grant 
projects that you see -- if you look at the general chart, the 
second chart, it's broken down into grant and credits.  And if 
you look under grants, the technical cooperation projects that 
total $281.9 million -- that is almost all Freedom Support Act 
funding.  A little bit of it is leftover funds from fiscal year 
'92.  The Nunn-Lugar funds, of course, you know about the 
legislative history of those funds.
	     
	     Q	     cooperation --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  From FY '92?  I 
don't have the exact figure.  It was not a considerable figure.
	     
	     Q	  Could you tell us please, has anything happened 
here this weekend that will break the log jam between Ukraine and 
Russia over START -- for START I and II as a result of what's 
happened here --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Both presidents, 
President Yeltsin and President Clinton, will be discussing this 
issue this morning.  In fact, we haven't yet gotten to security 
and arms control related issues.  That will be this morning's 
session.  I know that President Clinton will be very strongly 
reinforcing that this is a top priority for us.  We've been 
talking to the Russians and the Ukrainians over the last couple 
of weeks about ways that we might help to facilitate the 
discussions between them.  Up to this point, this has been a very 
important negotiation that's been going on essentially between 
Moscow and Kiev.  And we are at the point now of essentially 
discussing with them if there are ways that we could contribute 
to this discussion, help to move things forward essentially.  
	     
	     But in terms of what is coming out of this weekend, 
I don't yet know.  In a couple hours we'll know.
	     
	     Q?	    Just a follow-up on the financing here.  Is 
any of this robbing Peter to pay Boris -- since it's all current 
year appropriations, have you taken it from anyplace that's been 
earmarked and put it into this fund?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are smoke and 
mirrors here, and I think it's an important point to note.  We 
could have given you a page of assistance numbers that included 
out-year funding.  We're going to make a long-term commitment to 
many of these projects -- for instance, the enterprise funds, the 
privatization effort, the housing effort.  And we've already 
talked to the Russians about our long-term commitment.  
	     
	     We could have put in really big numbers and this 
could have been a bigger package, but we wanted to make a point:  
This package is FY '93.  It's funds that we have.  And we're 
going to do what we say we're going to do.  And the President 
feels very strongly about that.  In the past there is a legacy 
that the western governments, the combination of governments, put 
up large budget figures and for any number of reasons we're not 
able to meet them, we're determined, and the President is 
determined, to carry out every single program in this package.  
And we'll do it.  
	     
	     But we do have a longer-term commitment, and that's 
part of the discussions on economics this weekend.  We're looking 
for Russian ideas on what it is we can do to most effectively 
support reform.  And we've told them that we do have a commitment 
on some of these programs beyond this fiscal year.
	     
	     Q	     taken it way from any --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, we haven't.  
Okay, the question is, have we reprogrammed any of these funds; 
so have we taken it from other countries to pay for programs in 
Russia?  The answer is no, we have not done so.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of funding, there is no available 
monies left -- and you simply find a creative way to find money 
somewhere else.  Doesn't that, in fact, support the -- theory?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not at all.  I 
don't think it does.  That's a particular example, and the 
example is grain sales.  The Commodity Credit Corporation credit 
guarantee program was short-term loans that Russia had to pay 
back within 12 to 15 months.  You all know about Russia's debt 
problem, and Russia was unable to meet those commitments.  So we 
looked for a way to do two things:  to meet Russia's requirement 
for grain.  They're a net grain importer on a massive scale, and 
also meet our objective of making sure that the American farmers 
have a chance to sell their products to Russia.  And we simply 
look for another way to finance that.  And we have legislative 
authority to do it.  This program has been successful in other 
areas.  We had not tried it before in the former Soviet Union, 
but we thought we should now.
	     	  
	     Q	  Isn't this really the Bush-Clinton aid package 
for Russia, since these funds were really first derived by 
initiatives put forward by President Bush?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I don't think 
that's a fair characterization.  A lot of these funds were 
appropriated by the U.S. Congress is 1991, in 1992.  This 
administration took office and inherited some obligations that 
the Bush administration had made.  But we had a long six to seven 
week review of this program.  We decided to meet the commitments 
that had been made by the previous administration.  
	     
	     But we have gone well beyond them in funding the 
enterprise fund, which was just an idea, but the idea had not 
been filled out with a program.  There was no number attached to 
it.  In grouping together some projects and trying to make them 
into a coherent whole in the privatization effort, I would say, 
is another Clinton initiative.  
	     
	     Further, we listened to the Russian government and 
listened to the Russian military who told us that the 
resettlement of their officers was important to them for 
political and economic and social reasons.  And President Clinton 
has responded to that.  And we are making a long-term commitment 
that beyond this demonstration project we're going to figure out 
a way to do much more in trying to settle those officers.  
	     
	     I would also say that the President has given 
impetus to all of us in the agencies to think much more broadly 
about what it is we can do on democratization, because there we 
have some experience and some comparative advantage that lends 
itself to the Russian experience.  And in calling for the 
creation of a democracy corps, which is another new initiative, 
we're hopeful that we can take the resources of the private 
sector as well as the American government, to achieve that 
objective.  
	     
	     So I would not characterize it that way at all.  And 
as most of you know, I am a career civil servant.  I was in the 
last administration.  I'm very familiar with what the last 
administration did.  And I would characterize this as a Clinton 
assistance package for Russia.
	     
	     Q	  There's been a lot of criticism that aid in the 
past has not gotten to the people.  Is there anything in this 
outside of the ombudsman, that will guarantee that this money 
will not just disappear because it's being administered by the 
Russian government?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that -- I 
know that the President and other senior officials of our 
government are concerned that American money be spent wisely and 
that it get to the source that it's intended -- for which it's 
intended.  And so we're going to take great care -- AID and the 
State Department will take great care in making sure that the 
funds are expended properly and that they're reaching their 
source.
	     
	     I would not that this package is not simply a 
package of support solely to the Russian government.  Some of 
these projects, especially in democratization and exchanges, are 
going to be worked out directly with Russian private individuals, 
with businesses.  The private enterprise support is another 
example of that.
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If I could just add 
a word on this point with regard to the SSD-related programs, one 
area that we've been looking at very, very closely is 
consideration of actually using Russian firms in subcontracting 
for these kinds of programs.  They would be working very closely, 
of course, with the American firms, who would be the prime 
contractors.  But this is a fine example, I think, of a more --of 
a imaginative and flexible approach toward getting some of that 
funding down to the grassroots level, down to the ground in 
Russia; but at the same time ensuring that it is spent 
efficiently and for the purposes for which it was intended.
	     
	     Q	  When would the democracy corps start?  Exactly 
when do you see this happening?  How would get it off the ground?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the President 
is today calling for the creation of a democracy corps.  I think 
it's fair to say that we're going to work out its framework over 
the next couple of weeks.  Ambassador Simons takes up his duties 
on May 1st.  But in effect we've already started, because over 
the last couple of weeks the administration has begun to reach 
out to people in the private sector who have come to us asking us 
to help facilitate their activities in Russia.  And we've said 
that we will be helpful.  We've also tried to kind of coordinate 
in a much more effective way the activities of our own 
government.  We do have 10 or 15 agencies that are active in 
Russia in one way or another.  We think it makes sense to draw 
them together and to focus their efforts.
	     
	     Q	  Excuse me.  How much of this $1.6 billion will 
actually be spent in the United States by American made goods?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't have any 
figures for you now, but perhaps we could try to work something 
up in the next couple of days on that.
	     
	     Q	  This figure is larger than the figure that has 
been in the press -- did this program grow yesterday as a result 
of the discussions, or have we just been that far off the mark?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I think --
unfortunately the press has been a little bit off the mark, and 
I'm sorry to say that.  No, this package -- President Clinton put 
us to work about seven weeks ago on this package.  And he was 
briefed intensively on this.  He contributed a lot of the 
intellectual leadership in this package.  He contributed a lot of 
the ideas in the package.  And I think it's fair to say that we 
had this rough package worked out about two weeks ago.  We have 
been refining it ever since.  We spent a couple of days last week 
going over it with the Russian government, both the embassy in 
Washington and the government in Moscow through our own embassy.  
And so it's been evolving.  But this particular package has been 
together for about two weeks.
	     
	     Q	  Where is Yeltsin's input into this then?  There 
was so much talk before about the President wanted to get 
Yeltsin's views about specifically what was needed and so forth.  
Is that in the out years?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it's both.  
President Yeltsin has on several occasions told us, for instance, 
that support for the creation of private businesses is important 
to him; that the resettlement of Russian military officers is 
important; and that first and foremost the effort to privatize 
the state industries is important to them.  
	     
	     And so what we did was to try to make those the 
centerpiece of our technical assistance part o the package.  We 
listened to him.  On the privatization effort, we have been 
working with the Russian government for months on this trying to 
work out all the details.  So the Russian government on most of 
these programs was involved every step of the way.  
	     
	     But let me get at the other part of your question.  
The President is also using this weekend to talk about a broader 
set of initiatives that we might undertake.  And we're looking 
for his ideas.  The President has brought his own ideas to the 
table -- for instance, on energy and the environment and in 
housing.  But we're looking for Russian ideas not.  We need to 
consult with the Congress; and we need to consult with the other 
allied governments that are also active.
	     
	     Q	  There's essentially nothing that happened in 
the last day and a half that measurably altered the package that 
you came in with?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This particular 
package, as I said, was worked out and was ready about two weeks 
ago.  We have since then consulted with the Russian government on 
the final stages of its development, and so this weekend we've 
primarily talked about future, about what more the United States 
and other Western countries can do to support reform in Russia, 
which is our base objective here.
	     
	     Q	  I noticed that you -- that money appropriated 
to train bankers and businessmen and officers.  Can you tell me 
what about job training for workers who are displaced by 
privatization?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  You're right; we 
have a program to train Russian -- young Russians in banking and 
financial services in the United States.  Part of the housing 
initiative, it's not just to build housing units, it's to retrain 
Russian officers who are retiring into other professions.
	     
	     Q	     money for job training for workers whose 
jobs are disappearing because of privatization --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have not yet 
allocated any money for that.
	     
	     Q	  Why not?
	     
	     Q	     of the $6 million is going to build 450 
housing units.  Isn't that a lot of money per unit given what the 
Western dollar will buy in the former Soviet Union?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If you want to do 
housing the right way, it's not just the building the framework 
of a house, you've got to think about all the utilities.  You've 
got to think about the purchase of land.  You've got to think 
about sewage and gas and electricity and so forth.  And it's also 
retraining.  It's not enough to put retired -- an officer coming 
out of -- Riga or Tallin or Vilnius in a house in western Russia.  
We think we have an obligation to try to retrain those officers 
as well.  This is responding to a request from the Russian 
government.
	     
	     Q	     of the $6 million will go to retrain --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's right.
	     
	     Q	  Are you talking about apartment buildings or 
single --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We're talking about 
single, individual dwellings.
	     
	     Q	  You're saying that only 450 families will be 
served by this?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What I want to -- I 
thought I pointed out earlier, this is a demonstration project.  
What we didn't want to do -- given the experience that the 
Germans and the Turks and the Italians have had in building 
housing in western Russian, we did not want to leap into it with 
a huge amount of money.  What we want to do is work over the next 
couple of months and try to figure out with American 
organizations in the private sector the best way to get this job 
done.  
	     
	     I noted that we have a long-term commitment to that.  
And so I would expect that we would put a lot more money into 
this in the future .  But we want to do it wisely; we want to 
spend the money wisely.
	     
	     Q	  What is it about this program that convinces 
you that it will protect Russia's reforms and that Russia will be 
in a position to may back the money they're supposed to pay back, 
especially considering their other debt problem?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, look, I think 
it's important to note that the United States on its own does not 
have the capability to fuel a continuation of Russian reform.  
It's got to be a collective Western effort, and we're looking to 
our allies to do more as well.  But beyond that, it's really what 
the Russians do that is going to decide the fate of reform.  We 
can simply play a role, and we feel we have an obligation to do 
so, which is consistent with our national interests.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President say that the value of the 
U.S. contribution was that it would create security and 
prosperity for the United States?  So what is it about this 
program that does this?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think you have to 
go back to the fundamental objective of our policy toward Russia, 
and that is we want to do everything we can to support the 
continuation of reform.  We are convinced that if reformers stay 
in power, then we'll be able to continue the drawdown of nuclear 
forces, foreign policy cooperation and economic interaction, 
which are the three benefits to the United States from reform in 
Russia.  So it's not a simple question.  You can't just say that 
this program is the answer.  It's a long-term question and we 
have to make a long-term commitment to it.
	     
	     Q	  And then on the question of Russia's ability to 
repay, what convinces you they'll be able to pay seven to 15 
years from now?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the Russian 
government has made a commitment to repay, and what we're hoping 
is that if reform continues, and if they can continue to improve 
their oil and gas sector and earn additional hard currency 
revenues, that Russia will be in a position six or seven years 
from now to pay back those loans.
	     
	     Q	     substantial government-to-government loan 
we've ever gotten into with the Russians?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't want to 
answer authoritatively on that.  I don't go back 20 or 30 years 
on this.  But in the last four or five years, yes it is, because 
the previous way that we financed grain exports was really to 
just ensure private bank loans.  This is a different type of 
effort.
	     
	     Q	     government loans in any other sector that 
you recall?  I know it wasn't done in --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think it's fair 
to say this is a new and unique effort.

                               END10:25 A.M. PDT

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176962
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu> Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
>by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
>[...]
>
>>    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
>> the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
>>  
>> Brett
>Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.

Yes, sadly, this is true. The primary reason, and the essence of the
details that you are seeking, is that the Grahm-Rudman budget controls
were working.  In fact, they were working so well that unless the feds
did something, they were going to have to start cutting pork. So Bush
and the Democrats got together in a Budget Summit and replaced
Grahm-Rudman with the now historic Grand Compromise in which Bush
"consented" to raise taxes in exchange for certain caps on spending
increases.

As it turned out, the taxes killed the Reagan expansion and the caps
on spending increases were dispelled by Clinton in his first act as
President (so that he could create his own new plan with more tax
increases).

The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.

Chew on that awhile.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176963
From: gdnikoli@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic)
Subject: Re: Damn Furriners Be Taken Over

In article <Apr.2.23.41.04.1993.607@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1pa6pt$63r@access.digex.com> hess@access.digex.com (Paul Hess) writes:
>> that drag the US down and cause problems at home and abroad.
>Rank balderdash!  America's reputation abroad has become tarnished
>because of feckless and pusillanimous cowards who apparently do not
>have the requisite gonads to stand up for American honor and dignity.

    Don't be ridiculous, Kaldis. I suggest you give the "Ugly American"
concept, which I can easily see you demonstrating, a good hard second look.

>> The American Way is not the ONLY way, it's not necessarally the BEST
>> way, and it is incredibly arrogant to even think that.
>
>The American Way may not be the only way, and you may not consider it
>to be necessarily the best way, but, by God, it's _OUR_ way and we're
>going to stick with it!  If you can't go along with the program, then
>perhaps you should consider moving elsewhere.

    Dear God. Didn't this die out in the fifties with McCarthy and the
blacklists?

>> I've spent quite a bit of time in different provinces of Canada and
>> let me tell you, it is very refreshing to spend time with people who
>> are not full of arrogant nationalism and empty patriotism.
>That is exactly the _PROBLEM_ with Canadians!  They don't stand for
>anything with certitude.

    Didn't your mother ever teach you not to generalize? I am a Canadian, and
I stand up for _too many_ things with _too much_ certitude. 

>> The Canadians I know well enough to say this about, seem to have a
>> great deal of pride in their provinces and their country, but they
>> aren't blinded by flags and ideals like many Americans are.
>Could this be because they are bereft of ideals?

    Uh huh. This must explain the world reknowned, record low American crime
rate. I see now, it's all becoming so clear to me.

>> Well, I've said too much,
>Yes you have.

    No he hasn't.

>> but I was so angered by your words that I felt I had to say something.
>> Sorry to intrude.
>You pipsqueak!  You mouse!  If you are sorry to intrude then why do
>it?  Don't you have the courage of your convictions?  Hell, do you
>even have any convictions to start with?  What kind of example of
>manly dignity is this?  Sheesh!

    Remarkable audacity and misguidance. What you take for your own courage,
sir, is nothing more than simple loud-mouthedness coupled with unrestrained
bragging.

-- 
     "Please allow me to introduce myself.               SYMPATHY 
      I'm a man of wealth and taste.                   FOR THE DEVIL
      I've been around for long, long years.            the Laibach  
      Stolen many a man's soul, and faith."               remixes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176964
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>

From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
-BTW, I'm a WALC (white aryan lapsed catholic)
-
---
-d'baba Duane M. Hentrich        baba@Tymnet.Com
-
   I would like to go on record as objecting to Mr. Hentrich calling
himself an Aryan.  The word `Aryan' is of Sanskrit origin and occurs first
in the Hindu scripture, the Rigveda.  It seems to have been a tribal term
but may have had connotations of good character.  Such connotations
are quite explicit in the sayings of the Buddha who called his religion the
eightfold Aryan path.   The word was borrowed by the German scholar
Max Mueller who used it as a synonym for `indo-european', but then the
Nazis proceeded to steal it and started pretending that `aryan' is
synonymous with `nordic' which seems highly unlikely.  The people who
originally called themselves aryas,  the Iranians, Noprth Indians, the Afghans
and possibly the Kurds, are none of them nordic.  So the use of the word
by Westerners, though meant with apparent good humor in this case, is
nontheless inappropriate.  The only Westerners who may have some claim
to call themselves Aryans (by descent) are the Celts who seem to have wor-
shipped a god called Aryaman who is mentioned in the Rigveda.

  If you want to check what I am saying, look at  Mallory's book, ``In
search of the Indo-Europeans" or, just look at the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reason this usage is offensive is that most of Ancient Indian literature
as well as religion is directly or inderectly due to the Aryans and
for Westerners to butt in is really not nice, not to mention the horrible
things done by Germans to Jews, using a word to which the Germans have
no clear claim.

Rohit Parikh

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176965
From: n4hy@tang.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993



Rich Thompson posts some blather about the Libertarian Party:

>August 30, 31, Sept. 1:           Everything You Always Wanted to
>                                  Know About Winning Elections, but
>                                  Didn't Know Where to Ask!


What pray tell do the Libertarians know about winning elections?

Bob


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176966
From: <CXNBK@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty! 1993

Narrative, narrative, narrative. . .



C.B.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176967
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge


In article <1phgakINN9pb@apache.dtcc.edu>, bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:

|>In article <1993Apr2.093952.1149@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:
|>
|>>	Ed, they are losing their humor. Please take a break until they
|>>get funny again (?), if that is even possible. I liked a few of these,
|>>but that list is not even sarcastic, just insulting and definitely not
|>>one of your best. I look forward to some better lists after a sabatical?
|>>ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU
|>
|>  No, they must be working, they are getting lots of these 'complaints'
|>that they are not funny....  Keep 'em coming, it they weren't funny or
|>bothering them they'd just ignore them....   

If a six year old child does a funny trick and you say well done he will
do it again and it may be funny. Then they may repeat it over and over
again bu you still have to pretend its funny even though it isn't any
more. Once they are older than six you expect them to realise that doing
the same thing over and over again isn't funny any more.

Basicaly Ed fails to be amusing because he is merely crass. He does not
make jokes that have any political content beyond attempting to ridicule
their target. Calling someone Slick Willie is not funny even if you put
on a red nose while you say it, it was a good debating point used on the
spur of the moment 12 months ago but now its use merely demonstrates that the
user couldn't think of anything original to say.


In the UK there is a tradition of old retired Colnels who bore the dinner
guests rigid with their descriptions of old campagns. Ed is clearly one
of this type of people who fails to see when a joke is spent.



Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176968
From: nickn@eskimo.com (Nick Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: Debating special "hate crimes" laws  (was How many homosexuals...)

In article <1pmrakINNpun@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>> > If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault
>> > and battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a
>> > sort of double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>> > [Douglas Meier]
>>
>> Assuming the questions are not rhetorical, the answers are:
>>
>> () To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>    assault laws.  
>> () No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>    charges and multiple crimes.
>> () Yes.
>
>Let's leave aside the personal-insult potential that Doug created by
>asking his last question and just concentrate on the legal/political
>debate...  Last point first: yes, a single act may lead to multiple,
>independent charges.  However, as a side note, I _think_ that the
>prohibition on double jeopardy mandates that the suspect be tried on all
>those charges at the same time, in the same trial.  (Unless, of course,
>the government can pull the "separate sovereignties" crock that they're
>using on those four LAPD cops who arrested Rodney King, i.e. trying a
>person who's already been acquitted in state court on federal charges
>arising from the same act...  _I_ think that this is double jeopardy but
>apparently the courts don't agree with me.)

Note that the laws that don't agree with you were passed to protect
a class of people who couldn't get justice from the state courts;
specifically civil rights workers in Missisippi in the 60's. The 
federal protection of individual rights supersedes the non-feasance
of the state. Something similar has long been traditional ( well
he's queer so I beat him up...) for gays


>
>You pays your money and you takes your pick... me, I lean strongly
>towards the "against" argument.  I know that having the law treat
>everyone as equals, regardless of realities, will not in and of itself
>lead to true equality, and in fact may lead, at times, towards greater
>inequality.  Nonetheless, I believe that true equality is at least
>_possible_ when the laws treat people as being equal, while true
>equality is, by definition, _impossible_ when the laws themselves
>mandate unequal treatment of classes of people by the state.
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>
As Anatole France said; "The law in its impartial majesty forbids the
rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges."

Equality of law can be construed in any number of ways. For example
the fact that all property thefts, regardless of value, are not
punished equally is an inequality which protects those who have
a lot of money from having it stolen. You could easily define
equality to regard the property in terms of it's significance
for the owner. This would a form of equality that would be skewed
toward poorer people.

In fact, most anti-gay bashing laws are constructed to offer equal 
protection. They make it an offense to damage people based on a 
motivation of hatred for sexual orientation. Thus the law in its
impartial majesty protects hets as well as gays from being bashed.
I'm sure that's a great relief to Douglas Meier.



-- 
Nick Nussbaum		nickn@eskimo.com	PO 4738 Seattle,WA 98104

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176969
From: edo2877@ucs.usl.edu (Ott Edward D)
Subject: EMAIL

does anyone have Prez. Clinton`s e-mail address.
thanks a lot 
 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176970
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In article <C50sKE.3Ft@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
> 
> In Article 164905 in talk.politics.misc,decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
> (dean.kaflowitz)
> 
> >In article <C4rt3t.Ewp@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com 
> >(Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
> >> 
> >>>    1) Is an unborn child a human being at ANY POINT during pregnency?
> 
> > >In my opinion, at all points during the pregnancy it is human.
> > >You'll have to define what you mean by "human being" for me to
> > >answer the question as put.
> 
> A parallel: Q: "Is a person of color a human being?"
>             A: "You'll have to define what you mean by `human being'."

To answer your irrelevant question, yes a person of color is human,
but I still don't know what you mean by human being and you have
merely begged the question without responding.  By trying to inject
the notion of race into the discussion, you muddy the waters without
adding any insight whatever.  The same parallel question could
be "Is a polydactyl person a human being?"  You still have not
answered what you mean by human being.  Please do so.

> >> I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person
> >> whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with 
> >> a functioning brain.
> >Could you cite some of those precedents for me, or the basis of this
> >definition?  While the law does allow the removal of extraordinary
> >means of sustaining life in cases of brain death, this in itself
> >does not lead to your conclusion of how the law defines a human
> >being.  However, at least you defined human being in a tenuous
> >fashion.  That is, a "person whose rights are protected by the
> >Constitution and the law."
> 
> >For my answer to your question, I refer you to Roe v Wade and
> >subsequent Supreme Court decisions, which define to what
> >extent a fetus is protected by the Constitution and the law.
> "Certain judges have concurred that slavery is not a violation of
> human rights; therefore, it is not."

You won't answer the question and instead drag in irrelevancies.
If you want a definition of human being that does not depend on
the vagaries of law, but holds solid whatever the law may rule,
provide it for me.

> I would suggest that your blind faith would not likely hold up if the
> shoe were on the other foot.  The "brain life/death" paradigm is one that
> I suggest as one consistent with other legal definitions.  It clearly
> doesn't matter to you whether an unborn child has any rights or not,
> however, so the point is lost on you. 

More irrelevancies.  As Larry Margolis pointed out, the law
has made special exceptions in order to include fetuses, but does
not follow your version of human being.  And as he pointed out,
brain death is not a means of determining who has the rights
of the living, but rather who has died.  There is a significant
difference.

What I am wondering now is, has your argument so failed you that
you feel it necessary to drag out irrelevancies and leave the
thread you started?  You got answers to your questions when
you began baiting me, if you recall, after you had made some
ridiculous remarks about Adrienne Regard and, having been corrected,
changed the subject with your remarks about having a discussion
of substance.  If you really wanted a discussion of substance,
why then do you disregard logic and substance in order to toss
silly accussations, e.g. "It really doesn't matter to you..."
If it matters to you, then why not define human being and seek
some substance?  You're not going to convince a logical person
of the rightness of your position unless you apply some logic
and show some meaning to your words.

> >> >>         2) If she is, then why does the mother have the right to kill
> >> >>            her when she is in the womb but not after she has passed
> >> >>            through the birth canal?
> >> 
> >> >Because a woman has a right to have any object which threatens her
> >> >health and is within the confines of her body removed.  The other
> >> >side of the argument would give rights to the fetus that would not
> >> >be granted to an adult human.  If, for example, you were occupying
> >> >the body of another, for whatever reason or through whatever means,
> >> >the reason and means being irrelevant, that other would be able to
> >> >remove or have you removed.  If that removal required your demise,
> >> >I see no reason in law that such a removal could not be effected.
> >> Rather than examining a hypothetical thought experiment, let us examine
> >> a real, though rare, situation: siamese twins.  If one siamese twin has
> >> the other surgically removed, knowing that it will cause death (and
> >> barring some emergency where they will both die anyway), it is
> >> murder.
> >Is it?  Have you any support for this assertion?  Furthermore, your
> >analogy is completely inapplicable.  Siamese twins have an equal
> >claim to any body parts they have in common.  Try again.
> What establishes this "equal claim" beyond your assertion?  If it
> is merely a matter of "which came first", cannot one kill the other since
> they both have equal claim?  What if one has more motor control than
> the other?  Does that establish a "superior claim"?

As others point out, one is sacrificed for the other depending on
which has the better chance at survival.  Again, your analogy
fails.  Not precedence, but possession makes a difference here.
A woman's womb is indisputably her own.  Also, I see you ignore
my statement that you would grant rights to a fetus that would
not be granted a born human being.  Was that due to its inconvenience?

> >> You see, the right to life IS granted to adult humans in the
> >> same sense as it should be to the foetus AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO BIRTH.
> >Are Siamese twins ever separated in the womb?  Or is this
> >right you assert for Siamese twins, which I don't even think is
> >true as stated or valid as an analogy, one that exists after birth?
> >Freivald, your entire argument here is a failure.
> Interesting way of trying to combine two essentially orthogonal concepts.
> The point is that it is murder for one siamese twin to kill the other,
> regardless of their status of physiological dependence or interdependence.

Is it?  Please cite a precedent and the basis of the ruling.

> It would be difficult for one siamese twin to kill the other inside the
> womb, and even if it were possible I doubt that a case could be made for
> premeditation or neglegence.  Note the use of the phrase "it should be"
> in my post.

You simply assert things without any support.  Your analogy is
not accurate and your assertions are unsupported.  Try this on
for size.  It is not murder for one Siamese twin to kill
the other in the womb.  There.  We now have equal arguments.
But the idea is illogical.  For one Siamese twin to kill the
other in the womb would likely be to kill itself as well.  The
systems are dependent on each other for life.  I'm still struggling
to see anything analagous here and failing to do so.

> >> Of course, the situation is NOT a perfect comparison; it may well be that
> >> one siamese twin deliberately initiates oppression or coersion against
> >> the other.  This is clearly not the case with an unborn child.
> >And this last statement from you is a total non sequitur.  The
> >comparison is far worse than you give it credit for.
> Are you going to let this assertion stand on its own also, or do you 
> plan on following up with a reasoned argument?

Your argument is from Fantasy Island.  Your comparison is a total
failure, as I have demonstrated already, and has no basis in
reality, neither legally nor medically.  And for you to assert
that it is not a perfect comparison because of the impossible,
that of coercion or oppression, is ridiculous.  As I said,
you give the analogy too little credit for failure.  On the one
hand you start this by saying you want to take a real, rather than
a hypothetical, situation, then you fly off into Siamese twins
murdering one another in the womb or coercing or oppressing each
other in the womb when the reality of the situation you describe
in now way matches your version.  As I said before, decisions
are made regarding which twin lives and dies in situations where
they cannot both survive.  And, furthermore, as I have already said,
there is a difference between an equal claim to organs and a claim
that is unequal.  You seem to be asserting that a fetus has a
claim on a woman's womb.  When the fetus is born, what happens to
its claim?  And by what reason do you assert its claim?

> >> >>         3) If a parent has the right to choose to not take responsibility
> >> >>            for their own child, why are there laws and penalties against
> >> >>            child abandonment?
> >> >This last question is irrelevant and something of a non sequitur.
> >> >Can you establish some relevance or even some sense for it?
> >> If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
> >> have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
> >> their children.
> >Again, what is the relevance?  You have established no sense of when
> >that point is, you ignore the significant difference between a fetus
> >and a born child (the dependence of a born child can be transferred
> >to another party, while that of a fetus cannot; a born child does
> >not live within the body of another human being while a fetus does,
> >thereby representing potential and often actual harm to that
> >body, as in the case of one of our talk.abortion participants who
> >suffers from epilepsy and to whom pregnancy represents a significant
> >health risk, or as in the case of a woman I know, who chose to
> >continue her pregnancy, but spent her entire pregnancy confined to
> >a wheelchair and suffering great pain from constriction of some
> >nerve), and your argument is not an argument against abortion
> >generally, but at best an argument against abortion at "some
> >time during the course of pregnancy."
> Again, a quest for common ground.  Most of the pro-choice people I
> have spoken to in person (none of them pro-abortion activists) concede
> that the child has a right to life at some point that supersedes all
> of the mother's rights except that of her own life.  As is often the
> case in emotionally charged issues, the activists have a very different
> outlook from the mainstream.

You haven't answered the question.  The situations are not analagous.

> The dependence of a born child is not transferred instantaneously; it
> takes time and effort.  Incidentally, it is the pro-choice side, not
> me, arguing that the government should make it easy for parents to 
> abandon their children to the State.

Again you avoid the question.  Dependence can be transferred, and
it is not as slow as you seem to think.

> As to the anecdotal evidence of real human tragedy, there is ample
> on both sides.  I would hate to be in the position of the mother in
> NYC who has to tell her daughter that she lost her arm in a botched
> abortion attempt.

Yes, and I'd hate to have been the one to tell Dr Gunn's children that
he was murdered by a religious, "pro-life" fanatic.  Please do
try to stay relevant.

> >The kindest thing I can say about these responses of yours is
> >that I can see you are trying to say something, but the result
> >is a mish-mash of negligible value.
> Sez you.

Clever comeback.  I congratulate you on the readiness of your wit.
> 
> In Article 164906 in talk.politics.misc,decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> [Ground covered in another post deleted]
> 
> >> >If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
> >> >have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
> >> >their children.
> >> 
> >> And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children,
> >> even if necessary to save the child's life.
> 
> >As was this.  To make it painfully clear, you are not
> >obligated to donate a kidney to save your child's life
> >under law.
> 
> Again, the confusion between ACTION {deliberately taking away the life
> of a child} and INACTION {refusing to run out in front of a bus to save
> a child}.

What happened to that claim to bodily organs where life is at stake?
Why does this parent now have an indisputable right to his or her
kidney when previously the parent did not, by your standards?  What
is different about the two situations?  I see I have to spell this
out for you since the meaning was too subtle for you.  In the one
case you do not recognize a difference between a fetus and a born
child (you ask why a born child cannot be abandoned but a fetus
can), and in this case you recognize a significant difference
between the fetus and born child where the lives of the two are at
stake.  You can't have it both ways.  Action and inaction are
irrelevant to the principle, but you are wrong about the inaction
anyway.  Ask any of the numerous women who post here and have
borne children how inactive their pregnancy was.  To have a
healthy, live child, a woman does more than hang out, eat as
she chooses, plays volleyball like she always did, drinks at
parties with her friends, etc.  She behaves very differently, and
the provision of her resources to a fetus may be no more voluntary
than the beating of her heart, but it is far from inactive.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176971
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In article <C50sMA.3GK@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
> 
> 
> In article 164871 in talk.politics.misc, margoli@watson.ibm.com 
> (Larry Margolis) writes:
> 
> >>I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person
> >>whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with
> >>a functioning brain.
> 
> >No, if you want to use legal precedent, you should take a look at the
> >Model Penal Code, on which many states base their criminal code:
> 
> My apologies if I was unclear; I was not trying to start a statutory 
> debate, since there are many (in some cases conflicting) statutes on
> the books.  I was merely suggesting a paradigm that might make sense
> for a pro-choicer IMHO.

Cite one of these conflicting statutes.  You keep making
these assertions, but you haven't supported any of them yet.
I am speaking of statutes that conflict with the definition
Larry posted.

Why did you delete the code that Larry posted?

Also, the Model Penal Code made perfect sense to me.  Were you,
perhaps, confused by it?

Also, I am still looking for your definition.  The one you used
clearly indicates that a fetus is not a human being.

> >>This is not likely to please either pro-lifers or
> >>pro-choicers, but it is pretty clear from the legal/medical concept of
> >>"brain death".
> >"Brain death" is a method of deciding when a (known) person is legally
> >dead; there's no analogous concept of "brain birth".
> I have just coined it.  You may object to the paradigm, but it would
> make our treatment of human life statutorily consistent.

Circular arguments are usually very consistent.

> >>>>         3) If a parent has the right to choose to not take responsibility
> >>>>            for their own child, why are there laws and penalties against
> >>>>            child abandonment?
> >>>This last question is irrelevant and something of a non sequitur.
> >>>Can you establish some relevance or even some sense for it?
> >>If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
> >>have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
> >>their children.
> >And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children,
> >even if necessary to save the child's life.
> There is a confusion here between action and inaction: a parent does not have
> to run out in front of a bus to save their child's life either, but a parent
> IS required to feed his children.


Again, your desire for consistency disappears when it does not suit
your needs.  The principle of protecting life is abandoned based
on "action versus inaction."  Not much of a principle.  Suddenly
you recognize that the claim on bodily resources is dependent
on circumstances other than this principle of life.  That's
a very conevnient principle you have there, Matt.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176972
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

In article <C52CLI.G09@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1phgakINN9pb@apache.dtcc.edu>, bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:


>In the UK there is a tradition of old retired Colnels who bore the dinner
>guests rigid with their descriptions of old campagns. Ed is clearly one
>of this type of people who fails to see when a joke is spent.

  You are hereby authorized not to laugh.  By special dispensation of
her Hillariness.  This offer void where prohibited by law, consumer must
pay applicable sales tax.....
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176973
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)


In a previous article, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) says:

>
>	I don't believe in the "Wave Theory".

 
           You don't have to.  *It*  believes in YOU.


>horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock
>in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.


        Well, looking at our new government pals, I'm inclined to
        agree.  I don't much believe in our money, either. :)


>	Maybe you'd like to invest in some foreign currency.


    Oh, ho HO!   If only you knew!  :)

    Yup, I'm DEFINITELY checking out foreign currency, thanks to
    to this newsgroup.  It sure doesn't take much thinking to realize
    what direction the U.S. is headed.


>	(Sigh - speculators never learn.)


    Oh, ho HO!  Speculator?!  Me?!  No, no, I'm going with a sure
    thing.  Sure as "Bust in California Real Estate". :)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176976
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Responses to Ed's Top Ten Lists


In a previous article, mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) says:

>In article <C4zrEH.C7s@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) write
>s:
>
>The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler)
>so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?


      No.  The REAL question:  Should the Feds bail-out IBM ( a la Chrysler )
  so that important $80K manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?

       It could be part of the "Jobs Bill"



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176977
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Haiti  AIDS/HIV IMMIGRANTS



     In case you missed it on the news....the first 16 Haitians
of many that tested positive for HIV and were being held on a
base in Cuba have been flown to the U.S.
     Further a U.S. judge has ruled that they must receive
medical treatment or be returned to a place where they could
receive same.

      So guess what folks, we taxpayers get to pick up the tab 
(just as you might have expected) for people who have never
contributed a dime to the U.S. society.

      I think this government has its priorities ALL SCREWED UP.
If they want to help Haitians....how about removing the illegal
government, how about giving them development aid?
IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to waste resources on dying non-citizens
who will never be productive in either this country or their own.
It does not make sense when the same resources applied or even
just plain given to poor people in Haiti could significantly
help 100 people in Haiti per 1 AIDS-infected non-citizen immigrant.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176979
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Debating special "hate crimes" laws


In article <1993Apr4.235546.6450@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> > This sort [of] separate treatment by the law has no place in an
> > equal society; the solution to the fact that some classes are more
> > vulnerable to attack or discrimination is to do what has always
> > been done in response to imbalances in criminal activity and
> > citizen protection: to allocate _law enforcement_ resources to
> > more efficiently and effectively deal with the problems, not to
> > rewrite the _law_ itself.  [wdstarr]
>
> So how do you feel about increased penalties for killing a policeman?
> A federal employee?  Or to use both Scalia's and Stevens's example,
> increased penalties for threatening the president?  (I'm assuming
> that, like all good people, you oppose the marital exemption for rape,
> so I won't bring that up.)

In order of your questions, I oppose it, I oppose it, I oppose it and
(Huh?  Wha?  Where did _that_ topic come from and what's it got to do
with the discussion at hand? :-)

When I was discussing the concept of different criminal laws for crimes
against different classes of people (and yes, I do consider laws which
allow/mandate enhanced penalties following conviction based upon the
convict's attitudes towards the class membership of the victim to fit
into that category), the category of classes I had in mind was that of
the standard civil rights discussion -- classes based upon race, gender,
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.  Having you ask about
classes based upon one's _profession_ rather than one's personal
characteristics caught me off guard, and I had to think out the question
from scratch.

What I finally decided was that the law should not recognize such
classes because to do so would be to formally and officially declare
some people to be of more worth than others, and that would be anathema
to the underlying American concept of equal treatment under the law.

Last year, when a federal crime bill was under consideration which would
have expanded the federal death penalty to an additional fifty-plus
crimes, including the murder of various federal officers hitherto not
protected by that "aura of deterrence," critics pointed out the
absurdity of having laws which made the death penalty available for the
murder of a federal postal inspector but not for ther murder of a
civilian teacher, when the latter [arguably] provided a much more
valueable service and therefore would be the greater loss to society.
This was an emotionally compelling argument, but even the proponents of
that viewpoint appeared to tacitly assume that the state should judge
some lives as being more valuable than others on the basis of their
"contribution to society."  I view that doctrine as being both (a)
personally repugnant and (b) repugnant to the Equal Protection clause of
the 14th Amendment.

Accordingly, I believe that there should be no laws which give any
profession-based class of people special protection (via the mechanism
of supplying stronger statutory deterrence of crimes against members of
that class), not even police officers, federal officers or high-ranking
members of the Executive Branch of the federal government.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176980
From: gemmellj@merrimack.edu
Subject: e-mail to the hill ??

Now, that Clinton can get e-mail, i'm wondering if Congress is also
going on line.. If so, does anyone have the address to reach them??
I'm also looking for Bill's e-mail address.
please e-mail me, i am not a regualar reader of this newsgrouop.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176981
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds

In article <C51vzu.I1r@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>  Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, 
>  Study Finds

While I agree with much of this post, one point seems mis-directed...

>    When standards of living, population densities, and industrial
>  structures are controlled for, the United States is no less energy
>  efficient than Japan and more energy efficient than many of the Group
>  of Seven nations.

And when controlled for usage of oil, gas, etc. energy efficiency in
all countries turns out to be identical :-)

To take population density as an example, one way to reduce energy
used in transportation is surely to concentrate the population in
dense urban areas (though this might, of course, have other
disadvantages, possibly even relating to energy use).  The fact that
Japan is forced to do this by the nature of the country, while the US
is not, does not mean that people in the US would be unable to do this
if given sufficient motive to conserve energy.

    Radford Neal

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176982
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over

In article <01APR93.17160985.0059@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:

> Mark Anthony Young:

>> PPS: Many Americans have a "special legal status" based on "a mere
>> accident of birth".  Only people born in the US can become president
>> of the US.  And since Parliament could theoretically replace the Queen
>> with _anyone they want_ (even a "ferigner") US law is in one dimension
>> more restictive than UK law as regards birth privileges.

> This is not just theoretical.  Note how "ferigner" William III was
> imported from Holland to kick out local boy James II, [...]

Which provided the basis for the denoument of the film which
introduced Errol Flynn to the world.  (Love interest was Olivia de
Havilland, who went on to appear with Flynn in 7 more films.)

[Exercise for non-old-movie buffs: what film was this?]
[Exercise for old movie buffs: what were the 7 more films?]
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176985
From: dil8596@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.

it may be a little late to reply to your tirade and also on an inaapropriate
board but along with all of the so called great things the white male has done they have also contributed to society by means of mass genocide, the theft of
ideas and cultures, creating and the perptration of historical lies throughouttime among many other horrible activities.
but every culture has its upside and its downside.  it seems to me that the 
white male (must be extremely ignorant to qualify for the following - if
you're not disregard) and western culture are the only things that look to 
actively classify things as good or bad, worthy or unworthy (ya dig)
it can be seen with slavery and the manipulation and destruction of the 
american indians civilization.  nothing but selfish acts that benefit one 
group of people (and not even their women get or got respected or regarded as
equal - ain't that some stuff)

white men - not being specific - but in a lot of cases are just wack or have
wack conceptions of how the world is to serve their purpose.  

just look at david koresh - throughout history (i may be shortsighted on this one so excuse my predjudiced ignorance) only white men associate themselves withbeing GOD.  no other culture is ignorant or arrogant enough to assume such a 
position.  and then to manipulate and mislead all those people.

hmmm...  i'd say look in your history books but since it seems that history 
has been written to glorify the exploits of white men you'd only find lies.

awww that's enough already from me because this has nothing to do with sex or this board.  if ya'd like to continue this discussion e-mail me and we can 
compare and contrast ideas

			i like conflict - it's educational when the 
			communcation is good......................

my $.02 worth

(i apologize to those who thought this was going to be about SEX but i was
prompted by a response i found up here)

dave lewis - frisky HANDS man

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176986
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Subject: Re: Supply Side-revenue

In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> 
> The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
> ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.

Which, considering the amount Bush&congress added to it, would be a
not-inconsiderable achievement.

While we're on the subject, I also believe that the supply-side claim that
reducing taxes raised revenue is also false, because they typically factor in
SocSec taxes, which were *raised* a considerable amount, at the same time that
income taxes were cut.  If you look at income tax revenue alone, it fell after
after the cuts began, and didn't recover for several years. By then, record
deficits were well entrenched.
> 
> Chew on that awhile.

*crunch, crunch*

steve soar



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176987
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
: In article <1993Apr5.045612.14229@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
: 
: > [...]  You're not breathing clean air provided by government
: > regulations, [...]
: 
: If this doesn't beat all I ever heard!  The above certainly says a
: mouthful about the mindset of Ted Frank, and also of statists
: everywhere.
: --

Yes, there's certainly no need to argue with him, or address the
substance of what he says- he's a statist, after all.  Probably 
politically correct, too...                           

Bill


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176989
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy

In article <186042@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
> In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu
> (Ashish Arora) writes:
> |> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
> |> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
> |> [...]
> |> 
> |> >    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
> |> > the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
> |> >  
> |> > Brett
> |> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.
> |> 
> |> cheers
> 
> Actually not.  Brett himself has actually posted the data previously.
> What declined from 84 to 89, as I remember it, was _percent
> increase_in_deficit_growth, i.e. the rate of growth of the deficit 
> (2nd derivative of total deficit with respect of to time) decreased.

	Would you please define "nth derivative of debt"?  Last time I asked
you seem to have disappeared....

	And it's the deficits themselves that came down to 2.9% of GNP.  The
numbers are posted in the previous posting.

> Brett apparently has numbed himself into thinking that the deficit
> declined.  

	Cute, Paul, but with no numbers you still look foolish.

> If you keep spending more than you earn, the deficit keeps
> growing.  

	Paul, like many others, is confusing the deficit with the debt.

> If you keep _borrowing_ at a lesser rate than you borrowed
> previously, the deficit increases.  You only decrease deficits when your
> income exceeds spending and you use the difference to pay off debts.

	Not in terms of GNP, the one universally accepted measure of deficits
(at least among rigorous economists :)

...
> arguments were brilliant.  He confirmed, with data, what many of us know
> with common sense -- the boom of the 80's has nothing to do with government
> policy, particularly "supply side" policy, since taxes do not "cause" 
> economic activities.  People cause economic activity.  More can be 

	Semantics.  Lindsey proves otherwise.  Taxes make people change their
economic activities.
	Or shall we debate whether it is the gun, the bullet, or the person who
does the killing?

> explained by watching population waves roll through the years and 
> create cycles.  He has made models and predictions for years well into
> the middle of next century.  It will be neat to see how accurate he
> is.

	Or whether this gentleman can win the same praise as Lindsey. :)

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176990
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
> [...]
> 
>>    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
>> the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
>>  
>> Brett
> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.

In billions of dollars (%GNP):
year  GNP    receipts     outlays       deficit     debt    unempl%  admin
====  ====   ===========  ============  =========   ======  =======  =======
1977  1930   355.6 (18.4) 409.2  (21.2) 53.6 (2.8)   709.1           Carter
1978  2174   399.6 (18.4) 458.7  (21.1) 59.2 (2.7)   780.4           Carter
1979  2444   463.3 (19.0) 503.5  (20.6) 40.2 (1.6)   833.8           Carter
1980  2674   517.1 (19.3) 590.9  (22.1) 73.8 (2.8)   914.3   7.9     Carter
1981  2986   599.3 (20.1) 678.2  (22.7) 78.9 (2.6)  1003.9   8.4     Reagan
1982  3130   617.8 (19.7) 745.7  (23.8) 127.9 (4.1) 1147.0  11.0     Reagan
1983  3325   600.6 (18.1) 808.3  (24.3) 207.8 (6.2) 1381.9  10.9     Reagan
1984  3688   666.5 (18.1) 851.8  (23.1) 185.3 (5.0) 1576.7   8.6     Reagan
1985  3958   734.1 (18.5) 946.3  (23.9) 212.3 (5.4) 1827.5   8.1     Reagan
1986  4177   769.1 (18.4) 989.8  (23.7) 220.7 (5.3) 2129.5   7.9     Reagan
1987  4442   854.1 (19.2) 1002.1 (22.6) 148.0 (3.4) 2354.3   7.1     Reagan
1988  4771   909.0 (19.1) 1064.1 (22.3) 155.1 (3.2) 2614.6   6.3     Reagan
1989  5201   990.8 (19.0) 1142.8 (22.0)	152.0 (2.9) 2881.1           Bush
1990         1031.2       1251.6        220.4       3190.5           Bush
1991	     1054.3	  1323.0	268.7       3599.0           Bush

[Source: Statistical Abstract of the US (1990 version), American Almanac 
(1993 version), Universal Almanac (1993 version), Information Please Almanac
(1991 version)]

		GRAPHICALLY: Deficits as a % of GNP, 1981-89

% GNP
7|
 |
6|                       X
 |                                       X       X
5|                               X                
 |                                                
4|               X
 |                                                       X
3|                                                               X       X
 |       X
2|
 |
1|
 |____________________________________________________________________________
0	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989

	Ironically, Bush could have frozen spending, kept his "no new taxes"
pledge and balanced the budget.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176991
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject

In <1ppjruINNhnt@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:

>In article <C4y3DD.L1n@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
>>     But this does not imply that ALL relationships between youth
>>     and adults are exploitative and abusive.

>>The critical factor here is whether the sexual activity is "forced" 
>>or whether it is an activity that is consensually agreed upon and 
>>freely engaged in by the people involved.

>>When a child is "forced" there is often "damage", on the other hand,

>	Wholeheartedly agree here.

>>"consensual" relationships are often found to be "positive experiences" 
>>for all concerned.

>	Why do I find this hard to believe?
>	Care to convince us?

Carlos,

   Why not check out some of the scientific research that has been
done in this area and convince yourself.

   Research around the world indicates that the issue of coercion is
the critical factor. 

For those interested in research on the topic I can suggest, Li et al
(England), Constantine (United States), and Sandfort (The Netherlands).
I especially like Sandfort's research for he actually quotes what the
boys who are involved in the relationships have to say.



Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives by Larry Constantine
  & Floyd M. Martinson (eds.). Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1980.
Boys On Their Contacts With Men by Theo Sandfort, Global Academic
  Publishers, Elmhurst, New York, 1987.
Perspectives on Paedophilia by Brian Taylor (ed.). Batsford Academic &
  Educational Ltd., London, 1981.
Paedophilia: A Factual Report by Frits Bernard. Enclave, Rotterdam,
  The Netherlands, 1985.
Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys by Parker Rossman. Maurice
  Temple Smith Ltd., Middlesex, Great Britain, 1985.
Children's Sexual Encounters With Adults by C.K. Li, D.J. West & T.P.
  Woodhouse. Gerald Duckworth & Co., London, 1990.


Yours in Liberation,

Roy


-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176992
From: acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)


In article <1938@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, doesn't believe in 
>money at all. She started out as a real estate developer, and now raises
>horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock
>in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.

If time is really hard, can a bank selectively call in some mortgage
loans early?  What if the bank folds, can its creditors call in the
loans?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176993
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...

...His account that is.

Many important issues, and some not-so important ones, are discussed here
on the net on a daily basis.  I have just been informed of what I feel is
one of the most important things that we could ever discuss -- The 
out-and-out censorship of one of our fellow posters because some people
don't like what he says or thinks.

We have all seen the postings here by AJ Teel.  Although many of us have
not agreed with their content, I'm sure most of us have been at least
somewhat interested in them.  I, for one, am greatful to live (I thought)
in a country where people like Mr. Teel are allowed to say what they please.
If I don't wan't to read it, I can just skip on by, or unsuscribe.  But,
unfortunately, some people cannot let others live and let live.  They feel
an overwhelming need to snuff out the little bastards.  Now it seems that
Mr. Teel will be with us no more, due mainly to our brother, and cheif
net police, Ted Frank.


PLEASE HELP AJ TEEL REGAIN NET (POST) ACCESS AND CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE. 

                      ARE YOU ON TED'S HIT LIST?  
                      ARE YOUR THOUGHTS CORRECT?  
                        IS YOUR ACCOUNT SAFE?
         HAS YOUR SYSADMIN BEEN CONTACTED BY THE THOUGHT POLICE?

I thought the NLG and the ACLU supported people with diverse opinions. NOT!

 
Please read the following forwarded messages from AJ Teel so that 
you may understand this vial act for what it is...

------------------------------ forwarded ---------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Officer Ted Frank, Thought Police Badge Number NWO-666
Summary: Ted wins the argument by killing his opponent!
Expires: 
Sender: "A. J. Teel, Sui Juris" (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Keywords: NWO Ted Frank

Well, well, well... Thanks to eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) and
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank), my account is to be axed.
I guess that the information I am presenting is just toooo difficult
for them to deal with. They (ONLY Ted and Mark) have complained to my
sysadmin some unknown number of times to get me off the net. (In his
defense, Mark sent only one message and it was not THAT bad; it has
been posted in one of the newsgroups; However, it *was* not directed
at me as would be common practice and I am VERY good at responding
via netmail...)

While I disagree with Ted, I would not send mail to his sysadmin
to get him axed. Name-calling was not enough; jumping on every post
I made was not enough; ignoring specific points when they were not
what the desired picture was not enough; SIMPLY IGNORING ME IF I
AM SUCH A KOOK WAS NOT ENOUGH. Even now I do not wish to have him
axed, but I do wish to express my disgust about this. "Argumentum
ad silence-your-opponent-um"?! I would have thought he would have
wanted me to stay around just to have someone to yell about and
seem sooo wise... (to himself, I think).

The issue that seems to be: "Is the following an advertisement?"
Apparently, Ted and Mark think so...

1) I Posted an article from around one year ago as it was taken 
	*off the net* from last year. If reposting an article
	constitutes posting an ad, then I am guilty. This post
	did have a name and address and, yes, a price. If one
	had posted the address and subscription price of "Newsweek",
	would that be an ad? I get nothing from showing this stuff.
2) I Posted a list of documents showing examples of the kind of
	"proof" that was REQUESTED BY TED FRANK. He then complains
	to my sysadmin saying that I am advertising and, lo and
	behold, "poof", there goes my account. This one had an
	address in it! Oh, no! I Guess that means it is an ad!

If you value the alternative view I have been discussing, or VALUE
ITS DISCUSSION even if you do not agree with it, I ask that you send
a note saying as much to me to show to the sysadmin. They rarely get
"Ya know, that user on your net was real helpful..." or whatever; they
only get "I don't like what that user is doing because...".
Please do not send the note to the sysadmin. I need to take it to them
in a manner that has at least a chance of getting through.

In my files here are hundreds of responses from people saying "Thanks for
the info" or "Could you send me such and such?" or "Your posts are
very interesting... keep it up." and only a handfull of "Go aways". But,
I guess the fact that I have decided not to waste my time trying to
convince Ted is a Net Offense[TM] of such magnitude as to warrant
a message complaining about me. (Knock, knock..."My name is Ted and
and this is Mark... We're from the thought police. Seems you have
some pretty dangerous ideas here, and we're here to confiscate them...")
NWO Indeed!

Guess I will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with
a new plan... Thanks Ted and Mike. Hope you are happy.
I will be on for a few more days and then... that's all folks!
Your comments and support are requested. I can no longer post
to news. I ask what this has accomplished... Is there some benefit
from making alternative views simply vanish? Not in my book. 
Seems the easiest way to win an argument is to make the opposing side
shut up. Images of Waco.... ah, but alas... And all this when I am in the
process of typing in a letter to me from the Tax Collector saying that
a lien was removed due to a letter that I wrote challenging jurisdiction.
Oh, well... It takes time to come up with the info requested, and I
was just getting started.

It should be noted that Ted Frank has been accused publicly over 40
times of being an NWO supporter and has never made an statements to the
contrary. Further, what ARE Ted Frank's motivations for getting me axed?
We all know that SOME PEOPLE are getting paid to collect info on people
on the net that are of "interest" to the government, and Ted sure seems
to have a *personal* interest in debunking me. Hmmm... just who does
he work for? The University of Chicago which he "attends"(?) is well
known as one of the biggest NWO supporters...

And finally, if anyone would be able to help me find a new account here
in the Boulder/Denver area, I would greatly appreciate it. I am in the
process of installing Linux and so will be able to do UUCP or maybe
a TC/IP connection. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Since I
am longer be able to post news and will no longer have email VERY
soon, I hope that anyone who wishes to contact me will do so via:

	A. J. Teel, Sui Juris
	c/o USPS Box 19043
	Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.
	Postal Zone: 80308-9043
	
	or leave me voice mail at: c/o (408) 281-0434


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected messages from Ted Frank via sysadmin follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)


---------------------------

>From barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu Mon Apr  5 14:39:21 1993
Received: from locutus.cs.colorado.edu by dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA14777
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:39:19 -0600
Received: by locutus.cs.colorado.edu with SMTP id AA15908
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:36:54 -0600
Message-Id: <199304052036.AA15908@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
To: "Ted Frank" <thf2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: List of documents 
Cc: cstmr@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, csops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu,
        ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, vaxops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Reply-To: trouble@cs.colorado.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 05 Apr 93 13:29:06 CDT
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 14:36:51 -0600
From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Status: OR

--------

    Please ask ******* to stop advertising his wares on the network. Thank you.
			[Editor's Note:    ^^^???]
    
    In article <1993Apr5.154256.5169@colorado.edu> ajteel writes:
    >[START OF DOCUMENT: doclist.txt.lis ]
    >DOCUMENTS NOW AVAILABLE
    >
    >BILL MEDINA, Sui Juris
    >Post Office Box 70400
    >Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A.
    >Postal Zone: 94086-0400
    
    (79 lines deleted).

---------------
  Resolution:
---------------

Thank you.  He has been warned before.  We are taking action.


Barbara J. Dyker                       Department of Computer Science
Manager, Computer Operations           Campus Box 430B, ECEE00-69
barb@cs.colorado.edu                   University of Colorado
(303) 492-2545                         Boulder, CO  80309-0430

--------------------
>From barb@locutus
.cs.colorado.edu Mon Apr  5 15:50:36 1993
Received: from locutus.cs.colorado.edu by dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA15809
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:34 -0600
Received: by locutus.cs.colorado.edu id AA16069
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ajteel); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:27 -0600
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:27 -0600
From: Barbara Dyker <barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
Message-Id: <199304052150.AA16069@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.87.1)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.87.1)
To: ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Subject: your account
Cc: vaxops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, usenet@locutus.cs.colorado.edu,
        mozer@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Status: OR

[...]

I had already warned you that your inappropriate use of
your account here must stop.  You have used your account
here as a soapbox for your political "sui juris" agenda.

[...]

> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 13:26:43 -0700
> From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
> To: ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
> 

> Also, if you are reported for any more commercial
> announcements, your account may be disabled. 

[Editor's note: What commercial advertisemnets are we talking about?]

> From: barb@bruno.cs.colorado.edu
> To: "A.J. Teel" <ajteel@dendrite.cs.colorado.edu>
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 17:26:40 MST
> 

[...]

> As long as
> they aren't causing any problems, we typically don't
> mind. ...We have received two complaints about the
> content of your messages so far (at least one of which I
> consider valid) - which already constitutes excessive
> in my book.  Just don't let it happen again. 

[Editor's note: I *wonder* who the other post was from??!]

>From laszlo@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu Thu Mar 18 01:40:15 1993
To: "Ted Frank" <thf2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Bouncing 

Cc: cstmr@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu, csops@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu
Reply-To: trouble@cs.colorado.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 17 Mar 93 21:05:59 CST
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 08:40:15 MST
From: laszlo@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu

--------

In article <1993Mar18.012344.6213@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU
    >Bounced names:
    >   garry@research.att.com
    >   bill@kean.usc.mun.ca
    >   jad@hopper.Virginia.EDU
    >   kima@gator.rational.com
    >
    >Hello All:
    >   I am having trouble reaching the following (keeps bouncing).
    >   If you sent me mail and haven't gotten a response, check here.
    >   Also, can anyone tell me why these are bouncing? I used
    >   the reply in elm which should send it right back, right?
    >With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
    >Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)
    >
[...]

[Editor's Note: The reason for posting the header lines from the bounced
messages was to show what the problem was and hopefully correct it.]

[Ted Frank] It's inexcusable to post 150 lines of bounced mail headers to four
newsgroups.
    A simple four-line post would have been sufficient.

---------------
  Resolution:
---------------
[Lazlo]
yes i agree. BUT our policy is to not watch everypost someone  here  
makes.
we generally let the net itself take care of inappropriate postings
by flaming the user into shape (which i assume this is ment to be).
we (CS operations) don't like to get involved in this stuff (unless
its illegal, repetitive posts of 1gig gifs, harassment, or something
else that offends the community in general). my suggestion is that
you take it to email and explain what a post for bounces should look  
like or tell him to RTFM

laz
[Editor's note: Obviously, Ted had no such intention of doing so...]

ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |  his advice is legally sound, if you follow it 
the u of c law school     |  you will probably wind up in jail."
standard disclaimers      |                    -- James Donald, in misc.legal

[Editor's Note: From this .sig, it seems obvious that Ted Frank has an
axe to grind... Why that particular quote?.... Hmmm... Sure makes me wonder.]


-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176994
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, 3/23
From: sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child)

arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:

>In article <1pprtvINNctl@aludra.usc.edu> sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child) writes:
>>arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Apr1.164804.1105@Rapnet.Sanders.Lockheed.Com> babb@k2 (Scott Babb) writes:
>>>>Jack Schmidling (arf@genesis.MCS.COM) wrote:
>>>>: jac2y@Virginia.EDU (Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>) writes:
>>>>: : 
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Why do you restrict your condemnation of racial strife to Israel?
>>>>Do the situations in Bosnia, Tibet, China, etc. not merit your comment?
>>
>>>As far as I am aware, we have not sent close to $100 billion dollars to
>>						  ^^^
>>				Let's not exaggerate.


>I notice you did not offer an alternative number.  Try this one on for
>size..... by the year 2000, American taxpayers will have given Israel
>one dollar for every star in the Milky Way Galaxy.

>I will let you look up the number.

OK, I admit I have no hard data on this. Why don't you help me with this?
If you would compile a commented list of all grants, un-repaid loans (if any),
and direct aid, I'd be very interested to see it. If you could give me
references from, for example, Congressional Budget Authorization Hearings,
I could look them up here and I'd be happy to post a verification of your
data.

Otherwise, I'll try my hand at this, but unfortunately I won't have sufficient
time available until the end of this month, so the results would be delayed.

Let me know if you're interested in doing this.

___Samuel___
Mossad Special Agent ID314159
Media Spiking and Mind Control Division
Los Angeles Offices
-- 
_________Pratice Safe .Signature! Prevent Dangerous Signature Virii!_______
Guildenstern: Our names shouted in a certain dawn ... a message ... a
              summons ... There must have been a moment, at the beginning,
              where we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176995
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Defense against the detractors...

In article <1993Apr2.021154.18039@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>In article <C4tDAB.A4o@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>In <1993Apr1.141455.16433@colorado.edu>, ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU sez:
>>>	(I would have thought you would have found better means
>>>of refuting or responding to the substantive points and information in
>>>the S.B. 

>>The S.B. needs no refutation by me.  The patent absurdity of your
>>beloved Great Book speaks for itself.

>	Your ignorance is clearly showing itself again, Mark.
>	Why don't you read the post and show us all where the
>	Silver Bulletin is wrong. It is an expose' of the
>	corruption and fraud in government. Or do you feel
>	that our wonderful state is just nifty and sweet?

Fine.  If you think it's an expose of corruption and fraud, 
please prevent a jury question.  Don't just reassert your 
opening statement.

>. . . 	
>>For those in the dark, I wrote to Teel's sysadmin noting that a) he
>>wastes bandwidth by posting identical messages (long ones) to several
>>newsgroups independently (instead of cross-posting), and b) he has
>>improperly used his posts to advertise goods for sale.  
>	A) I was requested to post to those groups
>	and they were getting deleted... By whom?
>	B) The "goods for sale" was a method of showing the
>	source and obtaining further info...
>	And the message in question was retrieved in its entirety
>	from the net. I simply reposted it from one year ago.

>	Would there be a complaint if I had posted an article from
>	"Newsweek" then posted the address and subscription price?
>	How about the subscription info for the American Law Review?
>	Bit of a double standard? Yeah... think so...

No indication that was what happened until now.  Editing down is 
always possible.

>. . .  
>>Readers more careful than A.J. will note that the complaint (appended
>>below) expressly disclaims any wish to suppress Teel's postings merely
>>because they are infantile, irrational, and tedious.
>	More name calling, Mark? Is that your best shot?
>	Oh, I see. The reason for your sending that letter
>	had nothing to do with your opinion of my information...
>	Right. Clearly your motivations were the best interest
>	of all of those poor users who could not speak for themselves.
>	If we weren't talking about attempted censorship(sp?), it
>	would be funny...

>	Further, your "perception" (for want of a better term) is not
>	the feedback that I have been getting via email and others.
>	 The "keep it up!"'s outnumber the "Go away!"'s at least 20 to 1.

It would be interesting to hear who the responding parties are.

>	I, for one, have no intention of being a slave. You may
>	be so if you like. Just remember where you heard that
>	on Tribute Day (April 15). I am not a 14th Amendment
>	taxpayer/slave/SSN holder/etc. Are you?

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY:

Don't let the IRS see this, Mr. Teel.

>. . . .
>	And by the way, the reference to UCC 1-207 is made
>	in pari materia with my Common-Law Rights. 1-207
>	is the recourse and 1-103 is the remedy.

And, as has been noted more times than we care to count, about as 
likely to stand up in court as the twenty-seven eight by ten 
color glossy pictures the Stockbridge, Mass., police, took for 
use as evidence against Arlo Guthrie.  (As anyone who knows 
Alice's Restaurant is aware, he pleaded guilty to littering, was 
fined $50, and told to pick up the garbage.)

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 176996
From: bernard@sirius.gte.com (Bernard Silver)
Subject: Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter

In article <1993Apr3.231858.27507@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
   In article <1993Apr3.223215.20655@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:
   >	Well, the two nifty letters giving concrete proof that the
   >Income Tax is voluntary and giving specific procedures for stopping
   >withholding, et cetera have been out there for a while now.
   >	There has been no refutation to date. Have the nay-sayers
   >finally given up as defeated? Sure would like to hear there reasons
   >for disbelief at this point.

   Probably because you have yet to respond to the refutation I've posted.
   Teel, it's bad enough you post this bs, it's even worse that you don't
   even try to defend it when it gets torn to pieces, but then posting
   that no one's looked at it and gloating when all facts point to the
   contrary point to a severely deluded mind.

What I found interesting about Conklin's letter is the 
6 cases he has won against the IRS.  Now, assuming that
these cases really exist and were one by him (anyone checked?)
they may have nothing to do with his major tax claim.  The IRS fought
one of his deductions.   Defending your deductions seems puny when
you believe that there is no need to file in the first place!

--
				Bernard Silver
				GTE Laboratories
				bsilver@gte.com
				(617) 466-2663

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177000
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15218@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#Yet, when a law was proposed for Virginia that extended this 
#philosophy to cigarette smokers (so that people who smoked away
#from the work couldn't be discriminated against by employers),
#the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't
#give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power
#play.

Of course Clayton ignores the fact that employers pay health
insurance, and insurance for smokers is more expensive than for
non-smokers. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177001
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Hilter and homosexuals

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

><ericsC4x1K9.Apz@netcom.com>, erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:

>> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
 
># #Are you saying that:
># 
># #(1) People voted for Hitler, and he became Reich Chancellor, in good
># #part because he used bully boys to attack communists,
 
># Hitler did not become become Reich Chancellor because people voted for
># him. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that or not, but I just thought
># I'd bring that up.

>Hitler became Chancellor because people voted for his political
>party.  That's not a huge difference in a parliamentary system.

Your statement is a common misconception, but it just isn't true. In the
German Weimar system, the Chancellor was not necessarily the leader of the
largest Reichstag party; the Chancellor was appointed by the President and
generally was the leader of a coalition of parties who could form an effective
majority in the Reichstag. Beyond that, the implication that Hitler rose to
the Chancellorship because a majority of Germans wanted Nazi rule is false
as well. Before President Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in January
1933, the German people did not show a particular desire to be led either by
Hitler or by the Nazi party. These are the results of the March 1932 election
for President, the closest Hitler ever came to direct election: Hindenburg
49.6%, Hitler 30.1%, Thaelmann 13.2%, Duesterberg 6.8%. In the runoff election
in April the results were: Hindenburg 53%, Hitler 36.8%, Thaelmann 10.2%.
So we can see that Hitler personally was supported by only about a third of
German voters.

Similarly, the Nazi party never received more than 37% of the vote in
Reichstag elections. That occurred in July 1932. In the November 1932 election
the Nazis *lost* two million votes and 34 seats, down from 230 to 196 out of
the 608 in the Reichstag. Comparitively, the Socialists had 121 and the
Communists 100. The Communists had gained 11 seats, and the German National
party, which had supported the previous government, had picked up a million
of the Nazis' lost votes to gain 15 seats (up to 52). I think the other large
party was the Catholic Center party (I don't know how many seats they had but
I think they were declining), and there were numerous other small parties.
Thus the Nazi vote was on the decline at the time Hitler was appointed
Chancellor.

What brought Hitler to power was *not* the demand of the German people for
Hitler or the Nazis to run things, but the inability of the other parties to
put their differences behind them in favor of forming an effective government
for the country. Germany did not have an enduring democratic tradition, and
their parliamentary system lacked effective center parties that favored the
interests of the majority of the population. Instead what they had was a
number of small parties who were unable to put aside their own specific
objectives in order to combine against the Nazis, who were out to end the
democratic process. In fact, part of the problem was that some of the other
parties with substantial representation, like the Communists, were also
out to end the democratic process, but with different results in mind, and
generally didn't mind seeing parliamentary democracy go under.

Germany had already had a non-Nazi Chancellor with a majority coalition
for five months while the Nazis had been the largest Reichstag party, and
there certainly was no danger of a revolution in favor of the Nazis.
If anything the Nazis were starting to get desperate because they had failed
to get enough support to make Hitler President and their popular vote had
begun to decline.

Hitler was not Hindenburg's first choice to be Chancellor, not even his
second choice. First, von Papen had been Chancellor since June 1932. After
the November election when the Nazis *lost* seats, Hindenburg first prevailed
on von Papen to remain as Chancellor. But there were intrigues behind his back
and support for him was lacking. So then Hindenburg turned to von Schleicher,
who became Chancellor for two months. Eventually he too was unable to hold
together a working coalition of parties to oppose the Nazis, who refused to
participate in any government that was not led by a Nazi Chancellor. Some of
the Nazi leadership, particularly Gregor Strasser who was the #2 man in the
party at the time, wanted to participate in a coalition government. But others,
knowing the party's support was waning, figured that their best hope to gain
power lay in undermining the democratic process. Nevertheless, the country
was governed for seven months by Chancellors who were not Nazis, even though
the Nazis were the largest Reichstag party. The failure of these men to
achieve a working coalition was due to the inability of their coalition
parties to work together.

Here's how William Shirer puts it in _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_:

   The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their
   failure to unite against it. At the crest of their popular strength,
   in July 1932, the National Socialists had attained but 37 percent of
   the vote. But the 63 percent of the German people who expressed their
   opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine
   against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm
   them unless they united, however temporarily, to stamp it out.

True, the German people supported Hitler after he became Chancellor. But
that doesn't change the fact that there was not overwhelming support for him
*before* he was in power. The German people were not crying out for Hitler to
take over, no matter how bad economic conditions were. The leftist parties
(Socialists/Communists) probably had more support in total than the Nazis.
Hitler used the fact that others were passively or actively willing to see
the government paralyzed as a means to taking it over.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@netcom.com
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177002
From: kme@node_17aa4.bnr.ca (Ken Michael Edwards)
Subject: Re: Economic Stimulus or Pork?


In article <1993Apr2.201514.20021@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: 
|> 
|> In fact, no one has such a list.  The Clinton package as presently proposed
|> includes a variety of recommended spending areas and dollar amounts.  It 
|> does not include a line-by-line list of every project that would be funded.
|> (Congress may include such line items in the bill when it passes.
|> Likewise, it may prohibit spending for specific projects as amendments to
|> the bill.  Such amendments, positive and negative, are often pointed to
|> by those who propose a "line item veto" or "enhanced recision" power for
|> the President.) 
|> 
|> Some of the $16 billion package is in the form of "block grants" to states
|> and localities.  

This is why I asked to be 'enlightened'.  You are making claims about what
'is' or 'is not' part of this program.  But if the "block grants" go to states
and cities, the mayors list is VERY relivent.
  
|> 
|> I'd suggest contacting your local officials, reading a newspaper with
|> good coverage of Congress (Washington Post, NY Times), or if you're 
|> serious about paying attention to these issues, get copies of Congressional
|> Quarterly at your library or have your representative put you on the 
|> mailing list for the Congressional Record.  (It's free.)  But be prepared
|> to invest more time in the effort than it takes to watch the evening
|> news or read your local paper.

Okay scarasm does deserve sacrasm, but I already contact my local officals, my
congress rep., senators, Watch evening news, news programs, and C-SPAN.
  
|> 
|> In addition to the cherry picking that went on with the Mayors' wish list,
|> Congressional Republicans selected wish list projects from a variety of
|> Federal agencies, based apparently upon how silly the names of the projects
|> sounded.  I'm not even sure if they bothered to correlate a potential
|> expenditure of an agency in Clinton's bill with a potential project from
|> the same agency, but it is clear that the effort was to make Clinton's
|> potential expenditures appear to be linked to projects with absurd 
|> names.  (Not to be taken seriously any more than equivalent tactics by
|> Democrats would have been in the Reagan/Bush era.)


The fact is that Primetime (TM of ABC) has had numberous reposts on such waste
programs that already exist.  Again, if we are truely intrested in eliminating
the DEBT, we must REMOVE the DEFICIT, and do away with ALL PORK !!!  
|> 
|> I realize that it is tempting to believe that government is in the hands
|> of clowns who are dishonest at best.  But such simplistic analysis does
|> little to advance the cause of public education.

There have been several books written on gov. waste, network news programs 
from time to time devote segments to this, and there have been bills proposed
that significantly reduces expenditures without touching external programs by 
changing the way 'congress does business' (and make it more efficent).

True, blame is easy, but also is spending someone else's money.  

Clinton ran on a platform that he would '...not raise taxes on the middle class
to pay for these (his) programs'.  He has proposed a program that is not 
specific, that counts on tax hikes to pay for.

-- 
======================================================================

Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
(919) 481-8476 email: cnc23a@bnr.ca    Ham: N4ZBB

All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of
my employer or co-workers, family, friends, congress, or president.

"You'd better call my dad...My mom's pretty busy."
             - Chelsea Clinton 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177003
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <1993Apr4.163015.10438@highlite.uucp>, croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis
A. Ney) says:
 [of who else but President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton.]
>It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after
>watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down
>the toilet.

Tsk. Surely you don't wish for the Democrats to destroy our beloved country
just so your party can get some trivial political advantage? That's rather
a petty way to think. (Not that this pettiness doesn't extend all the way
to the U.S. Senate, I've noticed...)

While Bush was president, I kept hoping and praying that he'd wise up. I
couldn't stand the man, but I wish he'd done a decent job; if so, we might
not be in the mess we are now, and that would be a small price to pay for
suffering through another term of Republican control. Similarily, YOU should
be hoping and praying that Clinton does a good job. Even if you're certain
he won't.

   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177004
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In article <C51qr5.Duu@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>I suggest you
>>listen very carefully to the stuff Yeltsin and his people are saying
>>and compare that with the very anti-West slogans coming from his
>>opponents in the Russian congress.  I sure know who I want to back.
>
>Could we back him without forcing others to back him at the point of a
>gun?

If we had backed him strongly early on I doubt there would be the
problem there is now.  Many Russians became disillusioned with democracy
and reforms when they felt, rightly IMO, that the West didn't care.

Yeltsin was virtually promised massive aid (once Bush got over his
Gorby-mania.)  This probably kept him from dismantling the congress
and calling for new elections.  Well, the aid didn't come through
and we didn't make sure it went to the proper places and now the
anti-reformers are gaining strength where before they were in
hiding.

>
>Have you considered a non-interventionist policy?  If market reform does
>happen, Russia will certainly get *private* capital at *private* risk to
>help their economy.  They will even have incentive to do so for the same
>reason.  If they don't reform, then our government will probably
>consider them enemies anyway and rather spend money to hurt rather than help
>them.

If they don't reform I don't believe in giving them money.  However,
I think this is too important to take a non-interventionist approach.
This is what really bugs me about Libertarianism -- it sounds like
'it'll all be the same in a hundred years time.  no need to do
anything.'
>
>
>>How does this affect us?  Well, we are on the same planet and if
>>vast tracks of Europe are blown away I think we'd feel something.
>>A massive breakup of a country that spans 1/6th the planet is
>>bound to have affects here.  (Of course, there is also the
>>humanitarian argument that democracies should help other
>>democracies (or struggling democracies).)
>
>If a $1.6 billion gift was that important to our well being, couldn't it
>be raised voluntarilly?  People already give over $100 billion a year to
>charity.

Despite the wishes of Libertarians, this society is a far way, and getting
farther, from being Libertarian.  Perhaps voluntary gifts would work if
we had the proper framework but we do not have it.  We have to face the
problem *now*, not in X years when we have a Libertarian dream society.

Right now there are huge stumbling blocks to trade, let alone charity.
There are still limitations to high-tech exports.  NASA can't buy
Proton launch vehicles from them.  Sure, the market may be able to
help a great deal but it can't right now.  There are too many obstacles.
Instead of fighting against the aid you should be fighting to 
tear down the obstacles the market and charities have to face.
>
>>Seriously.  Everyone has different opinions on what is stupid.
>>My two "causes" are aid to Russia and a strong space program.
>>Someone else will champion welfare or education or doing studies
>>of drunken goldfish.  That is why we have a republic and not a
>>true democracy.  Instead of gridlock on a massive scale, we
>>only have gridlock on a congressional scale.
>
>It seems instead of gridlock on any scale, we have aid to Russia,
>expensive space programs, national charity that doesn't help the poor,
>and probably, studies of drunken goldfish.  I think *limited* government
>is more key than how democratic it is.

Well, I think limited government is primarily democratic due
to it being limited.  But the main question is how do you transform
a state-run economy and monolithic government into something that
even remotely looks like ours?  (BTW, sometimes it seems that our government 
is trying to go the opposite direction)  It is not going to be
painless and not going to be easy.  We simply cannot wait to
help when they *have* the 'proper' government.  They'll never
get there without the aid.  It may be too late already.

>
>>BTW, who is to decide 'stupid?'  This is just like those who
>>want to impose their 'morals' on others -- just the sort of
>>thing I thought Libertarians were against.
>
>That was an opinion, and libertarians are very big on free speech.

And I'm just excercising mine.

>
>>Actually, my politics are pretty Libertarian except on this one issue 
>>and this is why it is impossible for me to join the party.  It seems
>>that Libertarians want to withdraw from the rest of the world and
>>let it sink or swim.
>
>If you are pretty libertarian except on this one issue then you should
>be VERY libertarian.  Consider it a compromise.  How much money would
>your fellow Russia-aiders have to give to Russia if those you oppose
>weren't using the same government machine to steal money from you
>and your group for causes you don't support?

As I also said above, another problem I have is with *transformation*.
A Libertarian society is not going to happen painlessly or overnight.
I have seen nothing about how to take our current government and
society and turn it into a minimal government and a responsible
self-sufficient populace.  

>
>>We could do that 100 years ago but not now.
>
>People have been saying that for hundreds of years.

They didn't have nuclear weapons 100 years ago.  Nor instantaneous
communications nor travel to virtually anyplace on the earth in
less than a day.

>
>>Like it or not we are in the beginnings of a global economy and
>>global decision making. 
>
>All the more reason to depend on the free market which can more
>efficiently process information, than to depend on rulers for decisions
>on complex issues.

Yes, depend on the rulers of the free market and the businesses.  Rulers
do emerge *somewhere* and they will never represent the opinions of
every person on the planet.  

There must be checks and balances.  Checks on the government when
it gets out of bounds and checks on industry when it gets out of
bounds.  Putting all your hopes on the benevolence of the market
is, to me, just like putting all your hopes on the benevolence of
government.  
>

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177005
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
># 
># Having completely
># dived into the abyss of believing that there are no queers in the world
># who think differently from the child-molestation-advocating minority on
># soc.motss, he doesn't even notice that he's starting a sentence with
># "They believe" when the referent of that "they" is millions of people.
># "...so few as to be irrelevant..."
>
>If you don't want to be lumped together as a group, stop insisting
>on being treated as a member of a group.

Please point out where I have said I even _was_ a member of that group,
much less asked to be treated as such, much less insisted upon it.

>Sexual orientation is not defined by the anti-discrimination law
>that was passed last year.  Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation?

Wait a minute.  You've been claiming for quite a while now that
pedophilia, according to CA state law, is a sexual orientation.  Now
your position is that the law doesn't specifically exclude it?

You know damn well what's going to happen.  Some guy in a NAMBLA
T-shirt's going to apply at a day-care, they're going to turn him down,
he's going to take it to court, and the court's going to rule that
sexual orientation is defined as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or
bisexuality.

Unless and until that court decides that pedophilia is a sexual
orientation, you have no business saying so.

># "Silence = Death" pin or something.  They turn me down because of
># that.
>
>I wholeheartedly support their right to take this action.  I wouldn't
>do it myself, unless it was something like the NAMBLA T-shirt.

Despite the fact that all homosexuals are lying bastards?

># How about:  a black man applies for a job at a bank.  The bank decides,
># based on statistics, a black person would be more likely to steal
># money, and denies the man the job.  Would you support the bank's right
># to this freedom?
>
>I support their right to do so [deletia] but [deletia]

Ah.

So, for example, you are opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

>Here's the law that was passed and signed by the governor:
>
>     The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
>
> 1       SECTION 1.  The purpose of this act is to codify
> 2  existing case law as determined in Gay Law Students v.
> 3  Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 24 Cal. 3d 458 (1979)
> 4  and Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 235 Cal. App. 3d 654
> 5  (1991) prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
> 6  orientation.
> 7       SEC. 2.  Section 1102. is added to the Labor Code, to
> 8  read:
> 9       1102.1.  (a) Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit
>10  discrimination or disparate treatment in any of the terms
>11  and conditions of employment based on actual or
>12  perceived sexual orientation.
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>13       (b)  This section shall not apply to a religious
>14  association or corporation not organized for private
>15  profit, whether incorporated as a religious or public
>16  benefit corporation.

There's no "for purposes of this act, the term 'sexual orientation' will
be defined as" section?  No definitions anywhere?  Did they run this
through the state Congress on an accelerated schedule or something?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy		Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177006
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

In article <eZ0J2B3w165w@unkaphaed.jpunix.com> popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
-> croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:
-> 
-> > Besides which, we don't *want* Clinton assasinated, because that would make h
-> > a martyr a la JFK.
-> > 
-> > It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after
-> > watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down t
-> > toilet.
-> > 
-> > Assuming, of course, that the riots a fortnight from now don't do it for him.
-> 
-> 
-> He'd have to go a far ways to run things down as bad as Reagan and Bush 
-> did.  We didn't have riots but Bush got dumped out on his spotty Behind.
-> 
-> 
-> We'll see in 4 years.
-> 
-> 
-> Pope Charles Slack in our time!
-> 
-> ?s

	You need to stop watching TV and start reading some history.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177007
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Who be Conservative on this.....

In article <1993Apr5.005204.29158@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr2.155820.16998@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>The SC allows restrictions after 'viability' (a term never medically defined) 
>>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Any physician who can't make a reasonable stab at determining whether a given
>>fetus is viable or not is not qualified to perform an abortion. 
>
>Kebbin shows that he does not know the difference between determining
>the viability of an *individual* fetus, and providing the "universally
>accepted medical definition[s] of viability" 

I was not discussing "universal" definitions in this post, Mark. Please
refrain from dragging in irrelevancies.

Do you agree with my statement above about physicians being unqualified if
they can't determine viability?

>>Since we know
>>that there are SOME physicians out there who are qualified to perform 
>>abortions, then obviously SOME medical definition of "viability" is being 
>>employed. 
>
>On an case by case basis, viability is relatively easy to determine.

And that's good enough for the law, Mark. So why do you keep whining that
viability "isn't defined"? What purpose does your whining serve?

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177008
Subject: Re: CBS NY Times Poll on Health Care Alternatives
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)

In article <1993Apr6.175543.19590@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> Thought others on the net might be interested in a selection of findings
|> from the New York Times/CBS News poll on national health care.  I'll leave
|> it to Doug Fierro to enter the entire article if he chooses.  What follows
|> is a selection of the findings.  (Paraphrased without permission.  Any
|> errors are mine, not the Times.  The NY Times doesn't make mistakes.)
|> 
|> [poll results deleted]

The economic and political ignorance of most Americans can be truly scary.
Price controls and government intervention.  The surest route to
disaster.  It's amazing, people never seem to learn from history (or
common sense).  Price controls do not, and cannot work.  I would have
thought our last experiment in the 70's would have been enough to 
dampen the belief that price controls can actually work.  As for
government intervention, people never seem to get the irony of what
the are saying.  We are told that entitlements are the biggest portion
of the budget and they must be 'controlled'.  We are presented with
horror stories of waste and fraud in almost all government agencies.
We are shown stories about the miserable treatment our veterans get
in our government run hospitals.  We are just now seeing stories about
how Social Security isn't going to cut it in the future (as if that
should come as any surprise).  And yet, people choose to ignore all
of that and believe in the fairy tale of the government coming to
the rescue.  Simply amazing.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177010
From: wiggins@cecer.army.mil (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Responses to Ed's Top Ten Lists

>>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler)
>>so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?

"...a la Chrysler"??  Okay kids, to the nearest thousand, how many
dollars did the government spend to "bail out" Chrysler?  More than zero
you say?  

Bzzzzzzzzzt.  Wrong answer.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177011
From: stromer@eyore.unet.com (Philip H. Stromer)
Subject: Re: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...

If the heading is true, Mr. Frank should be ashamed of himself.

Nothing makes me gag more than people who don't respect the
rights of others to voice their opinions.  My idol Lenny Bruce
once commented about "that asshole Time Magazine" when they
advocated censorship of his material.  Time actually sided
with the cops' and their arresting of Bruce at his shows,
whereby he routinely would say "cocksucker", then the cops
would rush the stage to arrest him.  My, how the times haven't
changed...

I can't help but think of how Lenny would be received in today's
politically correct arena.  Heck, I even support the right of
neo nazis to speak their opinions and march down the streets.

And before Mr. Frank or anyone else makes any wisecracks about
anti-Semitism...I'm Jewish, a longtime member of AIPAC and the JNF,
and have contributed over $1000 apiece to these fine groups.  I'm
a regular contributor to every pro-Israel group I can find, but I
still support the right of people like Arf to speak up and vomit
his propaganda.

I want to know just WHO these people are !!!

I'm basing all this on the assumption that Mr. Frank did indeed
write to some sysadmin requesting Mr. Teel to be admonished.  If
this is not the case, I hereby retract these nasties directed
toward him.  If not, I stand against Mr. Frank and his trashing
of the First Amendment.

Philip Stromer

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177012
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Supply Side-revenue

In <9460@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar) writes:

|In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> 
|> The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
|> ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.

|Which, considering the amount Bush&congress added to it, would be a
|not-inconsiderable achievement.

|While we're on the subject, I also believe that the supply-side claim that
|reducing taxes raised revenue is also false, because they typically factor in

You need to hop over to talk.politics.misc. Wee have been chewing on this gem
for awhile. The challenge has been made to name a single supply sider who
ever said this. For the last three weeks the challenge has gone unmet.
I issue the same challenge to you.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177013
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In <C50sJG.3Eu@voder.nsc.com> matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:

>In article 164633 in talk.politics.misc, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>>>And Ms. Regard, please don't give us the trite "you can't legislate 
>>>>morality" nonsense again: there is little else that is legislated, 
>>>>including the moral concept of "rights".

>>Really? Pure Socialism had this belief, and fell flat on its ass by
>>attempting to follow such reasoning. Suppose you pass a law that
>>states that I must love my neighbour, regardless of race, religion,
>>etc. How exactly do you plan to enforce such a law? Better yet, how
>>do you plan to measure compliance? And even if you overcome those
>>two obstacles, how will you ever know if I have become *more moral*
>>or not?

>You either missed the point or are being somewhat disingenuous;  I have
>never heard anyone suggest that you can legislate what people think.
>Laws are based on either expediency (i.e. traffic laws) or morality (i.e.
>human rights), as far as I can tell, and the majority are based on the
>latter.

Once more around the racetrack. See the original statement that it is
nonsense to believe that you cannot legislate morality. I simply stated
that they can pass all the laws they want but not a single one of them
will make you or I more moral people. They may make us act in a moral
manner, but our actions are only a reflection of the unwillingness to
risk punishment. They say nothing about whether we have become more
moral or not. Perhaps the distinction is too fine.



>Matt Freivald

TOG

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>               "I'm not a feminist -- I'm for equal rights!"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one!
>              If you don't believe in slavery, don't own one!
>             If you don't believe in murder, don't commit one!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   Pro CHILD. Pro FAMILY. Pro LIFE.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177015
From: tk@pssparc2.mitek.com (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>details that you are seeking, is that the Grahm-Rudman budget controls
>were working.  In fact, they were working so well that unless the feds
>did something, they were going to have to start cutting pork. So Bush
>and the Democrats got together in a Budget Summit and replaced
>Grahm-Rudman with the now historic Grand Compromise in which Bush

Yea, it turned out that Gramm-Rudman was a sham to fool the voters
into accepting the borrow-and-spend policies of the last 12 years.



>As it turned out, the taxes killed the Reagan expansion and the caps
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anyone can expand the economy by chargeing $3 trillion on their credit
cards.   Big deal.  Deficit spending only expands the economy in the short
term.  In the long term it shrinks the economy for numerous reasons. I would 
have MUCH preferred that the taxpayers had that $3 trillion instead.


>The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
>ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.
>
>Chew on that awhile.


If Reagan had kept his campaign PROMISE to balance the budget by 1983,
there would have been no need for Bush or Clinton to raise taxes.  And
all Reagan had to do was balance that puny Carter deficit.

Chew on that awhile.

-- 
Tom Kimball 	OpenConnect Systems	
          	2711 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800
tk@oc.com      	Dallas, TX  75006	

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177016
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <philC51D4F.G2J@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
-> In article <1993Apr5.193616.14521@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
->     >Now let me get this straight. After a nice, long rant about
->     >how people need to take personal responsibility for their
->     >economic and social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals
->     >(such as me, I guess) are responsible for poor people's
->     >lifestyles? Tell me how that works--or do you think that poor
->     >people are just too dumb to think for themselves?
->     >
->     >There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family
->     >and support systems in general among this nation's poor.
->     >Somehow I don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at
->     >the top of any sane person's list.
->     >
->     >You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural
->     >revolution for a lasting change for the worse, try so-called
->     >"relevant" or "values" education. Hey, it seemed like a good
->     >idea at the time. How were we to know you needed a real
->     >education first--I mean, we took that for granted.
-> 
-> The 1960's generation were the most spoiled and irresponsible.
-> 
-> The Depression had create mothers and fathers that were determined that their
-> kids would not want for anything -- going overboard and creating a nation of
-> brats.
-> 
-> Consider the contrast between two famous events in July of 1969.
-> 
-> Apollo 11 and Woodstock.
-> 
-> Which group had large numbers of people that could not feed themselves and
-> reverted to the cultural level of primitives (defecation in public etc.).
-> 
-> And which group assembled, took care of itself, and dispersed with no damage,
-> no deaths, no large numbers of drug problems ....
-> 

	Wasn't Woodstock also called the biggest parking lot in
history?  They rejected society and went back to nature in their
parent's cars.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177018
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In <1993Apr5.170349.10700@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <1993Apr2.230831.18332@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>># sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>># >We already kill people (death penalty), and that costs even more
>># >money, so you could as well complain about this extremely barbaric
>># >way of justice.
>>#
>># But the death penalty is right.
>>#
>># And how expensive can an execution be? I mean, I think rope, cyanide
>># (for the gas), or the rifles and ammunition to arm firing squads are
>># affordable.
>>#
>># Now, perhaps lethal injection might be expensive, in that case, let's
>># return to the more efficient methods employed in the past.
>>
>>Oh, sure, the death *penalty* is fairly inexpensive, but the trial and
>>sentencing can run millions.

>>
>>--strychnine	unless you wanna cut costs by skipping the trial and
>> sentencing... you murderous little rat-bastard

>  Why as a matter of fact, I was thinking of that as a way to make
>the system more efficient.  And the only murderous rat-bastards are
>aboritionists.

Yeah, Simon's no rat-bastard, he's the Head Attack Puppy :-)


>Simon


TOG


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177019
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In <1993Apr5.172920.11779@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <bob1.734020014@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <1993Apr2.230831.18332@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>>
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>># sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>># >We already kill people (death penalty), and that costs even more
>>># >money, so you could as well complain about this extremely barbaric
>>># >way of justice.
>>>#
>>># But the death penalty is right.
>>>#
>>># And how expensive can an execution be? I mean, I think rope, cyanide
>>># (for the gas), or the rifles and ammunition to arm firing squads are
>>># affordable.
>>>#
>>># Now, perhaps lethal injection might be expensive, in that case, let's
>>># return to the more efficient methods employed in the past.
>>
>>>Oh, sure, the death *penalty* is fairly inexpensive, but the trial and
>>>sentencing can run millions.
>>
>>That's assuming our attack puppy is willing to grant people trials in
>>his new order.

>And why the hell would I waste my time doing that??

>(to a convicted criminal getting a death sentence)

>'Go directly to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200'
>(judge laughing)

Hey puppy, you are getting further around the bend every day. But
I wouldn't miss your adolescent ravings for the world, everyone
needs a good laugh now and then. :-)

>Simon

 TOG





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177020
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com
>(Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>>...
>>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>
>>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>   assault laws.  
>
>So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a
>straight?  Silly me, thinking that the issue was that we are all people, to be
>treated equally.  Thanks for straightening me out.
------------------------------
Wrong, if a bunch of faggots from the tenderloin decide to go straight
bashing and they selectively target a heterosexual man and beat the bloody
fuck out of him, they would get charged as well under all the federal laws
that exist about violation of civils rights. The focus of their intent is
his sexual orientation, and so the law applies to them as well. The
national government retains the right to make any laws necessary to
sufficiently deter and punish any crime against someone's civil rights
until that behavior becomes so well punished that nobody even tries it!
The fact is, that at last count, gays were not beating straights for their
sexual orientation. Thus, the law is getting applied only to the straights
who indulge themselves. The federal government or judiciary has the right
to enforce the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under law even
if it takes 1000 possible charges against people who would violate them. Go
read your constitutional law. We broke the back of the KKK's harrassment
campaign with the same strategy in the early 1900's. So many went to jail
and for so long that it cut the heart out of the KKK. 
-RSW

>>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>   charges and multiple crimes.
>
>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>act should never merit more than on charge.  That's almost like if four cops
>got acquitted from cruel and unusual punishment charges, and the country went
>and tried them again and again until they... oh.... never mind.
----------------------------------------
This "mutation" as you call it, protects your little butt too, if you
happen to be somewhere where you're the wrong "shade" for somebody else's
taste. If it can be shown that the motive for the assault on you was
racially motivated, then the full power of these extra laws that bring more
charges and punishments will come against those who harmed you. The first
use of such laws was well over a hundred years ago, and constitutional
scholars of all conviction recognize that this right reserved to the
federal government is well established and not just some short-lived
peculiarity, too! Go read some constitutional law for awhile. Maybe you'll
get it.
-RSW

>Douglas C. Meier
>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
--------------------------



-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177021
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <1993Apr5.000007.27707@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbond@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mimi) writes:
>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.n
>u.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1pkmo9INNg7@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.ed
>
>>(William December Starr) writes:
>>>
>>>And what difference does it make?  If homosexuals should not be treated
>>>as equals with heterosexuals in the eyes of the law then it doesn't
>>>matter if they comprise an overwhelming majority of the population, and
>>>if they should then it doesn't matter if, numerically, they're only an
>>>infinitesimal minority, right?
>>>
>>And if it makes no difference, then shoving a false number down my throa
>
>>shouldn't be a high priority.  After all, why should a minority group ne
>d to
>>inflate their numbers in order to justify the rights they claim they des
>rve
>>i.e. extra privileges they ask for?  
>>
>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Douglas C. Meier		|  This Space for Rent
>>Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  
>>This University is too Commie-	|  
>>Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
>
>
>You know, I have thought about the issue of if someone beats up a
>homosexual, or a black person, etc., should the crime be specified
>as something special.  Shit, beating up anybody, regardless of race
>and sexual orientation should be a very serious crime.  If you
>pick out those crimes which are committed against the opposite sex,
>different race, or a different sexual orientation, is this a form
>of favoring those groups over other groups.  Hmm..  I mean, I think
>that a crime committed against all people should be treated the
>same.  But, I know that there are many people out there who are
>very prejudice against people who are different than they are.  And
>perhaps hate crimes laws are the only way to punish the bastards 
>appropriately.  But, why should a person who commits a crime against
>a wealthy protestant white by a wealthy protestant white be treated
>on a lower level.  Isn't this discrimination against the wealthy
>white person.  
>
>Hmm..  Any input out there?  As a black person, I here about all
>sorts of stories where fellow blacks are persecuted and beat up
>because of their race.  This really tears me up.  But, a crime
>against a white by a white should also be treated as a heinous
>crime.  
>
>Please respond.  I would like to hear what other views are out ther.
>
>Ciao'
>Mimi
---------------------------
The federal government has used such laws to allow mutliple charges in
order to prevent more crimes than would nromally occur just from two people
being pissed off at each other. The federal government has an interest in
the intent of the perpetrators in the pursuit of preventing violations of
civil rights. It's the way they broke the back of the Klan, by putting a
lot of people away for a very long time for harrassing blacks specifically.
It is a principle that has been well recognized as constitutionally valid
since over 100 years ago. It has been used whenever a select group was
getting bashed or harrassed more than any other person would just for being
part of a minority. It is the only way we made the defeat of the south
stick after the Civil War. People who harrassed free blacks, when normally
they wouldn't find themselves harrassing just anyone walking around were
expeditiously tried and jailed for 5 to 8 years until nobody wanted to try
it anymore. Now with the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under
the law, the law can use multiple crime and severe penalty involving intent
as much as is needed to protect even one human that is a hated minority to
somebody. They can call out the national guard just for them, as they did
the school girls in Alabama during desegregation in the 1950's, and the
president can nationalize the state militia and turn the guns of the
militia that were being used to bar blacks right around to point at the
thousands in the crowd with an order to shoot that they would have to obey
or face possible death by firing squad under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for failing to obey a direct order while under arms! And by god,
they did! Those southern boys turned right around an fixed bayonets! And
the governor was left standing and was arrested by the federal marshalls
that had brought the order to nationalize the guard. And that's why we need
such an ability in federal jurisdiction.
-RSW

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177022
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: New Environmental Group Launches.


*Teddy O'Neill-Creature with furry Hobbit feet from Bath UK*,
a sentimental fool, posts:
 
     With the force of a world-wide youth movement, it ought to
     be possible to establish a coordinated global program to
     accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the
     internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty year period.

Evidently there are no open questions, either scientific or about
how people prefer to live.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177023
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: ProLifer Or Terrorist Threat

In <1993Apr5.204531.9006@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>In article <C4zA0H.IHD@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes:
>>In article 1pamhpINN7d3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
>>>I'm prepared to instruct individuals in the proper use and 
>>>handling of firearms.  

>>>As a Desert Storm vet with six years in the National Guard, I have a
>>>great deal of experience in handling weapons and tactical training. 


>>ps: anyone up for a discussion of counter sniper operations?
>>Security drills, Your Friend the Counter Terrorist Operation.....


>If twit promises to train them in tactics and weapons handlings, I doubt
>any of them will last long enough to become terrorists. Look for a sudden
>rise in firearms accidents among the Fiends of the Fetus, though.

Bless you, Nadja, we needed a name for these Attack Puppies. Friends
of the Fetus, or FOOF for short. :-)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 177024
From: batwood@SU1AB.Harris-ATD.com (Brett Atwood)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

|> [ debate deleted ]

		I guess it is allowed.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178293
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting



	     	  


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 13, 1993     

	     
                      REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT,
               SECRETARY OF EDUCATION RICHARD RILEY AND
                   SECRETARY OF LABOR ROBERT REICH  IN 
                GOALS 2000 SATELLITE TOWN HALL MEETING
	     
                     Chamber of Commerce Building
                           Washington, D.C.   



8:30 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Good evening and welcome to all of you 
in the thousands of communities around the country that are taking 
part in this satellite town meeting for the month of April.
	     
	     You know, today is April 13th.  In 1743, Thomas 
Jefferson was born, 250 years ago.  I think that's appropriate to 
mention at the beginning of this meeting because since that time he 
has been, of course, a person who has been one that we've all 
followed in terms of our democracy and the importance of education 
here in this great country.  The success of our democracy according 
to Jefferson really depends upon the success of our educational 
system.
	     
	     His philosophy of government, his belief in the 
importance of education is also very meaningful to our special guest 
here this evening.  Tonight we're so pleased to have with us 
President Clinton.  He's come over from the White House to join us in 
the Chamber of Commerce studios.  
	     
	     Mr. President, it's good to have you.  We thank you for 
taking the time to visit with these communities here on the satellite 
network and we welcome you here this evening.
	     
	     Also we have with us Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.  
And, Bob, it's certainly pleasant to have you with us this evening 
also.
	     
	     I have some questions for our two guests, and I'm sure 
many of you do, too.  So please call us if there's something that 
you'd like to ask.  The number is 1/800/368-5781 or 5782.  In 
Washington, D.C. the number is 202/463-3170 or 3171.
	     
	     I believe the President has a few words that he might 
want to share with us.  And, Mr. President, I'll ask you to do that 
at this time.  It's great to have you.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
	     
	     I'm glad to be here with my friends, Dick Riley and Bob 
Reich -- also members of my Cabinet -- at the headquarters of the 
Chamber of Commerce to support the effort that the Chamber is making, 
along with its Center for Work Force Preparation, to help to examine 
tonight the whole critical question of how to move our young people 
from school to the work place.
	     
	     I want to compliment the Chamber on all their efforts, 
recognizing that without an educated work force we can't grow this 
economy or remain competitive, and recognizing that we all have to 
work together -- business and government, labor and educators -- to 
make things happen.
	     
	     This satellite town meeting is a good example of that 
kind of working together.  And if you'll forgive me a little home 
state pride, I want to say a special word of thanks to the Wal-Mart 
Corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, for providing 
several hundred of the sites for this town meeting tonight.  I 
appreciate that a lot, as well as the sites that are provided for all 
the rest of you.
	     
	     I have tried as hard as I could to move toward 
constructive change for this country.  Secretary Riley talked about 
this being Thomas Jefferson's 250th birthday.  If Thomas Jefferson 
believed in anything, he believed in these three things:  first, in 
education; second, in real personal liberty, freedom of religion, 
freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press; and 
third, in the absolute imperative of changing as times change.  
	     
	     If you go to the Jefferson Memorial here in this 
beautiful city, which is now bedecked with all of its wonderful 
cherry blossoms, you will see Jefferson saying that we have to change 
with changing times.
	     
	     For us here in America, that means reducing our deficit 
and increasing our investment and putting our people first so that we 
can compete in the world.  We're here to talk about that tonight --
about what we can do to educate and train our people better.  Unless 
we do that, none of the efforts that all the rest of us make in 
government, even to bring the budget into balance, even to increase 
our investment in other things which will grow jobs, will last in the 
long run.
	     
	     We also have to have people who can carry their load.  
And in a world where the average young person will change jobs seven 
or eight times in a lifetime, that begins with the education system 
and continues into the work force where education must go on for a 
lifetime.  It's not just important what you know, but what you can 
learn.
	     
	     And if I might, I'd like to close just by emphasizing 
we're doing our best to try to have the most innovative partnership 
between the Labor Department and the Education Department and the 
private sector to build a good school-to-work transition.  And we're 
trying to get off to a good start this summer with a program that 
would create more than 700,000 new summer jobs, including many 
thousands that have a strong education component so our young people 
can be learning and working at the same time.
	     
	     Dick, I think I ought to stop there.  That's a good 
place we can begin, I think, the discussion.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you so much, Mr. President.
	     
	     Each month we get together and talk about ways that all 
citizens can work towards reaching the national education goals.  And 
tonight, we'll focus on goal five, and how communities such as yours 
can prepare students for this world of work.
	     
	     This week, the Education Department and the Labor 
Department are hosting a conference here in Washington, D.C. called 
Summer Challenge, a program of work and learning, to America's youth.  
The aim is to use some special funds from President Clinton's 
proposed economic stimulus package to provide educationally-enriched 
jobs and summer school programs for young people in disadvantaged 
areas of the country.  
	     
	     Mr. President, let's talk a minute -- you alluded to it 
somewhat -- about the  Summer Youth Challenge.  Your program calls 
for more educational enrichment in the summer jobs.  And why in your 
words is that so important?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think it's important for two reasons.  
First of all, a lot of the young people we're trying to reach may 
have had trouble adjusting to school and learning.  And while we want 
them to have a good experience with a real job, we also want them to 
continue to learn during the summer because we know from a lot of 
research that a lot of kids that have trouble learning in school may 
forget as much as 30 percent of what they learned the previous year 
over the summertime.  And that is a very unproductive thing for 
schools to have to take up a lot of time teaching what they already 
taught before.
	     
	     Secondly, we want to help these young people progress, 
not only in terms of work, but in terms of learning.  We want to 
abolish the artificial dividing line between what is work and what is 
learning because we think that the best and most productive workers 
will have to be lifetime learners.  And we think that this experience 
could maybe drive that point home and prepare these young people to 
succeed in school, or at work, or in college as they go on.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, I think the fact that these are 
disadvantaged kids -- that gap, that lag you mentioned as they go 
into the next year, is really even greater.  
	     
	     Secretary Reich, of course, you have training programs 
throughout the year.  And I wonder is you have any comment about this 
educational component of training.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, what we've learned, Mr. 
Secretary, is that for many young people, whether it's for the summer 
or for the year, actually on-the-job work experience combined with 
education is one of the best ways of learning.  Many young people, 
for example, have a lot -- they have a difficult time learning 
geometry.  But when they actually are there building something or 
working on something, and they can see the exact and direct 
application of geometry, they understand what it's used for.  And a 
lot of young people -- just that sense of connection between 
education and the world of work is terribly, terribly important.  
It's important during the summer, but it's important for a lot of 
young people even beyond the summer.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you.  
	     
	     Mr. President, you've called for a youth apprenticeship 
program, school-to-work transition.  And I wonder if you would tell 
us a little bit about your concept of that and how you see it 
developing.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, let's talk about why 
it's important.  Most new jobs that will be created in this decade 
will not require a four-year college degree, but most of them will 
require some learning and skills that go well beyond what most people 
get in a high school diploma.  
	     
	     If you look at the last 10 years, the average salaries 
of young people that had at least two years of good post-high school 
education was a good salary that went up over the decade.  The young 
people who had less than that tended to have lower wages that did not 
go up, and in many cases in real terms fell over the decade, because 
they weren't productive, they weren't more valuable to their 
employers.
	     
	     So we think America has a big economic interest in 
trying to ensure that all the young people who get out of high school 
but don't go on to college make a transition to work, which includes 
two years of further training either in a community college, a 
vocational setting, or perhaps on the job.  And what I have done in 
this budget, as you know, is to give you and Secretary Reich some 
funds and some incentives to try to work in partnership with states 
and with the private sector to build these programs state-by-state in 
a way that would be customized essentially by the business community, 
based on the needs of the economy in any given area.  It could 
revolutionize long-term the quality of the American work force and 
the earnings of American workers.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  I should add, Mr. President -- I think 
you know this from your experience in Arkansas -- and many of the 
people watching this program -- that the business community and 
educators, labor groups are already in many of our communities, many 
of our states, building a school-to-work transition program.  In 
fact, there's an awful lot of ferment, a lot of excitement.  The 
people watching this program probably are the ones who are most 
directly involved in that.  And more power to them.  Secretary Riley 
and I are going to do everything we can to build on the successes 
already out there.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Bob, we're going to be talking tonight 
about youth apprenticeship and tech prep, the co-op learning  
career academies.  And what features all those programs that deal 
with this subject -- what are some of the features that every one of 
these school-to-work programs might have that   are important?
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, one thing that we've seen -- and 
you and I have been working at this for a long time, and you much 
longer than I -- we've seen that active involvement of the business 
community is absolutely essential.  And I'm so delighted that we're 
doing this in the headquarters of the Chamber of Commerce.  The 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States is committed to doing these 
kinds of programs -- training, education, retraining -- and we've 
aimed to work very closely with the Chamber.
	     
	     The business community is going to be actively engaged 
in developing almost an audit of the kind of jobs that are needed and 
helping the educators, community colleges, technical institutions 
develop curricula that are relevant for the jobs of the future.
	     
	     Communities have got to come together.  I mean, this is 
one of the most important things.  You've got to have all of these 
players in a community come together and work together and cooperate 
together.  You know, too often we have the educators over here and 
the business leaders over here, labor groups over here and everybody 
is talking, but they're not really working together in a common 
strategy.
	     
	     And the third and final ingredient I would say, Dick, 
would be a commitment to excellence -- a commitment both to academic 
excellence and also to skills development excellence.  This is not a 
tracking program we're talking about for kids who are not going to 
make it.  This is a program that every young person ought to be 
eligible for.  If they want to go on beyond that to four-year 
college, that's fine.  That ought to be permissible.  But we're 
talking about the foundation of learning about jobs, the foundation 
skills for on-the-job learning.
	     
	     And again, those are the critical components.  It's 
already being done.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think -- if I might just interject one 
point based on my personal experience at home -- the business 
community has a critical role to play, not simply in saying here are 
the job skills that are needed and here's what ought to be taught, 
but also in monitoring that excellence.  If you have the right sort 
of partnership there, the people who are paying the taxes and who are 
going to then be hiring the workers are not going to permit the 
second-rate programs to survive if they have any way to shape and 
influence them.  So I think that's very important.
	     
	     And when we try to, if you will, fill in the blanks at 
the federal level, trying to set some standards and provide some 
funds, one of the things that we want to be sure and do is to make 
sure that the employer has a heavy amount of influence over the 
quality of these programs, because that's really what's going to 
determine whether the whole thing is worthwhile.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  That's great.  We've been talking, of 
course, about school-to-work and also the jobs and economic recovery 
program for this summer and fall.  But let's talk just a moment about 
long-term school reform.  It's something especially close to me.  Mr. 
President, I wonder if you would give us some of your ideas for the 
communities out here on Goals 2000 legislation that I think will be 
coming forth before too long.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as you know, back when you and I 
were both governors, we spent a lot of time working on our public 
schools and we tried to be very candid with our people in saying that 
a lot of these things were going to take some time to materialize.  
	     
	     I had a hand in writing the National Education Goals 
that the governors drafted, along with representatives of President 
Bush's administration back in 1989.  And what we're going to try to 
do this year with your leadership is to introduce legislation in 
Congress that will actually define the things that the national 
government ought to do to try to help the local schools and the 
children of this country and the adult learners, too, meet those 
goals -- making sure that when -- by 2000, people show up for school 
ready to learn; that we get a 90 percent on-time high school 
graduation rate; that children at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades are 
confident in the subjects they're supposed to know; that they are 
second to none in math and science; that are schools are safe, 
disciplined, and drug-free.  And, of course, the fifth goal --I took 
them out of line to say this the last -- is that we have a system of 
life-long learning in this country.
	     
	     And each one of those goals there's a national role, a 
state role, a school role, school district role, and a private sector 
role.  And what you've attempted to do in this bill you're going to 
introduce with me in the next few weeks is to define what our job is; 
and then to give the rest of America a way of defining what their job 
is and seeing whether we're actually meeting the standards of quality 
that we need to meet.
	     
	     It's very exciting.  So far as I know, nothing quite 
like it has ever been done in the form of federal legislation before.  
Not mandating and telling people what they have to do with their 
money, but actually setting up a framework for excellence and 
partnerships so that we can do our job.  I'm really excited about it.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, I am, too.  And I think really 
it will be an entirely new role for the federal government in terms 
of its relationship with states, serving as a partner really to 
support and facilitate and to help out in these education reform 
efforts, all driven by high standards.  That's the point.
	     
	     Bob, let me ask you one question, and then we'll get to 
the telephone calls.  It's about the same subject.  We have, of 
course, skills standards that are going to be part of Goals 2000, and 
I wonder if you would comment on that.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, you know, we have 75 percent of 
our young people who don't graduate from college.  Very often they 
don't have very many alternatives.  They do have a wonderful system 
of community colleges and technical institutions, but if we had 
national skill standards to which they could aspire and which 
employers would understand as a national credential, many of these 
young people would actually find that they were much more eligible 
for jobs.
	     
	     Everybody doesn't have to go to college.  Other 
countries you have smaller proportions of their population going to 
college, but you have a whole level of people who have certain 
technical, preprofessional skills.  We can do it in this country.  If 
you don't go to four-year college you're not a loser.  And we want to 
develop those national skill standards.  We're going to be working 
with the states, with the Education Department, with a lot of private 
industry in developing those standards.  And I think they will be the 
kinds of things that enable our vocational and technical and other 
institutions to rally around, as well as our business community.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, that's great.  Why don't we go 
ahead and go to the telephone.  We have a call, I see -- Mayor Bruce 
Todd of Austin, Texas.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, Mr. President and Mr. Secretary Reich and 
Riley, we certainly appreciate the opportunity to join you today.  We 
have some dedicated professionals and volunteers here in Austin who 
have heard what you have said and are very appreciative.  Let me 
simply say, amen to some of the comments made already.  We agree with 
much of the tone that the Clinton administration has taken, and are 
very supportive.  
	     
	     We have been successful here in Austin of tripling our 
summer employment program over the last four years.  We expect to 
have over 2,000 employed this year in the summertime; perhaps as much 
as 3,500 with the federal assistance.  
	     
	     Much of the question that we had designed you have 
answered in your opening comments, so we must be thinking alike.  But 
the question essentially involved what initiatives after Labor Day 
would be appropriate.  We know summertime is important.  Year-round 
is even more important.  And what kind of initiatives at the federal 
level might be proposed to meet the needs of the youth on a year-
round basis?  And perhaps more importantly, how can families and the 
local community be more involved using the federal initiative? That's 
something that we believe is very important to success in this 
effort.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Mr. President.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think I'll give everybody a chance to 
answer the question, Bruce, but let me first thank you for calling, 
and thank you for all the great work that you're doing in Austin.  
I've seen some of it and I've always been very impressed.  
	     
	     First, with regard to the summer program, we hope we can 
structure it in a way that will enable us to continue the summer 
program and that will move a lot of these young people back into 
schools under circumstances that might allow them to do some work in 
the private sector, too.  We hope that -- Secretary Reich is going to 
try to set up a system where we create a lot of private sector jobs 
to be matched with the public sector jobs this summer.  And we're 
working on that.
	     
	     Secondly, in the program that I have presented to the 
Congress over the next five years, what we are attempting to do is to 
build in an amount of investment that's quite substantial for job 
training programs, for school-to-work programs, all of which give 
heavy, heavy weight to local community input -- just the question you 
asked -- but do provide some federal investment dollars, which we 
hope you can put with local dollars to keep people working and being 
trained on a year-round basis.
	     
	     And I will say again, to echo what Secretary Reich said 
a moment ago, to try to break down the barrier between what is seen 
as work and what is seen as learning.  An awful lot of young people 
actually have quite high IQs, but actually learn so much better when 
they're doing than when they're reading or just listening.  So we 
hope that the community involvement part of it will be permanent, and 
we hope that if the whole budget passes -- and we do have 200 budget 
cuts and more than 200, actually, in the budget -- and some revenue 
raisers, and some new money for education and training, that we'll be 
able to do just what you seem to want based on your question.
	     
	     Bob, do you want to say anything?
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, you took most of the words out 
of my mouth, Mr. President, as usual.  But let me just add one thing, 
and that is that one of the most important aspects of post-high 
school for a lot of young people who are not going on to college, in 
addition to the school-to-work program, simply is the availability of 
jobs.  And we've got to get this economy moving again, obviously.  
It's terribly important to get this recovery program, to get the 
economy back on track.  That's sort of the prerequisite to everything 
else.  If we don't get the economy back on track -- we have -- I 
think this is the 16th -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. President -- I 
think is the 16th month we have had seven percent unemployment or 
greater.  This is a jobless recovery.  A lot of those kids are going 
to be getting out of school in June.  And even if we did everything 
right, they would have a very, very hard time getting jobs.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you both.  Of course, Goals 2000 
will be a permanent, long-term thing that will certainly reach into 
next year.  It will involve, if passed -- and we certainly hope it 
will be -- action plans with every state where we can be working 
together to reach for the goals in a number of different ways.  And 
then the state, with all the various school districts, a very 
important part of that will be citizen and parent involvement.  And I 
think everybody will see a great energy out there, once we get that 
moving.
	     
	     The next call is Dr. Harry Heinemann, New York.  
	     
	     Doctor?
	     
	     Q	  Good evening, Mr. Secretary.  It is a pleasure to 
be on with you this evening.  As you may know, bridging the school 
and work has been central to La Guardia's educational program since 
its inception in the 1970s, and that includes the college, the two 
alternative high schools that operate on our campus, and the linkages 
we have forged with the local schools.  We have found this to be an 
extremely effective learning strategy.
	     
	     And over the years, we've come to believe that there are 
several principles that are very important in bridging the school and 
work.  And these include integrating theory in the classroom with 
practice in the workplace, with providing all students early exposure 
to careers, as well as providing opportunities for them to reflect 
upon these experiences while they strengthen their skills; and 
lastly, the critical role of the liberal arts, particularly in the 
development of high performance competencies.  
	     
	     My question, then is:  How can the general education 
faculty and the academic curriculum be more closely integrated with 
transition to work experience?  And what mechanisms and strategies 
can you suggest to achieve this integration?
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, thank you very much.  I think -- 
and we'll get a response from you all on that, and very interesting 
work going on there.  We're going to have three people, our next 
guests on the program this evening, that will be some specialists   
in that area that you're speaking, and I'll certainly pass that on to 
them and we can discuss it later.
	     
	     You all care to comment -- any comments you might have?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'd just like to say, if I might, one 
thing.  I want to reemphasize this and I don't think I'm being as 
clear about it as I'd like, although I think at least one of the 
people who will be on the second panel will be able to say it more 
explicitly than I.  I think this whole concept of applied academics 
is very important.  And I think that we have to basically abolish 
what I consider to be a very artificial distinction between what is 
vocational learning and what is academic learning.
	     
	     I think we should keep the liberal arts going.  I think 
we should have a strong component for people who are in the 
vocational program.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  It seems to me that we also need to 
rethink our entire tracking system, because a lot of these school and 
work combinations are important for mainstream students.  They're 
important for all students.  It's not just a special group of 
students that needs them.
	     
	     Some of the experiments that I've seen around the United 
States -- Dick, I'm sure you've seen them as well -- are mainstream 
experiments.  They're mainstreaming all the students.  At 11th and 
12th grades they're giving them a combined work and school experience 
and then a transition program.  And again, the kids can either go on 
to college if they want; they can go on to technical community; they 
can go on to an entirely -- a large variety of possibilities and 
career directions.
	     
	     But we have to get away from the stigmatizing that often 
goes on with young people who simply are doing job-related or work-
related work within the classroom, within our schools.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you, very much.  I think that's 
going to be the last call that we have time for.  Mr. President, I 
think you've got to move on to another matter, and I want to thank 
you and Secretary Reich for being here.  We appreciate your time and 
your ideas, and it's been a tremendous help to us.  

                                 END9:00 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178296
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting


In a previous article, Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) says:

>	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
>	     
>kind of working together.  And if you'll forgive me a little home 
>state pride, I want to say a special word of thanks to the Wal-Mart 
>Corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, for providing 
>several hundred of the sites for this town meeting tonight.  I 



         When did Bill start doing endorsements?

         Will he do the "Remington Shaver" ad?

         Tune in next week.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178298
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Law and Economics


[Procedural note: Ted directed followups to misc.legal only.  While I
respect his right to do so, my own opinions are that (1) "Followup-To"
fields are mere suggestions, not mandatory commands and (2) this issue
is of sufficient (a) general political relevance and (b) civil liberties
interest to warrant keeping it active in t.p.m and a.s.c-l as well, at
least for this round.]

In article <1993Apr11.155955.23346@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> Uh, no.  That's not what happened in _Boomer_.  What happened in
> _Boomer_ was that the judge didn't allow the plaintiffs to blackmail
> the cement plant by demanding a multi-million dollar plant to be shut
> down over $185,000 in damages, and required the plant to pay the
> plaintiffs the $185,000 to make them whole.  The plant would never
> have been shut down-- the plaintiff's lawyers would have just
> negotiated a windfall settlement, because the plaintiffs would prefer
> an amount greater than $185K to having the plant shut down, while the
> plant would prefer any amount less than the value of the plant to have
> the plant continue in operation.  Everyone's property rights were
> protected; the plaintiffs were made whole; unnecessary settlement
> costs were avoided.

Okay, now here's my interpretation of _Boomer_, based on the facts as
presented in the New York Court of Appeals<*> holding (_Boomer v.

<*>Note: The New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in New York
   State.  While the United States and 48 of the fifty states call their
   highest court "Supreme Court," "Supreme Judicial Court" or "Supreme
   Court of Appeals," Maryland and New York call theirs simply the
   "Court of Appeals."  To make matters worse, New York also calls its
   _second-highest_ court the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division"...

Atlantic Cement Co._, 26 N.Y.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 870 (1970)):

Oscar H. Boomer, et al., owned land near the Atlantic Cement company's
plant near Albany, N.Y.  (The fact pattern gives no information as to
which came first, the plaintiff's acquisition of the land or he
defendant's start of production at their cement plant.)  In the course
of its regular operations, the cement plant did injury to the
plaintiffs' property via dirt, smoke and vibrations emanating from the
plant.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief -- that is, they asked
the court to order Atlantic Cement to stop damaging their property.

(Commentary: this seems entirely reasonable to me.  Boomer at al owned
their property and, presumably, a right to quiet enjoyment of it.
Atlantic Cement's actions were depriving Boomer et al of that right.)

Instead of granting the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, the court
ordered them to accept the damage being done to their property, provided
that Atlantic Cement paid them $185,000 in compensatory damages.  In
other words, the court granted Atlantic Cement Co., a private party, the
power and authority to _take_ the plaintiffs rights to quiet enjoyment
of their property by eminent domain.  A taking by eminent domain is
always problematical even when it's done by the state; allowing a
private firm to do it is, in my opinion, totally wrong.

(Yes, I know, the _Boomer_ court didn't call it eminent domain.  But if
it walks like eminent domain and swims like eminent domain and quacks
like eminent domain...)

Let me take issue with the way you've presented the case... you say that
"What happened in _Boomer_ was that the judge didn't allow the
plaintiffs to blackmail the cement plant by demanding a multi-million
dollar plant to be shut down over $185,000 in damages."  Blackmail?

    (Pulls out Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged 5th Edition....
    "Blackmail: Unlawful demand of money or property under threat to
    do bodily harm, to injure property, to accuse of crime, or to expose
    disgraceful defects.  This crime is commonly included under
    extortion statutes.")

How do you define as "blackmail" one party's act of demanding the right
to set its own sale price for a unique piece of property which it owns
and which another party has expressed an interest in buying?  Or of
demanding the right not to sell that property at any price?  As I see
it, Boomer et al, having found themselves in the fortunate position of
owning something which Atlantic Cement had to purchase if it wanted to
stay in business, had every right in the world to set whatever price
they wanted.  There isn't, or at least shouldn't be, any law that says
that you have to be a nice guy in your private business dealings.

You go on to say: "The plant would never have been shut down -- the
plaintiff's lawyers would have just negotiated a windfall settlement,
because the plaintiffs would prefer an amount greater than $185K to
having the plant shut down, while the plant would prefer any amount less
than the value of the plant to have the plant continue in operation."

If so, so what?  Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
business of preventing parties from reaping windfall settlements from
other parties when those settlements arise from wrongful acts by those
other parties?  If Atlantic Cement didn't want to have to face a choice
between paying a windfall settlement or going out of business, well,
shouldn't Atlantic Cement have thought of that before going _into_
business?  (I note that as far as the facts show Boomer et al were _not_
the parties responsible for bringing about this situation -- that was
Atlantic Cement's own fault for choosing to build and operate the type
of plant they did where and when they did.)

And then you say: "Everyone's property rights were protected; the
plaintiffs were made whole; unnecessary settlement costs were avoided."
As above, I dispute your claim that the plaintiffs were "made whole."
They were, in fact, by court action deprived of their rights as owners
of property to choose to sell or not sell that property at a price
acceptable to them.  And for that deprivation they were _not_ made
whole.  And again I ask: Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
business of ensuring that "unnecessary" settlement costs are avoided?
(If so, I've been miseducated -- I always thought that the courts were
supposed to be in the business of ensuring that justice is done.)

> Is _Boomer_ really being taught as "infamous?"  That's really sad if
> it is, because I fail to see how it's less than completely sensible.
> You should read the law and economics stuff first-hand instead of
> filtered through teachers who clearly don't like it, for whatever
> inexplicable reasons.

(1) _Boomer_ is not being taught as "infamous," at least not at my
school.

(Aside: Northeastern Law usually does a very good job of hiring for
their first-year, mandatory classes (such as Torts, where I first
encountered _Boomer_) instructors who, regardless of their personal
opinions, can and do teach the law neutrally.  When the students get
into their second and third years, in which the students (a) can pick
and choose which courses to take (except for the mandatory Professional
Responsibility, of course) and (b) are presumed to be a bit more worldly
and self-confident, less likely to be consciously or sub-consciously
intimidated by Law School Professors and able to learn from openly
biased instructors rather than be indoctrinated by them, the instructors
tend to be more open in expressing their own opinions.  This is
especially true of part-time instructors who, in real life, are
practicing attorneys or sitting judges... this can be _very_
educational, sometimes far more so than being taught by a somewhat
cloistered scholar.  End of aside.)

I called it infamous because that's my opinion of it.  For the reasons
I've stated above, I believe it to be a triumph of something that I can
only call "economic correctness" over justice.

(2) It is "completely sensible" only if you believe that the alleged
right of the owners of Atlantic Cement to stay in business and avoid
losing a lot of their own money due to their own wrongful act, and
the alleged right of several hundred Atlantic Cement employees to
not have their jobs disappear, should trump the rights of people who
own property which was damaged by Atlantic Cement's wrongful acts.
(And if you believe that it is correct for the courts (or any other
branch of government) to grant to private parties the right to take
other people's property by eminent domain.)

> You'd like Posner, Bill.  He's a libertarian.

Really?  I didn't know that... what, if anything, has he had to say
about cases like _Boomer_?

> Of course, he has too much of a paper trail to ever be nominated by a
> president, Democrat (won't like his antitrust stance) or Republican
> (won't like his support of gay marriage), and if bright law students
> "shiver" at what they don't understand, it's easy to imagine how the
> press will play it up as baby-selling.  (I've seen Mike Godwin claim
> that Posner asserts that law and economics is applicable to everything
> and is the end-all and be-all, when Posner says precisely the
> opposite.)  So it goes.

I've admitted that my understanding of the field generally referred to
as "law and economics" is weak.  If it advocates the use of economical
analysis as one of many "tie-breaker" factors which courts may use to
help them reach decisions in cases in which the dispute, as measured by
the scale of "justice", is evenly balanced, fine.  But as illustrated by
_Boomer_, it is _not_ fine when the courts start viewing the economics
of a case as being more important than the justice of a case.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178299
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
> his so called stimulus package.
> It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
> immunizations for poor kids.
> So now Clinton is claiming that the republicans are holding the health of
> poor kids hostage for blatantly political gains.
> 
> Aside from the merits (or lack thereof) of another free immunization program,
> just what is such a program doing in a bill that is supposedly about
> creating jobs.

Jobs?  What the hell have jobs to do with it?  It's another touchy-feely 
program from the new, vapid administration.  The fact is, the major claim
made for "universal" immunization -- that "all children will be immunized" --
has absolutely no validity.  Several states already have U.I. programs, have
had these programs for _years_. The result: on average, their success rates
are no better than the national average.  It seems that the gummint hasn't
yet figured out a way to MAKE parents bring their kids in.  Yet another case
of shameless demagoguery from the "new" Democrats, the "agents of change." 
 
> If Clinton is so hot to get this immunization program, why doesn't he and
> the democrats just introduce it as a stand alone bill. Isn't it possible
> that Clinton is the one doing the blatant political (read pork) manipulations
> here. He is telling the republicans, pass my muti-billion dollar package,
> or I will go to the people and tell them that you are opposed to
> immunizing poor kids.

What?  Clinton using this issue for _partisan gain_?  Do tell.
 
> I have never thought highly of Clinton, but stunts like this lower my
> opinion of him even further.
> 
> I thought one of Clinton's campaign themes was that he was going to be
> a new kind of politician. This kind of manuevering would have made LBJ
> proud.

All together now... c'mon, you know the words... "Meet the new boss! Same as 
the old boss!"  And the chorus: "We won't get fooled again!"

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178300
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?)
Subject: Recent News

	In the hopes of adding a little life to, what seems to be, the
same old debates, I would like to add a few bits of info and ask for
comments.

1) A couple days ago the headlines were splashed with stories of proof
   that the North Vietnamese had held U.S. hostages after the war ended.
	Way back in today's newspaper (Page A7 of San Francisco Chronicle)
   there is an article about the document that held the proof.
	[used without permission]

	"The document, which was discovered in the archives of the Soviet
    Communist Party in Moscow, is a Russian translation of what is described
    as a September 1972 report prepared for the Vietnam Politburo by General
    Tran Van Quang, who is identified as the deputy chief of staff of the
    North Vietnamese army."
         [later on in the article after it talks about the claim of 1,205
           Americans in North Vietnamese prisons]
	"Phong said the easiest way to prove that the document is a 
    fabrication is to review Quang's career. In 1972, he said, Quang was 
    not deputy chief of staff; he was the army commander in Military Region 4
    in central Vietnam."

2) I heard on the radio that the Church of Scientology has filed for 
   bankrupcy becuase the employees of Cocolat , owned by CoS, filed a 
   class action suit against them for requiring the employees to pay dues
   to become members of the Church. Anyone heard more about this?

3) Micheal Jackson went into business with Micheal Milken. No lie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178301
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

Dov Bai-MSI Visitor (bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <C5FG7t.6At@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:

: >True, man did not invent the need for food, shelter, warmth and the ilk,
: >but man did invent the property laws and the laws of trespass.   
: But how do you think property is generated ? Does it grow automatically
: on trees when we wish so, or someone has to produce it ?

Some say it was generated by God or Goddess; some say it was the result of
the coalescence of billions of tons of interstellar debris.  In either case,
the property of which Xavier speaks has been around for millions of years.


:     It all follows from the fact that Mother Nature does not
: provide us automatically with our needs,

Oh?  When did She *stop*?  Mother Nature has been automatically providing
us with her bounty ever since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.  It
is not "produced": it produces itself, year after year.  Last night, for
example, I saw four deer crossing the road (pretty sight, too); in an
earlier time, one of them would have been dinner.

: There are 2 ways to go with produced things: the first is to 
: _trade_ it with the the person(s) who produced it. 
: The other one is to take it with a gun from the person who produced
: it. The first way is the civilized method, the second is how savages
: arrange their affairs.

The American Indians had no concept of ownership of property, and often
freely gave of their supplies to neighboring tribes, trading food and
clothing for weapons or services.  The Native Hawaiians, like their
Polynesian ancestors, also could not conceive of that idea, and shared
many things with the other Islanders.  In fact, "hi'ipoi", the Hawaiian
word for "cherish" means "sharing food".  The Great Mahele, in which
the Islands were divided up more-or-less evenly between the rich and
the poor, was a white man's idea.  In Africa, villagers will often
share tools, crops, and clothing with other members of their own village
and neighboring villages.  Every anthropologist who has ever been to
Africa has at least one tale of the difficulties arising from the so-
called "theft" of the scientists possessions -- two concepts of which,
until the visitors came along, the natives had no understanding.

These are the people we call "savages".

On the other hand, car-jackings and muggings are up from last year.

Dov, before you make further comment on this thread, I think it would
behoove you to study *all* of the facts.


-garison

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178302
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>>> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>>> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
>>
>>  Yes.
>> 
>>> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
>>> legality.
>>
>>  Why not?
>
>Where do they get these people?!  I really don't want to waste time in
>here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  

You asked a question, and now you don't want people to answer?  I believe
a legitimate question was asked.  Why shouldn't cost and safety be used
(at least in part) to determine legality?

I'd like to see you *prove* that drug legalization is an idiotic idea.
Seems to me the evidence from Great Britain is pretty convincing that 
drug legalization is a good idea.  Even such a noted conservative as
William F. Buckley supports it.
>
>My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just
>because it will be safer and cheaper.
> 
>A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all
>funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. -
>this would surely make my taxes decrease.

Your examples (except for prostitution) fail miserably to meet both criteria
(safer AND cheaper).  Obviously, killing people is not "safe".  As for
prostitution, why shouldn't it be legal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178304
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Was Re: Top Ten Tricks...)

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:

>>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

># #Can you provide some evidence that the slave states regarded slaves as
># #not humans?  They were "outside our society" and similar phrases that
># #basically meant that they didn't have to recognized as having the same
># #rights as a free person, but they were never considered "not human" to
># #my knowledge.
 
># 	Isn't the fact that slaves were "purchased" as opposed to
># 	"hired" enough evidence that they were not thought as humans?
># 	Didn't the Bill of Rights provide basic freedoms to humans
># 	that were not available to slaves?

>Not necessarily.  Distinctions were made between "citizens" and
>"persons" throughout the U.S. and various state constitutions.
>For example, free blacks had some rights of citizens, but not all
>the rights of citizens.  I'm curious if there was an additional
>level of distinction made by the slave states to rationalize their
>treatment of slaves, or if they just ignored the theoretical
>problems of slave ownership.

The Bill of Rights, as far as I can see, does not once refer to "citizens",
but it makes several references to "people". For example, Article IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated"; Article V: "no person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by
a Grand Jury ...  nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law"; Article VIII: "excessive bail
shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted".

Now I've never heard that Constitutional rights apply only to citizens;
aren't they meant to apply equally to all *persons* living in the U.S.?
Whether slaves were considered "not human" I don't know, but it seems
that a case could be made that they weren't treated as "people" as defined
in the Bill of Rights. And since the nation is nominally based on the
Declaration of Independence which states that "all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness",
it would also seem that slaves would not follow under this definition
of humanity.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@netcom.com
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178307
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Reserve officers say demographics ignored in nominations to close naval, marine reserve centers

Here is a press release from the Reserve Officers Association.

 Reserve Officers Say Demographics Ignored in Nominations to
Close Naval, Marine Reserve Centers
 To: National Desk, Defense Writer
 Contact: Herbert M. Hart of the Reserve Officers Association of
          the United States, 202-479-2258

   WASHINGTON, April 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Reserve Officers
Association of the United States has alerted the Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Commission that the services failed to give
sufficient weight to demographics in recommendations made to close
56 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve centers.
   In letters to the closure commission and to all 86 members of
Congress with affected locations in their constituencies, including
Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, ROA charged that the developers of the Navy-Marine list
ignored demographics of the civilian population, particularly prior
service personnel.
   ROA's executive director, Maj. Gen. Evan L. Hultman, AUS (Ret.),
suggested "concern that the only plausible alternative is that they
are intentionally attempting to foreclose the Naval Reserve
components from maintaining even today's relatively low level of
participation in their parent service's Total Force of the future."
   He asked the commission "to remove from consideration all
locations without sufficient and convincing demographic data to
warrant approval of the requested action."
   "Only a few of the 56 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
installations on this list are large enough to have a significant
impact on the community, if closed," wrote Hultman.  "The major
issue is the cumulative impact of moving or closing such a large
percentage of the existing locations."
   Hultman reminded the commission, "The fact that the vast
majority of the Reserve installations on this list do not come
close to meeting the minimal requirements for consideration in this
process certainly supports the thesis" that these actions are
simply an attempt to foreclose a substantial role for the Navy and
Marine Corps Reserve.
   ROA also noted "that at the end of the 1960s, when the number of
Naval Reservists was approximately the same as today, there were 480
Naval Reserve facilities.  If the Navy recommendations are
approved, there will be less than 200 Naval Reserve facilities."
   Facilities on the list include seven Naval Air Stations ranging
from South Weymouth, Mass., to Alameda, Calif., 28 Naval
Reserve Centers in Macon, Ga., and Parkersburg, W.Va., to
Missoula and Great Falls. Mont.  Naval/Marine Corps Reserve
Centers include four in San Francisco, Fort Wayne, Ind.,
Billings, Mont., and Abilene, Texas.
   A major Marine Reserve Center on the list is that at El
Toro, Calif., plus six others.
 -30-
-- 
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    ndallen@r-node.hub.org

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178308
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President Names Officials at Transp., Comm., Defen., OPIC



                         THE WHITE HOUSE


                  Office of the Press Secretary

                                                                  
For Immediate Release                             April 14, 1993



                  PRESIDENT NAMES OFFICIALS AT 
           TRANSPORTATION, COMMERCE, DEFENSE, AND OPIC



(Washington, DC)    President Clinton announced his intention 
today to nominate Albert Herberger to be Administrator of the 
Federal Maritime Administration, Loretta Dunn to be Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, and Christopher 
Finn to be Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation.  

     Additionally, he has approved the appointments of Joan Yim 
to be Deputy Administrator of the Federal Maritime 
Administration, Alice Maroni to be Principal Deputy Comptroller 
of the Department of Defense, and Deborah Castelman to be Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, and 
Communications.

     "We are continuing to move forward with putting together a 
government of excellent, diverse Americans who share my 
commitment to changing the way that Washington works," said the 
President.  "These six people I am naming today fit that bill."

     Biographical sketches of the nominees are attached.



                               ###

                BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF NOMINEES
                          April 14, 1993


     Albert Herberger, a thirty-five year Navy veteran who 
retired with the rank of Vice Admiral, is the Vice President of 
the International Planning and Analysis Center (IPAC).  Among the 
positions he held during his naval service were Deputy Commander-
in-Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, Director of 
Logistics on Staff for the Atlantic Fleet Commander-in-Chief, and 
Director of the Military Personnel Policy Division for the Office 
of Naval Operations.  A surface warfare expert and a merchant 
marine officer with over eighteen years operational experience, 
Herberger is also Vice Chairman of the National Defense 
Transportation Association's Sealift Committee.  He is a graduate 
of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and the Naval Postgraduate 
School.

     Loretta Dunn has served on the staff of the Senate Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation since 1979.  Since 1983 
she has been the Committee's Senior Trade Counsel, responsible 
for drafting trade legislation and reports, planning and 
conducting hearings, managing legislation on the Senate floor and 
in conferences with the House, overseeing a variety of executive 
branch agencies, including the Department of Commerce.  She was 
previously a Staff Counsel for the Committee.  Dunn holds a B.A. 
in History from the University of Kentucky, a J.D. from the 
University of Kentucky College of Law, and an L.M. from the 
Georgetown University Law Center.

     Christopher Finn is the Executive Vice President of Equities 
for the American Stock Exchange.  Previous positions he has held 
have included Senior Vice President of the Air and Water 
Technologies Corporation, Chief of Staff to Senator Daniel P. 
Moynihan, Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of 
Economic Development, and Chief Legislative Aide to Congressman 
James R. Jones.  Finn is a graduate of Harvard College.

     Joan Yim is a professional planner with over 17 years 
experience in community based planning, policy analysis, project 
design and management, inter-agency coordination and government 
affairs.  From 1975-92, she was with the Hawaii Office of State 
Planning as a planner on issues relating to natural resource and 
coastal zone management and public infrastructure financing, 
among other issues. Currently, she is Supervising Planner with 
the Honolulu firm of Parsons Brinckerhogg Quade & Douglas.  
Before going to work for the state, she was Executive 
Neighborhood Commission Secretary for the City and County of 
Honolulu, and Chair on the Kaneohe Community Planning Committee.  
A Democratic National committeewoman, Yim holds a B.A. from 
Connecticut College and pursued graduate studies at the 
University of Hawaii.

                              (more)

April 14, 1993
page two


     Alice Maroni is a professional staff member of the House 
Armed Services Committee specializing in defense budget issues.   
She previously worked as a national defense specialist in the 
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division of the 
Congressional Research Service, and as an international risk 
analyst for Rockwell International.  She has written extensively 
on defense budget related topics.  Maroni received her B.A. from 
Mount Holyoke College, and an M.A. from the Fletcher School of 
Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.  She has also completed 
the senior service program at the National War College and 
Harvard's Program for Senior Executives in National and 
International Security.

     Deborah Castleman is currently on leave from RAND, where she 
is a Space and Defense Policy Analyst.  She was an advisor to the 
Clinton/Gore campaign on space, science and technology, and 
national security issues.  Prior to joining RAND in 1989, 
Castleman held engineering positions with the Hughes Space and 
Communications Group, General Dynamics, and Electrac, Inc.  She 
served as an Avionics Technician in the Air Force from 1974-77.  
Castleman holds a B.S. in Electrical and Electronic Engineering 
from California State Polytechnic University, M.S. in Electrical 
Engineering from the California Institute of Technology, and M.A. 
in International Studies from Claremont Graduate School.

                               ###




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178309
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting

In article <1qia48INNgta@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:
>	     
>	     
>	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Good evening and welcome to all of you 
>in the thousands of communities around the country that are taking 
>part in this satellite town meeting for the month of April.
>	     
>	     You know, today is April 13th.  In 1743, Thomas 
>Jefferson was born, 250 years ago.  I think that's appropriate to 
>mention at the beginning of this meeting because since that time he 
>has been, of course, a person who has been one that we've all 
>followed in terms of our democracy and the importance of education 
>here in this great country.  The success of our democracy according 
>to Jefferson really depends upon the success of our educational 
>system.

       I wonder if he realizes the irony of a Federal Secretary
invoking a rabid anti-federalist in support of federal education
programs?
	     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178310
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject

In article <1993Apr13.174636.15142@ads.com>, henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) wrote: 
# -#	Just curious (don't have to answer if you feel uncomfortable):
# -#	how many times have YOU had sex with boys?
# 
# why do you care?  if a total stranger asked you how often you had sex,
# would you answer?
# 
# # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com#

This is so typical of homosexuals -- constantly making excuses for
child molesters.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178311
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade

In article <lsm2fjINNlnf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> >> In article <15230@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## #I remain pro-choice, but when pro-choicers compare abortion in a
# ## #clinic to a religious ritual in a church, you have to start wondering
# ## #a bit if the pro-life criticism of abortion as modern human sacrifice
# ## #doesn't have a grain of truth to it.
# 
# #In article <ls8ruoINN54b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM#, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
# ## 
# ## Ah, Clayton, so I see that you have found someone new to bash.  Tell
# ## me, how many pro-choicers have compared abortion in a clinic to a
# ## religious ritual in a church?  I'll bet that you've seen "overwhelming
# ## support" for this opinion in some newsgroup or another.
# 
# In article <15313@optilink.COM# cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #No, but I've seen the comparison drawn by pro-choicers in ca.politics.
# #It is worrisome to me.  But not to you?
# 
# 1. I've been reading ca.politics for a while now, and I don't recall
#    seeing such a comparison.

You don't read *my* postings very carefully; I'm not surprised.  It
was pretty shocking, and is part of why my sympathy (though not
agreement) with the pro-lifers is increasing.

# 2. A handful of lunatic opinions expressed in ca.politics does not
#    make me think that the opinion is widely held.

When did I say that it was?

# Clayton, I wish I knew what made you tick.  Your math sucks, and you
# take single instances of fringe opinions and proclaim the existence of
# a pernicious trend.  There's about a quarter billion people living in
# this country -- some small number of them are almost guaranteed to
# hold opinions that you (and I) find positively repellent.  As long as
# the small number is truly a small number, and as long as they're not
# my neighbor (highly likely), I'm not worried about it.

When they hold high public office, you should worry.

# By the way, when you cite experts, remember that Carl Sagan and Paul
# Ehrlich [sp?] are experts, too.  If I've never heard of your experts,
# I'll consider the source (you, a man who is clearly unable to master
# elementary statistics and uses of statistical inference) and ignore
# them.
# 
# David Chase

You mean, I don't come to the conclusions that your emotional
state requires.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178312
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Professors Whining About Pay

In article <1qf2kqINNrkd@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
> In article <15320@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |>In article <1q4k3bINNe6k@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
> |>> In article <15307@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# |## |#2. Professors get summers off; industry employees don't.
# |## 
# |## What professor gets the summer off ?  The primary purpose of a professor
# |## at a university is to publish.  Teaching is secondary.  The summer
# |## is when professors are able to do the research required for their
# |## papers.
# |#
# |#I'm told by my advisor that only at some universities is publishing
# |#the primary emphasis; many professors in the Cal State University
# |#system don't publish at all.  Those that prefer teaching are under
# |#no pressure to publish.
# |#
# 
# When discussing and issue, it helps that all participants use the same
# definitions, although this rarely occurs on Usenet.
# 
# When I use the term "university", I think of an organization that has
# a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD program.  I believe that Cal State schools
# do not.  I call them colleges.  UC schools are universities.  At a univeristy
# the number one goal is to publish.

Cal State University system offers bachlors and masters degrees.  The
Ph.D. is not offered, because of opposition from UC.

# At the Cal State schools, do the professors you speak of have PhDs?  At

Nearly all the professors have PhDs.  I haven't had a professor who didn't,
though my wife has had a couple of professors with just an M.A.  A friend
had an instructor who didn't have a degree at all, but because he had
been Minister of Culture for the Black Panthers, he was teaching anyway.
He had a bad habit of usually not showing up to teach the class, and
finally quit in disgust at the racism of a university that expected him
to show up to teach.

# a university you have professors with PhDs and then Teaching Assistants (TAs).
# TAs were the slave labor, graduate students who got their tuition paid, and
# a few hundred a month for living expenses in exchange for doing all the grunt
# work.  The professors taught the lectures, with 100 to 500 students per class,
# then the TAs taught the labs, with 20 to 30 per class.
# 
# Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)

At Sonoma State University, typical class size is 20 to 30 per class.
Teaching is definitely more the goal, and sometimes, it actually happens.
The best professors at Sonoma State U. are equivalent to the best 
professors I had at UCLA and USC.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178313
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Summer Jobs Conference 4.14.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 14, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                      AT SUMMER JOBS CONFERENCE

	     	  
                            Hyatt Regency
                        Crystal City, Virginia  


11:22 A.M. EDT

	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  The speech that 
Octavius gave says more than anything I will be able to say today 
about why it's important to give all of our young people a chance to 
get a work experience and to continue to learn, to merge the nature 
of learning and work; why it's important to honor the efforts of 
people like Jerry Levin and Nancye Combs and Pat Irving and all of 
those who are here.  
	     
	     I want to thank the Secretaries of Labor and Education 
and all the people who work with them for sponsoring this; and my 
good friend, Governor Wilder, for being here and for speaking; and 
all of the business and local community leaders from the city and 
county and state level from around America who are here. 
	     
	     This has been a pretty fun day.  (Laughter.)  I loved 
hearing the young people sing.  It was music to my ears because it is 
their future that we are really struggling about.  (Applause.)  A 
year and a half ago I began the quest to seek the presidency because 
I was concerned about their future.  Because I believe that our 
country, which had always been a beacon of hope for the young, had 
too little opportunity, was too divided among ourselves across lines 
of income and race and region and other ways, without a vision to 
take us into the future.  
	     
	     I entered with the hope that together we could create 
more opportunity and insist on much more responsibility from all of 
our people.  But in the process we might recreate the best of 
America's community, knowing that together we could always to more 
than we could individually and that we might secure our future.
	     
	     All of you here today are committed to that.  The 1,000 
jobs that Jerry Levin has committed Time-Warner to is symbolic of the 
commitments made by many of the private sector people who are here, 
and those who are around the country.  The work that Nancye Combs 
does, and the successes of all the young people like those on this 
stage, and especially the eloquent statement Octavius Jeffers -- all 
those things show that together we know what we need to do, and we're 
on the right track.
	     
	     Last July when I was traveling across America's 
heartland in my luxurious bus, I visited Seneca High School in 
Louisville, Kentucky.  And there I met young people and business 
people who were participating in the Louisville Education and 
Employment Partnership.  I saw what Nancye Combs talked about today.  
I saw how the young people were making an extra effort to succeed 
both in school and at work.  I saw, as I have seen many times in my 
own state, the principle illustrated that Octavius has talked about 
-- that for millions of American young people it is really an 
impediment to both their learning and their ability to be good 
workers to draw a sharp dividing line between what is work and what 
is learning.
	     
	     In the world in which we are living, the average young 
person will change the nature of work seven or eight times in a 
lifetime.  We must learn to merge the work world and the learning 
world much better.  And we must determine that all of our young 
people see the opportunities that some of them have had showcased 
here today.  
	     
	     Whether you're in business or in government or in 
education, you know that we have a big job to do when it comes to 
building a future that really, honestly includes opportunity for all 
of our people.  There are still a lot of people who say, well, things 
are pretty good here in Washington and everything's fine; the best 
thing we can do about this whole thing is nothing.  They all have 
jobs.  (Laughter.)  All the people who say that.  (Applause.)  
	     
	     They all have health insurance.  They all have a pretty 
good education.  And they all have a pretty secure knowledge that 
they'll be okay no matter what happens.  I say that not to be either 
political or unduly critical, but to point out that one of the great 
challenges of this age for every advanced nation -- everyone -- is to 
fully develop the capacities of all of its people, and then find work 
for them to do.
	     
	     All the European countries have higher unemployment 
rates than we do, but also stronger support systems for the 
unemployed.  The Japanese unemployment rate has been going up.  
They're going to adopt a stimulus that, even if you count it in its 
most rigorous terms, is three or four times bigger than the one that 
I have proposed to create jobs. 
	     
	     In West Germany alone, the unemployment rate is now 
about as high as ours.  This is a big problem for advanced nations.  
It costs a lot of money to add an extra employee, with a lot of 
pressure from low-wage producers in other countries that are growing 
their own economies and trying to provide new opportunity for their 
people.  
	     
	     But it is especially important for America for two 
reasons:  One is, we have a whole lot of folks who, unless we move 
aggressively, will not have the education and skills we need to be 
competitive and productive in a nation like this.  The second is, 
even if we educate them all, if there aren't jobs they will be robbed 
of the fruits of their educational labors.  People need to be able to 
work in this country.  (Applause.)
	     
	     We have always had some unemployment; and, indeed, some 
of it is normal.  You've always got some people leaving jobs and 
moving around the country and doing first one thing and another.  We 
have now, at this moment in our history, the necessity for all big 
organizations, including the government, to reexamine the way they 
are organized and who ask whether there are too many people working 
at some kinds of jobs.  But in the whole, we must still be able to 
create jobs in a country like America, to provide people with the 
chance to work.  
	     
	     It's going to be difficult for me to make the welfare 
reform proposals that I will make to Congress in the next couple of 
months -- it's going to be hard for me to make those work if, at the 
end of all this work, to get off welfare there isn't a job.  
(Applause.)
	     
	     So we have two tasks.  One is to develop the capacity of 
the American people to perform without regard to race or income or 
the circumstances of their birth.  The other is to make sure that 
there are some opportunities for them to bring to bear for their 
talent and to be rewarded with a paycheck.  It is a great challenge.  
I do not pretend that all of the answers are simple.  But I know if 
you want to ask the American people, all of them, to be more 
responsible, if you want to recreate a sense of community in this 
country that bridges the lines of race and income and region, you 
have got to have opportunity in that mix. 
	     
	     A part of our vision for America has to be a future for 
every young person in this country who's willing to play by the rules 
and work hard and strive for the end of the rainbow.  There has to be 
something at the end of that rainbow.  And that is what we are 
basically here to talk about today:  What can we all do as partners, 
recognizing none of us can do it alone, to develop the capacities of 
our people to succeed wherever they live and whatever their 
background.  And then, what can we do to make sure that there's 
something there for them to do?

	     The summer jobs program we're discussing today is an 
integral part of that plan, because it will promote the values of 
work and opportunity and fairness, community.  It will put the people 
first, and it does have a partnership between the public and private 
sector.
	     
	     I said when I addressed the United States Congress in 
February on this program that I would seek to create about 700,000 
extra summer jobs from government sources and then challenge the 
American business community to meet that target so that we can create  
more than a million new summer jobs over and above what had been 
created before.
	     
	     Many, many people have responded to that challenge.  And 
Jerry is just a shining example of that which has been replicated in 
this room and around the country -- people who are going to do more 
than they otherwise would in the private sector to give young people 
a work experience.  And it is terribly important.
	     
	     I want to emphasize that this summer jobs program is 
part of an overall commitment to increase the capacity of the 
American people -- from retraining defense workers who lose their 
jobs and other adults who need to acquire new skills; to improving 
the transition from school to work for young people who don't go to 
college but do need at least two years of post-high school training 
either on the job or in a community college or a vocational setting, 
so that they can be competitive workers, making it possible for more 
people to go on to college who do want to go.
	     
	     All these things are part and parcel of a comprehensive 
plan.  It's also important, as I said, that we create more jobs.  The 
emergency jobs program that I asked the Congress to adopt would 
create a half a million extra jobs over the next year and a half, and 
that would reduce the unemployment rate by a half a percent.  It 
would also enable us to absorb more young people coming into the work 
force in jobs that otherwise will not be created.
	     
	      It also will help a lot of cities and counties to 
invest in things that need to be done at the grass-roots level --
projects long delayed, water projects, sewer projects, park projects, 
new industries and particularly in small and medium-size communities 
-- a whole range of things that will improve the economy and improve 
the environment.  
	     
	     The summer jobs program is an important part of that 
because we have tried for the first time, through the work of the 
Labor Department and the Education Department and through reaching 
out to people like you, to make this more than just a one-shot summer 
jobs program; to integrate it with private sector efforts; to 
hopefully replicate it in each coming summer; to move these young 
people into further educational opportunities and to further job 
opportunities; and to have a strong, meaningful education component 
to these summer jobs -- something that the United States government 
has never fully emphasized before.  
	     
	     A lot of these young people, as you well know, because 
they come from difficult backgrounds, because they go to school in 
difficult and challenging circumstances, need extra help in building 
their basic skills in math and language, reasoning and in other 
areas.  And a lot of educational studies show that young people who 
have difficulty in school often forget as much as 30 percent of what 
they learn over the summer and then that has to be repeated the next 
year.  
	     
	     What we are trying to do here is to give people the 
opportunity to learn good work habits and to reinforce their learning 
skills and to put them together; and then, hopefully, over the next 
couple of years, if our entire program passes, to give every school 
in this country the opportunity to have a good work and learning 
environment.  
	     
	     There will be more applied academics, more opportunities 
for people to learn and work during the school year, so that this 
will not simply be an isolated moment for these young folks, but will 
be a part of building a whole new educational experience, a whole new 
work experience, and moving on a pathway to a better future.
	     
	     The summer jobs programs are not designed to be make-
work jobs.  They're designed to make a future for the people holding 
the job.  And that's what they will do.  In the process, they'll help 
to build local communities, to strengthen local economies, to solve 
local problems.  Real jobs -- renovating housing, repairing public 
buildings, doing clerical work, providing nursing assistance in 
hospitals, supervising and training children at child care centers, 
and learning all the way.  Challenging young people to learn while 
they earn, but letting them earn.
	     
	     You know, it's very difficult to make a case to people 
who have never seen opportunity on their own street that they should 
do this, that, or the other thing if there's no evidence of the 
opportunity that's at the end of the effort.  I have not been sparing 
in going for the last year-and-a-half into places where it isn't 
exactly popular to say it, and say I wanted to reform the welfare 
system; I wanted to toughen child support; I wanted to require people 
to work; I was sick and tired of people being irresponsible in the 
use of guns on the streets, and I wanted to change all that.  But if 
you're going to summon people to greater responsibility, you have to 
reward them when they do the right thing with opportunity.  
(Applause.)
	     
	     The young people we propose to put to work under our 
program will spend 90 hours learning basic skills, such as math, 
reading, writing -- either on the job in the classroom.  They will 
stretch their minds as well as work up a sweat.  They will have a 
sense of accomplishment.  It will literally be a summer challenge, 
but a challenge that will take them into a different life.
	     
	     So I want to ask all of you to support this effort even 
as I, as your President, support your effort.  At the end of the 
summer we will evaluate all the young people who participate.  We'll 
see whether they, instead of falling behind over the summer 
academically as too many young people do, they stayed even or moved 
ahead.  I suspect that they will.  
	     
	     This summer, Secretary Reich and Secretary Riley and I 
will be visiting many of your communities.  We'll really try to learn 
from you which of these efforts are working, what we should do next 
summer, how we can build it in to what goes on during the school 
year, how we can build in our job training efforts and the works that 
we do with your companies to make sense of this whole thing -- so 
that we maximize the impact of the taxpayer dollar and your private 
investments as well. 
	     
	     We want to honor the companies and the communities, the 
business leaders and the young people who do the very best jobs this 
summer.  And, again, I want to say to all of you in private business 
who have matched our effort, I thank you.  And to all of you who 
haven't, and those across the country who may listen or learn about 
this event today, I want to implore other private employers to 
stretch a little bit to give other young people a chance to work this 
summer.  I'm telling you, we cannot go through another 10 years when 
we don't give these children anything to say yes to.  If we exhort 
them to do right, we've got to be able to reward them.  (Applause.)
	     
	     When the other speakers were talking, I was sitting up 
here on the platform, listening and reveling.  And they got talking 
about work, and I got to thinking about all the different things I've 
done to make a living in my life.  When I was 13, I made a very 
foolish short-term business investment:  I set up a comic book stand 
and sold two trunks full of comic books.  Made more money than I had 
ever had in my life.  But if I had saved those trunks, they'd be 
worth $100,000 today.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     That does not mean young people should not be 
entrepreneurial.  It just means that you can't foresee a generation 
ahead.  I have mowed yards and cleared land and built houses and 
worked in body shops and the parts departments of a car dealership.  
And I've done a lot of different things for a living.  Some 
people say I got into politics to escape work.  (Laughter.)  
	     
	     I learned something from every job I ever had.  But I 
grew up in a generation where I literally did not know a living soul 
without regard to race or income who wanted to work who didn't have a 
job.  I grew up in a generation when all you had to really say to 
people is, get an education and you'll be all right.  You'll get a 
job and you'll make more money next year than you did this year.  Now 
I live in a generation full of people, most of whom don't make any 
more money in real dollars than they did 10 years ago and they're 
working longer hours and they're paying more for the basics of life.  
And we are now wondering whether we can create the jobs that these 
young people want.
	     
	     Now, I want to close by reemphasizing these two things:  
It doesn't matter what kind of economic policies this administration 
pursues, or how much productivity increases there are in the private 
sector, if young Americans don't get a good education, don't learn 
how to work and can't be productive, those jobs will not be created 
in this country.  Machines will do the work or the work will be done 
off-shore by people who have the same skill levels and can work for a 
third or a fourth or a fifth the wages.  So nothing we can do 
economically will matter unless we build the skills and capacities of 
America's work force.  And anybody that pretends otherwise is just 
kidding.  
	     
	     On the other hand, we need to be honest.  Every wealthy 
country in the world, including the United States, is having 
difficulty creating jobs.  If I knew everything that needs to be done 
I'd be glad to tell you and we   could just call off the whole 
deliberations of Congress and everything else.  I don't have all the 
answers.  But I know this:  Doing nothing is not the answer.  
(Applause.)
	     
	     And so the jobs program that I have presented to 
Congress, with the summer jobs, with the money for the cities and the 
counties, through the Community Development Program, with the 
infrastructure money, is a small part of a big budget.  It is an 
attempt to engage in an experiment to see whether or not, with the 
economy recovering in terms of corporate profit, we can give a little 
boost to it, give opportunities to young people, create a half a 
million jobs and maybe get the engine going again.
	     
	     Most of the jobs in this program are going to be jobs in 
the private sector, not government jobs, even though it's government 
money.  And the lion's share of the work in rebuilding the American 
economy obviously will come from the private sector.  That's the kind 
of system we have and it works pretty well.  
	     
	     But this is the challenge we have.  So I ask all of you 
here today to support the summer jobs program, to ask your friends 
and neighbors to support it, to go back home and ask your employers 
to make a little extra effort; to do what you can to help me pass the 
funds to create the 700,000 jobs that the United States government 
should create this summer, so that together we can have this 
partnership.  Because more than anything else, we have to give a 
future -- a future that our young people can believe in.  
	     
	     We need to send them a message that here in America if 
you study hard and work hard, if you obey the law and contribute 
something to your community, you will be rewarded by your country.  
You can build a future from you own dreams. 
	     
	     That has always been the promise of America.  Together 
that's what this summer of challenge needs to be:  a reaffirmation of 
the promise of America for so many young people to whom that promise 
has been an illusion.  We can make it a reality.
	     
	     Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

                                 END11:45 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178314
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.14.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 14, 1993



                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS


                          The Briefing Room


12:40 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I guess I'm just prepared to take 
questions today.
	     
	     Q	  George, Bob Dole says that the Clinton 
administration's policy on Bosnia is a failure and that he wants the 
United States to take the lead in lifting the arms embargo so that 
the Bosnian Muslims can defend themselves.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know, President Clinton has 
said that that suggestion is under active consideration.  Obviously, 
this is a tragic situation in Bosnia.  And if the Bosnian Serbs don't 
come to the negotiating table in a constructive way, we'll look 
seriously at pressing for lifting the arms embargo.  In the meantime, 
we're going to continue to press for a tough sanctions resolution in 
the U.N.  We're going to continue to work on the Serbs to come to the 
negotiating table.  But the prospect of an arms embargo is something 
the President certainly will consider if the Serbs don't come to the 
table.
	     
	     Q	  How much longer are you going to give them to come 
to the table, George?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're working on that right now.
	     
	     Q	  It's been a long time.
	     
	     Q	  On February 19th, the President mentioned the value 
added tax in Ohio.  And when he was asked about it later by 
reporters, he said -- quote -- "That is a radical change in the tax 
system of the United States.  It's something I think we may have to 
look at in the years ahead."  Questioned again about it later he 
says, "It is not something that is now under consideration.  If we 
start considering it, I'll tell you."  It wasn't a trial balloon or 
anything, he said.  I was just discussing the tax response to a 
question.  Donna Shalala, quoted in USA Today this morning -- quote -
- "Certainly we're looking at a VAT."  What's gone on?
	     
	     Q	  The same with Alice Rivlin this morning.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The health care task force is 
reviewing a number of options.  They haven't made any decisions yet.  
And as I have said from this podium time and time again, we're not 
going to comment on decisions that haven't been made.
	     
	     Q	  But you have also said from this podium time and 
time again --
	     
	     Q	  Wait a minute.  Whoa, Nelly.  Whoa.  
	     
	     Q	     that that was not under consideration.
	     
	     Q	  Yes.  Clinton says, "It is not something that is 
now under consideration."  Is that no longer true?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe the working group, as Ms. 
Shalala says, has looked at this prospect, but no decisions have been 
made of any kind.
	     
	     Q	  Well, I know.  But he said he'd tell us about it if 
it was ever under consideration.  I take it that now he is and he 
didn't tell us about it or --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Did he say if it was under 
consideration or if it was something to be proposed?
	     
	     Q	  "If we start considering I'll tell you."
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  If it's something to be proposed?
	     
	     Q	  "If we start considering it, I'll tell you."  
That's a direct quote.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The task force has looked at a 
number of different options.  They have not made any decisions yet.  
The President has not made any decisions yet.  This is -- one of the 
proposals under consideration by the task force was to go out and 
cast as wide a net as possible for different ideas on how to reform 
the health care system.  They have cast a very wide net.  They have 
looked at hundreds of different proposals -- probably thousands of 
different proposals.  But the President has not made any decisions.
	     
	     Q	  Well, is the President aware of their consideration 
of this option?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if he's been briefed 
on any preliminary conclusions or anything like that from the task 
force on this specific proposal of any kind.  I don't know that 
that's gotten to his level.  He started yesterday to go through with 
the task force a very wide range of decisions and I don't believe 
that that's been presented to him, no.
	     
	     Q	  Well, he's not relying on the USA Today to tell him 
what his task force is considering in the way of taxes.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he's going through it in a very 
deliberate fashion.  There are a number of decisions that have to be 
made.  I don't know that this proposal has reached that decision-
making point.
	     
	     Q	  If this is still under consideration, that's a 
change, at least from what we've been told by Dee Dee, I think about 
three weeks ago or so.  She said, that is not an option, talking 
about the -- had a big argument with somebody over this, so I 
remember it specifically -- and said it not once, but twice.  Is that 
not the case?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know if this has 
been presented to the President as something that is being looked at 
at some level in the task force.
	     
	     Q	  It was ruled it out, though.  I mean, unlike other 
options that you've kept in the mix, this one specifically was ruled 
out.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, this is something that is 
being looked at, but no decision has been made of any kind.  I mean, 
it doesn't -- it's not necessarily material until you get to the 
decision-making phase.  The working groups are looking at hundreds of 
different options.
	     
	     Q	  If it was ruled out before and it's not ruled out 
now, then something has changed, George.  Yes, no?
	     
	     Q	  When a guy says in February --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the working groups are 
looking at the widest possible range of options.
	     
	     Q	  So something's changed.  They weren't looking at it 
before; they're looking at it now.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I don't know if the working 
groups have gotten to that point yet.  They are casting a very wide 
net.
	     
	     Q	  How was it possible that you and Dee Dee were able 
to sell -- definitively rule it out as an option previously and now 
are saying that, in fact, it is being considered?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, the working groups are 
looking at a wide range of options.  They have not --
	     
	     Q	  Do you deny that you and Dee Dee ruled it -- flatly 
ruled it out on several occasions in the past month?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't deny that -- I mean, those 
are the President's words.  Those are very clear.
	     
	     Q	  Subsequent to the President's words, do you deny 
that within the last month you and Dee Dee have both publicly ruled 
it out?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about the timing.  I 
think what we did was refer back to the President's words and say 
they stand.
	     
	     Q	  So don't they stand any longer?
	     
	     Q	  March 25th, Clinton said for the next four to five 
years it was ruled out.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, those words -- the President 
did say that in February.  The working groups are on a separate 
track, and as I said, I don't believe --
	     
	     Q	  Separate from the President?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe this has been 
presented to the President.
	     
	     Q	  Are they considering something that the President 
--
	     
	     Q	  Has ruled out?
	     
	     Q	     has ruled out?  I mean, will the President 
consider a VAT tax?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, the working groups have not 
presented this to the President.  They have looked at a wide range of 
options.  I suppose that if an argument is made, he will clearly 
listen to it.  That does not mean he has decided to do it.
	     
	     Q	  Can we put this another way?  In his answer in 
Ohio, he looked at the VAT in terms of restructuring the whole tax 
system.  Under those -- that was the circumstance that he said it 
might be considered at some future point.  Is that no longer the 
case, or is that the only way that he can see a VAT emerging?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I guess I'm not sure exactly what 
you're asking.
	     
	     Q	  He talked about the VAT in the context of a 
restructured tax system, not as a specific way to finance health 
care, for example.
	     
	     Q	  Or anything else.
	     
	     Q	  Or anything else.
	     
	     Q	  It was always in the context of substituting for 
other taxes at a time of a dramatic overhaul of the whole tax system.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.
	     
	     Q	  Has that change, too?
	     
	     Q	  Is that still his view?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I haven't spoken about those 
specific comments.  I think -- I can just go back to it -- are the 
working groups -- have they examined the possibility of a VAT?  Yes, 
they have.
	     
	     Q	  Certainly we're looking at a VAT, she said.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They have examined the possibility 
of a VAT.  Has it been presented to the President?  Has he made a 
decision?  No, he has not.
	     
	     Q	  What kind of a deal do you have when you've got the 
President's appointed task force, obviously not oblivious to his 
ruling something out except in the context of some huge down the line 
reform, goes ahead on its own and considers a tax which he has 
specifically ruled out in any context other than much later, and then 
goes ahead and announces that that's what they're looking at?  Is the 
President concerned about that sort of thing?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that the President's 
concern is to make sure he gets the best health care proposal 
possible.  He's concerned with making sure that they have the most 
thorough process for examining all the possible alternatives, all the 
different alternatives.  If a decision is made to go forward with 
something like that it's certainly something the President will 
explain and justify.  But no decision has been made along those 
lines.
	     
	     Q	  What does it mean exactly, though, when the 
President rules something out?  Does it mean it can get back on the 
table later if a more persuasive argument is made?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's just -- that's indisputably 
true.  If you -- but, at the same time, he has not ruled it in.  He 
has not made a proposal.
	     
	     Q	  What makes him open to it now when he wasn't open 
to it before?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's certainly willing to listen to 
the argument.
	     
	     Q	  Was he willing to listen to the argument for a 
short-term tax this year, and he wasn't willing to listen to it in 
Chilicothe?  He's now open to it --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The context of his comments was 
that it was not something -- he wanted to be clear that this is not 
something he was proposing, not something he was floating.
	     
	     Q	  Not something he was considering.  Those are his 
words -- "It's not something that's now under consideration.  If we 
start considering it, I'll tell you."  You're now acknowledging, are 
you not, that it is under consideration and --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm acknowledging that the task 
force has studied this proposal.  I am also stating that the 
President has not made a decision on it.
	     
	     Q	  But the door is open for the President to 
reconsider including this as part of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Obviously, the working groups are 
looking at it.  Again, but the President has not made a decision.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if they will make a presentation on 
behalf of the VAT to him?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that.  I assume that 
if -- I don't know what stage they are it in proposing.  I don't know 
that they're going to make the conclusion that this is something they 
should present to him.  I know this is something the working groups 
are looking at.
	     
	     Q	  Do you understand, George, that none of us are 
asking these questions in context of a decision that the President 
has made, only about what the President is considering?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I understand that, and I am 
acknowledging that the working groups have examined the issue of a 
VAT.
	     
	     Q	  And the President will consider it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I assume that he will consider the 
argument if it is presented to him.
	     
	     Q	  Does that mean the President -- that working groups 
think that when the President says no, he means maybe?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that means that the working 
groups are trying to do the most thorough job possible.
	     
	     Q	  George, can I ask you another question about 
Bosnia?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  No, he wants us to stay on this.
	     
	     Q	  Let's do gays in the military.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  No, he got out of that swamp.
	     
	     Q	  I think we've gotten the bottom line on that VAT.  
Reggie Bartholomew, your Special Ambassador in Belgrade, today said 
that if the Serbs do not accept the agreement that has been worked 
out -- quote -- "We will do our part to pursue the lifting of the 
arms embargo together with our allies."  That seems to go a bit 
further than what you've just said --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sounds almost exactly what I just 
said.
	     
	     Q	  Well, do you accept -- in other words, you accept 
what Reggie --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the President has said that 
this is something that's under consideration.  It is something he 
will consider if the current actions don't bring the Serbs to the 
table.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't there some kind of timetable here?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, there is a timetable.  There's 
going to be a vote on the U.N. resolution in about 10 days.
	     
	     Q	  That's on sanctions, that's on tightening the 
sanctions.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's right, that's sanctions.  
And we believe that that will ratchet up the pressure, and we hope 
that that will bring the Serbs to the table.  As you know, Mr. 
Bartholomew also met with Mr. Churkin of Russia, and they are also 
working on ways to bring the Serbs to the table.  We will continue to 
pressure them in many different ways and this is one possible option 
as well.
	     
	     Q	  The question is whether there's a timetable for 
consideration or a vote on a decision on lifting the arms embargo, 
not the sanctions.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The next vote in the U.N. is on 
sanctions.  As far as I know, there are no votes scheduled on lifting 
the arms embargo.  But it is something that we have discussed both 
internally and with our allies.
	     
	     Q	  Why did Reggie Bartholomew tell the Serbs that the 
U.S. would do that?  What was the point of his telling them that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, clearly, I mean, this is 
something that's under consideration, and this is something that we 
take quite seriously if they do not come to the table.  They should 
know the consequences of failing to come to the table.
	     
	     Q	  Have they been given a deadline?
	     
	     Q	  Warren Christopher has been saying the same thing 
and it hasn't seemed to change the Serbs' behavior in the least.  Why 
should the Serbs take any heed of a threat to lift the arms embargo 
when so far everything that's been done has had no effect on the 
fighting in Bosnia?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't accept the premise of 
your question.  It has had an effect; the embargo is having an 
effect.  
	     
	     Q	  What effect?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  If the Serbians choose not to heed 
our warnings, then they will face the consequences.
	     
	     Q	  What effect has it had in Bosnia?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the effect that it has had on 
the Serbians, it has tightened up -- they are not getting their 
shipments through.  We can brief more fully --
	     
	     Q	  In Bosnia, George.  In Bosnia what effect has it 
had?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, it's hard to say if it's 
stopped the aggression to date.  That is why we're continuing to 
press for the Serbians to stop.  But we believe that over time we 
will continue to weaken the Serbs and that will have   an effect.  
I'm not saying it's going to happen overnight; it clearly hasn't 
happened overnight.  But we believe that over time the sanctions can 
weaken the Serbs.  If it fails to work and if the Serbs fail to come 
to the negotiating table, we'll move forward with the embargo.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't there a working deadline, George, of the 24th 
-- the same date as the U.N. -- the scheduled U.N. vote?  Hasn't the 
United States said, along with many of the other NATO allies, that if 
the Serbs aren't willing to sign on to the peace accord by then, that 
we'll seek -- haven't we said that we will seek --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We've said continually we're going 
to --
	     
	     Q	  But on that deadline?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't have a specific date, but 
we're going to move forward with the resolution, the U.N. resolution, 
by around that time.  And if that fails to take effect, if that fails 
to bring the Serbs to the table, we will clearly consider other 
actions.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't this awfully incremental?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're taking a step-by-step 
approach.  We're ratcheting up the pressure and we're going to 
continue to do that.
	     
	     Q	  Is there a possibility, George, that by the time 
all these incremental steps are taken the Serbs will have achieved 
their goals and then what's the purpose?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the purpose is to get the 
Serbs to stop the aggression.  We are pursuing that goal on many 
different fronts.  We are pursuing it through the U.N.; we're 
pursuing it through direct talks; we are pursuing it through 
tightening the sanctions.  And we will consider lifting the arms 
embargo.  We are turning the screws up on the Serbs and we will 
continue to do that.
	     
	     Q	  But if the efforts have been unsuccessful in 
getting the Serbs to stop the aggression how effective will any 
campaign be to have the Serbs give back what they've gained?  I mean, 
once they're entrenched --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't speculate on that.  We're 
going to continue to press for them to come to the table now.  We're 
going to continue to find ways to stop the aggression.  But I can't 
see into the future.
	     
	     Q	  George, on the stimulus package, House Republicans 
say they're going to hold a series of town meetings on Saturday to 
try and explain the details of your package.  They cite polls which 
show that the more people learn about it, the less they like it.  
What's your strategy to counter that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The strategy we have is the one 
we're going to continue.  As you saw, the President today pointed up 
the very real benefits of the summer jobs program that this package 
will provide:  700,000 new summer jobs this summer for kids in inner 
cities and suburbs to do productive work.  We are also going to point 
out the benefits of the highway money, the investments in highways.  
We're going to point up the benefits of immunization.  We're going to 
point up the benefits of Head Start.  We are going to say that the 
Republicans have a choice:  they can take action to create jobs or 
they can perpetuate the gridlock of the last four years. 
	     
	     Q	  Does it concern you, though, that the House now, 
the House Republicans are after you as well as the Senate?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The House Republicans voted against 
it before.  They made a mistake then; they're making a mistake now.
	     
	     Q	  George, does it strike anybody in the 
administration that it's a bit strong to describe, as the President 
did this morning, the summer jobs program as -- quote -- "a 
reaffirmation of a promise of America"?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I think it's the 
promise of America to give kids a chance to reach their full 
potential. 
	     
	     Q	  Government-funded jobs?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  To give people a chance to work?  
Absolutely.  That is the promise of America.
	     
	     Q	  I want to follow up on something I asked yesterday 
-- where does 700,000 summer jobs, where does that figure come from?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That is on top of.  I did look at 
it.  There are currently 600,000 summer jobs in the pipeline.  This 
will be on top of the 600,000, so it will be a total of 1.3 million.
	     
	     Q	  The 700,000 would be created by the stimulus 
package?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Where does that number come from?  Because we've 
been told all along that the stimulus package would create 500,000 
new jobs.  And according to Panetta, that breaks down to something 
like 200,000 full-time jobs and 150,000 summer jobs.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, but the summer -- that's when 
you do their full-time equivalence.  I mean, 700,000 individuals will 
receive jobs this summer.  When you calculate it for the full-time 
job effect, you have to do -- I don't know what the exact formula is.
	     
	     Q	  Seven hundred thousand part-time jobs --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- 150,000 or --
	     
	     Q	  One to four because it's three months.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Thank you.
	     
	     Q	  Can I follow up on that?  Did the President 
misspeak this morning when he said that some of the government money 
for these summer jobs will pay for private -- for kids to work in the 
private sector?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not necessarily.  I mean, I think 
that there will be grants available.  That's one of the ways that you 
pay for the jobs.  At the same time, he's also issued a challenge to 
the private sector to hire kids on their own as well.  
	     
	     Q	  Tax dollars, for instance, would pay for kids to 
work at Time-Warner?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the Time-Warner is actually 
somebody coming forward and actually doing a grant.  That's going to 
be the bulk of it.  There could be isolated instances, though, where 
there would be grants to businesses.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President spoken with any Senate 
Republicans this week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  
No, but there's been a lot of contact with Senate Republicans in the 
White House.
	     
	     Q	  At a lower level.  But the President hasn't?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has not, no.
	     
	     Q	  Getting any closer to get the votes?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're continuing to work on it. 
	     
	     Q	  Anybody leaning your way?
	     
	     Q	  On Haiti, The New York Times seems to be reporting 
something of a breakthrough in Aristide's attitude towards the coup 
leaders.  Can you confirm that there has been this change, and what 
impact will it have on the process?  And what did Pezzullo have to 
say yesterday in his report?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Pezzullo did brief the principals.  
I can't confirm what's actually happening in the talks.  I would 
leave that to the negotiators themselves.  But Mr. Caputo has 
returned to Haiti.  We have received a briefing here at the White 
House from Ambassador Pezzullo.  And as we have said time and time 
again, we believe that assurances of security are important to a 
final resolution to a broader political settlement.
	     
	     Q	  George, yesterday you offered some selective 
breakdowns of how the stimulus would impact some states and cities.  
Can we get a complete breakdown by state of how these jobs would be 
impacted?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we have it for most states, 
yes.  And I think we can get it out.
	     
	     Q	  Could you make that generally available?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe we can.
	     
	     Q	  And could you do it by the component of the 
stimulus?  In other words --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if we can do -- I know 
that we can do it by summer jobs and other jobs.  I don't know how 
deeply it can be broken down.  But clearly, we can break it down into 
summer jobs and other jobs.
	     
	     Q	  And can I follow up?  Is this the information that 
Jeff Eller and the rest of the White House is using in the ads in the 
states?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they're ads, but 
they're press releases.
	     
	     Q	  Can you describe what those press releases contain?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  All we're doing is pointing out the 
benefits of this package to various states.  For instance, I know 
that today Senator Dole is heading up to Vermont and New Hampshire.  
And I would point out that the stimulus package, the jobs package 
creates 1,000 jobs in Vermont.  It creates 2,000 jobs in New 
Hampshire.  And the people of those states should remind him that 
this is important. 
	     
	     Q	  Where are the releases going?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They go to the states.
	     
	     Q	  To whom?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We can get them.  It's no problem.
	     
	     Q	  Can we get it?
	     
	     Q	  Why don't you put them out here as well?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we can.
	     
	     Q	  This afternoon?  Would that be possible?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'll have to check.  I don't know.  
But as soon as we can.
	     
	     Q	  Are you focusing these press releases on states 
where there are moderate or pragmatic Republican senators?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we're trying to get as many 
as we can.  It's actually quite difficult to pull this together and 
we're doing our best.  We're putting them out as we get them.
	     
	     Q	  Why are you so closely tracking Senator Dole's 
schedule?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I was just following it. 
	     
	     Q	  Are press releases going along to states where he's 
visiting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure.  I think that 
probably there are press releases going to Vermont.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Will there be a man in a chicken suit waiting?  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  George, as the President goes about the business of 
defending what's in his stimulus package, he doesn't address what 
seems to be the Republicans' main point, that you're funding it with 
deficit spending rather than "if it's so important, why not come up 
with the funding for it" seems to be the Republican argument.  And 
how do you answer that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  What was answer is, we are paying 
for it over time.  And if you look at our budget, we pay for this 
package over time.  We believe right now the economy needs a jump-
start for jobs.
	     
	     Q	  You're not claiming, are you, that that doesn't add 
to the deficit this year?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm saying we're paying for it over 
time.  I didn't say that.
	     
	     Q	  I know that, George.  But I mean, from the 
beginning, the question -- we do have annual budgets and things --
deficit spending will pay for that this year, will it not?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  This year they clearly will.  But 
over time our budget fully pays for this program.
	     
	     Q	  What you're saying is that there are savings that 
would cover this if it were this year in future years?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  That's exactly what I 
said.
	     
	     Q	  I know that, but there is going to be outstanding 
debt, it will add to the national debt from this year --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, we're reducing the deficit by 
$500 billion -- $514 billion over the next four years.
	     
	     Q	  You mean you're reducing it below what it would 
have been?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Exactly.
	     
	     Q	  In fact, you're adding a very large amount to the 
national debt over the period of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  But we're reducing it far more from 
what it would have been.  That's true.  
	     
	     Q	  Washington-type reduction.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  You're getting to be a grumpy old man.
	     
	     Q	  George, has any decision been made about the White 
House or the President's participation in the gay rights march coming 
up in a week and a half?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're working on the President's 
schedule now.  I believe he's going to be at the Senate Democratic 
retreat in Jamestown that weekend.
	     
	     Q	  Will he address it by phone?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about that.  It's a 
little far out, but I believe he's going to be in the Senate retreat.
	     
	     Q	  So will he have the leaders in a day or two before 
the speech?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  I would expect that 
at some point he would meet with the leaders of some of these groups.  
I don't know the schedule on it, though.
	     
	     Q	  Will there be an AIDS czar appointed prior to or in 
conjunction with the event?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.
	     
	     Q	  April 22nd is Earth Day.  What is the President 
going to do to mark that, and is it the case that he is going to sign 
the biodiversity treaty that day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I know there's been some work on 
the biodiversity treaty.  I don't know about signing it that day, but 
I would expect he'll have a statement on Earth Day or right around 
then.
	     
	     Q	  Where is the work on the biodiversity treaty?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'd have to check with Katie 
McGinty.  I just know that there's been some work done, but I don't 
know exactly what.
	     
	     Q	  When is Earth Day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The 22nd, I think.
	     
	     Q	  Why is it you know that he is going to have a 
statement on Earth Day but you don't know if he's going to have a 
statement on the gay rights march?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I said I don't know if he's going 
to meet or when he's going to meet.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have a statement on the gay rights march?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't, actually, no.  I wouldn't 
be surprised if he did, though.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have some details on the Miyazawa visit?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's a working visit on Friday and 
the President is looking forward to that in discussing a number of 
issues including Russian aid and the Japanese stimulus package and 
the trade issues between the two countries.
	     
	     Q	  There was some expectations that a second aid 
package to Russia was going to be unveiled at the G-7 meeting and, if 
I understand, it hasn't happened.  Why is that or what's the status 
on that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The G-7 meeting is still going on 
and, as you know, Secretaries Bentsen and Christopher have talked 
about the outlines of a possible package.  But we're going to 
continue to consult with Congress and our G-7 allies on that.
	     
	     Q?	    We will not then make any kind of announcement 
during the two-day meeting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The meeting's not over yet.  
	     
	     Q	  Is that when you're going to make one?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not ruling out the possibility.
	     
	     Q	     the President's going to announce it tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Bentsen said that.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, Bentsen said it would be tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  So did Christopher.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'd have to look at that, but I 
believe it is more likely that the announcement will come out of 
Tokyo.
	     
	     Q	  George, has there been further consideration here 
about going to -- sending the President out to Los Angeles?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that there's -- it's 
not something we've ruled out.  We don't have a date set for it.
	     
	     Q	  George, you all have a position or do you support 
Immigration's plan to settle 4,000 Iraqi prisoners in the United 
States?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's the first I've heard of it.
	     
	     Q	  George, there was a report today about the --
	     
	     Q	  Fortunately.  (Laughter.) 
	     
	     Q	     about the pace of appointments and says that 
President Clinton is behind President Bush in the number of positions 
that people have been nominated for.  Are you going to speed up the 
pace of nominations or where do you stand with it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We filled 814 of the President's 
appointments.  And it's broken down -- we have 384 Schedule C; 147 
noncareer SES; 213 PAS full-time.  I'm not sure what that means --
(laughter) -- 70 PA full-time.  And this is about the same -- it's 
about the same pace of President Bush.  Obviously, as you move along 
farther, once you -- each level of appointment actually has a 
multiplier effect and frees up far more appointments.  So we expect 
the process to speed up.  But we're at the pace of Bush.  Obviously 
we'd like to get these done as quickly as possible.  
	     
	     I would point out that the FBI background checks and the 
background check is far more comprehensive and it takes more time 
than our predecessors, and that is part of the holdup.  But we're 
working on it.
	     
	     Q	  Is that because of Nannygate?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's an awful big part of 
it, yes.
	     
	     Q	  In the story this morning, you were at 
approximately the same pace as Bush in making appointments, but way 
behind in winning confirmations.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's where the background checks 
comes into play.  That's the problem.
	     
	     Q	  That's the background checks problem?  Because I 
mean, you have a Democratic Senate --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, that's not the -- you make the 
appointments, and then it takes quite a bit of time to fill out all 
the forms and have the background checks done.  That's exactly where 
the problem is.
	     
	     Q	  What's the President doing this afternoon, and 
what's on the plan for tomorrow?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's got some meetings -- just 
office meetings this afternoon for the most part, on a variety of 
issues that -- probably a half-dozen different issues.  And then 
he'll be -- tomorrow we'll have an event, probably again focused on 
the stimulus and jobs package out of here at the White House.  And 
Friday is the Miyazawa meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Will you be releasing his tax return tomorrow, 
George?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Either tomorrow or Friday.
	     
	     Q	  Is there going to be a pre-briefing regarding the 
Japanese Prime Minister's visit tomorrow?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about tomorrow, but 
we'll probably get something done, as we usually do, for these 
visits.
	     
	     Q	  Was Reverend Jackson here this morning and do you 
know what that was about?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He was here.  He met with a group 
of us here at the White House, including Mack McLarty.
	     
	     Q	  Who?
	     
	     Q	  Reverend Jackson.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Reverend Jackson.  Mack McLarty, 
me, Gene Sperling, Bruce Reed, Jeff Watson, Mark Gearan. 
	     
	     Q	  Talking about Haiti?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We talked about general urban 
policy.  He is about to go to Los Angeles.  He was just back from 
Mississippi, where we had a good victory last night; and he's going 
on to Los Angeles.
	     
	     Q	  Did he request the meeting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Actually, no.  He's in continual 
contact with the President.  He had written a letter on a variety of 
issues, and so we asked him to come in and talk about it.
	     
	     Q	  George, Dole is having a fundraiser for Jeffords 
tonight in Vermont.  Have you guys been  in contact with Jeffords at 
all on this?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's been some contact, 
sure.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us about the contacts?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure -- 
	     
	     Q	  Do you know who contacted him or what was said?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I know that Howard Paster talked to 
him and they just has a general talk about the package.
	     
	     Q	  And did he express his support for it now, or is he 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't divulge the details of the 
conversation, but there have been conversations.
	     
	     Q	  The L.A. Times is reporting that abortion --
elective abortions is likely to be included in the basic health care 
package.  Is this something the President is considering?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again --
	     
	     Q	  Along with the VAT?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's certainly something that's 
been looked at, but no decisions have been made.
	     
	     Q	  What was the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The L.A. Times story on whether 
abortions will be covered by the President's health plan.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President in his meeting -- did you in your 
meeting with Reverend Jackson ask his advice, solicit his advice 
about what kind of stance the White House should take in the wake of 
the verdict in L.A.?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, we certainly talked about the 
situation in Los Angeles and the long-term prospects for economic 
development and other issues.
	     
	     Q	  For instance, did you discuss whether it would be 
helpful for the President to go there or not?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, we discussed a wide range of 
issues related to Los Angeles.  That was certainly one of them.
	     
	     Q	  Letting you perhaps go out on the way you came in, 
I need to go back to Bosnia just for a second and ask --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, good.
	     
	     Q	     your reaction to Margaret Thatcher's comments 
that you're just sitting by and watching a massacre.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, we've been pushing very hard 
on a number of fronts for more aggressive action.  We will continue 
to do that.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us if you've made any progress in your 
talks on the stimulus package getting a compromise?  I mean, we don't 
have any feel except talks are ongoing.  Have you talked to like 20 
people or --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know the numbers.  We've 
talked to several people and we've had wide-ranging sessions.  
	     
	     Q	  Anyone leaning your way?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't get into that.  We're just 
going to keep working through Tuesday.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END                    1:10 P.M. EDT
	     
#56-04/14
	     




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178316
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
> >> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
> >> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
> >
> >  Yes.
> > 
> >> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
> >> legality.
> >
> >  Why not?
> 
> 
> Where do they get these people?!  

  What, pray tell, does this mean? Just who exactly is *they*?
You mean "they" as in people who do not blindly swallow every
piece of propoganda they are given? Or "they" as in NOKD (not
our kind, dear). Or "they" as in an appeal to some audience
that is supposed to implicitly know and understand?

> I really don't want to waste time in
> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  

  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
not eager to make a fool of myself.
 
> My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just
> because it will be safer and cheaper.

  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification
if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize
alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from
anything other than the pragmatic standpoint, I'd be happy to hear 
about it. The fact is that it wasn't.

> A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all
> funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. -
> this would surely make my taxes decrease.

  Only the first one make any sense. There is nothing to "legalize"
about all the rest. Just in case you haven't made the connection 
(which I expect you haven't) the connecting theme in this thread is
a persons autonomy over their life and body. Vice statutes serve
only to make it more expensive for the rich and more dangerous
for the poor, as Tim so eloquently put it. People will, however,
take autonomy over their lives, regardless of what the government
says.
  And why, pray tell, is AIDS "victim" in snear quotes? Are you of
the revisionist sort that thinks there is no such thing as the AIDS
plauge? Or do they just deserve it?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178319
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Public Schedule 4.15.93



                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                                                                  
For Immediate Release                              March 14, 1993


          PUBLIC EVENTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE FOR
          THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1993
     	     
     10:20 am EST   The President meets with Leadership of Law 	  
               enforcement organizations -- The Rose           	  
     Garden
     	       	    	 
     	       	    	      OPEN PRESS

     3:00 AM EDT    The President meets with the National      	  
     	  Ambassador for the March of Dimes Birth      	    	 
     Defects Foundation -- The Oval Office
     	  
     	       	    	 TV POOL, OPEN STILL PHOTO, WRITING POOL
     
     3:15 AM EDT    The President meets with Mosaic Minstrels of 
     	       	    New York, NY -- The Rose Garden

     	       	    	 OPEN PHOTO, WRITING POOL

     3:30 AM EDT    The President meets with the Berwick, PA, 	  
     	       High School Bulldogs, AAA State Football      	  
     	  Champions -- The South Lawn

     	       	    	 OPEN PHOTO, WRITING POOL

     	       	               UPCOMING EVENTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S 
SCHEDULE

     	       	    	 
     	       
     	       April 16, 1993      The President meets with 	 
     	       	    	      Japanese Prime Minister  	    	 
     	       	    	 Miyazawa, The White House

     	       April 26, 1993      President Clinton meets with   
     	       	    	      President Amato of Italy, The 	 
     	       	    	      White House

                            -30-30-30



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178320
From: New Liberation News Service <nlns@igc.apc.org>
Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face


From: New Liberation News Service <nlns>
Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face

/* Written  8:33 pm  Apr 14, 1993 by nlns@igc.apc.org in igc:nlns.news */
/* ---------- "NLNS Packet 3.11 *** 4-14-93" ---------- */

Fascism with a Friendly Face: Does Rush Limbaugh Remind You of 
Anyone?
Daevid Bornhuetter-Machen, The Madison Edge

"The main difference between Adolf Hitler and Rush Limbaugh is that 
Hitler was original and showed initiative." 
--Mort Sahl on The Tom Snyder Radio Show, ABC Radio Network, 
October 27, 1992.

(NLNS)--Believe it or not, I was planning this comparative review of 
Mein Kampf and Limbaugh's transcribed rant, The Way Things Ought to 
Be before Sahl issued his comparative review. As usual, Sahl's was 
independent and sharp as a scalpel.
	My effort can only dream of comparing favorably to Mort's. At 
least it has a fairly popular orginating premise; everyone I'd mention the 
idea to thought it was either divinely inspired or at least past due for 
delivery.
	Those reactions are based on parallels that should be obvious to the 
most peripheral observer of the Acts of those False Prophets. Both are 
noted for their galvanizing oratorical skills, which they both used with 
passion to generate a political cult of massive numerical proportions (in 
fact, Limbaugh claims to have an audience of just over 12 million, almost 
identical to the number of votes cast for Hitler in the April 1932 German 
election). Both used a myopic social perspective to build the cult, and 
enthusiastically amputated facts from the record to fabricate their 
ideological quilt.
	The last point is glaringly documented by passages in the opening 
pages of both books. Hitler's example is when, on page 5, he claims the 
German nationalist terrorist Leo Schlageter (he bombed part of a railway 
line between Dusseldorf and Duisburg, being caught in the act, in 1923) 
was "betrayed to France by a representative of his government" when 
there has never been any factual foundation for such a statement.
	In fact, the governments of both the Reich and Prussia, as well as 
the Vatican, actively intervened to save him from execution, and almost 
succeeded. Limbaugh follows suit by making the hysterically sarcastic 
claim in his introduction that "in a school or during a commencement 
ceremony or many other public places... God is unconstitutional." Of 
course, it's not God but the official imposition of particular concepts of 
God against an individual's will that's unconstitutional. But Limbaugh is 
too gleeful in his talent for distortion to want you to know that.
	Of course, one would assume that, by comparing the two books, 
my main point would be that The Way Things Ought to Be is the modern 
American Mein Kampf. Not really. At the time of the first German version 
of Mein Kampf, Hitler was just four months out of prison (June, 1925), 
and trying to reorganize the Nazis. He used the book to build his dozen 
million followers. Limbaugh, on the other hand, came up with his book 
after building his dozen million. Twelve million went a longer way in 
Weimar Germany that it does in the Republicrat United States.
	Thus, the more accurate parallels would be that Limbaugh's daily 
three-hour radio show is the American Mein Kampf, the primary 
propoganda tool used to pump up the angry volume; and that The Way 
Things Ought to Be is actually the American Triumph of the Will, a 
translation of the same fascist message into a different medium. Also, the 
printed word was the more important medium in Weimar Germany, since 
radio was still being thought of by impoverished Germans as a medium of 
luxury in 1925. Today, on the other hand, Americans are more likely to 
spend a few seconds to tune a radio dial at no monetary charge than drop 
$22 for 304 pages of transcripts of the same words.
	But, as Mort Sahl also observed on the radio the other night, some 
cloutmeister of the radical right wants Limbaugh to be a focal point of 
their propoganda. (And remember, Sahl is an Al Haig conservative these 
days.)
	Mort might not know exactly who Rush's equivalent of Rodolf 
Hess is (the book itself suggests Ed McLaughlin, the former president of 
ABC radio and now Limbaugh's partner in EFM Media, the radio 
program's production company). But Mort himself is a veteran of the talk 
show, having hosted them in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. He 
knows what evil lurks in the hearts of major market media men. He knows 
that Limbaugh could not have collected his audience had not the 
opportunity been placed on a silver platter and handed to him. Limbaugh 
earns his money just as honestly as Al Capone did; it's almost worthy of a 
RICO indictment.
	On questions of social issues, there is an overabundance of 
material in the Limbaugh book that seems to echo Hitler's venom. For 
example:

On Their Own Qualifications to Control Society
	Hitler: "Out of the host of sometimes millions of people, who 
individually more or less clearly and distinctly guess the truth, partly 
perhaps understand it, one man [author's emphasis] must step forward in 
order to form, with apodeictic force, out of the wavering world of 
imagination of the great masses, granite principles, and to take up the fight 
for their sole correctness, until out of the playing waves of a free world of 
thought a brazen rock of uniform combination of form and will arises" 
(page 577).
	Limbaugh: "Who needs the media when they've got me? ... The 
show is devoted exclusively to what I think ... [the phrase "with half my 
brain tied behind my back to make it even"] denotes the egress of mental 
aptitude I require to engage and demolish liberals and others who disagree 
with me ... It might take four or five years, but I'm convinced The Media 
will slowly and reluctantly come around to my way of thinking, kicking 
and screaming all the way." (pages 266, 21, 299 and 273, respectively.)

On Religion as the Basis of a Nation
	Hitler: "In this world human culture and civilization are 
inseperably bound up with the existence of the Aryan. His dying-off or his 
decline would again lower upon this earth the dark veils of a time without 
culture ... He who dares to lay hand upon the highest image of the Lord 
sins against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and helps in the 
expulsion from Paradise." (Page 581.)
	Limbaugh: "America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country ... 
But our intellectual and political elites are often either hostile or 
ambivalent toward religion ... People for whom belief in God is at best a 
charming superstition have managed to ban prayer from the public schools 
for the last thirty years. Is it only a coincidence that the quality of 
American education has declined ever since?" (pages 274-5.)

On Popular Culture as a Reason for Social Collapse
	Hitler: "The fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in ... 
One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses, vaudevilles and 
theatres; and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food ... 
Theatre, art, literature, movies, the press, billposters and window displays 
must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the 
service of a moral idea of State and culture." (pages 346 and 348.)
	Limbaugh: "Today, Hollywood is in trouble. The reason [is] that 
Hollywood has forgotten who its audience is ... They make fun of people 
who believe in God. They ridicule the traditional family, heterosexuality 
and monagamy. They disparage American heroes." (page 254.)

On the News Meida
	Hitler: "The activity of the so-called liberal press was the work of 
gravediggers for the German people and the German Reich. One can pass 
by in silence the Marxist papers of lies ... it's task is only to break the 
people's folkish and national spine, in order to make it ripe for the yoke of 
slavery of international capital and its masters, the Jews." (Page 331.)
	Limbaugh: "Elements of The Media have jumped on the 
bandwagon of leftist causes. The cynical journalist of the past has been 
replaced in many cases by an enthusiastic cheerleader for causes ... During 
the Gulf war, CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw [said] CNN is a global 
network. We can't take sides. Cant take sides? --- --- ---! ... If they don't 
realize that their freedom lies in the United States of America and that 
therefore they should defend this nation, they are hopelessly misguided 
and, may I suggest, flirting with megalomania." (pages 270 and 268.)

*     *     *
	
To continue these comparative excerpts is certainly possible, but 
ultimately too depressing to take in one reading.
	After putting these books down, there is one undeniable fact that 
haunts me. In the 1920s, Adolf Hitler fed depressed and frightened 
Germans the opiate of hatred of those around them; in turn, it allowed 
Germans to hand their collective national power to the Nazis. In the 1990s, 
Rush Limbaugh is doing the very same thing: distributing hatred to 
depressed and frightened Americans; in turn, it is helping the American 
radical right to maintain its power base as the 12-year nightmare of the 
Reagan-Bush era comes to an end, hoping to rebuild it into their hopes for 
The Fascist States of America.
	And if Limbaugh is not as repellant a Hitler, it is only because the 
radical right utilizes Limbaugh as its own gateway opiate. One can only 
wonder what the ultimate drug is they plan to hook America on.

The Madison Edge can be reached at PO Box 845, Madison, WI 53701-
0845; (608) 255-4460.

--- 30 ---



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178323
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Is LA burning yet?

In article <4892@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:

> I hear the jury reached a verdict.

Where did you hear this?  I seem to have missed it.

> Is LA burning yet?

No.  Will L.A. burn?  No.  (Regardless of the verdict.)

> I'm not near a radio.

Count your blessings.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178325
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: War Powers Resolution on Bosnia 4.14.93



                          THE WHITE HOUSE
  
                    Office of the Press Secretary
  
  _______________________________________________________________
  
  For Immediate Release	   	     	           April 14, 1993
  
  
                 TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
                        TO THE SPEAKER OF THE
                    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
               THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
  
  
                           April 13, 1993
  
  
  Dear Mr. Speaker:      (Dear Mr. President:)
  
  As part of my continuing effort to keep the Congress fully 
  informed, I am providing this report, consistent with section 4 
  of the War Powers Resolution, to advise you of actions that I 
  have ordered in support of the United Nations efforts in 
  Bosnia-Herzegovina.
  
  Beginning with U.N. Security Council Resolution 713 of 
  September 25, 1991, the United Nations has been actively 
  addressing the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.  The Security 
  Council acted in Resolution 781 to establish a ban on all 
  unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina.  There 
  have, however, been blatant violations of the ban, and villages 
  in Bosnia have been bombed.
  
  In response to these violations, the Security Council decided, 
  in Resolution 816 of March 31, 1993, to extend the ban to all 
  unauthorized flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina and to authorize 
  Member States, acting nationally or through regional organi-
  zations, to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance.  
  NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC) agreed to provide NATO air 
  enforcement for the no-fly zone.  The U.N. Secretary General 
  was notified of NATO's decision to proceed with Operation DENY 
  FLIGHT, and an activation order was delivered to participating 
  allies.
  
  The United States actively supported these decisions.  At my 
  direction, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent an execute order to 
  all U.S. forces participating in the NATO force, for the conduct 
  of phased air operations to prevent flights not authorized by 
  the United Nations over Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The U.S. forces 
  initially assigned to this operation consist of 13 F-15 and 
  12 F-18A fighter aircraft and supporting tanker aircraft.  
  These aircraft commenced enforcement operations at 8:00 a.m. 
  e.d.t. on April 12, 1993.  The fighter aircraft are equipped for 
  combat to accomplish their mission and for self-defense.
  
  NATO has positioned forces and has established combat air 
  patrol (CAP) stations within the control of Airborne Early 
  Warning (AEW) aircraft.  The U.S. CAP aircraft will normally 
  operate from bases in Italy and from an aircraft carrier in the 
  Adriatic Sea.  Unauthorized aircraft entering or approaching 
  the no-fly zone will be identified, interrogated, intercepted, 
  escorted/monitored, and turned away (in that order).  If these 
  steps do not result in compliance with the no-fly zone, such 
  aircraft may be engaged on the basis of proper authorization by 
  NATO military authorities and in accordance with the approved 
  
                                more
  
       	    	      	   	     	       	    (OVER)

                                  2
  
  rules of engagement, although we do not expect such action will 
  be necessary.  The Commander of UNPROFOR (the United Nations 
  Protection Force currently operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina) was 
  consulted to ensure that his concerns for his force were fully 
  considered before the rules of engagement were approved.
  
  It is not possible to predict at this time how long such 
  operations will be necessary.  I have directed U.S. armed forces 
  to participate in these operations pursuant to my constitutional 
  authority as Commander in Chief.  I am grateful for the con-
  tinuing support that the Congress has given to this effort, and 
  I look forward to continued cooperation as we move forward 
  toward attainment of our goals in this region.
  
       	    	      	   	Sincerely,
  
  
  
  
       	    	      	   	WILLIAM J. CLINTON
  
  
  
  
                               #  #  #
  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178326
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...
>>Along with normalized relations with the PRC.
>
>"Normalizing relations" with Cambodia? You must be joking. We sponsored
>the OVERTHROW of the Cambodian government. After repeated failed attempts
>of course. 

PRC = People's Republic of China != Cambodia.  Go play.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
Brain damage was what we were after.  The chromosome damage was just gravy.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178327
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the Religious Left.
>
>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them aren't. And the
>natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man-made ones.
>
>Most of your so-called disasters (Love Canal, Times Beach, TMI) aren't disasters
>at all.
>
>So look, if you want to worship trees (or owls or snails or whatever), fine, do
>so. But DON'T try to push the scaredness of YOUR religious off onto me.
>
If you want to see environmental disasters, go to eastern Europe or some
parts of the FSU (former Soviet Union).  This is because they had no
environmental protection laws and were trying to increase productivity
at any expense to justify their political systems.  Luckily for us, some
of our politicians with vision passed some environmental laws.  That
isn't to say that they shouldn't be modified, but all I ever hear from
you is that the environmental laws were dreamed up by a bunch of
left-wing tree-huggers intent on putting us back on horseback.  Yes,
there are some of those, but a lot of us simply want to procede with
caution.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
-- 
               NetNews userid for nntpserver.chevron.com

- Who said "No News is good news" ?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178329
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <SLAGLE.93Apr15000157@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr13.215245.2916@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Apr13.083449.1058@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>
>>>... the point is that this law protects no one but the
>>>established car dealers or people with enough money to start a
>>>fairly big operation all at once.  Protecting these folks from
>>>competition protects the rest of us from low prices and high
>>>quality.
>
>> An excellent point.  But you seem to be missing a more subtle
>> point.  It is not "the government" that should be the recipient
>> of your displeasure, but the established business interests
>> that influence and direct government action in this case.
>
>It is the government that is preventing entry to the market.  The
>desire of those running established businesses to prevent or
>restrict the entry of competitors is an understandable, though
>generally unpleasant, human failing.  But without a means to act
>on this desire, without a government with sufficient power to
>restrict the options of the potential competitor, the
>anti-competitive desire remains just an unpleasant wish.  The
>government is the linchpin, so we seek to disengage it so we
>don't get the shaft.

Once again, Mark, you don't specify the means through which the government
is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a 
left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as
you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto
dealers.  

But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms,
to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws,
and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a 
particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special
interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly
designed to accomplish the opposite.

jsh
>
>=Mark
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178331
From: carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <15377@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>I'm sick of it.  This continual effort to inflame the passions
>of Americans by playing every trial as completely sexist, racist, 
>or gay-bashing, when the realities are seldom this simple.  This
>is what happens when a society becomes tied up in ideologies.

	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.

	In a not so subtle way they are preparing their audience for the
	worst and even going so far as to want SOMETHING to happen for
	their viewers with all their commercials and their "we are ready
	for anything so watch US" messages...

carlos.

	
"I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
 assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178332
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Gore throws out the first ball. And media coverage of it

In article <1993Apr13.122543.1682@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <C5E2JA.849@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>> This past Thursday VP GOre threw out the first ball at the home opener for
>> the Atlanta Braves. According to the news reports he was quite loudly booed.
>> (No, Dr. Norman, these were not your typical beer swilling red-necks.)
>> 
>> Personally I wouldn't have paid any more attention to the incident except
>> that the evening news when describing the event, went on to comment that
>> being booed was nothing unusual since it was normal for audiences to
>> boo at this point since the celebrity was delaying the start of the game.
>> 
>> What a bunch of crock. I have never heard of any incident in which the
>> thrower of the ceremonial ball has been booed before.
> 
> Dan Quayle got roundly booed in Milwaulkee last year.  (I was listening 
> on the radio).  This was the game that Quayle told the Brewers players that
> he would like to see them play the Orioles in the ALCS.

It's come to this, has it?  Defending Al Gore by comparing him to Dan Quayle?
I'd say that about says it all... back to the pit with ye, back to alt.fan.
dan-quayle!  Begone!

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178333
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President to Nominate Carter for Nuclear Security Post

In article <1qgbljINNn4o@life.ai.mit.edu>, Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:
> 
>                          THE WHITE HOUSE
>                      Office of the President
> For Immediate Release                             April 13, 1993
> 
>      PRESIDENT TO NOMINATE CARTER FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY 

No, no, no!  Bill, please, don't nominate ANYone who pronounces it
"noo-q-lar"!  Jimmy always used to drive everyone nuts when he did that! 
And don't let Amy anywhere near!  And...

> (Washington, DC)    The President announced today that he intends 
> to nominate Ashton Carter, the Director of Harvard's Center for 
> Science and International Affairs, to be Assistant Secretary of 
> Defense for Nuclear Security and Counter-Proliferation.

{Emily Litella voice}

...never mind.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178336
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5HF6r.CG3@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <C5FG7t.6At@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>|I have to disagree.   You do not take your logic far enough.
>
>|True, man did not invent the need for food, shelter, warmth and the ilk,
>|but man did invent the property laws and the laws of trespass.
>
>I guess Xavier has never heard of territoriality in animals. Many animals,
>especially preditors will stake out a territory and chase of any members of
>the same species that tries to invade their territory.


Yes, I have!  Wasn't there a case of a single lion ruling all the land
from South Africa up to Egypt across to the congo?  If my memory serves
me correctly there was enough game to feed some 100,000 or more lions but he
wouldn't let the other lions hunt as he wanted it all himself.

He died of a heart attack brought on by being overweight.

Good thing too as he had designs on Europe, America (north and south),
and the Falkland Islands.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com



Xavier.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178338
From: c115184@cs.UAlberta.CA (Merth Eric William)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Red Army Fraction (RAF) communique


>In article <C4vBM1.Gs0@NCoast.ORG>, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>|>As quoted from <C4vCtB.J1H@dscomsa.desy.de> by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
>|>
>|>> Isn't it wonderfull the way people can make the sadistic and indescriminate
>|>> murder of the Bader-Meinhof gang sound like altruism?
>|>
>|>Gee Phil, I'd remember where you are and that these people are monitoring the
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>net.  I'd also remember that they have about as much sense of humor as Ed
   ^^^

Damn. It isn't Big Brother after all? And all this time I thought that all
those revolutionaries, while blowing things up and killing the odd
innocent person in the process, really did love all us proles. ('cause
_everybody knows_ that dialectical materialism will save you [even
if it has to get you killed first]).
What a fool I've been. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178340
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>: 
>: As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>: is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>: tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>: 
>: Believe it or not, we "liberals" are frequently as opposed to
>: anti-competitive measures as you "conservatives."  We don't believe,
>: however, that competition will necessarily be protected by the actions 
>: of business interests in a "free-market."  After all, in the example
>: you cite, it was not "liberals" that pressed for such regulations, but
>: good staunch conservative businessmen.
>: 
>: As Adam Smith so eloquently demonstrated, the "free-market" is not 
>: something that capitalists seek to protect when they can profit from 
>: its elimination.  The same point was made by Marx -- a point of agreement 
>: between the two theorists that should tell us something.
>
>I do not want the government to become a tool of private interests.
>Limited government cannot insure that private interests will not use
>this government for their own agenda.  

Agreed.  

>But this is not a failure of libertarianism.  It is the fact that 
>"Utopia is not an option."  There is no single system where everything 
>is perfect.  

It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
condition.

>So it is wise to look
>for the best solution.  If you  compare countries to see which ones
>people would rather live in, which ones have less starvation, hunger,
>poverty, and misery, you will find that they have a more limitted
>government than countries with alot of poverty, misery and suffering.
>No, limitted government cannot "insure" anything, but it sure is better
>than the alternative (big government.)

This is a strawman argument and fails on several grounds.  In this case,
"limited" and "big" government are not defined.  I would point out that
Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia are by some definitions nations
with "limited" government, while the US, Canada, and nations in Western 
Europe (where "people would rather live") are often pointed out as 
nations with "big government" from a libertarian point of view.  

The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those
who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe
government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and
those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical 
grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.

jsh
>-- 
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178341
From: DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

>>In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>>In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>>>> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>>>> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
>>>
>>>  Yes.
>>>
>>>> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
>>>> legality.
>>>
>>>  Why not?
>>
>>Where do they get these people?!  I really don't want to waste time in
>>here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>>can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!
 
You think that you all have it bad....here at good ol' Southwest Missouri
State U., we have 2 parties running for student body president.  There's the
token sorority/fraternity faces, and then there's the president and vice
president of NORML.  They campaigned by handing out condoms and listing
their qualifications as,"I listen really well."  It makes me sick to have
a party established on many of the things that are ruining this country like
they are.  I think I'll run next year.:(
 
      Darin J Keener, dak988s@vma.smsu.edu
      PC-the idea that catering to splinter groups is the way to go.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178342
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
writes:
>>I would be upset that, although abortions would continue, they would be
>>a lot more expensive for the rich, and a lot less safe for the poor.
>
>So now things are supposed to be legal just to keep their cost down
>and the safety factor high??  

In the case of victimless crimes yes, I think so.

Think about it.  If I rob or beat up or rape or kill someone, it's very
clear to anyone not a sociopath that I've done something immoral.  On the
other hand, if I smoke grass or have sex with a consenting adult in a
manner illegal in that state, the morality or immorality of that act is
merely a lifestyle choice; it doesn;t clearly hurt anyone else.  IMO, if
such an act doesn;t hurt another person it should not be interfered with.

>Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>the cost and definitely make them safer to use.

I think so.  And I don't use drugs, outside of the legal ones (alcohol
and coffee).

   don

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178343
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Polls (was Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati)

In article <2680@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
-> : 	According to a ``CNN Poll'' to key reason for Clinton's low
-> : approval rating is people are angry about him not moving fast enough
-> : on gays in the military.  I just burst out laughing when I heard this;
-> : what planet do these CNN people live on anyway?
-> : --
-> : Jason C. Austin
-> : j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov       
-> 
-> Dunno, man... that sounds pretty damned unlikely to me, too,
-> although it's certainly one of the reasons I'm pissed off at him.
-> Maybe the sample was taken entirely from my fellow memebers of the
-> Cultural Elite?
-> 
-> Jason, can you quote some of these poll questions?
-> 
-> Thanks,
-> Bill
-> v

	I've never seen CNN give out the poll questions on the air.
If you sent them a letter asking for them, you might get them.  Here's
my guess of how part of a session might look:

Question: Do you approve of Clinton's performance?
Answer: No
Questions: Do you disapprove due to the gays in the military issue?
Answer: Yes

Conclusion: Clinton has a low approval rating because he's not moving
fast enough on gays in the military.


	I think any group truly dedicated to reporting the news would
not use manufactured news like polls.

						-Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178345
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved  Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over}

In article <15APR199303031064@reg.triumf.ca> vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes:
>In article <C5HwA1.EBp@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu 
>(Brent Irvine) writes...
>` 
>`	"54-40" or fight was about a territorial dispute with
>`	British Canada, again OLD STUFF. 
>
>Uh, not quite. The 54/40' boundary dispute is still unresolved,
>and Canadian and US Coast Guard vessels regularly if infrequently
>detain each other's fish boats in the disputed waters off Dixon
>Entrance. The only reason you don't hear more about it is that
>it's in neither country's interest to aggravate the quarrel. 
>That doesn't mean that either country is prepared to back down,
>especially the local political representatives whose constituents
>are all fishermen.

Fishing rights are disputed.  Between 2 nations, no matter *how* 
friendly, there is ALWAYS fishing disputes.

What I was getting at was the 54 40' or fight slogan is OLD STUFF
dealing with the LAND dispute.  No one is saying 54 40' or fight 
about fishing rights.  The territorial dispute about the Oregon
Territory (we called it) is LONG resolved.

Fishing rights...small potatoes.


-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178346
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: The state of justice

	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
from the fire.

	Thoughts?

	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
to the previous ruling appear.

	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178347
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>>> In article <1qd1snINNr79@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>>> >I would be upset that, although abortions would continue, they would be
>>> >a lot more expensive for the rich, and a lot less safe for the poor.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So now things are supposed to be legal just to keep their cost down
>>> and the safety factor high??  
>>> 
>>> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>>> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
>>
>>  Yes.
>> 
>>> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
>>> legality.
>>
>>  Why not?
>
>
>Where do they get these people?!  I really don't want to waste time in
>here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  

Go for it.  I have yet to see anybody justify the
prohibition on drugs and the ensuing War On Drugs.  In the world of
*.politics here on Usenet, it is YOU that is crazy.  ANYBODY--who gives
the matter any thought beyond reading headlines---cannot justify this
atrocity, this all out war on individual rights.

Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!

>
>My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just
>because it will be safer and cheaper.
> 

Once again, in chorus: WHY is this "stupid"?

>
>A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all
>funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. -
>this would surely make my taxes decrease.

The above paragraph is gibberish--that all I can make of it...


-- 
_______
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178348
From: tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <C5HFr2.CpA@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.

I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
sufficient.

			Tom

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178349
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.164605.8439@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> In article <SLAGLE.93Apr15000157@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
|> >It is the government that is preventing entry to the market.  The
|> >desire of those running established businesses to prevent or
|> >restrict the entry of competitors is an understandable, though
|> >generally unpleasant, human failing.  But without a means to act
|> >on this desire, without a government with sufficient power to
|> >restrict the options of the potential competitor, the
|> >anti-competitive desire remains just an unpleasant wish.  The
|> >government is the linchpin, so we seek to disengage it so we
|> >don't get the shaft.
|> 
|> Once again, Mark, you don't specify the means through which the government
|> is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a 
|> left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as
|> you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto
|> dealers.  
|> 
|> But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms,
|> to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws,
|> and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a 
|> particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special
|> interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly
|> designed to accomplish the opposite.

This is similar to my saying that Clinton's timber summit does little to
fix the health care problem.  Look at the whole picture, not just
randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to
use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.

The means to reaching such a restricted government is another topic
which I'll address briefly.  It certainly won't happen until
libertarianism is the dominate philosophy.  What means do we have to
make libertarianism the dominate philosophy?  Statists run the education
monopoly, so we have to be creative.  The Advocates for Self-Government
reports 85% of their Seminar 1 participants "embrace" libertarianism.
That's the best means I've seen yet.  We should lobby for compulsory
Seminar 1 attendance. :) [in jest!]

Roger Collins

It's amazing to me that governments around the world will try every
aspect of government control before, as a final last resort after
everything else fails, they will try individual liberty.
	-- Andre Marrou, Libertarian candidate for President '92

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178353
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) writes:
>
>Here's a question:  what if, instead of a true VAT, the federal 
>government imposed a sales tax of say 2-3%?  The tax would only
>be paid on retail sales (thus not building up at all levels of
>production costs that are just passed on to consumers anyway),
>and would only go to reducing the deficit.  (I know that this 
>would never happen, but it seems a lot more palettable than
>a VAT).

Canada's GST is collected as a sales tax and is considered a VAT.
Funnily, the previous hidden wholesale tax that it replaces was
never referred to as a tax (or, people never paid mind to it,
thus the uproar when it was brought up front as the GST --- 
one party has actually campaigned on hiding the tax again).

The stated intent of the Tories was to use the GST to write down
our deficit.  Unfortunately, their legislation didn't include any
mechanism for disbursing the collected funds in such a manner and
the money is now sitting in escrow.  I don't know what is involved
in releasing the funds, but one dilemna is that the Tories are not
fiscal conservatives themselves though while taxing and spending,
they've made moves to apply the breaks to a runaway locomotive by
the end of this time --- the end of their second term (~9 years).
While they do have chances of getting a third term, catching up
in the polls to their more moderate/slightly leftish pro-business
rivals, the Liberals (as in Euro/UK), the Tories' heir-apparent 
for the leaders' mantle has been termed a clone of Hillary 
Clinton ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178354
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Representation of Territories? (Was: Re: The $11,250,000,000,000 lunch)

In article <cmi32B1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>              Does anyone have knowledge about how this was handled in
>the past, such as with the Louisiana Territory or the Northwest
>Territory?

Those areas became states.

Puerto Rico has the population needed to become a state.  But the ethnic
mix there is such that Puerto Rico will probably never become a state.

I say we cut them loose.  If they don't want to become a state, we
shouldn't continue to subsidize their existence.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
  Look up "Ponzi Scheme" in a good dictionary - it will have a picture of Joe
  Liberal Handout right next to it.  Stop federal spending.  Cut the deficit.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178355
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights

In article <C5MMEp.19n@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> 51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally
>> The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993
>> 
>>    Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets
>>    within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice.
>>    Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses
>>    or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.

> Several years ago, Justice William O. Douglas, who was
> about as libertarian as you can get about free-speech 
> and similar issues, wrote a majority opinion in which
> the Supreme Court turned down an appeal by a group of
> people who had been prohibited from demonstrating in
> front of their landlord's home.  

Do you have a cite for the case?  You don't give enough
information to be able to compare the two situations.
If the demonstrators had been blaring loud rock music 
into the landlord's home all day and night, then I could
see how the opinion would be justified.  But this court
order had prohibited abortion protesters from displaying
pictures of dead fetuses, which doesn't disrupt the privacy
of anyone inside the clinic.  

> He pointed out that
> people have a right to be free _from_ speech, 

Perhaps in the privacy of their homes, but not on public
property.  Did the Korean grocery store owner in New York
city have a right to be free from the speech of the protesters 
outside his store?  Patrons inside the store could hear the 
protesters asking them to re-consider shopping there -- how 
is that different from the abortion protesters asking women 
to re-consider getting an abortion at a clinic?  

> Harassment goes beyond
> expression to direct attack on particular persons,
> in this case the workers and clients at a clinic.
> Its purpose is clearly not to convey information or
> express an opinion, but to intimidate and do harm to
> other others.

Even if the protesters' speech could be considered
"harassment" (which it is not), hate speech laws have 
generally been struck down by the courts.  I don't see 
how the words ``don't kill your baby'' or ``abortion is 
murder'' could be considered harassment.

> Anti-abortionists have lost the battle for public
> opinion, and the more psychopathic among them have
> turned to harassment, arson, bombing and murder to
> carry on their war.  There is no reason not to 
> restrain them to protect the ordinary civil rights
> of everyone else.

Some of the protesters were arrested for simply praying
quietly on a public sidewalk.  Yeah, I could see how
that might be equivalent to "bombing" and "murder".
Uh huh.  Let us know when you get a grip on reality. 


> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178358
From: thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulu
.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> -- 
>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>
>The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

     Really?  What if it said "lentil eating" or "legume eating",
     what then? 
     And I suppose "Accept 10" is anti-Octal bigotry?
     Geez, how PC can you get!?

     Uncle Fester

--
           :     What God Wants      :  God wants gigolos          :
           :        God gets         :  God wants giraffes         :
           :     God help us all     :  God wants politics         :
           : *thester@nyx.cs.du.edu* :  God wants a good laugh     :

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178359
From: woody@cco.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

In article <1ql7tuINN8j8@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary) writes:
>
>6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!

AAAAAAAAAAAA!  RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!


>5.   Look, Canada, Europe, and Japan manage to provide health care for their
>     citizens (and, yes, basic health IS a human right which people are
>     entitled to).  If these nations aren't capitalist enough for you, then
>     I guess we've found something better than capitalism!  There is nothing
>     sacred about the capitalist system, and if something, be it socialism
>     or anything else, works better, then I say let capitalism die.

Then why are they in the process of systematically dismantling some of
their socialistic health care systems through privitization of key components?

>4.   Make love, not War!

If I hold a gun to your wife, would you respond the same way? I don't
think so. While the age of aquarius may have hit the White House, the
age of peace love and harmony hasn't hit in South Central LA nor has it
hit in former Yugoslavia. And as long as there are people in the world
who would rather see me dead than thrive, I want the protection of a
police force who will keep the peace so I *can* make love without being
shot.

>3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
>     at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
>     to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
>     them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly 
>     have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
>     discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
>     the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.

The ultimate statement for equal rights (something many of the feminazis
have forgotten) is "I do not care if you are either a man or a woman,
I do not care if you are black or white, I do not care if you are gay
or straight." Once you can honistly say "I do not care about color,
race, or gender or sexual preference", then we will truly be on the
right track.

Keep shoving differences in my face and then expect us all to get along?
Get real! So long as you try to make me care if you are black, female,
or whatever, I am going to continue to balk. It's natural human behaviour.

But the moment employers searching for employees, banks looking to lend
money, and theClinton administration looking for appointees can honistly
say "I do not care about your color, race, gender, or sexual preferences;
I instend instead to treat you as a human being," crap like last year's
riots will continue to happen.

>1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!

Barf.

You mean the same economic theorists who say things like "for the sake
of convenience in mathematical modeling we will first assume there is
no wealth creation" now get a crack at implementing their PhD thesis in
real life?

Go back to your textbooks on macroeconomic theory. Look in the first chapter
of that book, introducing the field of macroeconomic theory. Right there
in chapter 1, section 1, is a statement like the following:

	"As it is difficult to predict and model wealth creation,
	especially in an economy where wealth creation is inherently
	the province of individuals who create new inventions and
	discover new ideas, we will assume for the rest of this
	book that there is no wealth creation.

	"We do not assume the lack of weath creation in the real world,
	however the mathematical modeling of such an inherently
	unpredictable subject is impossible. Even though we assume
	no wealth creation, we do believe that for most mathematical
	economic modeling such an assumption is reasonably valid
	as it allows us to make predictions which then can be tested."

So the guys who are running the store for Clinton and company are now
assuming that wealth creation does not exists. They are (borrowing an
idea from the Hitchhiker's Guide) too advanced to think of these simple
things.

To be honist, I would rather have an engineer with years of experience
building bridges design the next bridge, rather than a theoretical
physicists with a freshly minted PhD and no experience do the same job.

					- Bill Woody

Normally I don't post (or even read most of the postings) in this newsgroup.
If you would like to reply to this message and want me to see the reply,
then I guess you will just have to reply directly to me.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178360
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: A Rational Viewpoint ---> was Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qn57cINNabv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >It is very difficult for a young person to develop and build
    >a positive view of themself when they are constantly being
    >told implicitly and explicitly that they are wrong and
    >immoral.

Yes, that is most certainly true. However, the paragrapgh reflects a value-less
position and infers that what is more important than anything else is to
have "a positive view" of one's self.

This of course, is foolish.

Should a mass murderer, a pedophile, a 10-year old pyromaniac have a "positive
view" of themselves?

Of course not.

A person that engages in behaviour that a large number of people condemn,
and IF you believe in the concept of "society", then your only choice is
to expect that person to have a negative view of themselves.


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178361
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Getting Off to an Early Start!

Patrick Townson <ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:
>So ... the Jury will be making its announcement at 7:00 AM Saturday
>morning Pacific Time .... 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Why such an ungodly
>hour?
>
>Maybe by making the announcement at 7:00 AM on the west coast,
>they figure all the rioters will be asleep, giving the troops
>time to move into place. 

Since the actual verdicts were not known by the authorities, it was
smart not to allow "Friday night for fighting" (sorry, Elton) and to
seal them for this morning.  Also, it allows for maximum daylight to
wear down and frustrate any potential troublemakers, as well as give
more preparation time.

>I guess we can look forward to a weekend of rioting, eh? 

Are you a local news intern? (-;

>The Mayor of Los Angeles, in a press conference about 3:00 AM
>Saturday morning, ...

Actually, that was 8 PM 'cos it was shown live on our 11 PM news
and cut into CNN's 11 O'clock Sports (sorry, but I didn't watch
the Devils-Islanders game!  No SportsChannel ...).

>Meanwhile, following the announcement of the jury's verdict, the
>judge, jury and assorted court personnel will be evacuated from the
>building via helicopters landing on the roof of the courthouse. They
>can't  even walk out through the front door with their heads held
>high. 

We had cutovers to LA's KNBC on our WNBC, and I didn't recall this
detail.  But I'll not comment further on that ...

>Won't the rioters have a surprise waiting for them when they wake
>up later today!

A net-contact in L.A. tells me that the alert will remain over this
weekend, as some elements may find excuse over the not-guilty verdicts
on three of five charges (the aiding-and-abetting).  Those acquittals
seem to balance out the fact that Rodney King himself was not any kind
of angel that night, speeding and fleeing et al.  However ...  Another
consideration is any street celebrations over the two convictions on
the excessive force charges (Koons for incompetance, and Powell for
overreacting --- both guilty as heck even from the view of NYPD cops
interviewed) that might get out of hand. )-;  Also, some elements
may take the acquittals as an excuse to challenge the cops (a dumb
move, obviously).  And, Koreans are still scared and certain people
are really mad over how they have armed themselves in the last year.

A Commander from Nassau, Long Island was questioned about how his
people would have handled Rodney King, and he said "We'd have let
him roll around in the dirt 'til he got tired, then handcuff him".

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178362
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr17.013559.17391@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
    >>I see you are a total ignorant asshole as well.
    >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It's the sign of a small mind to use filthy
    >language when he can't articulate his point.

Oh, no, not in this case. I've noticed that you conveniently edited out your
stupid comment that the PRC stands for Cambodia. When we're arguing the
Vietnam war and about Cambodia, and you toss in a boner like that (along
with your other boners), you are an ignorant asshole.

Oh, and even the Vietnamese agree that they did far more damage to
Cambodia than we ever did.




-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178363
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
    >It seems that conservatives are putting a lot of effort into
    >showing up the 10% figure, but that really doesn't make a
    >difference. Like I said, who cares how many there are? Would
    >the fact that they're only 1% of the population justify
    >discrimination against them? I don't think so.
    
Uh, well, Golly Gee Whiz. Let me see, when the new President, as his first
big "policy act" tries to force homosexuals (acceptance thereof) on the
military, despite polls showing a consistent 75%+ against it, and the
minority is only 1%, well, gee, I sure think that is newsworthy.

Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178364
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'

In article <1993Apr17.111713.4063@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
    >In article <philC5LsD9.Ms3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Libertarians want the State out of our lives.
    >>
    >>NAMBLA members want to fuck little boys.
    >>
    >>NOW do you get it?
    >>
    >I see! Libertarians want to have the right to fuck little
    >children of either sex, and want to make sure everyone else
    >has this right too. NAMBLA just wants to have the right to
    >fuck little boys.
    >
    >>Or are you just a secret member of NAMBLA?
    >>
    >You're the one who suddenly seems to be defending the right
    >to fuck children. How many little girls have you raped today,
    >Phil?
    >
    >If wanting to abolish the age of consent is not repectable,
    >it is not respectable for anyone.

Hmm, you still don't get it. Then again, I'm not posting from a  University
where the hue and cry was raised against "Jewish physics".

Tell me, committed any anti-semitic acts today? What kind of boots do you
wear?

And still -- Libertarians want the State out of their lives. Parents are very
capable of protecting their children against the predations of pedophiles,
which, BTW, you still haven't disassociated yourself from.

Are you, or are you not, a member of NAMBLA?



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178365
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <C5M2F9.GEB@news.iastate.edu> atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) writes:
>
>If the VAT will be done in the same way that state and local sales 
>taxes are done, nothing will be on the sticker.  The cleark ringing
>up your purchase (gum, gas, car, etc.) will hit a button to add 
>another 5% on top of the state and local sales taxes (and that won't
>include any of the VAT from previous levels of sales).
>

There is no need to include the VAT from previous levels because
the VAT is a "difference" tax...if the VAT is X%, than the amount
of tax the government receives through all the levels is X% of
the purchase price of the end consumer.  At the intervening levels,
only the difference between the VAT paid out and the VAT received
is remitted to the government.

>Here's a question:  what if, instead of a true VAT, the federal 
>government imposed a sales tax of say 2-3%?  The tax would only
>be paid on retail sales (thus not building up at all levels of
>production costs that are just passed on to consumers anyway),
>and would only go to reducing the deficit.  (I know that this 
>would never happen, but it seems a lot more palettable than
>a VAT).

A VAT is infinitely preferable to a retail sails tax...

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178367
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re : BillaryKlintonKligue Illegal War

      The operation going on in Somalia is a peacekeeping/peaceenforcement
      operation where force may be used.  It is not a war.  It is also legal
      under international law, which is higher than US law.  The operation
      is occuring under the ageis of the United Nations.  Can't get a higher
      authority than that on this earth.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178368
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Karadzic on Bosnia peace plan

      What does anyone think that Judge Wopner would do if Karadzic was
      on trial before him?  (Nevah happen, but just a thought...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178369
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Most recent U.N. members?

   # 179 Czech Republic  # 180 Republic of Slovakia  They were admitted early
      this year.  Liechenstein was also recently admitted.  Also San Marino.
       Both within the last 12 months.  Incredible what passes for a nation-sta
           state nowadays.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178370
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: UNITED NATIONS : Gettin' busy

    Chapter 7 operation in Somlia.  Almost Chapter 7 in Cambodia and Yugo.
    'Bout time the UN started using force to make the peace happen.
    Hopefully, they will soon be doing the same with world economics.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178371
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Model United Nations

    Just observed at the National Model United Nations here in NYC.
    Just one word on it : AWSOME.
                                 Peace, matt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178372
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>       How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
                                                               ^^^^^
>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  

I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178373
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: The lessons of the NAZIs Re: David Irving - Scholastic fraud


In responding to the post below I have considered issues far outside the
scope of revisionism and principally have considered the political
implications of a racist ideology and its inevitable outcome. Thus it
is tangentially relevant to soc.history and alt.revisionism but I have directed
followups to t.p.m since it is principally consideration of the political
lessons to be drawn from the history of the NAZI party that I deal with.


In article <1993Apr14.121823.21851@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

|>As Dawidowicz points out, in "The Holocaust and the Historians," (Harvard 
|>University Press, 34-38):
|>
|>"...the nadir in Hitlerology is reached by David Irving's "Hitler's
|>War."<34> An amateur historian, whose reputation as a German apologist and
|>as a writer without regard for accuracy or truth won him a measure of
|>notoriety, <35> Irving produced a 926-page work intended to show that Hitler
|>was kind to his animals and to his secretaries, that he was "probably the
|>weakest _leader_ Germany has known in this century," and that he did not
|>murder the Jews or even wish to do so, but that the murder was committed
|>behind his back, without his knowledge or consent." 

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this was indeed the case? Does
this mean that Hilter would have been in any way less guilty of mass murder
because he aquiesced rather than participated as an active and ardent
supporter?

One of the important things to realise about the NAZIs is that the system
was far more evil than any single member. Once created the NAZI party
itself was a murder machine that would inevitably commit genocide, there was
noone within it strong enough to prevent it. Remember that Hitler did not
originaly lead the NAZI party nor was he particularly powerful within it
until his oratory allowed the party to come to power. Had Hitler reneged
upon the emotiaonal expectations which he had created within the ranks of 
his supporters he would have been replaced as he had himself replaced the
old guard who he beleived were unable to grasp the intellectual implications
of their rhetoric. 

This is why all parties that espouse NAZI style race supremacy ideologies must
be considered as dangerous and as evil as the NAZIs. The idea that one "race"
of people is inherently superior to another and that the greatest goal of
humanity is to achieve racial perfection has only one logical outcome,
the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

The NAZI party is not simply the tale of a supremely evil single man who
lead an entire country astray, beyond the evil of individuals there was the
evil of the system itself which was self generating and self perpetuating.
Hitler was an extreemly evil person who built his party arround an ego
cult centered on the demonstration of his own power, this does not however
mean that he was as entirely free from political constraints as he and
his propagandists worked so hard to assert. The myth that racism can
produce a strong government that can cure a nations ills must be 
emphatically rejected. In the same way we must accept a distinction between
a govenrment that demonstrates its strength and one that is able to 
govern decisively in the manner it beleives is best. I would accept only the
latter as a "strong" government since most displays of strength are made
necessary by an essential weakness.

It is important to understand that the NAZIs were not stupid nor were they
amoral in the sense that they lacked moral scruples. They acted in the
same manner as the Spanish Inquisition - murder and torture in the cause
of morality. The fault of the NAZIs lies in their axioms, not in their
logic nor in their implementation of those axioms. Thus all such parties
such as the National Front or David Dukes Klu Klux Klan front who assert
the truth of those axioms must be considered for what they are, advocates
of a system that would commit genocide. 

The conclusion that Hitler was not only responsible but imensely evil is
inescapable from the historical record. It is important though to not let
the conclusion be reached that the NAZIs espoused a set of ideas that
were basically correct but had an unfortunate proponent. The evils of
the concept of race supremacy are primary. Although this most emphaticaly
does not excuse individual culpability this is nevertheless secondary.

No matter what the promises made by a racist, supremacist party upon 
election those promises will be broken as soon as circumstances permit.
If this requires the replacement of the leaders that originally made
the pledges, that will occur. Hatred is a supreme justifier. It also creates
a dynamic of its own when those in government allow it reign. For many
in government politics is a method of providing a justification for
their own existence through a demonstration of their importance. A 
rhetoric of hatred inevitably develops the question of action since the
continued existence of an object of hatred is inevitably a reminder of the
essential impotence of the politician. Thus we have the US raid on Tripoli
which has little purpose beyond a demonstration of power. It is important
to realise that there is no quantum jump between the politics of the right
and those of the extreeme right but a progression from the reinforcement
of popular predjudice to action being taken on the basis of that predjudice.
In the same way the extreeme left trace their route to despotism through
their assertion of the subjugation of the individual to ideology.

It is important though that in attempting to understand the dynamics
of political systems that this is not used to excuse the participants. The
leaders of a nation take on a supreme moral burden but not only do
so voluntarily are required to stive to do so. Thus to take on such a 
task without a fundamental examination of the logical progression of
ones set of axioms to its conclusion in itself is a moral crime. Furthermore
in taking on such a duty one is obliged to put the interest of the whole
before personal concerns, even of personal security.

Although it was inevitable that a party such as the NAZIs, based upon hatred
and an idolisation of the symbols of power should have saught to commit
genocide it was not inevitable that they should succeeded. Each member of
the system had an ability to create a change within it that had a possibility
of changing the dynamic. Realising that the individual cannot hope to 
control a system does not mean accepting that the individual cannot 
affect the system.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178374
From: acunerbb@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (B. Bilal Acuner)
Subject: Turkish Preisident Turgut Ozal passed away

Turkish president Turgur Ozal has passed away today after a heart  attack in Ankara at 11:00 am GMT .
Mr. Ozal was 66 years old.

BahadIr Acuner
acunerbb@csugrad.cs.vt.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178375
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense

In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu (David Smith) writes:
>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will improve these kids' chances
>of getting another job in the future, but what inner city kid would want to hold
>down just one more minimum wage job when there is so much more money to be made
>dealing drugs?  

What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so
much more money to be made dealing drugs?

Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner
city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids
are incapable of doing legitimate work?
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178376
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Getting Off to an Early Start!

In article <04.17.93b@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson <ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:
>So ... the Jury will be making its announcement at 7:00 AM Saturday
>morning Pacific Time .... 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Why such an ungodly
>hour?
>
>I guess its because the news is not what the government wanted to hear;
>Either the police officers have been found innocent - or - after a week, 
>the jury is hung ... neither good news from the government's point of 
>view, as they desparately needed some scapegoats in Los Angeles.

Wrong on both accounts.

>Maybe by making the announcement at 7:00 AM on the west coast, they
>figure all the rioters will be asleep, giving the troops time to move
>into place. 

No one is a "rioter" until they participate in a "riot", which is 
unlikely to happen, now.

Most of the *people* in L.A. are likely to have gotten up early to 
listen to the court announcement.

>I guess we can look forward to a weekend of rioting, eh? 

Sorry to disappoint you, but this seems unlikely.

>The Mayor of
>Los Angeles, in a press conference about 3:00 AM Saturday morning, in
>announcing that the jury would give its verdict later this morning
>(just an hour away as I write this) would not say what that verdict
>is, but I think he was told ... in his press conference he said
>"anyone rioting will be stopped dead in their tracks ..."

I don't think he was told.
However, his statement was still appropriate.

>Meanwhile, following the announcement of the jury's verdict, the
>judge, jury and assorted court personnel will be evacuated from the
>building via helicopters landing on the roof of the courthouse. They
>can't  even walk out through the front door with their heads held
>high. 

Jury duty is a solemn duty to be taken seriously.  It is not meant 
to be a source of pride or instant fame.

>Won't the rioters have a surprise waiting for them when they wake up
>later today!

Well, the many *people* who got up early to go to the court to hear 
the verdict found that justice was served.  Given your dire and 
cynical predictions, I imagine that it is you who will be surprised.  :-)

>
>
>Patrick Townson


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178377
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15407@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
#There is a big difference between running one's business
#affairs, and actively ripping people off.

And charging homosexuals more becuase people think that AIDS is a "gay
disease" is actively ripping people off. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178378
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15416@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#That describes some straights -- and nearly all homosexual males.

Can you provide any evidence that doesn't ahve massive selection
effects?

No, I thought not.

Just slander on your part.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178379
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5L4rp.EBM@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>>  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification
>>if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize
>>alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from
>
>Making you look bad is too damn easy.  The vast social and historical
>differences between alcohol and other drugs make this comparison
>worthless.

This meaningless statement makes YOU look bad.


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178380
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

Theodore A. Kaldis writes:
#> Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
#> they are not prostitutes.
#No, I suppose they must be sluts.

Nope. They both are very nice women, whom I'm good friends with. 

Or do you think its ok to rape anyone when you don't like the way they
dress?

#> Gee, Both Clayton and Kaldis engaging in ad hominem arguments.
#Where?

Calling someone names, as you did. Are you ignorant of what an ad
hominem argument is?

#You provided absolutely no evidence, chump.

I provided a quote from the judge. What else do you want?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178381
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car

In article <1993Apr14.195912.16613@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:

>In article 734629856@misty, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>
>>]I'm not.  I'm in Canada.  We have far fewer shootings like this.  We have
>>]had, I believe, one mass murder in the last twenty years.
>>
>>]I'm not going to say we don't have our gun problems.  But we do have the
>>]world's largest undefended boarder with one of the most gun-happy countries 
>>]in the world.  I think Canada illustrates that gun control does have an 
>>]effect.  In fact, it's suprising that there is any difference considering
>>]how easy it is to smuggle a gun from the U.S.
>>
>>Yes, it's amazing, isn't it. In fact, it should tell you that gun control
>>is NOT the reason your crime rate is low, since any idiot can smuggle guns
>>into Canada from the US at any time.
>
>I think Paul was trying to make the point that "any idiot" doesn't.  There are
>surely some idiots who do smuggle guns, but Paul seems to feel that the exis-
>tence of stricter gun control laws has had a deterrent effect.  

       This seems a strange argument to make considering that Canada's
violent crime rate in general is far lower than that of the U.S.  (Our
non-gun crime rate is greater than their *entire* crime rate).  It
would seem strange to suggest that it, to, were the result of gun
control laws.

       I think if we looked we'd find very specific (cultural and
enforcement) reasons why the non-gun rate is low as well, and then
that reasons could be applied to the with-gun rates as easily.

>Given that most
>criminally used guns are either legally purchased or stolen from those who
>purchase them legally, having more restrictions on legal possession does 
>seem to have the effect of reducing gun-related crimes.  

       Aside from the fact that I find the idea of being punished
because somebody might steal something from me and go and commit a
crime with it a silly solution, it still doesn't address the
question of Canada.  (Which is now, by the way, blaming their rising
gun-crime rate on the U.S.  Strange that the border used to "magically"
keep the guns out, but now isn't.)

>It certainly makes
>sense that it would.  (Well, it makes sense to some of us, anyway.  ;-)

       The other side of the coin, of course, is that far "illegal drugs"
are purchases legally or stolen from people who purchase them legally. 
I've still not been convinced that guns, a commodity which criminals
have shown their perfectly willing to pay for from illegal sources
(stolen either from police, military, or civilian) we wouldn't simply
see South American sources from which drugs come start smuggling guns as
well, since there's a thriving gun manufacturing industry down there.

>>If you would just look a little closer at the crime statistics, you would
>>realize that:
>>  -our non-gun crime rate is also very high, so guns per se are not the issue
>
>Directly contradicted by the NEJM study that compared crime in Seattle and
>Vancouver, B.C.  The non-gun rates were roughly the same for both cities.  The
>difference in violent crime rates was almost totally gun-related.  

        And as was not pointed out in the study, but in critiques
of it, (two seperate articles by James Wright and David Kopel come
to mind) it was pointed out that the difference was *also* almost
entirely minority related.  That is, the gun crime rate skyrocketed
for poor minorities (Blacks and Hispanics primarily) while when you
compared the white majority they were virutally identical.

        The problem with the NEJM study was they compared minority vs.
non-minority percentages but failed to take into account the relative
conditions of those minorities.  That there was an eqaul percentage of
nomn-whites was about as far as they went.  They failed to take into
account that the non-whites in either city were not living in the
same conditions.

        If the situation was entirely based on availability of guns,
then we'd expect that the white rates, the two groups which are
arguably fairly comparative in the two cities, would have a far
higher rate in Seattle.  Yet the majority in Seattle is not only
not significantly higher when the minorities are excluded, but slightly
lower.

>>  -violent crime is highly concentrated in the inner city
>
>Surprise.  Pick the area with the highest incidence of poverty, drug use, disease,
>etc.  Since rates are lower in suburbia, us middle class folks can ignore the
>problem.


       The point is, of course, that many of the U.S. "inner-city"
problems are not mirrored in Canada.  As such  if there is a condition
which is significantly different in Canada from the U.S., and violent
crime is highly correlated to that area, suggesting that gun control
is the source of Canada's low rate is highly questionable.  (As one
Canadian pointed out on talk.politics.guns, Canada's major gun control
in 1978 did not result in either a reduction or a slowing of an increase
in violent crime rates, which have been rising steadily since.  Apparently
they didn't even mirror the U.S.s very large drop of violent crime in
the early eighties.

>>  -most violent crime occurs in areas with strict gun control already
>
>Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Those areas implemented gun control because of
>the high rates.  

       True only to a certain extent.  Take Washington D.C., where
gun control was instituted while it had crime problems true, but that
crime proceeded to explode afterwards.  Similarly for New York.

       The question is not simply a point in time where crime was high
or low.  Did the gun control significantly and positively impact
violent crime.  Since it's gone up in those areas, often faster than it
was going up before, you can't simply dismiss the high crime rate by
saying gun control was caused by it.  Yes, gun control may be instituted
to deal with high crime.  But if the crime is not positively impacted, you
can't continually say that that crime rate was entirely a cause of
that gun control, since much of that crime rate increased after gun control
was implemented, just as happened in Canada.

>Similar or worse rates exist in cities with poor gun control.

       As would be expected if violent crime was generally independent
of gun control.

>And the jury is still out on the question of whether recent tough laws in 
>Washington D.C. may have alleviated violence and suicide rates there.

       Would this be the laws which made manufacturers liable for what
others did with their guns, and suddenly the police found nobody would
sell to them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178382
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5n4wH.Izv@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr15.213436.1164@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>|>>
>|>>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>|>>
>|>>Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
>|>>difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. 
>|>
>|>       There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want
>|>you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think
>|>will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think
>|>what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."
>|>
>|>       You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.
>
>The point is that they did not make pains to point out where the consitution
>may have been aginst the new yorker's interests. Also they did not want
>to raise opposition by basing their advocacy on unpopular principles.

       Horrors, appealing to popular principles.  Can we perhaps as the
question of whether the Constitution might have been written to appeal
to the principles, rather than, as you appear to believe, it was written
with something else in mind and "propoganda" put out by its supporters.

       But let's be honest about something, here.  When was the last time
you brought up all the valid points against your own arguments?

       Or are they simply propogranda?  We can't know what Phill *really*
means because he's obviously using arguments designed to convince.

>|>       Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and 
>|>probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules.
>|>But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions
>|>on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the
>|>government?
>
>I don't propose that any means exists for determining their true opinions.
>Thus their true opinions died with them and are of little help today.
>
>Their opinions have not the slightest bearing on the matter though, only their
>arguments. These are true or false regardless of who said them or why. 

       If they're true or false, regardles of why they were said, why
on earth did you make a point of calling them "propogranda?"  That
would seem to be irrelevent.

>The
>difficulty that most US posters seem to have is in considering that their
>arguments may have been flawed or no longer apply to modern societies. 

       Oh, I have no argument with questioning them.  I don't believe
they no longer apply, but that's because I think most of them were
good arguments.  I'm not entirely happy about the situation, because
they were obviously only applied to a minority of the time, but I don't
think that alone is sufficient to invalidate them.

>If they were alive today the one opinion we could count upon these men to
>express is that a careful study of the mechanisms of government is necessary
>and that an ongoing improvement of the same is required. They gave their 
>opinions in certain areas and have been proved right. In other areas they
>got it wrong. They ensured that there was a mechanism to adapt and improve
>the consititution. this can only happen if there is a willingness to accept that
>the structural problems within the US political system may require
>constitutional change as a solution. 

       Since the U.S. constitution is the basis for the U.S. political
system, most changes in it would require Constitutional change.  In this
particular case, however the fillibuster is a matter of procedure
and tradition.  It only *should* have been made part of the Constitution. :-)

>|>       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
>|>we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
>|>(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
>|>greater power than did the American system).       
>
>In principle no, in practice yes. 

        In principle no?  That they had less power of that they should have
had less power?

>The British government today is theoreticaly
>dependent on the will of the Monarch. By convention any monarch seeking to
>exercise that power is deposed. The subtly is that the Prime Minister is
>not able to identify their politics with the national interest in the same
>manner that US Presidents regularly do.

        Phill, we're discusing the power of legislative houses.  While
the Prime Minister *is* member of Parliament, he is more analgous (although
badly) to the U.S. President.

        Now, please explain to me how the U.S. House of Representatives
is "in principle" more powerful than the House of Lords (or the Senate)
but in practice is less.  Are you suggesting that the writers of the
Constitution *really* intended for them to be more powerful, but gosh
darn the thing was ratified before they realized they'd forgotten to put
those extra restrictions on the Senate in?

>|>       I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to
>|>handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington
>|>put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city
>|>council."
>
>One reason for that is that at every level the government is rendered unable
>to come to decisions. These decisions are pushed up to the next higher level
>instead. 

      Not at all.  As any entry level political science course will tell
you, people who want laws implemented will always choose the level of
government to "attack" which presents them with the best chance of
getting what they want.  With national "interest groups" it is simply
a very rational thing to do to want the Federal government to enact a
law rather than the states.  Less people to persuade, and less 
"contributions" to make.  

      Why do those concerned about abortion primarily concentrate at
the Federal level?  Simply because if they win that battle all the little
state battlefields are won by extension.  The same extends to insurance,
medicine, and most other questions.

      Local government has not "failed" in that it hasn't done what it
should, but that it is dominated by local interests.  Thus non-local
interests who want localities to abide by their rules can't get their
rules past the local government.  Thus, since they've got more clout,
only in the wrong place, they appeal to the next higher level because
it can impose its will on the lower.

      I mean, let's get real here.  Do we *really* need the Congres
of the United States deciding that x traffice light should be on thus-
and such pattern?  Or that *carjacking* needs to be a federal as opposed
to a local crime?

      The more people want the more Congress will take power to "sell"
it to them for their votes.  I don't think the rise of "special interests"
is coincidence with the increased power of Congress.

>|>       Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than
>|>enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its
>|>original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.
>
>If they were to start from a social welfare model instead of the current 
>"no state subsidy motto" they would be better placed. As it is there is
>plenty of state money being handed out. The problem is that it is
>distributed on the basis of power in congress and not on the basis of
>actual need. 

       Bingo.  The higher up the governmental ladder the less actual
need matters, because political power can be concentrated at higher
levels, while people with less cloud only find themselves reduced to
in effectiveness.

>In order to set up a school project in New York state you have to pay off the
>other 49 states with pork - defense contracts, agricultural subsidies etc.
>Or to be precise 30 of the states since you need 60 to beat the filibuster.

       Then why not simply leave New York's education to New York?  I
remain unconcinved that there is any state in the Union which is not capable
of educating its own children if that's what they want to do.  And if
you leave it to them, you only have to worry about the "pork" in that
state.  And since industries can't concentrate their political power
and wealth, rather they must divide it among the states to try and get
what they want, individual voices have more relative impact.

       The problem with the fillibuster is not that you must "buy off"
states, but that the Congress has acquired too much power to sell pork.

>|>       It is not a case of the system of government they created failing,
>|>but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically
>|>wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem
>|>then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either
>|>House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is
>|>a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more
>|>sense to make more decisions at a local level.
>
>No, you have to break the machine free of seizure before you can redirect it.

       But why on earth should we want to redirect it?  You said yourself 
that you have to sell pork to get things through Congress.  If Congres
has less authority to sell pork and retains its authority to enact
national legislation within its granted jurisdiction, the pork problem
is significantly reduced.

>The current blocks on power simply absolve congress of any responsibility
>to come to a decision. 

       The current blocks essentially state that inaction is preferable
to action, thus it the system is weighted against action.  Considering
the government the usually the institution with the sole power to
enforce its decisions by force, I consider bias against making those
decisions a good thing.

>Pushing the decisions lower in the pyramid won't
>work unless the lower levels are less corrupt. In most cases they are worse,
>not better.

       The difference with the lower pyramid is that a) they have
more legal, legitimate authority in most matters under our Constitution
than the federal government, and b) at those lower levels power is
harder to concentrate.  And c) you get the benefit of not imposing
new deicisons on everybody at once.  You get to see them tried out
without a national decision.  Congressional action usually treats the
entire country as a whole, yet even with similar problems in different
areas, different solutions may be called for.

       And while I often don't agree with the decisions my local
and state reps make, at least I have a better option of going to
the city council and shooting my mouth off.  I'd much rather the
majority of laws be made by accessible people who hang around and end
up having to put up with them rather than somebody far off in
Washington with half a million or more constituents.

       I'm curious what you base your assumption that lower levels
are more corrupt.  

>|>       I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were
>|>placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means
>|>to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's
>|>opinion) policies.  
>
>Since we were arguing from the Federalist papers I would point to them. 

       Phill, *you* brought up the Federalist papers.  We were
arguing the fillibuster and whether or not a minority of Senators
should be allowed to hold up a bill.  You claimed the Senate was
suppose to be a far less powerful House, and I contended there was
nothing in the Constitution or other writings which indicated this.
Which was when you brought up that we can't decide what the founders
wanted based on the Federalist papers.  You argued against them,
I never argued from them.  I have primarily referred to the Constitution,
which places only very small restrictions on the Senate than for
the House.

>The 
>US constitution gives almost no reasoning as to how it should work. The
>only part where a reason is given is the right to bear arms ammendment where 
>the well regulated militia justification is ambiguous.

       The U.S. Constitution is a nuts-and-bolts document.  The Delcaration
of Independence was the high-brow reasoning.  (There are a couple of other
examples, though, such as the reasoning for the power to tax, and the
reasoning for the power to grant permits, both in Article I, Section 8.)

>That the veto was meant to be an exceptional measure follows from the 
>fact of the senate. If the President was meant to revise legislation then
>there would be three chambers of the legislature, not two. Furthermore
>the separation of powers would have been much less distinct. 

       To a certain extend I do believe the veto has become something
it wasn't intended.  However, I also believe it is inevitable considering
the Congress' own abuse of their power to make bills say whatever they
want them to say.  Unlike most people I think we shouldn't be worrying
about the veto, which is fine, but of the problem in Congress which
almost necessitates its abuse.

>|>       There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power
>|>regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto
>|>for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their
>|>agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President
>|>who abused vetos.
>
>He has the record for vetos. 

       *BUSH?*  Phill, that's absurd.  Bush had *37* vetos, one of
which was over-ridden.  Go read up on FDR if you think that's
anything resembling a record.

>|>       Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators
>|>is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators
>|>feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and 
>|>fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question
>|>as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?
>
>Up to a point, the fact is though that when the majority are opposed by
>a minority the minority should not be allowed to win by default.

       Why not?  What is inherently wrong with biasing the system
against action?  Historically governemnt action in the U.S. when
dealing with issues with a bare minority and a large minority have
not been successful.  When you're in a position of imposing federal
power on diverse people, why should the federal government not have to
got through something more than a bare majority

>|>       Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which
>|>covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living
>|>in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority
>|>be required?
>
>Because the bill at issue is a money bill relating to a short term proposal.

       Now we're switching from a general question of a fillibuster
to a specific bill.  I don't see how it make a difference.

>It is not a change in the law where a presupposition in favour of the 
>status quo is arguable. 

       Sure it's arguable.  Theyr'e *arguing* it.  However, requiring
60% to bring it to a vote ensures that they'll have to have a *good*
argument.  Something that isn't based solely on party lines.

>|>       Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power
>|>to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not
>|>see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans
>|>are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate
>|>objections to the legislation in question.
>
>So instead you consider a system under which the minority automatically win
>to be superior?

       No, I am completely happy with a system which requires a minority
for *action*.  Since U.S. history is a history of carving up population
groups and implementing piece-meal on minorities, I feel minorities
should have sufficent clout to prevent action they feel strongly enough
about.  And 41% is hardly a tiny minority.  I don't advocate the minority
being capable of initiating actionm but I see no problem with biasing
the *federal* system against action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178383
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense

In article <1993Apr17.201310.13693@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu (
David Smith) writes:>>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will 
improve these kids' chances>>of getting another job in the future, but what 
inner city kid would want to hold>>down just one more minimum wage job when 
there is so much more money to be made>>dealing drugs?  
>
>What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so
>much more money to be made dealing drugs?
>
>Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner
>city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids
>are incapable of doing legitimate work?

I suppose the correct answer is not "family values"?

S'pose not.  Never mind.  Sorry.

--King "Sparky" Banaian                 |"It's almost as though young
kbanaian@pitzer.claremont.edu           |white guys get up in the
Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College      |morning and have a big smile
Latest 1993 GDP forecast:  2.4%         |on their face ... because,
                                        |you know, Homer wrote the
                                        |_Iliad_."  -- D'Souza

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178384
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: The verdict is in (Rodney King)

  The federal civil rights trial against the four LA police
officers accused of violating Rodney King's civil rights is
now history:

  Lawrence Powell:	guilty
  Stacey Coons:		guilty
  Theodore Brazenio:	innocent
  Timothy Wind:		innocent

  Sentencing slated for mid August, appeals expected.

  So far, all is calm in LA...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178385
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
#Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....

Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178387
From: william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

In article <1993Apr15.215747.17331@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>
>  - Dave Borden
>    borden@m5.harvard.edu


You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice somthing
for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ? To bad.
What is immoral is: people like you and the current president who don't
have any idea why this country still exists after 200+ years.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178388
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On Sat, 17 Apr 1993 20:42:58 GMT, Greg Hennessy observed:
: In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
: #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....

: Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 

Is that what they called it when Truman forced integration of the
armed forces, despite the opposition of Congress and most of the
American public at that time?

--
Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

   "Tilting at windmills hurts you more than the windmills." -- Lazarus Long

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178389
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:


>> 1) So what?

>So this bolsters the contention that many homosexuals are liars.

This statement is just so blatantly disgusting and free of any implicit
neural activity that I will almost completely ignore it.


>> -- 
>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .

>The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

Sigh.  It's so amusing to watch bigots point fingers at what they imagine to
be other bigots.  I do believe this person meant "bean *counting*".  And are
you trying to suggest that only Hispanics eat beans?  Or that they even have
a monopoly on eating beans?  Or that this person is seriously promoting what
is obviously a tongue-in-cheek .sig?

You must have a brain somewhere, if you can cause your fingers to type.  Use
it.

Drywid
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178390
From: dowdy@tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu (Dowdy Jackson)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense

In article <kbanaian.488.735081194@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu> kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.201310.13693@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu (
>David Smith) writes:>>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will 
>improve these kids' chances>>of getting another job in the future, but what 
>inner city kid would want to hold>>down just one more minimum wage job when 
>there is so much more money to be made>>dealing drugs?  
>>
>>What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so
>>much more money to be made dealing drugs?
>>
>>Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner
>>city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids
>>are incapable of doing legitimate work?
>
>I suppose the correct answer is not "family values"?
>
>S'pose not.  Never mind.  Sorry.
>
Are you assuming that families in the inner city don't have family values ?
I sure hope not.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178391
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:

>brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:

>(No axe to grind here I'm just a scientist and I hate to see statistics abused.)

Pity you didn't say something about the use of statistics to justify
targeting and persecuting a minority, then.

>>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three 
>>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.

>I am a hetero man and have had sex with one woman in my life (my wife).  It is 
>very pleasing to me to be able to say that.  I hope you have the same feeling
>as I do.  I also wish that you could (if you wanted) experience the joys and
>trials of being committed to someone for life (there is something about marriage
>that makes the commitment much greater than one might expect).

What in the Tree makes you think we queers CAN'T experience that commitment? 
What's stopping us from committing to one partner for the rest of our lives? 
I have every intention of doing so, once I find the right person...and
whether that person is male or female, I seriously doubt that a church
ceremony/public vow/licence will make any difference whatsoever in the sort
of commitment I experience with that person.  You have no conception of the
difference marriage makes since you have never known any other way.


>>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...

>Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
>homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
>of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
>to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
>put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
>community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays 
>are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
>just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?" 

You're getting to the right idea here...just be careful of making statements
like the above, and you'll be part of the solution and not the problem.

>Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)

No flames necessary. :)

Drywid
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178392
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>       How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>                                                               ^^^^^
>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  

>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.


     I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
different news groups, including something along the lines of alt.discrimination  Look Rodney King is black and large.  I have several large black male friends,and they are referred to as being large black men ( to their faces, and by
themselves ).  You know, Ted, I have a large number of adjectives for you,
but I will spare you most of them because I try not to get into personal
flame wars.  Let me just say that I think your action of cross posting this
was total BS, and you're trying to start some crap.  Hopefully, others will
see through your trite little game and not play along.  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178393
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:


>>1) So what?

>So there are less gays, then the gays claim.

>>Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>>

>I was wondering why I wasn't getting laid.

Your bad English?  (See quote above.)


>Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
>because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
>with social pressures, probably would at least try.

You'd lose that wager, if the supporting argument were part of it.

>Did you know that is is a fact that homosexuality was comparatively high in 
>Hitler's storm troopers (SA) before he came to power.  I wonder if they got to 
>put the triangles on themselves......

Did you know that Hitler himself was a devout Christian?  And heterosexual?

--Drywid
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178394
From: mdouglas@netcom.com (Hokh'Ton)
Subject: Re: race and violence

In <1993Apr13.212441.26562@gtx.com> al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) writes:

>Even though this city (Phoenix) has a relatively small black
>population, black people seem to be responsible for a disproportionate
>amount of violent crime.  yesterday, black men robbed a cafeteria, beat
>the employees for no apparent reason, and shot one dead, even though
>they were being cooperative.  a few days ago, a car full of black men
>opened fire on a car containing a young white couple and their baby,
>possibly because they didn't like the way the man was driving.  the
>baby was slightly injured.  These incidents are not even unusual.

>even if a white person starts out without racial prejudice (as, after
>all, we all do) and no one "teaches" them to be prejudiced, it's
>sometimes hard to see how they can avoid becoming so, based on their
>own observations and instinct for self-preservation.  We always taught
>our children that racial prejudice is wrong (not only bad, but also
>mistaken), but how do you counteract the effect of these kinds of
>incidents?

>what's the answer? how can we work against racial prejudice when
>incidents like this keep fanning the flames?  what can we say to deny
>that racial prejudice is a rational response to our environment?  is
>it? should we?  Since the 60's, I have thought the only hope is through
>integration based on ignoring race and treating each person as an
>individual, but so many either preach divisiveness by emphasizing race
>or validate racism by their actions. where does it lead?


>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ( Alan Filipski,  GTX Corp,  2390 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix, AZ 85016, USA )
> ( INTERNET: al@gtx.com      UUCP: uunet!gtx!al         PHONE: (602)224-8742 )
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Alan, you can start by teaching your children that the perpetrators
of crimes no more represent the "Black community" than racist hateful Whites
represent the majority culture (although there are many ethnic minorities
who have fallen into the very trap that you are struggling with, and believe
otherwise). The trap is the easy way out.
	For yourself, I think it would be a good idea to realize that the
demographics related to the crimes you speak of have less to do with race,
and much to do with socioeconomic status and disenfranchisement. You're
going to find higher crime within *any* community comprised of *any* ethnic
group or subgroup that has become dysfunctional, whatever the factors
leading to that dysfunction. With ethnic minorities it is more usually than
not, as I said, socioeconomic disenfranchisement.
	If, for example, you lived in an area where there were very few
Blacks, but quite a few poor-for-generations Whites, you'd see the crime
statistics reflecting the dysfunction of those White people. Would you then
worry about whther your children would begin to see Whites as undesireable
or whatever? The trap springs into action when our innate compunction to
define "us" and "other" raises its little voice. The trap becomes dangerous
when we stop to listen to that little voice and stop thinking like rational
humans.
	It's interesting that Blacks are traditionally seen as *the* or the
*most* criminal element in many of our urban areas. I don't know the racial
makeup of Phoenix, so I can't speak to your situation. However, I live in
San Francisco, a city that loves to tout its "ethnic diversity". Here, we
have Black gangs, Hispanic gangs, Asian (yes, the "model minority") gangs,
and even a few White gangs. The Asian gangs have become a particularly
troublesome element for law enforcement here, mainly due (I think) to their
propensity for engaging in organized criminal activities. But ask people on
the street and they'll, 8-out-of-10 times, tell you that Black gangs and
crime are what they most fear. During the "disturbance" in Los Angeles last
year many of the rioters and looters were not Black. Some were even White! I
remember being amazed at  television news scenes that showed looting mobs
where there were maybe one or two Blacks at most! My perceptions, gleaned
from TV news, were further corroborated by numerous friends and relatives
that live in Los Angeles. This may have been the country's first truly
multi-ethnic riot. Yet I know from face-to-face and online discussion that
in the minds of America the popular perception is that it was a *Black*
riot!
	In closing, I'd like to say that you raise some interesting points
that really need discussion. Our country has spent too long ignoring the
racism (and its attendant ills) that is very much a part of our culture. As
a people, we are afraid to face up to some hurtful truths, and the problem
becomes compounded *daily*. We cannot afford to do it much longer. I truly
believe that the  well-being of ALL OF US depends on changing our current
course of denial and repression.
	I wish you and your children, and all other people, of *all* colors,
luck in avoiding the "trap". 
	Peace, my brother.
			m.
-- 




	Hokh'Ton	:	The Crystal Wind is the Storm,
  mdouglas@netcom.com	:	 and the Storm is Data,
Michael Douglas-Llyr	:	  and the Data is Life.
			:		---Player's Litany (The Long Run)
	


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178395
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5LI9y.C1v@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>In article <1993Apr16.171354.3127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>
>>However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to be
>>bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.
>
>I don't find this silly at all.  I find it silly (black humor) that we're
>spending billions of dollars and risking the lives and freedoms of every
>American to save a bunch of by-choice druggies...
>
>Could you please tell us WHY you find this silly.  That's, WHY, letters
>"W", "H" and "Y", rather than arguments like "oh, _everbody_ thinks such and
>such is true".

First, the only drug that could possibly be put in drug stations are marijuana 
or its derivitives.  Every other drug that I can think of can kill you if you 
take to much.  (By the very nature of these drugs, your decision making skills 
aren't up to par.  That is how it differs from asprin, flinstone vitamins, etc.
We don't even allow penicilin to be sold over the counter.)

Second, we already have a big enough drunk driving and alchoholic problem in 
this country.  If marijuana were legal, undoubtedly more people would use it, 
and that IS a problem.  People use it, get stupid, and hurt other people.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178396
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5LM2E.Fx8@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>In article <C5L69C.Fxp@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
writes:
>>In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) w
rites:
>>>  Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
>>>  being screwed up in the head, given that example!
>>>
>>>(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
>>>get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
>>>drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He
's
>>>not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is a
n
>>>immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
>>>THIS to THAT!).
>>
>>Hello, is there anybody in there?  You think you have to pay for this idiot's
>>problem now, who's going to pay for the ballooning number of addicts and
>>all of the associated problems with them.  I don't even want to think about
>>it with Hillary in the White House and an administration that "feels our
>>pain".
>
>Look, if you were truly for lower taxation and less government, you would not
>be advocating the WOD.  Ever wonder why the WOD is a BI-partisan issue?
>
>>
>>No harm but to himself?  What about when he drives his school bus full
>>of kids into a train.  When he gets stoned and drives up on a sidewalk
>>and kills 5 people.  When he lives off me on Welfare for the rest of his
>>life.
>
>Ridiculous.  I can't imagine anyone this stupid.  Forgive me for flaming,
>but this is sooooooo obvious!
>
>Tell me why any of the above cases cannot be caused be a legal drug, viz.
>alcohol, or are you for having a War on That, too?
>
>Now I'll tell you: more people are killed by alcohol-related accidents
>than all other drugs combined.  BY FAR.
>

Probably because more people have access to alchohol.  It IS LEGAL you know.


>>
>>The problem with the WOD is that it has no bite.  Sending the slimy
>>bastards to the chair for selling drugs to kids, now there's some bit.
>>
>
>Yeah, that's it, send a kid from the inner-city, who has no other viable
>means to make money and turns to selling drugs, to an over-crowded federal
>prison where he learns to do Real Crime.
>

Of course, this kid would be much better off selling crack to his neighborhood 
and helping in its demise.

>Without drug money being pumped into these blights from the (affluent)
>outside, there would be no crime (who would they steal from, each other?).
>Drugs bring money into the community just like any other business would,
>except that, since drugs are illegal, the economy is an underground one.

And if those drugs were legal, the neighborhood could legally go to hell.

>A self-sustaining underground economy can only proliferate by a constant
>willful infusion of money from the outside.  If you take away drug laws,
>you put an end to the underground economy, and therefore to large-scale
>crime.
>

And if we made murder legal, we would put an end to murder as a crime.

>Kids in the inner-cities are faced with a very tough life growing up
>there, or selling drugs and having everything at their fingertips instantly.
>Many kids choose selling drugs.  They sell products to people who want to
>buy them.  They make money off of rich white kids from the suburbs.  Then
>they go to prison.  Then they become hardened criminals, and learn that
>you're much better off stealing car-stereos in the suburbs because all
>the police forces are spending all their money in the inner city saving
>people from themselves.

What??????

>
>You can bring up all the examples you want about crack-babies and whathaveyou.
>The solution never has anything to do with the laws (crack is illegal).
>

So you are saying crack babies who are that way legally are okay?

>No social problem, however great, is worth destroying the freedom in America.
>The destruction of freedom is never an answer to any social problem.

You can't even walk down the street at night alone in America because of drugs.
Freedom my ass.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178397
From: jar2e@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Virginia's Gentleman)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

In regard to Woody's post, I thought I would remind him of something in
the midst of his tirade against academia:
As a member of the generation likely to pay for the crap Reagan and his cronies started with the deficit according to the brilliant Laffer curve (NOT!) I
think we need to look with open minds upon any ideas which will allow us
to directly address the problems of the gigantic federal deficit and debt and
continue to allow our economy to expand--and I don't remember Woody and co.
complaining about academia while Laffer implemented his policy, Stockman
approved it while being fully aware the numbers not adding up, and Reagan
completing the largest con job of the century which my generation and I will now have to pay for. 

Jesse

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178398
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)

In article <1qpakjINNiq2@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Wil
liam December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr16.171354.3127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) said:
>
>> However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
>> be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never
>> heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal
>> meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine"
>> cigarettes, pot and heroin.
>
>Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea
>that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply
>decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why
>the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes"
>is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...
>

Yeah, Cancer is pretty cool, isn't it.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178401
From: gardinal@alishaw (Paolo Gardinali)
Subject: Re: New <bullshit> Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:


>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:

>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low

>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

                          etc. etc.....


>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
     ^^^^^^

***Sure!!! And what's .3 of a woman??? Any hypothesis??

   How can you trust a report from people that have *no idea*
   of what a MEDIAN is?

   The same bullshit article reported that 22,5% of all the men have
   sex 10 times or more a week (Elf, how many times did you fill
   one of those questionnaires?) and had other statistics that took
   in no consideration different class backgrounds, marital status
   etc.  No information on sampling were given.

>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for

Do you think you can compare so lightly secondary data from 2 very
different (and discutible) surveys???

>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.

It just shows how dramatically ignorant are press release writers and
most pople that read them.....


PAolo


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178402
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Z Magazine: Health Care Reform (March 93)

{Sorry, Harel et al, but our doctors and most hospitals are still
private in Canada as well as in much of Western Europe.}

harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai - Grad - Brown) writes:
>		 =================================== 
>		 H e a l t h   C a r e   R e f o r m 
>			 By Camille Colatosti 
>		 Z magazine (see bottom), March 1993 
>		 =================================== 
>...
>The single-payer model, sometimes called national health insurance, 
>eliminates private insurance companies and removes health care from 
>employment. The government provides free health care to all U.S. 
>residents. And there are no out-of-pocket costs. 

Wrong.  In better EC countries that use pure (but public) health
insurance (like we use in Canada) rather than self-enclosed HMO-like
socialized medicine, 30% of our costs comes from private supplementary
insurance and/or copayments.  France Magazine's Summer 1992 edition
has a fantastic presentation of their basic insurance coverage,
including a sample chart of copayment percentages.  For 1-30 days,
you're covered for 80% of the public hospital rate, 100% afterward.
With extra private insurance, you can get into a private hospital and
be covered for any differences beyond the public hospital rate.  The
public insurance covers 100% beyond 30 days, or the same cash amount
for a private hospital and the difference is paid out-of-pocket or
according to your supplementary private insurance.  Over 2/3rds of
French have some form of extra private insurance.  So, 30% of health
costs in Europe are out of private funds and not gleaned from other
taxes.  The GDP figures are combined public and private expenditures
for total outlay using the same methods that yield the 13-14% figure
for the U.S.

That the French had deductibles and copayments in their insurance fund
is to their credit ... I am in the minority for advocating such back
in Canada (to make the Canadian insurance look more like real health
insurance -- which actually it is).  The new Reform Party, a breakoff
of traditionalists from the Conservatives with a mildly "libertarian"
faction, hold our public health insurance as an untouchable but that
just a few people have to be reminded that it's not free (the average
Canadian/European is more fiscally naive than their American
counterparts on issues like these).

I'm one of the few people who favour copayments (forget about
leftists, even our conservatives attack me for it on the Canadian
newsgroups) to make it look more like real insurance, 'cos the 100%
insurance payment is hidden (unlike in France) and if you didn't know
it, you'd believe it actually is socialized medicine (American
conservatives/libertarians and Canadian leftists are the only ones who
seriously call it that).  Canadians aren't worried about the
Americans, who spend 14%; we're worried about the French and Germans
who spend 7% to our 9% ... so the insurance is looking at things that
shouldn't be paid for out of general funds like physicals for
insurance policies, sick notes, electrolysis, etc.  The reason that
the Canadian health insurance hasn't spiralled out of control despite
being open and universal is that unlike Americans, there is no urge to
spend all of your benefits' worth, and more if you can ... we're a
different culture.

>Like the play or pay model, managed competition leaves in place two 
>elements of the current health care system that reformers most often 
>criticize: the private, for-profit insurance industry; and the 
>employer-based system of coverage. Managed competition compels 
>employers to enroll their workers in large pools of health insurance 
>customers. Entire industries may, for example, sponsor a pool or 
>network. Insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and other health 
>care providers then bid for the pool's business, competing- in 
>theory- on the basis of price and quality. 

"Managed Care" relies on HMO's, which are unknown in most western
nations that use only public health insurance like Canada, France
and Germany (I'm Canadian, and my German father-in-law-to-be says
of HMO/NHS approaches, "We left that behind with East Germany!").
Sure, HMO/NHS controls costs because you have managers strangling
doctors with budget strings.

In Canada, we use the public health insurance approach as in France
and Germany, with all private doctors and both private and public
hospitals.  It is all pure insurance without HMO's.  The divisions
are different, with the Germans using a couple hundred interlinked
"sickness funds" over a century old while Canada divides by their
provinces (who run the insurance fund and set local fees with the
doctors monopoly; federal funds cover the fees disbursed.)

With such an open-ended system, it's no surprise that Canada is #2 to
the U.S. in costs; all-insurance is the most expensive way to go. The
French and Germans use the same approach but have larger populations
in more compact geography to improve scales of economy.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178403
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>F<O>CUS/HEALTH: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)
>
>    An office visit that's $52 in Seattle is $18 in Vancouver
>    (Canada).  That's because, among other things, they've given their
>    government power to bargain with doctors and hospitals over fees.

The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.

Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
in Canada (along with France and Germany) without HMO's --- the NYT
has admitted that malpractice insurance fees are an order of magnitude
lower in Canada but doctors take-home pay is almost equal to American
doctors; also, minimal bureaucracy 'cos the system is so-o-o simple
(early March).

Part of the deal for using the all-insurance approach like the French
and Germans do (hey, why don't they criticize France and Germany?  Is
it because too many people take French and German in college to make
the accusations stick? (-;) was to preserve the doctors independance.
Since the provincial wings of the CMA are the ones that go to bat when
the fee schedule hikes are presented, the politically-bent doctors
were just cackling when they realized the CMA would grow in strength
rather than diminish, especially when unopposed unlike in socialized
medicine approaches like Britain's National Health Service.

>"`You've got to remember, you've got a waiting list as well, but it's  
>not as obvious. If you're poor and you don't have insurance, you don't  
>    go to a surgeon. In the States you ration by ability to pay.'"  

For non-life threatening things, market arguments adequately cover why
certain procedures are in scarcer demand.  I have MD friends who can't
make a living as specialists back in Manitoba not due to the insurance
rates but because they won't get enough customers -- the CMA medical
monopoly's grip on doctors licencing (as in the US) aside -- so they
must move to larger places.  However, this does not refute debunking
of waiting lines for urgent AND routine care, as has been done in the
U.S. by Consumers Reports, health policy studies cited by Prof. Dennis
E. Shea on USENET, CNN, NYT, etc.

Doug Fierro has posted a NYT article from 3 weeks ago about Canada's
health insurance approach, on Talk.politics.medicine.  There is one
small error in the article: not all of our hospitals are private.

>WOULDN'T NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MEAN THAT AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW  
>FULLY INSURED MIGHT HAVE TO SETTLE FOR LESS?  
>
>In Canada, provincial insurance covers all health costs except dental  
>care, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, ambulance service, and private  
>hospital rooms, -- so many Canadians do end up buying some private  
>insurance. A policy to cover all of these things runs about #40 to $40  
>a month.  

Of course, the one thing to note is that in the Canada/France/Germany
case, private insurance *offloaded* the basic coverage to the public
sector.  They realized they were keeping low-risk/high-profit extra
insurance for things like private/semi-private rooms (vs. ward
accomodation), dental, glasses, etc. for corporate or personal
benefits, they'll have nothing to do with you if you want to be
covered for basic care.

At that point, they wouldn't even consider a "voucher" approach
to broker the universal coverage and sell policies to make up
the difference in the federal guidelines and market stuff.

>******************************************************************  
>
>WOULDN'T FREE CARE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO RUN TO THE DOCTOR FOR EVERY  
>ACHE AND PAIN?  
>
>People who get free treatment *do* go to the doctor and hospital about  
>a third more often than those who have to pay a share of their medical  
>bills.  
>
>Still, Canadians -- who pay nothing at the doctor's -- have a lower  
>per-person health bill than we do.

It is "free" in that there are no deductibles nor copayments (two
things which I advocate to make the Canadian insurance look more like
real health insurance -- which actually it is).  I know that when
working in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, I was aware that I was paying
for health insurance - e.g., in Toronto, OHIP fees were listed on my
pay stub; Manitoba did not collect at paycheque time, but only
annually at income tax time (built into the tax rate).  Only fiscal
naifs will proclaim that it's free, along with the Canadian Left for
that is part of their brainwashing agenda.

The French do have copayments, though.  France Magazine's Summer 
1992 edition has a fantastic presentation of their basic insurance
coverage, including a sample chart of copayment percentages.  For 
1-30 days, you're covered for 80% of the public hospital rate, 100%
afterward.  With extra private insurance, you can get into a private
hospital and be covered for any differences beyond the public hospital
rate.  The public insurance covers 100% beyond 30 days, or the same
cash amount for a private hospital and the difference is paid
out-of-pocket or according to your supplementary private insurance.
Over 2/3rds of French have some form of extra private insurance.  So,
the other 30% of health costs in Europe are out of private funds, not
gleaned from other taxes.  The GDP figures are combined public and
private expenditures for total outlay using the same methods that
yield the 13-14% figure for the U.S.

>ISN'T THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY JUST TOO BIG  
>AND POWERFUL TO KILL?  
>
>Dismantling the health segment of our insurance industry would be  
>"politically thorny," in the quiet words of one advocate for a  
>national plan. Some 1,200 firms now sell more than $192 billion in  
>health insurance. They'd put up a hard fight. Not only has the industry  
>grown eightfold since Canada shut down its own health insurers, but 
>our government leaves politicians more open to lobbyists than does  
>Canada's parliamentary system.

Health insurance does exist in Canada and in Western Europe, its
just that it doesn't cover basic care.  You can opt out in Canada
and Germany, but you'll have to go uninsured as a result because
there are too few other people that do so --- i.e., no market.

When private insurance realized how much money they'd make without the
risks involved in basic insurance (e.g., neurosurgery) versus deluxe
amenities (e.g., having to call Granada TV to replace a rental set on
the fritz in someone's private hospital room), they started to pat
themselves on the back for their social responsibility.  In Quebec
last spring, a consortium of private insurers publicly warned against
any thoughts of privatizing routine, low cost parts of that province's
public health insurance plan.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178404
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: ONE PAYER SYSTEM B.S.

UJSNYDER%MSUVX2%MEMSTVX1.BITNET@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu writes:
>
>There is never any mention of how much working Canadians have to 
>pay in taxes for their "free" health care system.  

Oh, *really*???

>I know that more than 50% of an average daily worker's salary goes
>towards taxes in Canada mainly because of this "free" health care.
>It looks like we are pretty lucky so far.

I know that when working in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, I was aware
that I was paying for health insurance - e.g., in Toronto, OHIP fees
were listed seperately on my pay stub.

While I'm not the only Canadian who favours lower taxes and cutbacks
in spending, health insurance isn't on the table.  See our polls ...
A better one might be the July 1st polls conducted for Macleans (our
major English newsmagazine) by Decima Research ... Decima president
Allen Gregg is considered one of the world's top poll researchers,
and Mulroney's Conservatives have relied on him to keep in power in
the face of impossible election situations.  I haven't had a chance
to see this year's version due to our library, but previous ones
before the Americans started their assault and disinformation had
shown satisfaction at 97% and switching to an American all-private
system had support within statistical noise.  The Decima polls are
considered definitive.  Even the new Reform Party, a breakoff of
traditionalists from the Conservatives with a mildly "libertarian"
faction, hold our public health insurance as an untouchable but that
just a few people have to be reminded that it's not free (the average
Canadian/European is more fiscally naive than their American
counterparts on issues like these).

Personally, I feel that the universal health insurance approach used
in Canada, France and Germany -- paying to private health providers in
a nominally free market not unlike America's, minus HMO's -- depends a
lot on values in those societies different from the U.S.  The basic
health needs for life are not viewed as market, but the insurance does
allow the market to address that -- basic health care is not viewed on
the level of ownership of a VCR as Americans would see it.  Plenty of
room is left for expenditure of private funds as extra insurance or as

>Lastly, there were noises about how the Canadian system was not
>containing costs, but, in fact, their system is currently bankrupt.

Please explain this one, hopefully in a way that Canadian readers
besides myself can understand and concur ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178405
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Radio Interview in Pittsburgh 4.17.93





                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                    (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                         April 17, 1993     

	     
                    INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
                      BY MICHAEL WHITELY OF
                    KDKA-AM RADIO, PITTSBURGH
	     
                 Pittsburgh International Airport
                     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania    



10:40 A.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     Q	  For everyone listening on KDKA Radio, I'm Mike 
Whitely, KDKA Radio News.  We're here at the Pittsburgh 
International Airport and with me is the President of the United 
States Bill Clinton.
	     
	     And I'd like to welcome you to the area and to KDKA.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Mike.  Glad to be here.
	     
	     Q	  There are a lot of things we'd like to talk 
about in the brief amount of time we have, but some news is just 
breaking from Los Angeles.  I guess the entire country has been 
kind of holding their breath, wondering what's going to happen in 
the trial of the four Los Angeles police officers.  We just heard 
that two of those officers, the sergeant, Sergeant Koon and 
Officer Powell have been found guilty, and two officers have been 
found not guilty.
	     
	     It's a situation that's been building for over a 
year since the first trial and now this trial and this verdict.  
And I wonder what your thoughts are this morning on how you see 
the situation in Los Angeles in connection with your 
administration and what you're trying to do.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I think the 
American people should know that this trial, in my judgment, is a 
tribute to the work and judgment of the jury, as well as to the 
efforts of the federal government in developing the case.
	     
	     The law under which the officers were tried is a 
complex one; the standards of proof are complicated.  The jury 
decided that they would convict the sergeant who was responsible 
for supervising the officers and the officer who on the film did 
most of the beating.  The jury acquitted an officer who kicked 
Rodney King, but also plainly tried to shield him from some 
blows, and another officer who was a rookie.
	     
	     No one knows exactly why they did what they did, but 
it appears that they really tried to do justice here.  They 
acknowledged that his civil rights were violated.  And I think 
that the American people should take a lot of pride in that.  But 
I hope now we can begin to look ahead and focus on three things:  
first of all, the importance of trying to bring this country 
together and not violate the civil rights of any American; 
secondly, the importance of renewing our fight against crime.  
	     
	     I think it's important to recognize that in the 
poorest areas of Los Angeles and many other cities in this 
country, people may be worried about police abuse, but they're 
even more worried about crime.  It's time that we renewed our 
efforts to go to community policing -- put 100,000 more police 
officers on the street; pass the Brady Bill that would require a 
waiting period before people could buy a handgun, and do some 
other things to reduce the vulnerability of our people to 
violence and drugs.
	     
	     And the last point I'd like to make is it seems to 
me that we have got to rededicate ourselves to the economic 
revitalization of our cities and other economically-distressed 
areas.  If you just think about it -- if everybody in Los Angeles 
who wanted a job had one, I don't think we'd have quite as many 
problems as we do.  
	     
	     And I laid out a very ambitious program in the 
campaign to try to bring private investment and public investment 
to bear in our cities.  I have dispatched the Commerce Secretary, 
Ron Brown, to California to try to come up with some strategies 
for that state, because it's our biggest state with our highest 
unemployment rate -- which could then be applied around the 
country.  I want to talk to him and to the Attorney General, to 
the new head of the NAACP, to Reverend Jackson, and to several 
other people, and then I'll decide where to go from here with 
regard to Los Angeles and the other cities of the country.
	     
	     Q	  Let's talk about what brings you to the 
Pittsburgh area today.  There have been -- I guess there's been a 
lot of discussion on Capitol Hill about your stimulus package.  
You've been locked in a battle with the GOP.  Yesterday, as you 
said earlier in your radio address, you made some moves to break 
that gridlock.  What brings you to Pittsburgh, in particular to 
Allegheny County, in particular to Pennsylvania, with that 
battle?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there are two reasons.  First 
of all, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County and Pennsylvania supported 
me in the last election because they wanted a new direction in 
economic policy.  We have passed our overall economic plan; it 
gives the country a very different budget for the next five years 
than we've had in the previous 12.  We reduced the deficit and, 
at the same time, increased investment in jobs and education and 
health care, in the things that will make us a stronger country.
	     
	     But in addition to that, I asked the Congress in the 
short run to spend a little more money, a modest amount of money 
to create another half-million jobs in the next year and a half; 
to try to cut the unemployment rate by a half a percent; but also 
to try to spark job creation in the private sector more.  The 
plan passed the House.  It has the support of a majority of the 
Senate.  At the present time, all the Republican   senators as a 
bloc are filibustering the bill.  That is, they won't let it come 
to a vote.
	     
	     I believe that Senator Specter would like to vote 
for the bill.  And I believe that Senator Dole, the Republican 
leader, has put a lot of pressure on a lot of the Republicans to 
stay hitched.  And they're all saying that this bill increases 
the deficit.  It doesn't.  This bill is well below the spending 
targets that Congress approved, including the Republicans, for 
this year.  This bill is paid for by budget cuts in the next five 
years.  This bill is designed to give a jump-start to the 
economy.  And I must say, a lot of the Republican senators that 
are holding it up, when Mr. Bush was President, voted for 
billions of dollars of emergency spending of just this kind --
much of it was totally unrelated to creating jobs.
	     
	     So what I'm trying to do is to break this logjam.  
I've held out an olive branch, I've offered a compromise.  But I 
think that we ought to try to put some more Americans to work 
right now to show that we're changing the direction of the 
country.  And that's the purpose of the bill.
	     
	     Q	  Have you been in touch with Senator Specter or 
his office lately?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we've been trying to talk 
regularly to -- through my White House Congressional Liaison 
operation to the senators that we think are open to this --
Senator Specter, Senator D'Amato from New York, Senator Jeffords 
from Vermont, Senator Hatfield from Oregon, and five or six 
others whom we believe know we need more jobs in this economy and 
know that we are paying for this with budget cuts over the life 
of the budget I presented.
	     
	     You know, it has a lot of appeal to say, well, we've 
got a big deficit, we shouldn't increase it more.  But the truth 
is that we are paying for this with budget cuts in the whole life 
of the budget over the next few years.  And more importantly, we 
have this program well below the spending targets that Congress 
has already approved for this year.  And they've done this for 
years, with the Republicans voting for it -- many Republicans 
voting for it -- for things that weren't nearly as important as 
putting the American people back to work.  
	     
	     So I just hope that this doesn't become a political 
issue.  It ought to just be about the people of this country and 
the need for jobs.
	     
	     Q	  I have some questions from people who supported 
you, and some people who are skeptical about your administration.  
It has to do with their hopes, and also with their fears.  A lot 
of people who supported you and voted for you in Pennsylvania --I 
think some of them are now saying, we're glad we got him in the 
White House, but now look at this incredible process he has to go 
through.  Look at these problems.  Look at this gridlock.  And 
they're beginning to wonder, is this going to work; can you pull 
it off?  And, of course, your skeptics are saying, well, I knew 
it was going to be like this.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what I would -- I'd ask 
people, first of all, to remember that we are, frankly, moving 
very fast.  The budget resolution that the Congress passed is the 
fastest they have ever passed a budget resolution -- ever -- in 
history, setting out the next five-year budget targets.  So we 
are moving really rapidly.  And we've got them working on 
political reform, welfare reform, health care reform, a whole 
wide range of things.  
	     
	     But it's a big operation.  You can't expect to turn 
it around overnight.  It took 12 years to produce the conditions 
which led to the victory I received from the people in November, 
and we can't turn it around in 90 days.  But I think we're making 
real, real progress.  
	     
	     I would urge the people not to get discouraged.  
We're not going to win every battle, and not everything is going 
to happen overnight.  But we are definitely moving and changing 
things.
	     
	     Q	  Thank you very much.  
	     
	     The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, 
here live at Pittsburgh International Airport.  I'm Mike Whitely, 
KDKA News.

                               END10:31 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178406
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Radio Address 4.17.93



                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                   (Pittsburgh, Pennslyvania)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                         April 17, 1993     

             
                  RADIO ADDRESS TO THE NATION 
                        BY THE PRESIDENT
             
                Pittsburgh International Airport
                    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
             
             
10:06 A.M. EDT
             
             
             THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  My voice is coming to
you this morning through the facilities of the oldest radio
station in America, KDKA in Pittsburgh.  I'm visiting the city to
meet personally with citizens here to discuss my plans for jobs,
health care and the economy.  But I wanted first to do my weekly
broadcast with the American people. 
             
             I'm told this station first broadcast in 1920 when
it reported that year's presidential elections.  Over the past
seven decades presidents have found ways to keep in touch with
the people, from whistle-stop tours to fire-side chats to the bus
tour that I adopted, along with Vice President Gore, in last
year's campaign.
             
             Every Saturday morning I take this time to talk with
you, my fellow Americans, about the problems on your minds and
what I'm doing to try and solve them.  It's my way of reporting
to you and of giving you a way to hold me accountable.
             
             You sent me to Washington to get our government and
economy moving after years of paralysis and policy and a bad
experiment with trickle-down economics.  You know how important
it is for us to make bold, comprehensive changes in the way we do
business.  
             
             We live in a competitive global economy.  Nations
rise and fall on the skills of their workers, the competitiveness
of their companies, the imagination of their industries, and the
cooperative experience and spirit that exists between business,
labor and government.  Although many of the economies of the
industrialized world are now suffering from slow growth, they've
made many of the smart investments and the tough choices which
our government has for too long ignored.  That's why many of them
have been moving ahead and too many of our people have been
falling behind.
             
             We have an economy today that even when it grows is
not producing new jobs.  We've increased the debt of our nation
by four times over the last 12 years, and we don't have much to
show for it.  We know that wages of most working people have
stopped rising, that most people are working longer work weeks
and that too many families can no longer afford the escalating
cost of health care.
             
             But we also know that, given the right tools, the
right incentives and the right encouragement, our workers and
businesses can make the kinds of products and profits our economy
needs to expand opportunity and to make our communities better
places to live.
             
             In many critical products today Americans are the
low cost, high quality producers.  Our task is to make sure that
we create more of those kinds of jobs.
             
             Just two months ago I gave Congress my plan for
long-term jobs and economic growth.  It changes the old
priorities in Washington and puts our emphasis where it needs to
be -- on people's real needs, on increasing investments and jobs
and education, on cutting the federal deficit, on stopping the
waste which pays no dividends, and redirecting our precious
resources toward investment that creates jobs now and lays the
groundwork for robust economic growth in the future.
             
             These new directions passed the Congress in record
time and created a new sense of hope and opportunity in our
country.  Then the jobs plan I presented to Congress, which would
create hundreds of thousands of jobs, most of them in the private
sector in 1993 and 1994, passed the House of Representatives.  It
now has the support of a majority of the United States Senate. 
But it's been held up by a filibuster of a minority in the
Senate, just 43 senators.  They blocked a vote that they know
would result in the passage of our bill and the creation of jobs.
             
             The issue isn't politics; the issue is people. 
Millions of Americans are waiting for this legislation and
counting on it, counting on us in Washington.  But the jobs bill
has been grounded by gridlock.  
             
             I know the American people are tired of business as
usual and politics as usual.  I know they don't want us to spin
or wheels.  They want the recovery to get moving.  So I have
taken a first step to break this gridlock and gone the extra
mile.  Yesterday I offered to cut the size of this plan by 25
percent -- from $16 billion to $12 billion.  
             
             It's not what I'd hoped for.  With 16 million
Americans looking for full-time work, I simply can't let the bill
languish when I know that even a compromise bill will mean
hundreds of thousands of jobs for our people.  The mandate is to
act to achieve change and move the country forward.  By taking
this initiative in the face of an unrelenting Senate talkathon, I
think we can respond to your mandate and achieve a significant
portion of our original goals.
             
             First, we want to keep the programs as much as
possible that are needed to generate jobs and meet human needs,
including highway and road construction, summer jobs for young
people, immunization for children, construction of waste water
sites, and aid to small businesses.  We also want to keep funding
for extended unemployment compensation benefits, for people who
have been unemployed for a long time because the economy isn't
creating jobs.
             
             Second, I've recommended that all the other programs
in the bill be cut across-the-board by a little more than 40
percent.
             
             And third, I've recommended a new element in this
program to help us immediately start our attempt to fight against
crime by providing $200 million for cities and towns to rehire
police officers who lost their jobs during the recession and put
them back to work protecting our people.  I'm also going to fight
for a tough crime bill because the people of this country need it
and deserve it.
             
             Now, the people who are filibustering this bill --
the Republican senators -- say they won't vote for it because it
increases deficit spending, because there's extra spending this
year that hasn't already been approved.  That sounds reasonable,
doesn't it?  Here's what they don't say.  This program is more
than paid for by budget cuts over my five-year budget, and this
budget is well within the spending limits already approved by the
Congress this year.
             
             It's amazing to me that many of these same senators
who are filibustering the bill voted during the previous
administration for billions of dollars of the same kind of
emergency spending, and much of it was not designed to put the
American people to work.  
             
             This is not about deficit spending.  We have offered
a plan to cut the deficit.  This is about where your priorities
are -- on people or on politics.  
             
             Keep in mind that our jobs bill is paid for dollar
for dollar.  It is paid for by budget cuts.  And it's the
soundest investment we can now make for ourselves and our
children.  I urge all Americans to take another look at this jobs
and investment program; to consider again the benefits for all of
us when we've helped make more American partners working to
ensure the future of our nation and the strength of our economy.
             
             You know, if every American who wanted a job had
one, we wouldn't have a lot of the other problems we have in this
country today.  This bill is not a miracle, it's a modest first
step to try to set off a job creation explosion in this country
again.  But it's a step we ought to take.  And it is fully paid
for over the life of our budget.
             
             Tell your lawmakers what you think.  Tell them how
important the bill is.  If it passes, we'll all be winners.
             
             Good morning, and thank you for listening.

                               END                 10:11 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178407
From: redekop@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Tzoq Mrekazh)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.16.20.34.50.1993.6677@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>So, one
>should properly write "Who's promiscuous?"  The answer is: "Many
>homosexuals are."

 Not quite.  The answer is:  Many homosexuals, heterosexual, and bisexuals are,
but then, many are not.

 Or, more simply: Lots of people are.


-- 
    o-  Tzoq    "I am a good speller, I am -- C-A-T, dog...           ^ ^
 O   o- tzoq@uwo.ca                           B-A-T, Rhode Island..." `v'
    o-  redekop@obelix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca                 -- Junyer Bear  ^  
= Bernoulli would have been content to die, had he but known such a^2 cos 2phi =

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178408
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Help fight the Clinton Administration's invasion of your privacy

In article <9308@blue.cis.pitt.edu> cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch) writes:
>The Clinton Administration wants to "manage" your use of digital
>encryption. This includes a proposal which would limit your use of
>encryption to a standard developed by the NSA, the technical details of 
>which would remain classified with the government.
>
>This cannot be allowed to happen.
>

It is a bit unfair to call blame the Clinton Administration alone...this
initiative was underway under the Bush Administration...it is basically
a bipartisan effort of the establishment Demopublicans and
Republicrats...the same bipartisan effort that brought the S&L scandal,
and BCCI, etc.

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178409
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
> 
> In article <C5G1su.K27@wolves.Durham.NC.US>, wolfe@wolves.Durham.NC.US (G. Wo
> > A sad day for civil rights.  But typical of NC (unfortunately.)
> 
> If it is typical for the principle of reasonable doubt to be upheld in
> North Carolina, then I would count that in the state's favor. 
> 
Reasonable doubt dates back to Human Rights. We are now in the time of
Civil Rights. Civil Rights are issued by the State with whatever strings
attached they choose as the Grantor of said rights. And if that means that 
verdicts are determined by the needs of the state rather than by guilt or 
innocence in a traditional sense, so be it. Being subjective rather than 
objective may make it harder to anticipate what is right, and you may be 
sacrificed for being wrong inadvertantly once in a while, but that really is a 
small price to pay for the common good don't you think?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178410
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>
>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (La
>wrence C. Foard) writes:
>>In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>>
>>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>>
>>>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>>>
>>>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>>
>>1) So what?
>
>So there are less gays, then the gays claim.

Last I checked I was one person, I haven't even been elected
as a representative for "gaydom". Should I ascribe every thing
you say as representing every member of the straight community?

>>2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>>   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>>   us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>>
>
>Dream on.  Abortion and African-American Civil rights rallies don't even bring
>in half of that.

Thats the point. If there are several million queers in DC you had better
start wondering about the validity of the study.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178411
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>> 1) So what?
>
>So this bolsters the contention that many homosexuals are liars.

So if this study is proved wrong then it proves that heterosexuals
are liars? Unlike the propaganda spouted by the far right the ten
percent figure was backed up by the best study available at the time.
Its hardly certain that this new study is correct since it hasn't
even been out for enough time for any double checking to happen.

>The Alan Guttmacher Institute, btw, is funded by Planned Parenthood,
>so it hardly qualifies as a bastion of conservatism, or of "family
>values".

Of course if they had found 10% then it would be invalid because it
was funded by planned parenthood :)

>> 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>>    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>>    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>
>This preassumes that 2.5 million queers will show up on April 25th.
>There won't be anywhere near that many.  Go ahead -- make my day --
>promote that number.  That way, it will surely be a much greater
>embarrassment and slap in the face to homosexual activists when the
>crowds are much smaller.

Even if its "only" one million the point still stands. Even getting
1/6th of a given population in one place would be unprecidented. 
If even 1 million show up in DC it will raise serious doubts about
this study, or indicate a resolve unprecidented in human history.

>BTW, have you noticed that even Slick Willie isn't going to be in town
>that day?

He isn't the target of the march, nor do presidents often speak at
civil rights marchs (of course it would have been nice). However
the republicans and conservative democrats would do well to take
notice.


>> -- 
>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>
>The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

This is quite amusing. Obviously you know nothing about the history
of math.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178413
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <16APR199317110543@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>
>> 
>:This is a strawman argument and fails on several grounds.  In this case,
>:"limited" and "big" government are not defined.  I would point out that
>:Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia are by some definitions nations
>:with "limited" government, while the US, Canada, and nations in Western 
>:Europe (where "people would rather live") are often pointed out as 
>:nations with "big government" from a libertarian point of view.  
>
>Well, let me help by explaining the difference between a linited government
>and a failed government.  A limited government has its powers clearly
>circumscribed,  but is fully capable of enforcing its decisions within
>those circumscribed areas.  A failed government is incapable of
>enforcing its decisions except sporadicly.  Two completely different beasts.

Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government
power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the 
interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using 
government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little 
conundrum...

It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
that never seems to occur?...
>
>> 
>:The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those
>:who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe
>:government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and
>:those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical 
>:grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.
>
>
>..."regulation" is such a vauge word...  

I wouldn't call it "vague."  I'd call it elastic.  All "regulation" is 
not necessarily the same.  By opposing all government regulation, some 
libertarians treat every system from a command economy to those that
regulate relatively free markets as identical.  That's one reason
many of the rest of us find their analysis to be simplistic. 

jsh
>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178416
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <16APR199317391664@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.124824.29405@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>
>> 
>:On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
>:is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
>:for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
>:kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of 
>:difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic, 
>:to say the least.
>>
>
>I assume you mean that analyzing the cost/benefit ratio of government
>regulation on a case by case basis is worthwhile.  Let me suggest that
>this is not an option.  Regulators regulate,  it's what they do.

I'm not sure why you don't consider it an option.  No one suggests that
such analysis should be left to "regulators."  In fact, the "re-inventing
government" movement provides just such a cost/benefit approach to the
analysis of public spending.  Libertarians would do well to learn more
about it. 

>
>	It might be possible to pass an amendment which would prevent
>any liscensing laws from being valid,  assuming you could convince people that
>it would overall be a good idea.  Eliminating the liscensing laws which
>serve no good purpose (the vast majority of them) while maintaining the
>worthwhile ones (assuming there are any) is not  feasible.

Sorry, but it strikes me that it is the only "feasible" approach.  What is
not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and 
licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent
tasks.

>
>:I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education, 
>:national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
>:a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
>:than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
>:exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile 
>:analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.  
>: 
>:jsh
>
>I note that the above examples tend to be among the few government areas 
>likely to win some approval among libertarians anyway.  

Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as 
generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense.
(It is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to
be to a principle of non-coercion, the only areas of public spending
that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns....hmmm...)

>The most objectionable government expenditures are entitlements,  which
>also are the biggest.  Certain individuals will suggest that these should be
>considered defense on the grounds that they are a sort of Danegeld to
>would-be revolutionaries,  but I personally don't feel we have much to fear
>from an alliance of geezers and unwed mothers.  Maybe I've led too
>sheltered a life.

Perhaps you have.  May I suggest that you consider that revolutionaries
frequently generate support by acting as protectors of "geezers," 
mothers and children.  Governments that ignore such people on the grounds
that "we don't have much to fear" from them do so at their own peril.

jsh
>
>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178417
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Propaganda Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5otox.BJI@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <VEAL.740.735074621@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>In article <C5n4wH.Izv@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>|>>
>|>       Or are they simply propogranda?  We can't know what Phill *really*
>|>means because he's obviously using arguments designed to convince.
>
>I make no secret of what I am up to, I have stated explicitly in posts
>that I am a political propagandist on numerous occasions. Anyone posting
>to this group who is not probably has the wrong group.
>
>For example I have on numerous occasions stated quite clearly that I
>beleive that certain factions of the gun lobby are the worst possible
>advocates of their cause and I am prepared to do anything in my power
>to provide them with a platform because they can convince people far
>better than I could hope that many people with a fixation on lethal
>weapons are dangerous and derranged. 

       If you happen to know a political position which does not
have people advocating it who do more harm than good, please point it
out.
       
>Some people have even accused me of inventing such advocates purely 
>for the purpose of having them trash a set of political views. In 
>fact this would be a futile tactic because I could never hope to
>invent a character as dangerous as sybok.athena.edu, a man who I
>quite seriously believe to be mentaly ill and a potential psychopath.
>Unfortunately the local sherifs office have informed me that they
>are unable to act untill he attacks someone.

       One of the advantages and draw-backs of requiring proof
on the part of the government before they may take action against
citizens.  (and part of the reason some of us believe weapons should
be available.)

>So if you were to ask me what is the point that I am trying to make
>from this current argument on the absolute sanctity of the US 
>constitution what would I answer?

       We are not arguing the absolute sanctity of the U.S.
Constitution.  In fact, the fillibuster we're talking about isn't
*in* the Constitution.  I objected to your suggestion that the Senate
wasn't intended to exercise the power it was clearly given.

>Firstly I see that the current US political scene like the UK political
>scene has become tied to special interests. Rather than chase the
>convenient caricatures put about by the media and polititians themselves
>for this - Gay rights cmapaigners, environmentalists, zionists (i.e.
>Jews), "foreign lobbyists" - whatever voting power they have etc. I
>sugest that you look at who is really benefiting. The inevitable conclusion
>is that it is the major corporations owned by the ultra-wealthy that
>have benefited. Regan and Bush created what can only be described as a
>welfare state for the rich. 

       I'll point out again that Reagan only had a Republican Majority
in the Senate during his first term, and his coalition in the House
came apart at about the same time.  Bush never had any real support in
Congress.

       The real point is that everybody, *everywhere* got their pork,
from the big corporations to the guy I saw last night leaving a
convenience store with an armful of junk-food he'd bought with
food stamps.  (He spent more in food stamps on junk than I *make* in a week
and I'm not on government assitance.)

>Money was diverted from programs addressing
>social needs and poured into the weapons industry in the form of cost
>plus profits contracts. 

       Lessee, let's pull out the old Almanac.

       In 1980, total U.S. government budget outlays were 590.9 billion
dollars.  In 1992 (est) they were 1.4754 trillion dollars, an increase of
approx. 884 billion dollars.

       In 1980, National Defense cost 133.9 billion dollars.  In
192 it was 307 billion dollars, and increase of 174 billion dollars.
That leaves an increase of 710 billion dollars unaccounted
for.  (This represented an increase of 230%)

       In 1980, Income Security (which includes retirement programs,
Housing Assitance, and unemployment benefits, and I believe welfare)
cost 86.5 billion dollars.  In 1992 it was 198 billion dollars, or
more than national defense started.  (This represented an increase
of 230%)

       In 1980, the Federal Government spent 32 billion dollars on
Medicare.  In 1992 they spent 118 billion dollars.  (an increase of
368%)

       In 1980, the Feds spent 9 billion dollars on housing
credits and subsidies of that like.  In 1992 it was 87 billion.

       In 1980, Health care services and research was 23 billion
dollars.  In 1992, it was 94 billion dollars.

       Agriculture, up 9 billion to 17 billion.

       Science, up 11 billion to 16 billion.

       Resource conservation up 7 billion to 20 billion.

       Education up 14 billion to 45 billion.

       Veteran benefits up 12 billion to 33 billion.

       Trasnportation up 13 billion to 34 billion.
     
       About the only things I see which was seriously decreased was under 
the Energy category, primarily under "Supply," and "Community Development,"
in the area of "disaster relief," and between the two of them
represent a loss of less than 11 billion dollars.

       Where *was* this huge diversion?

>In order to rectify this situation there must
>be constitutional revision.

       Not that's a stretch.  If the current government was pushed by
the President to create this mess, wouldn't one expect it to begin to
equalize once the pressure is gone?

>Secondly the form of this revision must take account of the changed 
>circumsatnces of the role of the Federal government. 

       Only assuming that the new role is a positive role we want
to continue. I see very little positive about it.

>The constitution
>cannot be used to frustrate the democratic process. 

       The Constitution was *designed* to frustrate the democratic
process, so that the voters could be absolutely sure they were getting
what they wanted by the time it happened.  Nor do I see putting the
brakes on the "democratic process" an inherently bad thing.  Califronia's
riding the edge and every time they pull their ballot initiative nonsense
it gets worse.

>If the peoplr want
>to have welfare spending by the federal government they will have
>it.

       Sometimes, or perhaps most of the time, the people should be
told, "no," and pointed to their local government.       

>Attempting to prevent this through constitutional trickery only
>leads to the constitution being brought into disrepute. 

       Phill, would you do me the very great favor of repeating that
in talk.politics.guns?

>Methods will
>always be found to bypass such provisions and once the government gets
>used to bypassing those provisions they will bypass the others up to 
>the first ammendment. 

       Cute.  We can eliminate violations of the law by eliminating
the law.

>This is a major reason why the right to own 
>guns should be excluded, the implication that this right is equal to
>the right to free speech is dangerous. 

       Free speech alone is dangerous, Phill.

>People know that mass ownership
>of lethal weapons causes thousands of murders a year, the dangerous
>conclusion they may reach is that the first ammendment may also be
>the same dangerous mistake. 

       OK, Phill.  All you gotta show me is a clear pattern of
*reduction* in homicide rates across several countries and that'll
be it.  (Not current, mind, you, reduction.)

>Note however that this is not the slippery
>slope argument. It is because the right freedom of speech has been
>chained to the privilege to own weaponry that the danger arises. The
>advocates of this pivilege must not be allowed to chain freedom of
>speech to their cause such that if they fall freedom of speech falls
>as well. Such actions are not the actions of people genuinely interested
>in freedom.


        Who's chaining anything to freedom of speech?  By *calling*
it a freedom?  

>Thirdly and most importantly I want to discover a mechanism wherby I can
>engender intellectual debate as opposed to totemic debate. I consider
>the grave threat to civilisation to be the loss of the ability to
>reason about the political debate at anything other than the superficial
>level. The objection I raise to your basing your case entirely on the
>assertion of the supremacy of the US constitution is that the currency
>of your argument is limited to the currency of the totem upon which it
>is based. The danger of totems is that they can be reinterpreted in
>different ways by different people. 

       Phill, you're a master of subtly changing the subject.  I haven't
*based* my argument against raw democracy on the Constitution.  I've
tried to explain why it isn't a good idea.  The only time I've referred
to the Constitution is to point out it doesn't contain the restrictions
on the veto and the Senate you appear to believe were "meant," but
just didn't make it in there.
     
       The Constitution doesn't *contain* the 41% fillibuster rule.
I only believe that the rule is a good idea.  You cn't dismiss that
as venerating the Constitution because it isn't *in* the Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178418
From: alaramor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron C Laramore)
Subject: Re: race and violence

Joe,

     As usual, this issue of dysfunction, of bad values, of messed up culture 
is easily embraced by non african americans when it comes to explaining
problems in our community. From your post, you apparently find the idea that
something is wrong with African Americans, value-wise, culture wise or
something, very appealing. I never cease to be amazed at how eager non african
americans are to embrace theories about our problems which basically assert
that something is wrong with us. The socio-economic factors which we know help 
to produce high crime levels, like poverty, which exists among us in large 
proportion, I mean when it comes to discussion of african american problems, we
somehow become exempt from all these types of factors, and the problem is 
laid at the doorstep of some neboulous dysfunction we supposedly have. But 
nobody attributes crime amongst white americans to dysfunction. No, that has 
socioeconomic factors to it, but for africa americans, its gotta be a 
dysfunction.

Basically, I think this tendency for non african americans to believe that
something is wrong with us exists because non african americans don't want to
deal with the possiblility that the society is deeply biased against african
americans, and that this is about 80% of the problem. It could not possible be
that the society is so deeply racist and structured against us, that this has
a very effective negative effect on us. No, something is wrong with us.
Non african americans are quick to disregard what we have to say, because they 
are so busy trying to find something wrong with us, instead of taking a good 
hard look at the thing we say are doing us damage. I would get angry if it 
werent' so damn typical.

Peace - Aaron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178419
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
> 
:Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government
:power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the 
:interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using 
:government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little 
:conundrum...
> 
	Without having a complete answer to this question,  I should think
it obvious that the first step should be to convince people this would be
a desirable result.  There are still quite a lot of people who feel that
the command economies of eastern Europe failed due to corruption rather than
essential weaknesses of caommand economies,  and you still have a majority
in this nation that favors keeping unenforced and unenforcible laws on
the books in order to "send a signal".


:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
:that never seems to occur?...


I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant
combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also,
they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable
society anyway. 


>>..."regulation" is such a vauge word...  
> 
:I wouldn't call it "vague."  I'd call it elastic.  All "regulation" is 
:not necessarily the same.  By opposing all government regulation, some 
:libertarians treat every system from a command economy to those that
:regulate relatively free markets as identical.  That's one reason
:many of the rest of us find their analysis to be simplistic. 
> 

Umm, is there any distinction between "vague" and "elastic" in this
context aside from one having a more positive connotation than the other?

At any rate,  we've been through all this before.

:Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
:"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
: the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Incidentally,  this is a libertarian newsgroup,  you can get away with
saying,  "bullshit" here.   You're welcome,


Mr. Grinch

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178420
From: dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu (Douglas Young)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <philC5Ls4A.MEA@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <612@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russ) writes:
>    >In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
>    >Ronzone) writes:
>    >
>    >>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the
>    >>Religious Left.
>    >>
>    >Not at all. I am not a member of the Religious Left, Right,
>    >or even Center. In fact I don't consider myself very
>    >religious at all [ this will probably result in flames now :)
>    >]. In fact Phil, you should leave religion out of it. It just
>    >clouds the issue.
>
>The religous left worships trees, rivers, the planet, and hates people.

And the religious right worships engines, smokestacks, landfills,
and hates people.

What does this name-calling have to do with anything you are claiming about
the truth of environmental disaster?  Nothing that I have read in this
thread, nor heard from anyone I have talked to, would suggest to me that 
people fit the definition you give of the religious left.  Come off it, Phil.
A prime motivation for protecting our environment is so that we, 
people, can continue to live in it healthily.  We just disagree on what
is necessary to maintaining a healthy environment FOR PEOPLE.

>    >>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them
>    >>aren't. And the natural disasters we have had individually
>    >>far outweigh the man-made ones.

      [Russ's response deleted to save space]

>I guess you missed the newspaper articles this week about Exxon presenting
>evidnce (through the ASTM) on the issue of the Valdez incident. Seems
>that Valdez is mostly recovered, despite the Religious Left's cries of
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"hundreds of years".

What!? They have already repaired that old hulk!!!?  WOW!!! ;-)

I suppose you *mean* the Alaskan shores that were devastated by the
Valdez accident?  I haven't seen the articles.  What do they say exactly?
Has [mostly] all the ocean and shore life returned?  The sands are [mostly]
as clean as they were before?  The microbial samples are [mostly] back to 
a normal balance? The fish and fowl populations have [mostly] returned?  What?

>Then again, the Relgious Left claimed it would take 20 yearsb to put out
>the Kuwait oil fires...
[...]
>                          You should face the facts. Love Canal
>was not, and is  not, an environmental disaster, nor even a problem.
>
>Nor is Times Beach and TMI and acid rain killing trees and ....

Not a problem?  Would you move to Three Mile Island?  I would imagine 
there is some cheap property available!  

The naturally occurring catastrophic events [disasters] that destroy 
property (ie: hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes) do not usually leave 
toxic wastes that prevent people from re-building their lives there.  
The man-made disasters (oil spills, toxic dumping, radioactive waste 
dispersions) cause death and make an area unliveable far beyond the 
initial event.

>-- 
>There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
>environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)


-- 
---)----------                                                ----------(---
   Douglas Young         (dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu)  
   I don't know why, but I seem to expect a serious discussion on the net.
---)----------                                                ----------(---

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178422
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5ovFr.C0u@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <VEAL.740.735074621@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>>|>       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
>|>>|>we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
>|>>|>(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
>|>>|>greater power than did the American system).       
>|>>
>|>>In principle no, in practice yes. 
>|>
>|>        In principle no?  That they had less power of that they should have
>|>had less power?
>
>The British parliament in principle has absolute power. So does the Monarch.
>Much of the stability of the system rests on what is not defined clearly.
>In the case of a clear abuse by one side or the other the other side
>can act to remedy the situation.

      Two institutions with absolute power.  Cute.

      Let's talk practicality, shall we?  If the Monarch tried to
do something, what would happen?
  
>|>>If they were to start from a social welfare model instead of the current 
>|>>"no state subsidy motto" they would be better placed. As it is there is
>|>>plenty of state money being handed out. The problem is that it is
>|>>distributed on the basis of power in congress and not on the basis of
>|>>actual need. 
>|>
>|>       Bingo.  The higher up the governmental ladder the less actual
>|>need matters, because political power can be concentrated at higher
>|>levels, while people with less cloud only find themselves reduced to
>|>in effectiveness.
>
>That was not my point. 

       But you illustrated the problem very well.

>|>>In order to set up a school project in New York state you have to pay off the
>|>>other 49 states with pork - defense contracts, agricultural subsidies etc.
>|>>Or to be precise 30 of the states since you need 60 to beat the filibuster.
>|>
>|>       Then why not simply leave New York's education to New York?  I
>|>remain unconcinved that there is any state in the Union which is not capable
>|>of educating its own children if that's what they want to do.  
>
>The point is of redistribution of cash from the poor areas of the ecconomy
>to the rich ones. 

       I am contending that there is no state in the Union which does
not have ample wealth, if they choose to spend it, to run a perfectly
acceptable Education system.  (I further contend that the amount of money
being spent now is more then sufficient, but is being spent badly.)

>Or vice versa if you aren't a Republican. 

       So, tell me Phill.  Were the Republicans also responsible for some
of the *huge* increases in social programs?  Or were they *only* 
responsible for what you don't like.  (I contend it is Congress which
is to blame.  Democrat and Republican alike.)

>If society
>simply writes off any areas of the country that is ecconomically weak you
>end up with a basket case ecconomy. There are inevitable cycles in any
>business. Some of these act in phase to produce the "business cycle".
>Others are countercyclic. Localities can experience boom to bust cycles
>outside the national trend. To produce a strong ecconomy you need to
>ensure that the bust areas do not fall bellow the level where they
>cannot be ecconomically rebuilt. 

       Most of our worst areas are still better off than most of Europe.
In any case, we're talking about *education*.  

>If the industry in an area collapses
>the US as a whole still has a responsibility to ensure that the children
>in that area get a good education. In some areas of the US schools are closing
>halfway through the year for lack of money.

       Yes, I live in once such area.  You're woefully ignorant of the
situation.

       At the same time some of Tennessee's school districts are closing
down, the Governor asked for 7.5 million dollars for bicentenntial
celebration license plats.  In almost the same breath he wanted to raise
unemployment compensation and reduce taxes which paid into it.
 
       I don't know about the rest of the country, but *our* education
problems stem directly from two problems, neither of which are a lack
of money in the state.  (BTW, Tennessee is considered a "tax heaven"
and our economy is one of the strongest in the country.  *I* see
a correlation.)  1)  What money we spend goes primarly to administration.
The average administrator makes two and a half times what the average
teacher makes, and sucks up an enormous amount of revenue.  And 2)
the Governor is making a concerted effort to create an "Education crisis"
in order to push for his pet income tax.  Some of the most idiotic
programs get funded (like State funds for new art in the county seat)
while schools are closing.  It's not a lack of funds.  It's an
unwillingness to spend them on what is more appropriate.  Education
is *the* parental hot-button.  Education is *always* the first to
but cut, because it's easier to get people to pay for their children
than ugly art.

>|>       The U.S. Constitution is a nuts-and-bolts document.  The Delcaration
>|>of Independence was the high-brow reasoning.  (There are a couple of other
>|>examples, though, such as the reasoning for the power to tax, and the
>|>reasoning for the power to grant permits, both in Article I, Section 8.)
>
>The Declaration on independence cam a decade earlier and has not a line
>of justification for the US constitution. You could argue that it went
>into the broad concepts but little more. 

      It spoke very eloquently on government being based on the
consent of the governed.  

>In fact it is little more than
>a protracted whinge. More to do with the price of tea than the design of 
>a government. It would be a pretty daft idea for a bunch of guys to
>sit arround designing the structure of the new government while the little
>matter of the British army remained to be settled. 

      They did it anyway.  The Continental Congress had its own set of
bylaws.  It wasn't quite a government, but a means of making decisions
had to be created.  (However low George Washington's opinion of them were.)

>|>       To a certain extend I do believe the veto has become something
>|>it wasn't intended.  However, I also believe it is inevitable considering
>|>the Congress' own abuse of their power to make bills say whatever they
>|>want them to say.  Unlike most people I think we shouldn't be worrying
>|>about the veto, which is fine, but of the problem in Congress which
>|>almost necessitates its abuse.
>
>The Congress is the most democratic body in the whole system. 

      Allow me again to speak heresy against the Holy Democratic Orders.
So what?  The government was built with a very non-democratic Presidency
with fairly broad powers, including the veto.

>It has not only
>the fairest system of election but the two year term means that the
>members have always got a recent mandate.

      Yes, and the Senate was intended to act as a balance to this.
Too much democracy was intentionally avoided.  It was considered a good
thing to place non-democratic blocks to impulsive action.

>On the other hand if the period of election were to be made 4 years in
>antiphase to the Presidential cycle there would be much less dependence
>on fund raising from special interests than there is at present.

      So long as Congress has something to sell, people will pay for
it.  Most congressmen rake in more money than they need.

>|>       Why not?  What is inherently wrong with biasing the system
>|>against action?  Historically governemnt action in the U.S. when
>|>dealing with issues with a bare minority and a large minority have
>|>not been successful.  When you're in a position of imposing federal
>|>power on diverse people, why should the federal government not have to
>|>got through something more than a bare majority
>
>In other words David thinks that the reactionaries should need only 41
>votes while progressives should need 61.

       No, if the "progressives" don't want the "reactionaries" to move
backward, they get the same benefit.  41% of the states is a *lot* of
people.  And historically laws with that sort of minority arent'
very effective, especially since it is usually geographically
concentrated.
       When wielding the Federal Big Stick I don't see why they shouldn't
have to make a better argument than, "more people than not," agree.
       
>Now we know why nobody calls the Republicans democrats.

       I'm not a Republican.  I'm a republican.  :-)
       
       And no, I'm neither a Democrat nor a democrat.
       
       Now, I've asked several times, and all you've done is answer
"It isn't democratic," which I knew before I said it.  Why *should*
it be democratic?  We don't have a true direct democracy, and few
people advocate one.  Why, then, is this other modification of
democracy to bias it against action so much worse?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178423
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Diplomat License Plates

In article <1993Apr13.123404.18191@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
|
|Automobiles belonging to personnel associated with the embassies from various
|nations have diplomatic license plates.  They are red, white, and blue and
|read DLL #### where "L" is a letter and the #'s are numbers.  The "D" means
>diplomatic and the "L"s indicate which country.  A few years ago the

actually,  teh D means the registered driver has diplomatic immunity.
That means they can do as they damn well please on the roads, and you
have only God as your protection.   

The state Department Issues Saa-XXX  plates for personnel  who work
at the embassies but haven't been granted  immunity.  Most embassies
have restricted parking for embassy personell  street side.  

The S plates allow them to use  those parking areas as well as the
restricted lots at National and State dept,  without a lot of crap.

pat



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178425
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

In article <1993Apr18.001116.19872@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.
> 
>Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then why do we really need national health insurance then? Wouldn't it just make
more sense to find some way to cut down on the cost of malpractice insurance?

And maybe that's not such a good thing. I also read somewhere that it is next to
impossible in Canada to litigate against the health system-class action suits
are nearly impossible, and you can't sue the provincial health officials at all.

> 
>Part of the deal for using the all-insurance approach like the French
>and Germans do (hey, why don't they criticize France and Germany?  Is
>it because too many people take French and German in college to make
>the accusations stick? (-;) was to preserve the doctors independance.
>Since the provincial wings of the CMA are the ones that go to bat when
>the fee schedule hikes are presented, the politically-bent doctors
>were just cackling when they realized the CMA would grow in strength
>rather than diminish, especially when unopposed unlike in socialized
>medicine approaches like Britain's National Health Service.

Oh no. Don't let the AMA know about this. They have enough power as it is. Ask
most Americans whether they'd like the doctors' lobby to get more powerful.

>For non-life threatening things, market arguments adequately cover why
>certain procedures are in scarcer demand.  I have MD friends who can't
>make a living as specialists back in Manitoba not due to the insurance
>rates but because they won't get enough customers -- the CMA medical
>monopoly's grip on doctors licencing (as in the US) aside -- so they
>must move to larger places.  However, this does not refute debunking
>of waiting lines for urgent AND routine care, as has been done in the
>U.S. by Consumers Reports, health policy studies cited by Prof. Dennis
>E. Shea on USENET, CNN, NYT, etc.

Well, yeah, tell us about the National Defense Medical Centre outside Ottawa.
Theoretically it's limited to service personnel, but some studies I've heard
about have suggested that about half the patients there are civilians who not
only have connections but aren't "urgent" at all.

The problem is, in a system where hospitals' annual budgets are approved by the
government, how do you keep political considerations out of medical decisions?
I bet that if you're an MP or MPP, or good friends with one, you're put on any
hospital's "urgent" care list no matter how minor your problem. Which is OK 
unless you're someone who gets bumped off the list for some bigshot.

>>WOULDN'T NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MEAN THAT AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW  
>>FULLY INSURED MIGHT HAVE TO SETTLE FOR LESS?  
>>
>>In Canada, provincial insurance covers all health costs except dental  
>>care, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, ambulance service, and private  
>>hospital rooms, -- so many Canadians do end up buying some private  
>>insurance. A policy to cover all of these things runs about #40 to $40  
>>a month.  

Hmm. How much difference would it make in the figure of percentage of GNP spent
on health care if dentistry and optometry were included in the accounting? 
Maybe Canada spends proportionately just as much on health care as we do.

> 
>Of course, the one thing to note is that in the Canada/France/Germany
>case, private insurance *offloaded* the basic coverage to the public
>sector.  They realized they were keeping low-risk/high-profit extra
>insurance for things like private/semi-private rooms (vs. ward
>accomodation), dental, glasses, etc. for corporate or personal
>benefits, they'll have nothing to do with you if you want to be
>covered for basic care.
> 
>At that point, they wouldn't even consider a "voucher" approach
>to broker the universal coverage and sell policies to make up
>the difference in the federal guidelines and market stuff.

So what happens if the health care systems financially collapse. Bob Rae, the
second least popular man in Ontario, warned Ontarians a few years ago that if
they didn't stop cross-border shopping in such huge numbers, "the services they
expect from the province just won't be there in a few years" (Fortunately for
them (and less fortunately for the retailers here in Western New York) the 
Canadian dollar went back to a more realistic value). He didn't say so, but I
knew he meant the OHIP. What would happen if his warning turned out to be the 
truth? Would the private insurers take up the slack? They'd be under no 
obligation to. Of course, they could eventually make money again, but if what
you say is true, they'd be loathe to do so (and out of practice in handling 
such basic services, too).

> 
>>******************************************************************  
>>
>>WOULDN'T FREE CARE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO RUN TO THE DOCTOR FOR EVERY  
>>ACHE AND PAIN?  
>>
>>People who get free treatment *do* go to the doctor and hospital about  
>>a third more often than those who have to pay a share of their medical  
>>bills.  
>>
>>Still, Canadians -- who pay nothing at the doctor's -- have a lower  
>>per-person health bill than we do.
> 
>It is "free" in that there are no deductibles nor copayments (two
>things which I advocate to make the Canadian insurance look more like
>real health insurance -- which actually it is).  I know that when
>working in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, I was aware that I was paying
>for health insurance - e.g., in Toronto, OHIP fees were listed on my
>pay stub; Manitoba did not collect at paycheque time, but only
>annually at income tax time (built into the tax rate).  Only fiscal
>naifs will proclaim that it's free, along with the Canadian Left for
>that is part of their brainwashing agenda.

Would that it were free. Americans would start another revolution if they had
to pay taxes at Canadian rates.

>>ISN'T THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY JUST TOO BIG  
>>AND POWERFUL TO KILL?  
>>
>>Dismantling the health segment of our insurance industry would be  
>>"politically thorny," in the quiet words of one advocate for a  
>>national plan. Some 1,200 firms now sell more than $192 billion in  
>>health insurance. They'd put up a hard fight. Not only has the industry  
>>grown eightfold since Canada shut down its own health insurers, but 
>>our government leaves politicians more open to lobbyists than does  
>>Canada's parliamentary system.
> 
>Health insurance does exist in Canada and in Western Europe, its
>just that it doesn't cover basic care.  You can opt out in Canada
>and Germany, but you'll have to go uninsured as a result because
>there are too few other people that do so --- i.e., no market.
> 
>When private insurance realized how much money they'd make without the
>risks involved in basic insurance (e.g., neurosurgery) versus deluxe
>amenities (e.g., having to call Granada TV to replace a rental set on
>the fritz in someone's private hospital room), they started to pat
>themselves on the back for their social responsibility.  In Quebec
>last spring, a consortium of private insurers publicly warned against
>any thoughts of privatizing routine, low cost parts of that province's
>public health insurance plan.

Again, I doubt Americans would like giving the insurance companies that much
power. I half wonder if the Canadian health insurers didn't go along with the
provinces and the federal government years ago because they knew that there was
a good chance of the public system going bust in the long run, and then 
afterwards they could clean up (Okay, this sort of contradicts what I said
higher up. But it's another possibility). They'd have an added bonus when 
arguing against government involvement in their industry-as they could then 
point to its failure instead of just citing theoretical principles.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178427
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu writes:
: In article <1993Apr15.215747.17331@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
: >The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
: >draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
: >and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
: >with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
: >on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
: >Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
: >Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
: >Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
: >
: >
: >  - Dave Borden
: >    borden@m5.harvard.edu
: 
: 
: You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice somthing
: for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ? To bad.
: What is immoral is: people like you and the current president who don't
: have any idea why this country still exists after 200+ years.
					
					This country still exists after 200+ years
					because the 
					people have to be forced by the government to
					fight in foreign wars?
					I don't think so...
					
					Bill
					.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178428
From: mdouglas@netcom.com (Hokh'Ton)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In <1qqfam$ogh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:


>In a previous article, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) says:

>>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>
>>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>>       How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>
>>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>>
>>     I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
>>different news groups, including something along the lines of alt.discrimination  Look Rodney King is black and large.  I have several large black male friends,and they are referred to as being large black men ( to their faces, and by
>>themselves ).  You know, Ted, I have a large number of adjectives for you,
>>but I will spare you most of them because I try not to get into personal
>>flame wars.  Let me just say that I think your action of cross posting this
>>was total BS, and you're trying to start some crap.  Hopefully, others will
>>see through your trite little game and not play along.  

>      You still haven't addressed Ted's statement.  We're waiting.

	Yeah, I'm also curious as to why you felt compelled to remind us of the
guy's race. BTW, I don't mean to imply that you're clueless or anything, but
the statement was *hardly* "benign". 
-- 




	Hokh'Ton	:	The Crystal Wind is the Storm,
  mdouglas@netcom.com	:	 and the Storm is Data,
Michael Douglas-Llyr	:	  and the Data is Life.
			:		---Player's Litany (The Long Run)
	


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178429
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

In article <1993Apr13.210503.11099@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) writes:
>I didn't see your post so I can't comment on it. My $.02 on high
>speed rail is, I like it. I like it alot. It would be too bad to
>see it tainted by corruption. that's all.

The speed limit on commuter tracks in the northeast is 120MPH.  We
already have something that resembles high speed rail in this
country and it requires massive government subsidies.  We don't need
another government boondoggle.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
  Look up "Ponzi Scheme" in a good dictionary - it will have a picture of Joe
  Liberal Handout right next to it.  Stop federal spending.  Cut the deficit.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178430
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you

In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
>
>
>In article <1993Mar24.235606.15959@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>Ouch, now that really hurts.  I'm being accused of no breadth nor depth
>to my historical knowledge because I'm unwilling to agree that economic
>inequality leads to poverty and from there to "social and political
>instability".  You go read your history again.  POVERTY is the main
>engine of social instability (in this context, we'll put aside religious
>turmoil, mass migrations, etc.).  

Well, the fact of the matter is that poverty is imperfectly related to 
social and political instability, while economic inequality is much more
strongly related.  In virtually all major revolutions including
England (the Puritan revolution), France, Russia and China, the 
revolutions occurred as economies were undergoing substantial long term 
growth and poverty was declining.  What sets off revolutions is massive
inequality coupled with a perception on the part of those at the bottom
that social change is possible.

If "poverty (were) the main engine of social instability," this typical
historical pattern would not hold.  In fact, revolutions would have been
far more typical before the nineteenth century than since that time.

[Much deleted...]

>|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to...
>|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
>|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I
>|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.
>
>You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your
>own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted
>but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not
>a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That 
>poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages 
>in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who
>think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you
>really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting
>the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?

Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general
welfare" in another portion of the constitution.

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL
WELFARE of the United States..."

I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they
said in the preamble.

>Just to make sure you've got the point, let's do a little experiment.  What
>if the constitution read as follows?
>
>Preamble: We the people, to promote the general Welfare, do ordain
>          and establish this Constitution for the United States of
>          America.
>
>Constitution:  The Federal Government shall have one function and one
>               function only - to provide for the defense of the nation.
>

But as noted above, the constitution doesn't say that, does it?

>The government would not then have two functions: defense and Welfare.  

But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense
in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional
functions.  Right?

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178431
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr17.145045.12449@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>: In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>: 
>: It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>: reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  
>
>...Society would collapse if most people were evil most of the time."
>			-- David Bergland
Agreed.
>
>"If people are basically evil, the last thing you'd want is a big
>government staffed by those evil folks exercising control over you."
>			-- David Bergland
Agreed.

>"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
>leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Agreed.

>: The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those
>: who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe
>: government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and
>: those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical 
>: grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.
>
>Good summary...  Selling your labor or goods so that you can eat 
>and buy a house is essential so that you can excercise your 
>personal freedoms.
>-- 
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President

And this demonstrates, I assume, that you're a liberal. :-).
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178432
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <18APR199314034390@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>> 
>:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
>:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
>:that never seems to occur?...
>
>
>I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant
>combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also,
>they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable
>society anyway. 

And the reason that the Soviet Union couldn't achieve the ideal of pure
communism was the hostility of surrounding capitalist nations...Uh huh.
Somehow, this all sounds familiar.  Once again, utopian dreams are 
confronted by the real world...

>
>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178433
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.
>> 
>>Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>And maybe that's not such a good thing. I also read somewhere that
>it is next to impossible in Canada to litigate against the health 
>system-class action suits are nearly impossible, and you can't sue
>the provincial health officials at all.

Since our doctors are private and the "system" is just an insurance
plan, litigation would not involve the insurance fund.  Our lawyers
do not work on contingency, so that if you were to sue for malpractice
then you'd better be sure of winning to cover your fees ... likewise,
if you were a doctor and subject of a suit, it's time to sweat.

>>Since the provincial wings of the CMA are the ones that go to bat when
>>the fee schedule hikes are presented, the politically-bent doctors
>>were just cackling when they realized the CMA would grow in strength
>>rather than diminish, especially when unopposed unlike in socialized
>>medicine approaches like Britain's National Health Service.
>
>Oh no. Don't let the AMA know about this. They have enough power as it 
>is. Ask most Americans whether they'd like the doctors' lobby to get 
>more powerful.

A few weeks ago, the president of the Canadian MA wrote a letter to
the NYT to decry a lobbyist's advert repeating the same old trash.
This is significant because the AMA and the CMA are interlinked
organizations and he would not have done it without the approval 
of his AMA cronies.

>Well, yeah, tell us about the National Defense Medical Centre outside
>Ottawa.  Theoretically it's limited to service personnel, but some
>studies I've heard about have suggested that about half the patients
>there are civilians who not only have connections but aren't "urgent"
>at all.

It serves the same purpose as the Bethesda Naval Hospital ... since
not all hospitals can provide everything, maybe they have some stuff
that others don't?  (Ottawa's population is only a quarter million,
if you include the surrounding counties.)

>The problem is, in a system where hospitals' annual budgets are
>>approved by the government, how do you keep political considerations
>out of medical decisions?  I bet that if you're an MP or MPP, or good
>friends with one, you're put on any hospital's "urgent" care list no
>matter how minor your problem. Which is OK unless you're someone who
>gets bumped off the list for some bigshot.

People of influence will get their way in any system, American or
European.  It's the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the
rules. (-;

As for annual budgets, those are actually annual grants for facilities
(e.g., mops, pans, etc.) given to hospitals of which most are private
nonprofit foundations (btw, I have no problem with having aggressive
for-profit hospitals like the French, who use our approach ... but in
the Paris region they have almost as many people as Canada does so
their market is much more diverse).  The rest has to be made up for
by billings from patients who use their services.

>>>WOULDN'T NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MEAN THAT AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW  
>>>FULLY INSURED MIGHT HAVE TO SETTLE FOR LESS?  
>>>
>>>In Canada, provincial insurance covers all health costs except dental  
>>>care, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, ambulance service, and private  
>>>hospital rooms, -- so many Canadians do end up buying some private  
>>>insurance. A policy to cover all of these things runs about #40 to $40  
>>>a month.  
>
>Hmm. How much difference would it make in the figure of percentage 
>of GNP spent on health care if dentistry and optometry were included 
>in the accounting?   Maybe Canada spends proportionately just as much 
>on health care as we do.

The GDP figures are combined public and private expenditures for total
outlay, and  are compiled use the same methods by the OECD that yield 
the 13-14% figure for the U.S.

>So what happens if the health care systems financially collapse.

How?  They are collecting premiums ... and I'm an advocate of having
copayments like the French do in their system in order to make it look
more like the real insurance that it is.  The private doctors and 
hospitals will still be there after the insurance (hypothically)
disappears, as they were there before it appeared.

>Bob Rae, the second least popular man in Ontario, warned Ontarians a
>few years ago that if they didn't stop cross-border shopping in such
>huge numbers, "the services they expect from the province just won't
>be there in a few years"

For one thing, I think that Bob Rae is an idiot ...

>He didn't say so, but I knew he meant the OHIP.

Most of OHIP comes from separate premiums on your paycheck if you are
a player ...  he wants to spend our money on other things than the
health insurance.  Our high taxes are high for other spending but
health insurance, which is separate and optional, and it is being 
spent in a nonpartisan manner by every party. )-;

OHIP is just a health insurance plan; it does not provide any kind
of health care, that is up to you and your private doctors.

>Would the private insurers take up the slack? They'd be under no
>obligation to. Of course, they could eventually make money again, 
>but if what you say is true, they'd be loathe to do so (and out of
>practice in handling such basic services, too).

Some of the companies providing extra insurance are subsidiaries of
American companies, and their parents provide full insurance down
here.  Regardless, all firms up north can easily turn on cable TV
to see how well the American firms are doing by being involved in
basic coverage.  The private firms are making too much money after
having gotten rid of basic coverage.  They run around patting them-
selves on the back for their own cooperation in providing extras 
for those people who "deserve it".

>>When private insurance realized how much money they'd make without the
>>risks involved in basic insurance (e.g., neurosurgery) versus deluxe
>>amenities (e.g., having to call Granada TV to replace a rental set on
>>the fritz in someone's private hospital room), they started to pat
>>themselves on the back for their social responsibility.  In Quebec
>>last spring, a consortium of private insurers publicly warned against
>>any thoughts of privatizing routine, low cost parts of that province's
>>public health insurance plan.
>
>Again, I doubt Americans would like giving the insurance companies that
>much power. I half wonder if the Canadian health insurers didn't go 
>along with the provinces and the federal government years ago because
>they knew that there was a good chance of the public system going bust
>in the long run, and then afterwards they could clean up (Okay, this 
>sort of contradicts what I said higher up. But it's another possibility).
>They'd have an added bonus when arguing against government
>involvement in their industry-as they could then point to its failure
>instead of just citing theoretical principles.

I agree ... they were in a win-win situation.  But right now, it seems
that they have won bigger, when you look at how full their coffers
are.  Friends from my sisters' MBA class were still being flown out
for job interviews individually with insurance firms in London, ON,
(Canada's insurance capitol a la Hartford) along with generous expense
privileges this year despite the ongoing post-recession blues.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178434
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)


In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> In article <16APR199317110543@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
|> >In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
|> [.....]
|> Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government
|> power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the 
|> interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using 
|> government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little 
|> conundrum...


This is a difficult problem for which there is no obviously good
solution.  One approach is simply to try and move political opinion
and hope a new more libertarian consensus lasts for a while.  Another
approach is to try and amend the constitution.  The original
constitution restrained the U.S. government from economic intervention
for 100 to 150 years, depending on just how one wants to count it.
The First Amendment, though weakened in many ways, still restrains
government (particularly state and local), even though on many
particular issues the majority is in favor of censorship.  I think
libertarians would be happy with another 100 years of restraint via
an amendment or two (not that I think that's likely to happen).

Not necessarily Mr. Hendricks, but other posters seem to see this as
a problem with libertarianism, that it cannot be stable.  That might
be true, but it is not an objection to libertarianism per se.  If
a libertarian political consensus forms for a decade or two and then
falls apart again, we would just be back where we are now.  This is
unlike the case for socialism where a socialist consensus that held
for a while and then fell apart would not leave us where we are now,
but instead with lots of bureaucracy that would be hard to get rid of,
if not tyranny as the end condition of a strong socialist consensus.
-- 
Ervan Darnell                                        ervan@cs.rice.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178435
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Malpractice Not the Issue (Was Re: 8 MYTHS about National Health...)

In article <C5p0Hx.39E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.001116.19872@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.
>> 
>>Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Then why do we really need national health insurance then? 
>Wouldn't it just make more sense to find some way to cut down 
>on the cost of malpractice insurance?

It would if malpractice and "defensive medicine" were the main
factors in explaining spiralling US health care costs, but they aren't.

Although Gary is correct in noting that malpractice-related problems are
greater in the US than Canada, they by no means account for the overall
difference in health care costs.  (They do account for a somewhat larger
portion of the difference in physicians' gross income in the two countries.)

Some facts.  Malpractice insurance and awards account for less than 1% of
total health care costs in the US.  In 1991, according to a survey of 
physicians conducted by a national medical journal physicians averaged
paying 3.7% of their practice receipts in malpractice insurance.  
Malpractice insurance premiums and malpractice awards peaked in 1985;
they've declined significantly since then.  At the same time, health
care costs have increased more than any period in history.

As far as "defensive medicine" is concerned, the AMA estimates that its
total impact is about $7 billion per year.  That's about 8% of the total
current INCREASE in health care costs -- and the estimate is from a group
that could be expected to overestimate the impacts of defensive medicine
on health care.

As small a problem as this is in the overall scheme of things, however,
Clinton has been on record for a long time favoring an indemnification
of MD's against malpractice suits if they follow procedures set by their
specialties.  This would eliminate most, if not all frivolous suits
while retaining the ability to sue for true malpractice.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178436
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <C5nH58.Hp4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>
>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>
>I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
>different news groups, including something along the lines of 
>alt.discrimination.  

Exsqueeze me?  I saw *your* original post in alt.discrimination.
Your post was cross-posted to three groups.  My followup was cross-posted
to two of those three (omitting soc.motss).

Now, instead of engaging in meta-discussion off the topic, could you answer 
the question posed?  If your statement is so "beign"(!?), you should have no
trouble politely responding to a polite query.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178438
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

OK Phil, you're right. So far the "evidence" suggests that Nixon was a victim
of overzealous underlings and Kennedy was a womanizing disgust-o-blob with
a dash of megalomania. After crushing the CIA and FBI who's to say Kennedy 
wouldn't have created his own version of American Friendly Fascism?

Unfortunately however, we don't have all the evidence. So far this nation's
citizens have been privy to about 12 hours of the total 4,000 hours of Nixon's
tapes. What's on the rest of those babies? Some archivists have alluded that
there is "evidence" to suggest that Nixon and his cronies, including George
Bush, were aware of the plot to murder Kennedy before he was shot in Dallas.

Ask your local D.A. what the charges are for the above crime.


And so I must ask you, Phil me putz, when all this shit finally comes out
when you and I are old men, I would appreciate the privilege of sticking a pole
up your ass and parading you down Main Street with a sign on your chest:

"I was an Apologist for the American Fascist Regime circa 1944 -- 2010"

(How's that for a lovely Brecht-ian image:-)


There, that ought to get a reaction. Unless I'm in his killfile this week...

								        MPA



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178439
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <15413@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>What they broke in the DNC for is still open to serious question.

Some tape archivists suggest what they were after had something to do with
the Kennedy assasination. Let's hear all of the tapes real soon, shall we?
 

									MPA



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178440
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE


Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.

	More "gridlock" talk from another relic of the past.  The
Selective Service system creates jobs and is an investment in 
the future of america......and whats wrong with that?

	We need jobs because at this point in the recovery, the economy
should have generated 10 billion jobs and since it has not, the
government has to step in and help.  Shutting down selective service
would cost "good jobs" and we can't do that.  

	What we really need is to involve selective service in a more
closely directed manner.  We need the selective service involved
in environmental protection, high-speed rail, commuter aircraft, 
civil rights, national service and health care.  Every dollar
we put into selective service now will get us $10 less spending
in future.

	I really believe now to think about it that selective service
is long-past due for the creation of a cabinet position.


	Your not beyond hope, just get back on america's side and
start doing your part for change.  What Bill needs from you
now is support for the economic stimulus and health care reform.
You need to devote all your energies to fighting gridlock and
supporting change.  Get on the team.  After all, the evil has
been banished from washington and the time for complaint 
is past being neccessary.

	And remember, Bill Clinton cares.  He may someday even have
a town meeting in your city.  If your an appropriate sort of 
person, if you phrase your questions properly and show the
proper respect and awe, you might have the chance to ask Mr,
President your question in person.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178443
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence

   I am glad that you recognize that people should not engage in denial
and repression, and should acknowledge such. The United States, with
its people, have recognized that repression has taken place, with the
loss and outright abrogation of civil liberties and constitutional
protections of citizens. This recognition has taken the form of the
civil rights law (let's just discuss the federal level for now), such
as 18 USC 241 et. seq., 42 USC 1981 et. seq, et. al.
   With this recognition of repression, at times manifested in the
form of collective guilt, I want people to recognize denial. 
Though it can be said that white people numerically commit more
crimes in the United States, because white people are a majority,
it can also be said that black people commit a disproportionate
amount of crime in the United States, in their relation to their
numbers in population.
   My views are out of experiences when I was a police officer
in a large metropolitan area, and of a citizen. Unless people
account for their behavior, and for the behavior of their immediate
community, nothing will improve.

Regards, 

Neal







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178445
From: hampton@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <2671@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>shapiro@sofbas.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>: 
>: Oh, and BTW, its William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
>
>No, it's not- and I really fail to understand the use of that name
>as an insult.  Do you feel that being adopted implies some sort of
>moral failing?

No, it's a sign of aristocrtic out-of-touchness with the middle
class.  You ask George Herbert Walker Bush about that.

And that's not his full name?  What, then, is it?

---
"Even Quayle had his honeymoon period.  It lasted a full 48 hours 
after he was chosen as Bush's running mate."

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik          | 
Vaporware Engineer 2nd class |    "This 'contribution' the President wants 
E-mail: hampton@ais.org      |     us to make... is it tax deductible?"
CompuServe: 71460,3602       |                             -- Larry Wright

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178446
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr18.200255.13012@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>In article <18APR199314034390@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>>> 
:>:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
:>:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
:>:that never seems to occur?...
:>
:>
:>I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant
:>combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also,
:>they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable
:>society anyway. 
: 
:And the reason that the Soviet Union couldn't achieve the ideal of pure
:communism was the hostility of surrounding capitalist nations...Uh huh.
:Somehow, this all sounds familiar.  Once again, utopian dreams are 
:confronted by the real world...
>Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   



Steve,  you're the one who suggested that a failed government should be an 
ideal proving ground,  I never felt that way in the first place.  Quite the 
contrary,  I think a better proving ground would be someplace that already
had a governemnt that would prevent outright acts of agression,  yet had a
strong spirit of individualism and initiative.  Someplace like... Texas :-)

Mr. Grinch  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178447
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <C5nH58.Hp4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>
>>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>>
>>I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
>>different news groups, including something along the lines of 
>>alt.discrimination.  

>Exsqueeze me?  I saw *your* original post in alt.discrimination.
>Your post was cross-posted to three groups.  My followup was cross-posted
>to two of those three (omitting soc.motss).

>Now, instead of engaging in meta-discussion off the topic, could you answer 
>the question posed?  If your statement is so "beign"(!?), you should have no
>trouble politely responding to a polite query.

       Well, I don't think your query was exactly polite, but I will TRY to
give you a polite responce.  Something atypical of the net, but here it goes.

       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many
of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective      
is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about
the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that
Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this
ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a 
descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have
used it in the past.


      The entire second trial was about race, Ted.  I don't feel compelled to
discuss Mr. King's racial background, but had Mr. King been white there would
not have been a second trial.  You probably are saying that the beating would
not have occurred if he were white, but that is an extremely difficult call
to make.  It is possible the case, but not definately.  

      I still think your actions are crap, Ted.  They are far more divisive than
me using the adjective 'black' in a non-derogenory manner.  Would you have
been happier if I had used 'African-american' ?  If so, then you really are
lost in the world of PC.  You have already been instrumental in getting one
persons net access revoked, and I wonder if you have sent a copy of my 
message to my sys admin with a plea that I am not worthy of posting.

     The way you went about this 'polite' inquiry makes me believe it was 
anything but.
 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178448
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in facts?  Here's a few

Oops, I forgot to set read permission.  It's fixed now.

ftp netcom.com
login: anonymous
password: your@email.address
cd pub/mvp
binary
get clinton.zip

You need pkzip 2.x or the latest net.zip to un-"deflate" this.

Economic stats since Day One, plus all of the myriad ways Slick Willie
and the Gang of 535 are preparing to do it to us.  From Ron Brown's
desk, so any distortion is pro-Democrat, can you believe it?
-- 
Let's face it, when it comes to utilities,  Microsoft has | Mike Van Pelt
performed about as well as a savings and loan.  These are | mvp@netcom.com 
the guys,  remember,  who put BACKUP and RESTORE - not to | mvp@lsil.com     
mention EDLIN - on your hard disk.  - Lincoln Spector     +----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178449
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr18.174237.11229@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
> 
:I'm not sure why you don't consider it an option.  No one suggests that
:such analysis should be left to "regulators."  In fact, the "re-inventing
:government" movement provides just such a cost/benefit approach to the
:analysis of public spending.  Libertarians would do well to learn more
:about it. 



Okay,  let me try to explain this.

When one votes for such a creature as a Senator or,  worse yet,  a President,
one votes not for specific policies but for a general package which must cover
all issues for 4 or 6 years.  As such,  one's influence is highly diluted.
I might add that,  even if one were free to vote on individual regulations,
the vast amount of time required for considering a particular regulation,
combined with the very small chance of one's vote making a difference,  would
make it unreasonable to expect the voter to make an intelligent decision
with respect to specific regulations.     
> 
> 
:Sorry, but it strikes me that it is the only "feasible" approach.  What is
:not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and 
:licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent
:tasks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "feasible" in this case.  Do you mean that
[] are impossible in priciple,  or merely that it would be undesirable in
fact?


:Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as 
:generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense.

2 of the four you saw fit to  mention,  and education of minors is always
another possibility,  since minors are generally considered not to be
responsible to make their own decisions as adults are.

:(It is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to
:be to a principle of non-coercion, the only areas of public spending
:that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns....hmmm...)

You say this as if it were surprising,  yet in fact a necessary consequence
of libertarian philosophy.  All non-coersive functions should be dealt 
with privately,  therefore it follows that the only functions remaining to
the state are the coersive ones.

> 
:Perhaps you have.  May I suggest that you consider that revolutionaries
:frequently generate support by acting as protectors of "geezers," 
:mothers and children.  Governments that ignore such people on the grounds
:that "we don't have much to fear" from them do so at their own peril.

Much more likely it's drunken teenagers.  The groups in questionare more 
likely
to be worse off during and after a revolution than before.  In the unlikely
event that you missed my earlier sarcasm,  let me say this directly:
The idea that such programs as Social Security or AFDC should be considered
"defense" (an idea which has been advanced in ths and other newsgroups) is
so absurd a lie as to be unworthy of consideration.  Do you seriously
dispute this?


	I don't want to seem patronizing,  but you still seem to be laboring
under the delusion that under a socialized economic system it is reasonably
intelligent and honest persons (like yourself) who make the decisions.
I feel any third party added to a transaction is every bit as likely to be
ignorant or corrupt as the buyer or seller.  I don't expect you to agree
with me,  but you explain why you feel I'm wrong?


Mr. Grinch

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178450
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <1qp5juINNgu5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> In article <1993Apr14.135948.3024@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, 
> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) said:
> 
>> A good case? A F**KING GOOD CASE? The defense lawyer asked the victim
>> questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate
>> in?"  and you think he made a good case?????
> 
> Speaking as someone who's only about six weeks and a $6,900 tuition bill
> away from becoming an unemployed slob with a law degree, I'd really like
> to see a transcript of this trial.  I'd especially like to know what
> happened immediately after the defense attorney asked that question
> (assuming that the reports that he did so are accurate... I'm not
> accusing Tom Farrell of making anything up, but this _is_ the sort of
> case that spawns garbled misquotes, false rumors and urban legends like
> tribbles).  It'd be nice to think that the prosecutor objected
> (irrelevant, prejudicial, inflammatory... take your pick) and that the
> judge upheld the objection.
>
I did hear this question asked during a radio news update of the case.  (They
were talking about the ongoing trial and had some audio clips).  Immediately
after the defense attorney asked the question, there was an "Objection!" heard
in the background.  The clip ended at that point so I don't know if the
objection was upheld.  I can't imagine NC is *that* bad. 

>> The arresting officer said the bastards told him they did it on
>> purpose and hoped the victim would die, and you think the defense made
>> a good case????? No wonder we're losing!  We're aparently not trying
>> to win!
> 
> Again, I'd like to see the transcript... I'd read the latter bit of that
> in the news media (the arresting officer testifying that one of the
> defendants calmly asked him about the condition of the "homo" and said
> that he hoped he'd die) but this is the first I've heard of the officer
> testifying that one of the defendants actually said that he did anything
> at all, let alone that he did it on purpose.
>
This I didn't hear as an audio clip but heard it reported a number of times on
news stories both during and after the trial.  Now the "we did it on purpose"
thing is stretching, I think it was something more like--he had it coming.  If
somebody else remebers better than I on this second point, feel free to
clarify.  
        
Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank R. Chloupek 
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University) 

"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:  
somebody else's place."
							--P.J. O'Rourke



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178451
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Didn't the new study asked "have you engaged in homosexual intercourse
within the last two years" whereas Kinsey asked "have you ever engaged
or thought about engaging in homosexual activity".  Sort of like the 
difference between "did you have yogurt this morning" and "are you 
allergic to lactose".

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178452
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill...giving out pubic hairs?!  Oh please!  PROVE IT!!

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>In article <1993Mar20.161551.4638@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will S
>eeves) writes:

>[J. Lani Herrmann:]

>>>> We are wondering why the Clinton administration is having so much
>>>> trouble finding a suitable nominee for the post of Attorney General,
>>>> when there is an obviously superior candidate:...

>>>> We refer, of course, to Prof. Anita Hill.

>[Michael Friedman:]

>>> Probably because if they pick her the Republicans will investigate
>>> the rumors that she sometimes returned papers to her students with
>>> a couple of pubic hairs inserted between the pages.

>> While I'm hardly one of Prof. Hill's biggest fans, I find *this* hard
>> to believe.

>> Could you please supply (with a post, preferably) some proof of this,
>> ie., newspaper articles documenting such allegations, etc.?

>Well, your ignorance about this is unsurprising, given you're a
>Canadian.  And I'm at a complete loss at to why you should be so
>interested in this, given that it is an American issue which should
>properly be of absolutely no concern to you at all.

Actually, my interest in gender issues is not limited to international
boundaries.  Indeed, I often exchange information with Americans about
issues which concern us, in both countries.


>In any event, in
>answer to your question, the following is taken from David Brock's
>article, "The Real Anita Hill", published in the March 1992 issue of
>_The_American_Spectator_.  [This is taken from page 27.]
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah...someone had mentioned this journal, but gave no further information.


>     But the most bizarre incident is alleged to have happened in the
>   school year 1983-84 at Oral Roberts [University], according to a
>   sworn affidavit, dated October 13, 1991, and filed with the Senate
>   Judiciary Committee, in which Lawrence Shiles, now a lawyer in
>   Tulsa, recounted the following:

>     Shortly after the class had begun, Professor Hill gave us a
>     written assignment which I completed and duly turned in.  When
>     this assignment was passed out to the class after having been
>     marked by [the] professor, sitting next to me were fellow
>     students Jeffrey Londoff and Mark Stewart.  Upon opening the
>     assignments and reviewing our grades and comments made by Anita
>     Hill, I found ten to twelve short black pubic hairs in the pages
>     of my assignment.  I glanced over at Jeff Londoff's assignment
>     and saw similar pubic hairs in his work.  At the time I made the
>     statement to Londoff that either she had a low opinion of our
>     work or she had graded our assignment in the bathroom.  Mark
>     Stewart overheard the conversation and said that he had similar
>     pubic hairs in his assignment also.  This became the standing
>     joke among many students for the remainder of the year in
>     classes.

>     Other students in that class confirmed the story.  Londoff says
>   he couldn't be certain that the hairs were pubic, but he said he
>   thought it was unlikely that they could have come from Hill's head,
>   since they were short, coarse, and curly, and Hill had had the hair
>   on her head straightened.  Another student who saw the hair, but
>   did not want to be identified, said of its origins: "You just know
>   when you see it."

>Does this satisfy you,

Yes, thank you, though I am really curious as to why this never came out
(at least not in what I saw, up here in Canada, or on CNN, which is sent
up here) during the Thomas nomination hearings.  Surely, one would think
that her claim to having been sexually harassed, would have a great deal
less credibility if it could be shown that she had herself been guilty of it.


>or do you regard sworn statements given to a
>U.S. Senate committee as equivalent to toilet paper?

Ahemmm....  It depends.  :-)

(For instance, if it were the "sworn statements" at the Warren Commission,
then yes, I _would_ say that the statements were no better than toilet
paper, used at that :-), but in most cases, the answer would be "no").

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Solve Patriarchy, Install Peterarchy"
   - Peter J. Hanus, B.A. (UPEI)

 * SLMR 2.1a * Scott me up, Beamy.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178453
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <18APR199320091677@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.174237.11229@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>> 
>
>Okay,  let me try to explain this.
>
>When one votes for such a creature as a Senator or,  worse yet,  a President,
>one votes not for specific policies but for a general package which must cover
>all issues for 4 or 6 years.  As such,  one's influence is highly diluted.
>I might add that,  even if one were free to vote on individual regulations,
>the vast amount of time required for considering a particular regulation,
>combined with the very small chance of one's vote making a difference,  would
>make it unreasonable to expect the voter to make an intelligent decision
>with respect to specific regulations.     

I'm afraid that I've lost the thread here.  I didn't suggest that all 
government regulations be subject to referenda.  So I don't follow the 
comments above.

>> 
>> 
>:Sorry, but it strikes me that it is the only "feasible" approach.  What is
>:not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and 
>:licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent
>:tasks.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "feasible" in this case.  Do you mean that
>[] are impossible in priciple,  or merely that it would be undesirable in
>fact?

I mean that an ideology that treats all government regulation as equally
undesirable and seeks to abolish all regulations is unlikely to draw
support among more than a miniscule portion of the electorate.

Furthermore, I am suggesting that such a plan is not feasible in an
industrial society because the weight of litigation and/or misery it
would produce would effectively crush productive effort.
>
>
>:Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as 
>:generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense.
>:(It is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to
>:be to a principle of non-coercion, the only areas of public spending
>:that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns....hmmm...)
>
>You say this as if it were surprising,  yet in fact a necessary consequence
>of libertarian philosophy.  All non-coersive functions should be dealt 
>with privately,  therefore it follows that the only functions remaining to
>the state are the coersive ones.

No, I'm not surprised.  I just think it's interesting that on one hand
libertarians assume a limited government can be decreed, yet on the other
posit an entire government made up of people who carry guns.  (I realize
that many libertarians assume that such a government will be 
counterbalanced by a fully armed citizenry, but it is worth noting that
widespread civilian ownership of guns does not necessarily prevent the
establishment of totalitarian government, e.g. Iraq.)
>
>> 
>:Perhaps you have.  May I suggest that you consider that revolutionaries
>:frequently generate support by acting as protectors of "geezers," 
>:mothers and children.  Governments that ignore such people on the grounds
>:that "we don't have much to fear" from them do so at their own peril.
>
>Much more likely it's drunken teenagers.  The groups in questionare more 
>likely to be worse off during and after a revolution than before.  
>In the unlikely
>event that you missed my earlier sarcasm,  let me say this directly:
>The idea that such programs as Social Security or AFDC should be considered
>"defense" (an idea which has been advanced in ths and other newsgroups) is
>so absurd a lie as to be unworthy of consideration.  Do you seriously
>dispute this?

Yup, sure do.  But since I also support the constitutional requirement
that the government provide for the general welfare (Article I section 8),
I'm willing to justify such programs on that basis.
>
>
>	I don't want to seem patronizing,  but you still seem to be laboring
>under the delusion that under a socialized economic system it is reasonably
>intelligent and honest persons (like yourself) who make the decisions.
>I feel any third party added to a transaction is every bit as likely to be
>ignorant or corrupt as the buyer or seller.  I don't expect you to agree
>with me,  but you explain why you feel I'm wrong?

Well, in the first place, I don't support a "socialized economic system."
I think within limits that capitalism is a fine idea.  But it is not
the case that "any third party...is...as likely to be ignorant or corrupt
as the buyer or seller."  There are multitudes of examples where such a
statement is demonstrably false.  Regulation of stock market transactions
that provide a reasonable basis for buyers to avoid fraud is only one
example.

jsh

>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178454
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Bush's WI (was Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative


In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) says:

>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes...
>I guess your strength isn't in math. Clinton hasn't been president for
>6 months. In other words, it's BUSH'S Wiretapping Initiative.
>> 

     You're right, I bailed out in Diff Eq.  Nevertheless, I would 
     suggest to YOU that there is a difference between a "proposed BILL,
     stalled in Congress" and a "executive order, crammed down OUR 
     THROATS".   Do you disagree?


>>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
>>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
>>	you are still able.
>> 
>Have you?

        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in.

        My savings have already been converted.

 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178455
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence


In article <C5ovG2.J24@magpie.linknet.com>, 
neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal) said:

> My views are out of experiences when I was a police officer in a large
> metropolitan area, and of a citizen. Unless people account for their
> behavior, and for the behavior of their immediate community, nothing
> will improve.

Wait a minute.  I agree with you that people have to take responsibility
for their own behavior (I assume that's what you meant by the word
"account"), but also for "the behavior of their immediate community"?

First of all, how "immediate" are you talking about, and secondly, I
have a lot of trouble with any theory of social behavior or justice
which charges anyone with the duty of taking responsibility for or
accounting for the actions of a different person...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178456
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
     rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:

>Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
>because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
>with social pressures, probably would at least try.

   Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months*
ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show,
up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must
be an even *larger* percentage of people who have had homosexual erotic
fantasies.  But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we
say about these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated
gay potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or,
more accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social
sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.

   Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.

   These people are the ones who are so hung up on "choice."
Obviously, since *they chose*, everyone must have, and homosexuals are
just flaunting their "perversion" by choosing not to go along with what
society has dictated.

   Of course, I'm that most awful of perverts.  I chose, I gleefully
admit that I was heterosexual until I met the right man and *chose* to
indulge in my homoerotic potential.  Take that!

      Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

   "The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure
reasoning, and inhibit clarity.  With a little pratice, writing can be
an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"  - Bill Watterson's Calvin.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178457
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE


In article <1qpvj2$dfp@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>, 
william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu said in response to Dave Borden:

> You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice
> somthing for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ?
> To bad.  What is immoral is: people like you and the current president
> who don't have any idea why this country still exists after 200+
> years.

William: If the reason that this country still stands after 200+ years
is that it uses military conscription to force young men to fight for
causes that they don't believe in strongly enough to volunteer for
military service in support of, then perhaps the fact that the country
is still standing is not good news...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178458
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative


In a previous article, helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) says:

>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>
>>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
>                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>>
>>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	bill.
>
>What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be


     What kind of brainless clod doesn't understand the difference 
     between a "PROPOSED BILL, BLOCKED IN CONGRESS" and an "EXECUTIVE
     ORDER, ISSUED BY CLINTON, AND CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS".

     
  Here, let me give a remedial course in thinking:

     In order to create the appearance of low interest rates, Uncle Sam
     has shifted his debt from long-term to short-term securities.

     In effect, Uncle Sam has transformed the Federal Goverment into
     one giant S&L, waiting to blow.

     Short-term rates rise --->  Interest payments on Deficit rise --->
     Uncle Sammy has to borrow more ---->  Causing Short-term rates to rise.

     Uncle Sammy gets caught in a positive feedback loop.  His options:

       i) Raise taxes a truly unimaginable amount
       ii)  Make truly unimaginable spending cuts

    Results of i):  large numbers of pissed-off citizens
    Results of ii): large numbers of pissed-off citizens


    Uncle Sammy has thoughtfully taken the initiative to pre-empt the use
    of communication newtworks to foster a nation-wide, grassroots
    uprising.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178459
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>>
>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>
>       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many
>of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective      
>is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about
>the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that
>Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this
>ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a 
>descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have
>used it in the past.

No one is questioning whether Mr. King is black.  The question arises
whether King's race should make police officers "afraid as hell."  Your
statement seems to imply that cops should have a different standard for
large black guys than for just large guys in general.  

That two posts later you don't understand why anyone pointed out your use
of the adjective is almost as informative as your original use.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178460
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: History, Its Dangerous

In article AJv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, mrynders@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Maurice Rynders) writes:
>In article <1993Apr12.143224.23273@alleg.edu> meyerj (Jon Meyer) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr5.073813.5246@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter  
>>D. Hampe) writes:
>>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>> 
>>> >pps: Why is there Still NO CALL to end Clinton's Illegal
>>> >war in Somalia????? 
>>> 
>>> Hold on there tex - it's not his war.  Everybody knows that
>>> its Part of the ReaganBushLegacy.
>                   ^^^^^^?
>>
>>Yeah, sure.  They created the starvation there.  They put the warlords  
>>there.  Yep.  Sure.  Been brainwashed by the media, haven't you?
>
>He probably is. By the way: what has Reagan to do with this any way? I
>bet most people had never even heard of Somalia, during the Reagan
>administration!

Ok boys and girls,

"What was the 'Ogadan War'????"

The Money Raised in Band-Aid covered How Much of
the Cost of Which Soviet Client State to replace what
catagory of weapon system lost in the aforementioned war?

Why was the Joke: "We arm the World." Really Not that funny?

Gonzo Station is the designation for WHICH USN Op Area?
and the primary threat targets in the Area Were:.....

ciao
drieux



---
"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178464
From: al976@yfn.ysu.edu (Franklin Kadell Jordan)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?


     I am so tired about all this debate on how many gays there
are!  Such arguments are basically worthless, imho.  Would it 
really matter if it were millions of people who are regularly
denied access to housing, employment, and personal security or
even only one?  
    As for death threats, I happen to know from personal
experience that gay people are far more likely to receive
them based on political veiws or even personal philosophies
related to the issue of sexual orientation than are heterosex
uals. Not a week goes by that I personally or one of my friends
is not physically or verbally harrassed for even appearing to
be gay.  
     Everyone is garaunteed certain unalienable rights under
our current form of government in theory, yet every day 
gay people are victimized by their local governments, by
the police force, and by (for the most part) an uninformed
and ignorant public. Is this democracy? I don't think so.
   A society's sense of justice is judged on the basis of
the treatment of the people who make up that society.
All of those people. And yes, that includes gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals whose "crimes" have no victims, and who
are as varied and diverse as the society of wich they are
a part.
-- 
Frank Jordan                                                [D[D[D[C[C[C
              Gay Arab Bassoonists UNITE!!!


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178465
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5nwnn.49t@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>In article <1993Apr18.001338.21323@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>>No social problem, however great, is worth destroying the freedom in America
.
>>>The destruction of freedom is never an answer to any social problem.
>>
>>You can't even walk down the street at night alone in America because of drug
s.
>>Freedom my ass.
>>
>>Ryan
>
>Why exactely can't you walk down the street safely?  It it because somebody
>will jump out from behind a shadow, and, SELL YOU DRUGS?  Hardly.

Or mug me.
>  On the
>other hand, it's certainly possible that you are walking down the steet of
>a bustling lawless part of your metropolitan area.  Lawless and bustling: read
>underground economy.

Why must you pursue this fantasy that all crime is derived from "underground 
economies".

>  There, it may not be a very safe place to be at all.
>Unless of course you're there to buy some drugs...
>
>I explained how the WOD is a major cause of large-scale crime in America.  The
>head of the Guardian Angles agrees with me: legalize drugs and watch violent
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Haaahaaaahaaaa

>crimes significantly decrease.
>
>As for me, well, I think I'll go take a walk tonight--alone.  I feel safe.  I
>just hope the FDA/FBI/DEA/BATF isn't back at my apartment confiscating all my
>property because they found my phone number written on a phone booth that was
>also used by a drug dealer. 

Yeah buddy, this happens all the time.  Tell me, HAS IT EVERY REALLY HAPPENED 
TO YOU?   That's what I thought.

> In that sense, I don't feel safe.  I'm an honest,
>law-abiding citizen (drug laws included, FTM), why is it that I fear the
>government more than I fear criminals?
>

Your foolish.

>Freedom MY ass.  This is NOT what the founding fathers (some of whom would be
>thrown in prison under today's drug laws) had in mind.  All of these problems
>you come up with pale in comparison to the fact that the very fiber of our
>country--the US Constitution--is being destroyed.  What good would it do
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Must I ask again, what part?

>even IF the WOD actually reduced crime: we just created a new class of
>criminals, headed up the gang's current leader: Bill Clinton.  The DEA, etc.
>are private armies that answer directly to the president.  They possess
>advanced weapons and survailance technology.  Does this sound familiar to
>anybody?
>
>Do you support "Mein Furher Clinton"?  Hmmmmmm?  You seem to have come out
>against the current adminstration: why are you eager to endow it with
>even MORE power?  (Power of the most dangerous kind, too).
>

All I ask is that drugs stay illegal.  I don't think it's too much to ask.


Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178466
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?

In article <1qrohrINNipe@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Wil
liam December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr18.003848.21571@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) said:
>
>>>> However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
>>>> be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  [Ryan C Scharfy]
>>>
>>> Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican
>>> idea that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and
>>> simply decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please
>>> explain why the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like
>>> cigarettes" is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for
>>> nicotine...  [wdstarr]
>>
>> Yeah, Cancer is pretty cool, isn't it.
>
>Ryan, please explain how the "coolness" or lack thereof of cancer is
>relevant to a discussion of the legalization of currently illegal
>recreational drugs.  For that matter, please explain how it's even
>relevant to a discussion of currently _legal_ recreational drugs such as
>tobacco. [wdstarr]

You said it worked so well with tobacco.  I was being fascisious(I can't spell 
worth a damn)

Look, this is getting ridiculous, first, I think tobacco should be legal.  
Anybody who can't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana has got to 
be high.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178467
From: system@garlic.sbs.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
> 
>>Funny, but I've seen a LOT more than 10 or 15 seconds of that video, and
>>I still think the police involved were guilty. I don't think there's any
>>excuse they could POSSIBLY come up with that would make what they did
>>OK. I don't care if Rodney King was satan himself, there's just no
>>excuse. Now, whether they did it because he was black or they did it
>>because they wanted to beat up on somebody they were arresting is
>>another entirely separate question that I have insufficient information
>>to make any kind of conclusion about.
> 
> 
>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives o
> n
> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watch
> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to
> finish.
> 
> 

I have to agree with you... the police may have carried it a bit too far
but Rodney King was no angel either. And I don't think ANY guilty
verdicts should have been returned. I'm sure you know why they handed
down guilty verdicts on two of the officers. It's quite simple really,
it was a compromise to avoid rioting in the places where minorities
think it's right to riot. I hate to say this, but I would have liked to
see them riot with everyone prepared. It would be open season if your
skin was even slightly brown.

Hey, my motto is, you don't fuck with me or my stuff and you don't get
killed. It's just that simple.

Tony

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Anthony S. Pelliccio, kd1nr/ae    // Yes, you read it right, the  //
-- system @ garlic.sbs.com          // man who went from No-Code    //
-----------------------------------// (Thhhppptt!) to Extra in     //
-- Flame Retardent Sysadmin       // exactly one year!            //
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-- This is a calm .sig! --
--------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178468
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

> > However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
> > be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never
> > heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal
> > meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine"
> > cigarettes, pot and heroin.
> 
> Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea
> that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply
> decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why
> the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes"
> is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...

I'm all in favor of drug legalization, but I do see some problems with
it. My hope is that people disposed to doing so would simply overdose
quickly, and be done with it, before making a mess of thisgs.

--
Let me get this straight: Medical treatment costs too much and is
inefficient, so we're going to let government make it better?


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178470
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: race and violence

I replied to your message, however, it is listed as a new topic with
the title: "rnitedace and violence". Possibly line noise or error
caused to post as a new topic. I see it here as #100.

Regards,

Neal


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178474
From: gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr19.140457.27718@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>In article <18APR199319273822@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>
:>Steve,  you're the one who suggested that a failed government should be an 
:>ideal proving ground,  I never felt that way in the first place.  Quite the 
:>contrary,  I think a better proving ground would be someplace that already
:>had a governemnt that would prevent outright acts of agression,  yet had a
:>strong spirit of individualism and initiative.  Someplace like... Texas :-)
:>
:>Mr. Grinch  
: 
:
: 
:And while Texas taxpayers might willingly eliminate tax-support for UT
:and TAMU, I'm not sure they'd support gutting the football programs.
:
Football can pay for itself.


:Then there's the impact on Ross Perot's fortune of eliminating the various
>state supported programs where he's made his money...

Why?  He's already made it.  Sure nodoby else will be able to bilk
the public in the same specific ways,  but why should he (or I) care?


> 
:All in all, Texas doesn't seem to be a very likely place for
:libertarianism to take hold. :-)
> 
More likely than most places.  When I was there the most "important" 
state issue was whether to have a state income tax or instead legalize
a popular vice for fund raising,  and vice won a decisive victory!

>jsh

Mr. Grinch

p.s.  Now that he's safely dead,  I expect David Koresh to become the
hero of popular folk ballads,  and the ATF to be generally equated with
Santa Anna  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178475
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment 

In article <1qqikr$sd1@morrow.stanford.edu>, XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu ( writes...
>In article <1993Apr17.033050.24901@pony.Ingres.COM>,
>garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr17.023116.23031@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian  writes...
>>>I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.  It sounds good, but in
>>>practice it too often becomes tyranny, because there are too often
>>>conflicting ideas of what constitutes "improving the human condition".
>>>Far better to let people and their organizations pursue whatever goals
>>>they think best, and let "the human condition" be improved by those who
>>>are willing to do so without coercion.
>>
>>There will always be conflicting ideas on what constitutes "improving the
>>human condition", that's humanity. You seem to believe that libertarianism
>>will improve the human condition by lifting all constraints, and that
>>people will have a better chance of improving themselves in that environment.
> 
>Let me try to put it another way.  Libertarians believe that an
>unconstrained environment provides the best chance of solving any
>problem because it maximizes creativity.  However, there is never
>any guarantee that a really good solution will ever be found to any
>particular problem.  "Utopia is not an option."

Utopia is a myth (although we can do a lot better than what we have today).
But I think that you must pitch Libertarianism as a progressive agenda
(ie You can do better under our style of system).

>>        I admire a lot of what the Libertarians stand for, but you
>>guys are some of the worst salesmen I have ever seen. And when it comes to
>>politics, you need salesmen whether you want them or not.
> 
>What we need are more people who agree with us, know something
>about marketin, and are willing to both do that marketing and teach
>others how to.  Are you in?

I'm flattered by your invitation, but I'm afraid you have the wrong person.
Although I completely agree with your civil liberties agenda, I'm not 
in support of your economic agenda. What I DO like about the Libertarian
party is that you guys are so good at shaking up the tired ideas of the
past. I encourage you guys to continue your crusade, but I'm afraid I
can't ride along. 
> 
>>>Ian Sutherland
>>>ian@eecs.nwu.edu
> 
>>"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
>> come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
> 
>/June

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
 come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
"The probability of someone watching you is proportional
to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178476
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.COM) wrote:
:    [...]     When you and the rest of the homosexual community
: pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
: hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
: my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
: to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for
the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes
(such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing
to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?

-garison


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178483
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
> 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
> 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.

   Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more
Pulitzers the same way they did last year.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178484
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:

>
>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>

A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
me how, I just have seen the results.

Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
the head.



>--
>_______
>Steve Thomas
>steveth@rossinc.com


Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178485
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: National Sales Tax, The Movie



      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
      own CNN news LOGO!

      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.

      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this 
      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching 
      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by 
      now.
      
      YEAH!  Free HEALTH CARE!   Oh, yeeaaaahhhh!

      heh heh

      " Bill makes me feel like DANCING! "

      MORE AMAZING PREDICTIONS FROM THE INCREDIBLE BROMEISTER!
      --------------------------------------------------------

      We take you back to Feburary 20th, when the INCREDIBLE 
      BROMEISTER PREDICTED:

	  " $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES "

          " A NATIONAL SALES TAX "

      Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions!

      i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996.
	   Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it.
          
	   Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.

      ii)  Unemployment will rise!

      iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase!
	    We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997!
	    Everyone will DANCE AND SING!

      Yup.  I'm gonna <glancing at watch> bail out of here
      at 1 PM, amble on down to the lake.  Hang out.  Sit
      in the sun and take it EASY!   :)   Yeah!  

      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".

      To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
      the middle class to pay for my programs "

      To paraphrase Bill Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
      the middle class to pay for my programs "


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178486
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk) writes:
> 	A few weeks ago I found out about some of the politics that
> is going on with the Texas bullet train, and was appalled at some
> of the apparent underhanded tactics to push this thing through
> without any public say whatsoever.  So, I wrote up a short 
> editorial thing and posted it, hoping to get some discussion.
> 
> I suppose editorials don't do it here.  So now I am asking for 
> the general opinion of the net about the proposed high speed 
> train.
> 
> What do you think?  I personally think it is a stupid idea, and
> that there are a few people somewhere who are going to get very
> rich from this deal.
> 

My opinion is this:  In a society whose economy is primarily based on 
capitalism, the role of government should be to provide those goods and 
services that need providing for the general public's good.  BUT government 
should supply those necessary goods and services only when it is impossible 
for a private enterprise (or individual) to make money from providing them.
I agree with some of the other posts that this train probably can not make 
money and will rely heavily on State tax dollars.  

The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train?

I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With
the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think
people in Dallas or Houston need it either.

David McGaughey
Texas Tech University

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178487
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5JH23.Eu8@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

> Look at the whole picture, not just
> randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to
> use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
> can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.

Either the government has force available to it, or it doesn't.  The
Libertarian position is that the government can use force only when someone
else uses force first -- even when that first force is not directed
against the government, but one of its citizens.  That all being true, 
what safeguards do we have against the government CLAIMING that some
initiation of force on its part is really a response?  (Like the burning
of the Maine, the Tonkin Gulf incident, or the assault on Waco?)

I ask this not to argue, but to understand.

(Followups to alt.politics.libertarian only.)
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178490
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Return of the Know Nothing Party

In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>
>>Well Actually its a case of Resolving whether one
>>Supports Biblical Literalism, and the Enerrancy of the Bible,
>>or Whether on wished to Jump On the SeXularHumanist, 
>>Detain all the True Christians in Death Camps approach
>>of the Northern Liberal Abolitionists and their EFFORTS
>>to Destroy the Bible, Corrupt the Moral Fibre of American
>>and Lead the God Fearing into the Bondage of Liberal Degeneracy.
>>
>>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible,
>>christianity and american history.....
>
>Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage,
>drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up??

So which are you advocating?

That You know Nothing About American History, 
Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible?

Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party?

ciao
drieux

ps: what WAS the "Free Negro Sailor Act" about,
and what was the Supreme Court's Ruling On it... and
More Importantly, how does this Complicate the Mythology
that all blacks were slaves????


---
"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178491
From: brow2812@mach1.wlu.ca (craig brown 9210 u)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved  Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over}

In article <C5HIu1.8A9@spss.com> gregotts@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
>In article <C5HCrw.Dn3@junior.BinTec.DE> muftix@junior.BinTec.DE (Juergen Ernst Guenther) writes:
>>
>>I never understood why Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians etc. accusing
>>US. people for imperialism though think of them as "The Americans".
>>
>>Not few Europeans think of you all as Americans (and of the US. as
>>a bunch of blasphemeous trash that GOD has to extinguish sooner or later ...;) 
>>
>> .m.
>
>It would not be surprising that a continent that produced fascism, communism, 
>and two world wars might have quite a few people who tend to think of other
>people as trash that should be extinguished sooner or later.  I seem to 
>remember a gut called  Hitler who felt the same way. One wonders what would be
>the fate of Europe if God had extinguished this nation of blasphemeous trash
>before 1917. (Not that I believe in gods.)  How many millions of people through-
>out the world would have to die because no force could stop the insane, bloody
>European imperialism? Thankfully the "imperialistic" US helped put an end to 
>these games so that the rest of the world can sleep alittle more safely. Thus, I 
>could care less what "not few Europeans" think so long as they can't do anything 
>about it.
>
>  - Greg Otts
>
>These opinions are entirely my own.
>

But remember that had God extinguished the blasphemous trash of Europe (and
Imperialism with it), the United States would not exist today to put an end
to those "games"....begs the question, which came first, the chicken or the
egg???

C.Brown
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178492
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5JH23.Eu8@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.164605.8439@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>|> ...you don't specify the means through which the government
>|> is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a 
>|> left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as
>|> you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto
>|> dealers.  
>|> 
>|> But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms,
>|> to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws,
>|> and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a 
>|> particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special
>|> interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly
>|> designed to accomplish the opposite.
>
>...If government is not allowed to
>use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
>can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.

Fine.  Libertarians and anarchists are not alone in being uncomfortable
with the use of state sponsored coercion.  The notion that coercion can
be virtually eliminated in a society (or more properly that once it is
eliminated on the part of the state it is no longer worth serious 
consideration) is a view that is peculiar to libertarians and anarchists.  

For example, does "non-initiated force" (coercion) include tax collection?
Does it include the minimal level of regulation of commerce envisioned
by Adam Smith?  Since coercion can be exercised by actors other than the
state, how is the state to deal with it?  Exclusively through after the
fact arbitration/legal compulsion?  

>
>The means to reaching such a restricted government is another topic
>which I'll address briefly.  It certainly won't happen until
>libertarianism is the dominate philosophy.  What means do we have to
>make libertarianism the dominate philosophy?  Statists run the education
>monopoly, so we have to be creative.  The Advocates for Self-Government
>reports 85% of their Seminar 1 participants "embrace" libertarianism.
>That's the best means I've seen yet.  We should lobby for compulsory
>Seminar 1 attendance. :) [in jest!]

Well, I must admit that the picture of libertarians as Amway participants
is somewhat more reassuring than the idea of them trying to govern a 
complex, conflictual, industrial society.  I'd venture to point out, 
however, that if libertarians couldn't convince at least 85% of a group 
of "seminar participants" to "embrace" their philosophy, their 
propaganda skills need to be honed.  

Frankly, however, it is no great trick to create a government for a 
society in which (almost) everyone is assumed to agree about what is a proper
government policy.  Once that is assumed, all sorts of annoying formalities
can be dispensed with, elections, police, etc.  And as Mr. Marx said,
the state will just wither away.  

On the way there, however, would you like to explain how eliminating 
virtually all policies that restrain private coercion in the 
current society will help us to live happier lives? Or is it like
socialism; just some short-term pain that we'll have to bear until 
everyone has had the benefit of "re-education" through regular 
"seminar" training?

jsh

>
>Roger Collins
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178493
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...


In article <1993Apr12.031404.25988@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

|>In article <C5Bvqy.FLD@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>
|>>|>But punishing the person for posting such a thing smacks of
|>>|>authoritarianism.
|>>
|>>It's a deliberate act of fraud intended to cause harm.
|>
|>You seem to be unclear about the legal meaning of "fraud." Mere
|>misrepresentation is not fraud.

Your comment here is meant as a put down. It fails for several reasons :

1) You have edited out the context of the action under discussion. 
2) I never brought the legal definition up. I use the English language
and not the legal dialect. The legal definition of fraud changes from
one country to another in any case. The context of the discussion is morality
of censorship.



|>>|>How does a posting from your site do any such thing? Especially if your
|>>|>site is a university? Do you know any person who believes that a 
|>>|>university endorses every comment made from a university site?
|>>
|>>That is why I refered specifically to a company.
|>
|>Good. Now, do you know any person who believes that a company endorses
|>every comment made from a university site?

You are extrapolating from the statement I made concerning a circumstance
in which such an act of censorship would be permissable to the Teel case.
If you had bothered to read the post instead of trying to prove how stupid you
thought me you would have done rather better. The mode of argument I was using
was a form of rhetoric. Argument by example, I describe a wide set of
circumstances in which an action is permisable and demonstrate that they
do not apply, thus the action is not permisable.

Obviously a company posting from a University adress would be squashed,  it
would be contrary to the internet comercial use.

|>>|>Usenet does not distribute letterhead.
|>>
|>>Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
|>
|>I suggest strongly that if you mean for this to be taken as letterhead you
|>get a better stationery designer. 

Now you are clutching at straws. In the context of the discussion it was
the fact of association between the company and the post that was important.
The typeface etc is inconsequential.


|>>There are people on the net who are openly supporting the murder of members
|>>of my family.
|>
|>Sigh.

If you are implying that I am lying I suggest you read Mark Holohan and Ulick
Staffords posts into soc.culture.british. If you are suggesting that 
advocating murder is a trivial matter I would prefer that you state it
directly. 

Certainly I oppose the right of Dr Sidiqui and the Ayatolah Khomenhi to
call for the murder of Salman Rushdie. Incitement to murder is not part
of what I consider legitimate freedom of speech.


|>>|>As for your notion that employees can argue their different political
|>>|>views "at their own expense," could you explain precisely what "expense"
|>>|>you're talking about?
|>>
|>>Internet is not free. The connection charges are quite expensive for comercial
|>>concerns.
|>
|>Could you give me a cost breakdown for the expense to your company
|>attributable to an employee's posting a political view in disagreement
|>with yours? Numbers, please.

That is irrelevant, the case is not the incremental cost but the facility
cost. If I decide that a company I am associated with should subscribe
to USEnet that usenet connection is the property of the company. It is
quite legitimate for a company to have a political or other agenda and
regulate the use of its property in accordance with its policy. For example
if a Microsoft employee were to post "Windows NT is crap don't buy it"
from a Microsoft machine I would consider it reasonable for Microsoft to
sack that employee. In the same way if a company decides that it has 
political objectives it might wish to regulate postings in a political
manner. This is no worse than Rupert Murdoch using his papers as a political
platform for his views.


|>>I was refering to the arrogance of your position, quoting the words written
|>>by slave owners at me in the cause of freedom.
|>
|>Which words written by slave owners did I quote? I don't recall quoting
|>anyone.

ah yes you did not quote them, merely refered to them.


|>>Your constitution is not
|>>considered sacrosanct in other parts of the globe. 
|>
|>Nor have I assumed it is. I don't consider the First Amendment to have
|>talismanic value.
|>
|>>You might just as well have attempted to argue from the King James bible
|>>to a Muslim. I was pointing out that your reasoning is parochial when with
|>>little effort you could have made a substantive point. 
|>
|>I made the effort; apparently you made a certain effort to misunderstand
|>me.

Your article consisted of a reference to the first ammendment, your signature
and pretty well damn all else. 


|>>|>For an example of a UK publication that understands this, try INDEX ON
|>>|>CENSORSHIP.
|>>
|>>I used to subscribe, I would still if I was not moving.
|>
|>INDEX regularly publishes opinions by non-Americans who believe the First
|>Amendment represents appropriate free-speech principles for all open
|>societies. See, e.g., the opinions of the dissenting law lords in the
|>SPYCATCHER case.

Are you refering to the initial hearings on an injunction or the judgments
on the substantive case?

The initial hearings that the government won were judged on the not unresonable
judgment that assertion by the government that the national interest might be
harmed would be grounds for prior restraint. The second set of hearings on the
substance judged that the government had no case and that the official secrets
act could not be used to suppress information in thwe public domain already.
The part that they won was over the copyright issue which is rather separate.

Here again the issue of censorship is rather different in the case that
information is divulged on the understanding that it will not be communicated
to third parties. The first ammendment certainly does not apply in this
case as the numerous prosecutions of spies in the US proves. 

The crux of the Spycatcher affair was extrateritoriality of British law.
The censorship aspect of it arose as a result of the government's
ludicrous attempts to prevent summary of the case in the book. 


|>>|>You haven't any reason to believe that anything I've said has been reached
|>>|>unquestioningly.
|>>
|>>Only most of what you write. 
|>
|>For someone who purports to be opposed to argument from assertion, you
|>certainly get by on assertions a lot.

Funny I saw that as a rejection of an assertion that you had made. Of course in
rejecting an assertion I have to make a contrary assertion, since this assertion
is unprovable I left it at that. 

So far I have not seen you demonstrate a command of the contrary opinion to your
own. You are attacking my anti-censorship view because I dare to accept the
validity of some pro-censorship arguments while rejecting their conclusions. 
Plus I am not an absolutist. I have this funny idea that the solution to this
problem was not decided in 1789 by a group of white male gentry in secret
session and sumarized in a single line. Furthermore I don't think that the
issues are half as simple as you imply.

|>>You may think that I am being anti-American in disallowing recourse to the
|>>first ammendment. It's just that this argument has no currency in the parts
|>>of the world where there is state censorship such as Iran, Kewait and Israel.
|>
|>I don't pretend to have geared my discourse for all conceivable audiences.

I don't think that you have geered your discourse to any audience save that
of proving that you are the only person wearing a white hat.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178494
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati


In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says:

>In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Broward Horne) says:
>>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it?
>
>The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not
>going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.


      HAHAHAHAHAH.  Oh, CHRIST!  Oh, HAHAHAHAH.

      whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK
      about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just
      the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.

      Holy christ! :)

        Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?

    Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! "
    Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "

   ( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )

    Broward:  " Oh, here comes a National Sales Tax "
    Clinton Supporter:  " Oh, no, Bill never said that "


    Want some more "free predictions" ?

     :)


>>     It always makes me smile, to see George Bush used to defend
>>     Bill Clinton.  Can you imagine anything sadder than to be left
>>     with GEorge Bush as a final argument?
>
>True. The Republicans did look pretty pathetic in November of '92. >:-)

       Yup.  They surely did.
       Almost as pathetic as Clinton suppoters are looking in
      April of 93. 

     Well, chumbo, I see my my watch here that my "appointment"
     at the lake is about 2 hours past due! :)

     You'll let me know who the "full-time" working thing works
     out, won't you?   I want to enjoy EVERY minute of my free
     time and FREE health care ( the ONLY reason I would have 
     gone back to working! :)  THANKS, BILL! :) )





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178495
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program


In a previous article, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) says:

>All together now... c'mon, you know the words... "Meet the new boss! Same as 
>the old boss!"  And the chorus: "We won't get fooled again!"
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Hmmm.  Can I, eh,  get a little side bet on this one?




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178496
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>his so called stimulus package.
>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>immunizations for poor kids.
>
>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.

    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
    delivered to their doorsteps.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178497
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice (GM trial)

In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?
>
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.

On the other hand, it would be kind of scary if there were *never* a final
verdict, because a party to litigation could keep saying "Oops!  I forgot
to bring up this evidence," and demand a new trial.  You get one bite at
the apple.

>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

It's up to General Motors to find those witnesses in the first litigation.
You'd be up in arms if a plaintiff suing General Motors pulled the same
stunt and made them relitigate an issue that they already lost.  It's not
as if General Motors couldn't file enough discovery motions to delay the
trial until they found all the witnesses they wanted.

>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  

Define "obvious bias."

>Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

Did GM move for a new trial on those grounds?  No?  Perhaps they had a 
reason?  
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178498
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.

       I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into
problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even
when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe
that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side-
effects, and bad reactions scares them.)  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178499
From: sents@dixie.com (Jeff Sents)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

paolucci@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:

>In article <C5Gpto.Kq0@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
>[biased and decidedly not-as-funny-as-dave stuff deleted...]

>I sure hope that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is enjoying these "lists"...
[stuff deleted]
>I'm no Clinton fan, but I'm no Ipser fan...

Then why not simply stop reading them. This isn't intended as a flame,
but your post reminds me of the old joke: 
 Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I do this."
 Doctor: "Then stop doing that."

Regards,
Jeff



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178500
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?


In article <C5GK0w.J8H@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

|>Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?
|>
|>
|>
|>Socialism may have collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Disunion
|>but it lingers on in Western Europe and the United States. It remains
|>the primary ideology in the hearts and minds of the liberal academia
|>and media. But all the political correctness they can muster may not be
|>sufficient to hold back the economic forces that threaten to spread
|>socialism's collapse from the second world to the first. Indeed, it is
|>becoming more apparent every day that socialism may not even survive
|>the turn of the century.

Ed of course has never demonstrated remarkable knowlege of socialism, 
or any other political system come to that.

|>While the Swedes have already discarded their "third way" and the
|>French have made history by turning out the Socialist Party in a 
|>record-setting defeat, it is Italy that appears most precariously
|>on the edge of its political existence.

That leaves Germany, Japan and the UK as examples of a country where the
right wing government is on the verge of collapse. Oh and of course the USA
which just elected a socialist government :-)

|>Italy, today, is a basket-case even by European standards. It has
|>introduced 17 new taxes in 5 months and public-sector revenue is at or
|>near the 50% of GDP mark. 

Etc, unfortunately you can't pin this on the left or the right, both are
to blame. Both sides are equally deep into the corruption scandal. The only 
untained party is the northern league which is a bunch of nationalist
separatists and the communist party which has collapsed.


|>In spite of this political gluteny, it has
|>an annual deficit exceeding the sum of all other EC countries and a
|>public debt 2.5 times that of Latin America. Italy is understandably
|>having serious trouble selling its treasury bonds in the markets. And
|>while Italy is an extreme case, it is anything but unique; all
|>European governments appear headed in the same direction in spite of
|>their nominally non-socialist governments.
|>
|>Unfortunately, Europeans being, well, Europeans, it is very unlikely
|>that they will discover American-style liberty. Instead, they will
|>likely lurch from socialism to fascism as quickly as they had moved
|>from fascism to socialism never pausing along the way to reasseses the
|>role of government, itself. I hope I am wrong.

Ed should take a look at the budget deficit Regan and Bush created together
before he starts to make claims about europe collapsing based on the budget
deficits here. None of them are serious on the USA scale.

And here in Europe we have zero interest in Ed-Ipser type freed thank you.
We do not want our countries to be run by a narrow elite of rich lawyers
for the benefit of the super wealthy. We are quite happy with social 
democracy and despite the fuss made in Time and Newsweek there is remarkably
little being done to reverse the social welfare reforms brought in by
socialism.

The problem with socialism is that it started with the aims of free education
and health care and provision of the welfare state. This has been achieved
across the whole of Europe, only the USA is struggling to catch up. The
problem for socialism is what to do now it has succeeded.


|>Nobody ever claimed that the collapse of socialism would be pretty.
|>The decline of the nation-state will probably lead first to anarchy
|>since politicians always cut essential services before pork. Los
|>Angeles has rampant crime and frantically waits for the next wave of
|>riots but it has a spanking new subway that nobody wants to use and
|>which, like every other public transit system in the world, will never
|>be economically viable. (If you were trying to extort tax payers,
|>which would you cut first, mass transit or police protection?)

Ed starts to discus LA, presumably he thinks that it is in Europe. On
the other hand he most probably hasn't heard of a European city.

|>Thus does the world hurtle toward chaos even as the 21st century
|>approaches.

Rather the opposite. What is happening in Italy is that the communist party
has collapsed. This has meant that the grand coalition between right and
left wing parties to keep out the communists has also collapsed. The 
magistrates have seized this opportunity to crack down hard on fraud and 
corruption and have arrested half the politicians. The fact that the socialists
are in charge this week is incidental, the right is into the corruption just
as baddly.

What looks likely to happen is the fringe parties are going to do much
better in the next election. Most of the parliamentary deputies are going
to get replaced and the parties are going to be forced to look to people
who are free of any hint of corruption. Look out for a parliament of
Pavarotti's and porn stars.


Phill Hallam-Baker


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178501
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: Return of the Know Nothing Party

In article <C5JLq3.2BL@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com                               writes...
>In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>>In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible,
>>>christianity and american history.....
>>
>>Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage,
>>drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up??
> 
>So which are you advocating?
>That You know Nothing About American History, 
>Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible?
> 
>Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party?
> 
Go easy on him drieux. It is the right of every American to
know nothing about anything. 

>ciao
>drieux

>"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
>All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
>		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178502
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3


In article <1993Apr13.234600.14061@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

|>Here is a press release from the United States Information Agency.
|>
|> Digest of Foreign Media Reaction from the United States Information
|>Agency April 12 (1 of 3)
|> To: National Desk
|> Contact: Anne Chermak of the United States Information Agency,
|>          202-619-6511
|>
|>   WASHINGTON, April 13  -- Following is part one
|>of a digest of foreign media reaction from April 1-12, compiled
|>by the United States Information Agency:
|>
|>                   TERRORISM AND WORLD INSECURITY
|>
|>   In recent editorials, Iran was universally recognized as
|>te source of the double threat of state-sponsored terrorism
|>and Islamic extremism.  But beyond this fear and condemnation,
|>journalists found little common ground that would compel both
|>North and South, and Arab and non-Arab nations to work together
|>to combat the global threat of terrorism.  For example, Egyptian
|>and Algerian papers were in the forefront in charging U.S. complicity
|>in the current instability in the Middle East.  Those commentators
|>asserted that the United States had promoted Islamic fundamentalism
|>during the Afghanistan War and had further added to regional
|>instability by alternately encouraging Iraq and Iran.

The cads! The fact that this is precisely what the US was up to of
course is not mentioned. It is a fact that Regan and Bush sold arms
to Iran, it is also a fact that they supported and armed Iraq.

Still this is state dept propaganda so none too surprizing.

|>   India's papers weighed the pros and cons of helping the West to
|>identify Pakistan's role in promoting terrorism, noting on the one
|>hand that doing so could "bring ruination to Islamabad's Kashmir
|>cause" but, on the other, could also bring India's security apparatus
|>uncomfortably close to the CIA and the Mossad.  Arab papers continued
|>to portray Iraq and Libya as being unfairly treated by the UN while
|>Israel remains unpunished for resolutions which it has violated.

In the case of Lybia there is the problem that the US only decided
that Gadffii ordered the bombing after it needed to make peace with
damascus during the gulf war. One day the US is certain that its Syria,
the next Lybia. For a strange reason the US will not provide evidence to
Lybian courts for extradition proceedings. Faced with similar demands the
USA would reject them as would any other country.


|>   Concerning Northern Ireland, President Clinton's message of
|>consolation to the victims of the Warrington bombing was seen in
|>British tabloids as signalling a tougher stance by the American
|>government against violence by the IRA.

The word is "terrorism".


The problem is that after the behaviour of George Bush the USA has an
image abroad as doing precisely what it likes and is in its own interests
then comming out with a Dysney scripted sugary justification repeating a
fitting combination of the words "freedom" "dignity" "democaracy" or
of "terrorism" "dictatorship" etc as appropriate.

The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people there are
rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who they
loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked attack. 
Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is meant to be
the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there is to be
movement it would be easier for the USA to move.

First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the
Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil
production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment 
Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would
use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.

The Iranian clerics would have an interest in seeking a raprochment 
simply because a permanent war footing is debilitating. They also need
western technology. 


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178505
From: mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...

>>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that
>>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d
>>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour.

>I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking
>and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill
>hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal
>gain like Nixon did. NOT!

Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.

Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies.

I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole,
rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers
of his office for personal gain.

You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these
events occurred.

>>Along with normalized relations with the PRC.

>"Normalizing relations" with Cambodia? You must be joking. We sponsored
>the OVERTHROW of the Cambodian government. After repeated failed attempts
>of course. 

Your sad level of historical and political knowlege is probably best
exemplified by the fact that you think PRC stands for Cambodia instead
of Red China.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178506
From: timr@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Who are The ``Rich''? (was Re: Professors Whining About Pay)



Candidate Clinton promised to tax the rich, and most folks thought that
was a pretty nifty idea.  Then President Clinton said he wanted families
who make more than $100,000 to bear 70% of the new tax burden, and many
were quick to complain that their six-figure income does not make them one
of the well-to-do.  It's particularly ironic (to me) that it's in those
traditionally liberal enclaves of the Bay Area and academia where the
wealthy are struggling so to fit themselves into the mantle of "just
regular working-class folk".

Nobody will ever admit to being rich; everybody's middle class.  So who
are The Rich?  Well, I'll throw out some stats from the 1990 Census and
let you be the judge...

Va negvpyr <mzimmersC5E1qK.Fn9@netcom.com>
mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) jevgrf:
} In article <1qcdvbINN5ti@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
} fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
} > [...]
} >that would be about $55 to 65 thousand US, and that is what tenured
} >professors can expect to make.  For a PhD with say 10 years experience,
} >$65,000 is a lot less than what he could be making in industry.  
} 
} Oh?  As a 12-year veteran of Silicon Valley, I've seen precious few
} employment ads that call for PhDs.  And $65K is hardly chump change;
} it's well above the median *household* income for the state.

Bay Area average household income is in the mid-$40,000 range.  National
average is $31,889.  The Bay Area has nearly twice the national average
of six-figure income households (9.1% vs 4.8%*).  The cost-of-living here
may be high, but I don't think it's twice the national average...

} >In Los Angeles, modest home prices can be $500,000.  

A 1,500-square-foot tract house in a Bay Area working-class neighborhood
goes for about $250,000.  I doubt that the Los Angeles market is all that
different.  It would appear that this definition of "modest" is perhaps a
bit immoderate...

} So what?  They're no cheaper for those who are gainfully employed.
} 
} >In California, $65,000 is not upper-middle-class.
} 
} It depends upon your definition; it's clearly above average.

It is more than what two-thirds of California households make.  Seems
to me that belonging to the upper one-third is not an unreasonable
definition of "upper-middle-class".  Note that if that professor's
spouse earns $35,000 they become one of Clinton's "rich" families.

Here's a breakdown of national, California, and Bay Area household incomes:

   <$30K  $30-50K   $50-100K  $100K+
------------------------------------
US  49%     24%        23%      4% * the Census Bureau did some weird
CA  41%     26%        26%      7%   rounding here...more like 5%
BA  34%     25%        31%      9%

And to add a little prespective:

A minimum wage earner working 40 hours/week makes $8,840/year.  The poverty
line for a family of four is $15,171.  If they make up to twice that, the
government considers them to be "working poor".  Say we decide to call this
the "lower-middle-class".  Then how 'bout:

$30-50K annual income is "middle-class".  $50-100K is "upper-middle-class".
$100K+ is "rich".  $1,000K+ is "filthy-rich".  and $10,000+ is "Bill Gates".

make sense? ;^)

-timr

--
There's nothing surer,
The rich get rich and the poor get poorer,
In the meantime, in between time,
Ain't we got fun.
                                                          --Raymond Egan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178507
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3

In article <C5Jv7A.7F7@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people
>there are rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who
>they loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked
>attack.  Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is
>meant to be the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there
>is to be movement it would be easier for the USA to move.
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

It is also widely stated (in non-mainstream sources) that the CIA had a
large part in the overthrow of the popular (and popularly-elected)
left-leaning Premier Mossadegh in 1953.  Is this widely recognized outside
the U.S.?  (I have never seen it mentioned at all in mainstream U.S.
media.)  How about within Iran?
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178508
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov (John Cobarruvias)
Subject: Re: Newsweek reports Clinton approval ratings...

In article <8597@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
writes:
>When I heard the latest approval rating reported for Clinton, I
>laughed so hard I forgot the exact numbers.  Maybe one of the 
>Clintonettes can refresh my memory...
>
>Has his rating dropped to 48 or 49 percent?  Ha HA HA HA HA!
>
>*snick* oh my either way, it's still the lowest rating any President
>has ever mustered in his first 100 days, since these polls started being
taken.

Hum, I guess this has some significance as opposed to having an incredible
drop during the last days in office. Unfortuantely having a loss in the
polls during the last days of office usually means no re-election. Ask
George.

>
>He was finished before he started!

Good one, Roooster. Thats hard to top.

>
>The Rooster
>
>



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178510
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The state of justice


In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
> new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
> from the fire.
> 
> 	Thoughts?
> 
> 	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
> denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
> to the previous ruling appear.

Welcome to the conservative judiciary.

> 	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
> Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

I think Scalia's point was that you get one chance.  If new information
comes out later, tough.  If the conviced want justice, they have to hope
the governor is feeling charitable.

There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite
evidence of his inocents.

> 	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
> shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
> a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
> 
> 	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

It got swept away in the Reagan Revolution...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178511
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
>tes:
>
>>
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>>
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
>me how, I just have seen the results.
>
>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
>the head.
>

I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm:

	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
	being screwed up in the head, given that example!

(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
THIS to THAT!).



-- 
_______
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178514
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?


In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
|>>} 
|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
|>>
|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
|>
|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary

Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection
effectively makes it a tax.


|>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't
|>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not
|>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from
|>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a
|>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The
|>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live
|>off the land ...
|>
|>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
|>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
|>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.

Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
has done to the country.

Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves,
thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
class.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178515
From: carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <1993Apr15.162552.5510@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>> 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
>> 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.
>
>   Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more
>Pulitzers the same way they did last year.

	I suppose ALL media want something to happen, otherwise what would
	they report: that's their job. (duhhh to me!)

	But it's not so much surprising that they want a riot as it is amazing
	how they carry that desire across in not so subtle ways (at least to
	me...)

carlos.

"I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
 assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178518
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr15.175829.22411@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman)        writes...
>In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...
>>>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that
>>>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d
>>>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour.
> 
>>I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking
>>and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill
>>hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal
>>gain like Nixon did. NOT!
> 
>Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.

Isn't name calling fun!
> 
>Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies.
>I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole,
>rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers
>of his office for personal gain.

What do you think happened at Watergate? What do you think they broke into
the building for? It wasn't to just look around. Do I have to draw you 
a picture?
> 
>You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these
>events occurred.

Whatever...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178519
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster


In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything
|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out.
|>
|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer
|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough
|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.

Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. They
certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
was not necessarily their true position.

|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
|>>set in.
|>
|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)

The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body. 


|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely
|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their 
|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed
|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act
|>as a check on the more-often elected House.

The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
a bit too slow.


|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be
|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the
|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about
|>a "veto" by the Senate.

The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
of being a check on unreasonable legislation. The veto was clearly regarded 
as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.

the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as
a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into
the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives
of the states is not a reasonable restriction. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178520
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: fillibuster


In article <C5Dsyr.325@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

|>|In article <C5BupH.FCp@dscomsa.desy.de>
|>|hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>|>The filibuster does not make sense because the senate is elected as a last
|>|>gasp assembly. It is designed to be the repository of doddery old men with
|>|>no power.
|>
|>|       Phill, I don't know which Senate you're discussing, but it ain't
|>|ours.
|>
|>Phill probably thinks that the US senate is supposed to be the equivalent
|>to the UK's House of Lords.

The status of the House of Lords today is quite different to its status 
in 1789. 


|>Which just goes to show that where the US is concerned Phill still has no
|>idea what he is talking about.

Maddison and Hamilton were both studying existing forms of government for
several years before they wrote the federalist papers. That the US system
is based to a considerable degree on the UK model is pretty widely accepted.
At the time there was no other major country with a representative body.
The French plebicite had been suppressed for 140 years and its restoration
eight years later would mark the start of the French revolution. 

After the UK system the major influences were the Dutch system and of course
the classical systems. Nobody seriously suggests that Rome or Greece were 
models though because the political systems of both countries were acknowleged
disasters. The main lesson learnt from Greece was that unless a federal
state was constructed a war would be inevitable. The Greek democracies were
always fighting amongst themselves which is how Rome managed to invade. Had
the federal consitution been rejected the new Roman empire in the shape of
Britain would quite certainly have reabsorbed much of the colonies in due
course. Moreover the states would have been at each others throats as soon
as the Louisiana purchase situation arose during the Napoleonic period.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178521
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?

How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than
unconscious?

>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.
>
>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
forgot to call all of your witnesses.

If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new
interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find
such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser
could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser
becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new
expert witnesses).

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178522
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: <None>

In article <1993Apr12.183349.23115@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

[...]

> What I see is that the media is reasonably fair, but is seen as
> 'liberal' by conservatives, and 'conservative' by liberals.

Not that I think anyone cares, but this pattern (using other examples
of course) was discussed 2,000 years ago by Aristotle in
_Nicomachean_Ethics_.   Note that you can't use this insight to reason
backwards; e.g.:  Since the conservatives see the media as liberal and
the liberals see the media as conservative, the media are fair!  (though
I've seen this "reasoning" implied)  

> Don Pajerek
> 
> Standard disclaimers apply.

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Nobody can explain everything to everybody.
opinions are my own      | G. K. Chesterton

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178523
From: bram@byron.u.washington.edu (Bram Currie)
Subject: MOW BODYCOUNT


Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at the MOW?

The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior Senator?  The King of
the motss/bi?  

	Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers 
get brought out.

	

-- 
		bram

     ----------------------------------------------------------
Bram Currie                                    bram@u.washington.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178526
From: em@hprpcd.rose.hp.com (Electronic Maintenance)
Subject: INCREDIBLE NEW B.B.S.


WOW !!!!
Did I discover a great BBS !!
It's called Sovereignty Lies In The People
BBS: 916-589-4620  14.4 k baud.  FREE and Confidential
! Fictitious names OK !  Subjects and files contained on the BBS:

* FIND OUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SCAMMING US !!!!
* State Citizenship documents and issues.
  ARE YOU A CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC CITIZEN OR A U.S. FEDERAL CITIZEN ?
  Remember there were only State Citizens before the 14th amendment!!
  One is subject to federal income tax, one isn't.
  Did you volunteer to surrender your State Citizenship when you got
  your Social Security number?  Which one are you?
* Tax laws and issues.  BEAT THE IRS
* Traffic laws and issues.  BEAT TRAFFIC TICKETS.  Can you answer this one:
  What law allows a police officer to arrest you without a warrant when
  he issues you a ticket?
* Religious truth issues.  ARE ALL RELIGIONS SCAMS ????
  ARE ALL CHRISTIAN  RELIGIONS OF THE GREAT CREATOR GOD ????
* Trust documents and issues.

The SYSOP told me that instructions to beat traffic
tickets will be on the BBS shortly.  Beat traffic
tickets without going to court!!!  The BBS is GREAT, spread the word !!!!
Also:  How come I don't hear more people talking about the
Federal Reserve Bank?  Just ask yourself these questions:

1) Why would anyone borrow money from themselves at interest?
The Federal government does * NOT * * NOT *
The Federal reserve Bank is private.  The American people are
being ripped off royally.  100% of the income tax goes to pay
on the Federal debt to the Federal Reserve Bankers.  Not one
dime goes for services.  Services like the military and
welfare come from excise taxes and the like.

2) Why do we the American people stand for this?????

** Check Out The New BBS **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178528
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything
>|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out.
>|>
>|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer
>|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough
>|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.
>
>Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
>difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. 

       There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want
you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think
will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think
what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."

       You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.

>They
>certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
>was not necessarily their true position.

       Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and 
probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules.
But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions
on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the
government?

       And is writing in support of something automatically "propoganda"
to the point we must assume it is untrue or that they are saying what
they don't believe?

>|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
>|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
>|>>set in.
>|>
>|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
>|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
>|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
>|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)
>
>The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in 
>question.

       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
greater power than did the American system).       

>|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely
>|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their 
>|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed
>|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act
>|>as a check on the more-often elected House.
>
>The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
>a bit too slow.

       I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to
handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington
put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city
council."

       Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than
enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its
original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.

       It is not a case of the system of government they created failing,
but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically
wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem
then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either
House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is
a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more
sense to make more decisions at a local level.

>|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be
>|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the
>|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about
>|>a "veto" by the Senate.
>
>The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
>in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
>of being a check on unreasonable legislation. 

       Please explain to me how Bush abused the veto in an "extraordinary"
manner.

>The veto was clearly regarded 
>as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
>preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.

       I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were
placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means
to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's
opinion) policies.  

       There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power
regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto
for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their
agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President
who abused vetos.

>the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as
>a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into
>the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives
>of the states is not a reasonable restriction.

       Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators
is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators
feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and 
fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question
as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?

       Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which
covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living
in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority
be required?

       Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power
to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not
see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans
are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate
objections to the legislation in question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178529
From: matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043)
Subject: Re: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face


Who wants to look through the bars at some reactionary Liberal conspiracy-
theory idiots and see how they rant and rave at the erosion of their populist 
support?  This is very typical of the elitist Liberal attitude that The People 
are incapable of thinking for themselves.  This elitist attitude will be the
eventual undoing of the arrogant liberal tide sweeping America, as The People
begin to realize more and more that they are being treated like errant children
and robbed of their freedoms by a bunch of Utopian arrogent socialist jerks.


In article 167077 in talk.politics.misc, New Liberation News Service 
<nlns@igc.apc.org> writes:

>Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face
>Lines: 164

>From: New Liberation News Service <nlns>
>Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face

>/* Written  8:33 pm  Apr 14, 1993 by nlns@igc.apc.org in igc:nlns.news */
>/* ---------- "NLNS Packet 3.11 *** 4-14-93" ---------- */

>Fascism with a Friendly Face: Does Rush Limbaugh Remind You of 
>Anyone?
>Daevid Bornhuetter-Machen, The Madison Edge

>"The main difference between Adolf Hitler and Rush Limbaugh is that 
>Hitler was original and showed initiative." 
>--Mort Sahl on The Tom Snyder Radio Show, ABC Radio Network, 
>October 27, 1992.

Although I find myself often disagreeing with the populist rationale
of Mr. Limbaugh, I find him entertaining and I often agree with his 
conclusions.  The fact that he sends liberal reactionaries like these
idiots through the roof makes him all the more entertaining.



>(NLNS)--Believe it or not, I was planning this comparative review of 
>Mein Kampf and Limbaugh's transcribed rant, The Way Things Ought to 
>Be before Sahl issued his comparative review. As usual, Sahl's was 
>independent and sharp as a scalpel.
>        My effort can only dream of comparing favorably to Mort's. At 
>least it has a fairly popular orginating premise; everyone I'd mention the 
>idea to thought it was either divinely inspired or at least past due for 
>delivery.
>        Those reactions are based on parallels that should be obvious to the 
>most peripheral observer of the Acts of those False Prophets. Both are 
>noted for their galvanizing oratorical skills, which they both used with 
>passion to generate a political cult of massive numerical proportions (in 
>fact, Limbaugh claims to have an audience of just over 12 million, almost 
>identical to the number of votes cast for Hitler in the April 1932 German 
>election). Both used a myopic social perspective to build the cult, and 
>enthusiastically amputated facts from the record to fabricate their 
>ideological quilt.

Actually, I find Limbaugh's oratory less than sizzling and his debating
skills sometimes lacking, even though his conclusions are often correct.

I would suggest that a bankrupt leftist ideology that hopes to use concentrated 
political power and a loaded gun to force everyone to do the "right" things
(where "right" is defined by the elitist academics who lead the movement)
is showing an acute case of "myopic social perspective", not to mention
arrogance and utter stupidity.

Limbaugh is certainly far from perfect, but his opponents in the established
body politic and the media are the ones arguing for Federal control of
virtually all aspects of the lives of the Citizenry, and for the elimination
of local control over Affairs Public.  

Perhaps Limbaugh has a following because The People are tired of being treated 
like errant children by a self-important group of arrogant controlling myopic 
people who have no understanding of how life operates outside of the "oughta-be's"
inside their own hopelessly closed minds.



>        The last point is glaringly documented by passages in the opening 
>pages of both books. Hitler's example is when, on page 5, he claims the 
>German nationalist terrorist Leo Schlageter (he bombed part of a railway 
>line between Dusseldorf and Duisburg, being caught in the act, in 1923) 
>was "betrayed to France by a representative of his government" when 
>there has never been any factual foundation for such a statement.
>        In fact, the governments of both the Reich and Prussia, as well as 
>the Vatican, actively intervened to save him from execution, and almost 
>succeeded. 

OK, let us take your word for that and work with it.  A nice specific
incident.



>Limbaugh follows suit by making the hysterically sarcastic 
>claim in his introduction that "in a school or during a commencement 
>ceremony or many other public places... God is unconstitutional." Of 
>course, it's not God but the official imposition of particular concepts of 
>God against an individual's will that's unconstitutional. But Limbaugh is 
>too gleeful in his talent for distortion to want you to know that.

Hmmm, "Congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion,
nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Liberal translation: "the
federal government (as long as it is run by Liberals) may force local
school districts to include certain iconic content in Christmas displays,
while prohibiting others."

I think Limbaugh has you on this one.  It seems to me that he is arguing
for LESS imposition of the federal government into religion.

Nice job on the specificity of that one, too.



[Analysis of historical/modern communication media deleted] 

>        But, as Mort Sahl also observed on the radio the other night, some 
>cloutmeister of the radical right wants Limbaugh to be a focal point of 
>their propoganda. (And remember, Sahl is an Al Haig conservative these 
>days.)
>        Mort might not know exactly who Rush's equivalent of Rodolf 
>Hess is (the book itself suggests Ed McLaughlin, the former president of 
>ABC radio and now Limbaugh's partner in EFM Media, the radio 
>program's production company). But Mort himself is a veteran of the talk 
>show, having hosted them in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. He 
>knows what evil lurks in the hearts of major market media men. He knows 
>that Limbaugh could not have collected his audience had not the 
>opportunity been placed on a silver platter and handed to him. Limbaugh 
>earns his money just as honestly as Al Capone did; it's almost worthy of a 
>RICO indictment.

Ah yes, it is a conspiracy of profound proportions.  Methinks that you
may be a bit resentful of Mr. Limbaugh's success because you attribute it
primarily to luck (how, after all, could anyone with profound differences
of opinion from yourself have become successful without the operation of
conspiracy or blind luck!)  Do you feel this same level of knee-jerk
resentment against lottery winners, or do you congratulate them on their
good fortune?



>        On questions of social issues, there is an overabundance of 
>material in the Limbaugh book that seems to echo Hitler's venom. For 
>example:

This should be great fun, since it is the Liberal movement in America
that is pushing the hardest for centralized fascist control of The People
and business (government/business 'partnership' indeed), and Mr. Limbaugh 
is the populist nemesis of that movement.

I have read Mr. Limbaugh's book, and although it was not the most literary
piece I have read in recent memory it certainly did not contain "venom"
at all, let alone "venom" comparable to an individual who callously murdered
millions out of racism.



>On Their Own Qualifications to Control Society
>        Hitler: "Out of the host of sometimes millions of people, who 
>individually more or less clearly and distinctly guess the truth, partly 
>perhaps understand it, one man [author's emphasis] must step forward in 
>order to form, with apodeictic force, out of the wavering world of 
>imagination of the great masses, granite principles, and to take up the fight 
>for their sole correctness, until out of the playing waves of a free world of 
>thought a brazen rock of uniform combination of form and will arises" 
>(page 577).

A very serious tone in that oratory.



>        Limbaugh: "Who needs the media when they've got me? ... The 
>show is devoted exclusively to what I think ... [the phrase "with half my 
>brain tied behind my back to make it even"] denotes the egress of mental 
>aptitude I require to engage and demolish liberals and others who disagree 
>with me ... It might take four or five years, but I'm convinced The Media 
>will slowly and reluctantly come around to my way of thinking, kicking 
>and screaming all the way." (pages 266, 21, 299 and 273, respectively.)

You neglect to mention that Mr. Limbaugh (have you ever listened to his show, 
BTW?) continuously encourages his audience to think for themselves rather
than blindly following any media icon, himself included.  You yourself mention 
that he makes no bones about his show being strictly about his own opinions.
He also adopts a rather satirical approach, and presumes his audience to be
intelligent enough to distinguish satire from seriousness (and he says as much).
This is in contrast to the average mass-media show, in which the audience is
treated as society's intellectual lowest common denominator.

I am sure that Adolf Hitler was a master of satire; I am sure he was just
kidding when he said that the Jews were the cause of Germany's problems and
needed to be exterminated.



>On Religion as the Basis of a Nation
>        Hitler: "In this world human culture and civilization are 
>inseperably bound up with the existence of the Aryan. His dying-off or his 
>decline would again lower upon this earth the dark veils of a time without 
>culture ... He who dares to lay hand upon the highest image of the Lord 
>sins against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and helps in the 
>expulsion from Paradise." (Page 581.)

This is not religion, it is clearly a perverse worship of race.  Since
Christ was a Jew, it seems quite unlikely that Hitler's characterization of
the Aryan as "the highest image of the Lord" fits with Christian doctrine.



>        Limbaugh: "America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country ... 
>But our intellectual and political elites are often either hostile or 
>ambivalent toward religion ... People for whom belief in God is at best a 
>charming superstition have managed to ban prayer from the public schools 
>for the last thirty years. Is it only a coincidence that the quality of 
>American education has declined ever since?" (pages 274-5.)

Private religious schools have a vastly better record of success than
publicly funded schools.  American history is indeed primarily Judeo-
Christian.  I suppose that Mr. Limbaugh pointing out facts is equivalent
to Adolf Hitler worshiping the Aryan race.  I think you might be reaching
just a wee bit here.



>On Popular Culture as a Reason for Social Collapse
>        Hitler: "The fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in ... 
>One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses, vaudevilles and 
>theatres; and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food ... 
>Theatre, art, literature, movies, the press, billposters and window displays 
>must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the 
>service of a moral idea of State and culture." (pages 346 and 348.)

Definite suggestion that the government should control the entertainment
industry here.


>        Limbaugh: "Today, Hollywood is in trouble. The reason [is] that 
>Hollywood has forgotten who its audience is ... They make fun of people 
>who believe in God. They ridicule the traditional family, heterosexuality 
>and monagamy. They disparage American heroes." (page 254.)

Just a guess here, but I don't think that Mr. Limbaugh would advocate
government control of Hollywood.  You should perhaps call his radio show
to confirm this.  I believe this is more a criticism of Hollywood and the
depraved moral values it espouses, not an advocation of government control 
of Hollywood.

90's Liberals, on the other hand, want to have complete government control 
of our school systems, so that the government can teach The People at an
early age the "right" way to view religion and morality.  I believe Mr. 
Limbaugh is against this, as his satirical use of the "young heads full
of mush" hyperbole indicates.



>On the News Meida
>        Hitler: "The activity of the so-called liberal press was the work of 
>gravediggers for the German people and the German Reich. One can pass 
>by in silence the Marxist papers of lies ... it's task is only to break the 
>people's folkish and national spine, in order to make it ripe for the yoke of 
>slavery of international capital and its masters, the Jews." (Page 331.)

Pretty strong conspiracy theory insinuated here, with an implicit plea for
government power to be used to break up the conspiracy.



>        Limbaugh: "Elements of The Media have jumped on the 
>bandwagon of leftist causes. The cynical journalist of the past has been 
>replaced in many cases by an enthusiastic cheerleader for causes ... During 
>the Gulf war, CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw [said] CNN is a global 
>network. We can't take sides. Cant take sides? --- --- ---! ... If they don't 
>realize that their freedom lies in the United States of America and that 
>therefore they should defend this nation, they are hopelessly misguided 
>and, may I suggest, flirting with megalomania." (pages 270 and 268.)

Indication here that "Elements of the Media" (since career is a self-selected
categorization, perhaps an inferred 'larger percentage than represented in
the populace at large') has a leftist bias.  Doesn't sound too unreasonable.
No insinuation that CNN should not report in an objective fashion, only
that for reporters to say that they do not have any personal bias in the
situation is disingenuous to megalomaniacal.

You may disagree, and it may well be exagerrated, but it is not an unreasonable 
opinion; and Mr. Limbaugh goes well out of his way to make sure that his 
audience knows that these are his opinions, unlike most other reporting that 
purports to achieve perfect objectivity but in actuality will in some degree 
or other, in a statistical sense, reflect the biases of the reporters.  Who 
is being disingenuous here, Mr. Shaw or Mr. Limbaugh?

Again, you should ask Mr. Limbaugh himself, but I expect that he would
oppose government control of the media.



>*     *     *
        
>To continue these comparative excerpts is certainly possible, but 
>ultimately too depressing to take in one reading.

It is indeed depressing to see such myopia and tiresome Liberal arrogance.
Liberals love to play games with paradigms as a way of discrediting people
who disagree with them.  Why don't you challenge conservative ideology
on an intellectual level rather than engaging in ludicrous comparisons?
Perhaps the underpinnings of your ideology are intellectual only in that
they exist in your mind, not the real world.



>        After putting these books down, there is one undeniable fact that 
>haunts me. In the 1920s, Adolf Hitler fed depressed and frightened 
>Germans the opiate of hatred of those around them; in turn, it allowed 
>Germans to hand their collective national power to the Nazis. In the 1990s, 
>Rush Limbaugh is doing the very same thing: distributing hatred to 
>depressed and frightened Americans; in turn, it is helping the American 
>radical right to maintain its power base as the 12-year nightmare of the 
>Reagan-Bush era comes to an end, hoping to rebuild it into their hopes for 
>The Fascist States of America.

Perhaps there are a few among the intellectually challenged who percieve
Rush Limbaugh as a hate-monger, but in my experience he has been spreading
laughter at the ludicrous self-importance of the Left, not hatred.

As to Mr. Bush, you may be correct about his fascist economic leanings.
Mr. Reagan, on the other hand, did his best to reverse the fascist trend
of government involvement in business.  Mr. Clinton is increasing fascism
in America through "business/government partnership" and increased levels
of taxation.  Perhaps you should not have skipped your vocabulary classes
in grade school.



>        And if Limbaugh is not as repellant a Hitler, it is only because the 
>radical right utilizes Limbaugh as its own gateway opiate. One can only 
>wonder what the ultimate drug is they plan to hook America on.

Hmmm.  Seems to me that Limbaugh is not in any way comparable to Hitler
because he has not murdered six million Jews and many, many others out of
racism.  I come from a mixed-race family, so I am quite well attuned to
racism; I don't hear any coming from Rush Limbaugh.  The only place I hear 
racism coming from these days and being taken seriously is from the Liberal 
Left.

The Liberal Left is the movement I see trying to get America hooked
on the opiates of Socialized Medicine, Socialized Transportation, Socialized
Education, etc.  The Left already has America hopelessly addicted to 
that Liberal drug, the Social Security Chain Letter.  It is quite clear
to me that while the Hitler analogy does not really apply to either Rush 
Limbaugh or William Jefferson Clinton, if one of the two is closer than 
the other it is clearly the Fascist Clinton.


>The Madison Edge can be reached at PO Box 845, Madison, WI 53701-
>0845; (608) 255-4460.
>
>--- 30 ---

This is the same address as "Idiots Anonymous", isn't it?


Matt Freivald

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178530
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at 
> the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior 
> Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?  

> Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers 
> get brought out.

Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops),
who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the
density of the crowd in small regions.

These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA
methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be
methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers,
so as to justify bigger budgets.

Steve

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178531
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.


  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178532
From: drevik@utkvx.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes...
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.

I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide.
Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to 
do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations
cost $$$.

Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.


> 
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.
> 
> 
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178533
From: cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

(oh boy. it's the [in]famous Phill Hallam-Baker.)

In article <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
} 
} In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
} 
} |>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
} |>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
} |>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't
} |>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not
} |>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from
} |>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a
} |>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The
} |>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live
} |>off the land ...
} |>
} |>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
} |>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
} |>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.
} 
} Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
} don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
} has done to the country.

how about what 25 years of tax-and-spend, big government, institutionalized
dependency, and out-of-control good intentions at others' expense has
done to the country?
} 
} Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves,
} thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
} ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
} class.

yeah, right. and Clinton is any different? please.
he is just a better lia... i mean, politician.

you think Slick and his gang of elitist socialist academics will lead
us to the promised land? don't hold your breath.

-*-
charles

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178534
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Capital Gains tax increase "loses" money

In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>
>>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large
>>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a)
>>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by
>>accumlated gains.
>
>To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains
>taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there
>to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised.
>   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that
>more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort
>"trends".

Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they
clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86
blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:

1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find
oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term
that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a
few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with
preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.

2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of
what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects
beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to
unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on
taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar
advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice
was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986),
but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates
(without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).

It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal
economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless
pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe
accurately what happens in the real world.


-- 
MORAL: Always Choose the Right Sort of Parents 
       Before You Start in to be Rough
                                        - George Ade
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178535
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: fillibuster

In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de                            writes...
>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
>|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
>|>>set in.
>|>
>|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
>|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
>|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
>|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)
> 
>The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
>The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
>and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
>considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body. 
> 
Just how much power does the House of Lords have now? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178536
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russ)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the Religious Left.
>
                                                                       
Not at all.  I am not a member of the Religious Left, Right, or even
Center.  In fact I don't consider myself very religious at all [ this will
probably result in flames now :) ].  In fact Phil, you should leave
religion out of it.  It just clouds the issue.
                                                                       
>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them aren't. And the
>natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man-made ones.
                                                                         
How typical.  So you think we shouldn't avoid these 'events' [ I shall
refrain from the word disaster since it seems to upset you so much.  :( ]
when we can.  In case you didn't realize it, the natural disasters [ oops,
sorry events ] you are refering to  we have no control over.  Man-made
ones we do.

I guess you missed the show on Ch 20 earlier this week about the disaster
[ oops there I go again... I meant to say event ] on the Exxon Valdez.
Just a natural every day occurance to spread oil on 300 Miles of beach. I
would like to know which natural event [ hey I remembered not to say disaster ]
that would be similar to this.
							       
>Most of your so-called disasters (Love Canal, Times Beach, TMI) aren't
>disasters at all.
                                                                   
Hmm, I suppose you could be right.  They are as natural as a tree, or a
sunrise.  NOT !
                                                                         
>So look, if you want to worship trees (or owls or snails or whatever), fine, do
>so. But DON'T try to push the scaredness of YOUR religious off onto me.
>

So look, if you want to worship a oil slick ( or toxic waste dump or live
in a house that has a cesspool in the front yard ), fine, you have my
permission to do so [ yea right like you need MY permission... ], it just
won't be in the neighborhood where I live.  But DON'T try to push your
shortsighted tunnelvision views off on the rest of us.

-- 
| Russell Hockins               | There are people who believe that there is |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   | no such thing as an environmental disaster.|
|                               | Pretty weird... ain't it?                  |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178537
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
>>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
>>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.

>I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
>convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
>sufficient.



    So, you sat in the court room and listened to the case.  After careful
consideration, you have come to your conclusion.  Well, good for you.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178539
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'

In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <1993Apr13.121723.20568@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>When are Libertarians going to draw a clear line between
>>themselves and NAMBLA? By your own statements, you were once
>>a member of an organization which you *knew* supported
>>exactly what NAMBLA supports, namely abolishing the age of
>>consent. I've never supported any such organization. YOU
>>have.

>While both organizations may, on paper, support the abolition of the age
>of consent, there the resemblance stops.

>One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade
>to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.

What's the difference, in practice?

It amounts to your saying, it's disgusting but should be legal,

***or***

someone else saying, let's allow the parties involved to decide what is
disgusting.

Or, if you're like me, you think that it ISN'T a coercive law, because
some children can't make informed consent.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178540
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>: 
>>: As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>>: is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>>: tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>>: 

[...]

>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.

You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE
opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own
agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen.
While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that
if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become
a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area.
I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is
more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many
instances.

>Just
>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>condition.

I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as
you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not
be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of
libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of
government coercion except in a very limited cases.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178541
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@zeus02.desy.de) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>>} 
>|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
>|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
>|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
>|>>
>|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
>|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
>|>
>|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is
>|>voluntary
>
>Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of
>collection effectively makes it a tax.

Could it be because you're British, Phill, and living in Germany?
While the EC working rules are more liberal than what we have in
the 1989 US-Canada FTA, there's probably a law about that (having
health insurance coverage is a condition of my being down here,
for example).

You have mentioned this once before, yet both the NY Times profile on
the German sickness funds (late Jan.) and pamphlets that my girlfriend
gives to her language students from the German consulate both say that
it is "voluntary" (okay, there were quotation marks (-;) and that only
90% of the population is covered by the sickness funds (analogous to
our provincial health insurances, but not divided by province/state).

Another guy in health care policy says that the Turkish guest workers
aren't covered ... he's written to me a couple of times (he's not a
post-er).  I'll ask him ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178542
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Gore throws out the first ball. And media coverage of it


In article <1993Apr15.093957.1213@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) writes:
> In article <1993Apr13.122543.1682@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> > 
> > In article <C5E2JA.849@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >> This past Thursday VP GOre threw out the first ball at the home opener for
> >> the Atlanta Braves. According to the news reports he was quite loudly booed.
> >> (No, Dr. Norman, these were not your typical beer swilling red-necks.)
> >> 
> >> Personally I wouldn't have paid any more attention to the incident except
> >> that the evening news when describing the event, went on to comment that
> >> being booed was nothing unusual since it was normal for audiences to
> >> boo at this point since the celebrity was delaying the start of the game.
> >> 
> >> What a bunch of crock. I have never heard of any incident in which the
> >> thrower of the ceremonial ball has been booed before.
> > 
> > Dan Quayle got roundly booed in Milwaulkee last year.  (I was listening 
> > on the radio).  This was the game that Quayle told the Brewers players that
> > he would like to see them play the Orioles in the ALCS.
> 
> It's come to this, has it?  Defending Al Gore by comparing him to Dan Quayle?

Who compared Quayle to Gore?  Mark said he had never heard of any incident
in which the thrower of the ceremonial ball had been booed before.  I mentioned
another incident.  (And if the media had a liberal bias, I'm sure he would
have heard of the Quayle incident.)

If I was to compare Quayle to anyone, it most likely would be Elmer Fudd.

> I'd say that about says it all... back to the pit with ye, back to alt.fan.
> dan-quayle!  Begone!

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178543
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
(discrediting Kinsey) says so.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178544
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <15312@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr08.092954.13507@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
># Face it, Clayton, he was not found guilty, and so what if gays sometimes
># make it consensually with 16 year old boys. There ARE 16 year old gays, you
># know. And as I recall, the case of the state rested on the testimony of one
># "victim" who declined to testify, even under threat. I have had teens since
># I was 40, and so have a lot of people. Face it Clayton, you're just a jerk!
># -RSW
># -- 
># * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
># * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
># * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
>
>I am always amazed to see people admit to breaking the law -- and
>putting their address in the signature.  Please tell us more about 
>this.  Were they 13?  14?  Would you like to make a statement for
>the district attorney?

I had sex with a 13 year old boy, it was great, we did *everything*,
well, a hell of a lot.  It was fun anyway.  Oh, and before you turn 
purple with rage I was 12 at the time.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178545
From: smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: The Manitoban Candidate

bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:

> In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to
> govern all American institutions (starting with the American health
> care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators.

With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian
socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got
the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the
control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high
public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market
forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.

Steven Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178546
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr16.010908.22897@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)         writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>[...]
>>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.
> 
>You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE
>opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own
>agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen.
>While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that
>if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become
>a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area.
>I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is
>more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many
>instances.
> 
Pardon me for interrupting, but why doesn't anyone ever bring up other
possibilities besides more government, less government, or no government
and stop there? It seems to me that the problems with society go MUCH
deeper than government. Democracies seem to reflective of the majority
of society, both the good and the bad. If you take away the government,
you still have the structural flaws in society, except this time, with
no restraints. Yes? No?
	Why doesn't anybody ever discuss communal society, like a
kibbutz? I never studied it on depth, but from what I've heard, the kibbutz
in Isreal was very successful. It is also very close to what Aristotle
and Socrates believed was the best.
	Sorry to detract from the discussion.

>>Just
>>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>>condition.
> 
>I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as
>you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not
>be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of
>libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of
>government coercion except in a very limited cases.

But what good is change if there is no tracable improvement in the human
condition? Who would ever support the change if you tell them it won't 
improve their lives? I know that there are, and will be, libertarians 
who will jump in now and say that it WILL improve our lives. I can deal
with that. All I'm saying is that improving the human condition must
be the PRIMARY goal of any organization.

>Ian Sutherland
>ian@eecs.nwu.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178547
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: AM Press Briefing by Dee Dee Myers -- 4.15.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 15, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY DEE DEE MYERS

	     
                          The Briefing Room


9:45 A.M. EDT

	     	  
	     Q	  Why was the 10:00 a.m. postponed? 
	     	  
	     MS. MYERS:  Just due to scheduling conflicts.  So as we 
put out, the President will meet with the leaders of the national 
police organizations at 2:00 p.m. in the Rose Garden, as opposed to 
10:00 a.m.  The only other things on his schedule today are:  At 
11:00 a.m. he'll meet with General Vessey, who, as you know, is on 
his way to Vietnam to continue working on the MIA-POW issue.  At 
12:30 p.m. he'll have lunch with the Vice President in the Oval 
Office.  And at 2:00 p.m. he'll meet with the police organizations.
Then from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. he'll do his weekly photos with the 
various groups.
	     
	     Q	  A photo op with Vessey?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's no coverage on the Vessey meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Why?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Why?  It's a closed meeting.  
	     
	     Q	  What about the lunch?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The lunch?  No, there's no coverage.
	     
	     Q	  Is he meeting with any congress people today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing scheduled.
	     
	     Q	  There are no meetings --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There are no congressional meetings today, 
no.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President been given any information by the 
Pentagon or reached any conclusion about the validity of this report 
from Hanoi?  Any instructions to Vessey on how to deal with the 
Vietnamese on that subject?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, clearly, the report is the first order 
of business.  It's high on the agenda on something that they'll 
discuss.  I think the President and General Vessey will discuss the 
parameters of his visit to Vietnam today, but the President hasn't 
drawn any conclusions about the report yet.  Certainly, it's 
something that he wants General Vessey to talk with the Vietnamese 
about first.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President talk with any Republican senators 
yesterday about the stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He spoke with Senator Dole.
	     
	     Q	  How many times?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe once during the day and once last 
night.
	     
	     Q	  What was the outcome of that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  They're continuing to work toward some kind 
of an agreement on a jobs package.
	     
	     Q	  Is it your impression that Senator Dole is in any 
way flexible on this?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think we're hopeful that we're going 
to get some kind of jobs package through the Senate, and we'll 
continue to work with Senator Dole and others until we reach some 
kind of an agreement.
	     
	     Q	  Did they discuss the VAT tax?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know if that came up.
	     
	     Q	  Can you check that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Sure.

	     Q	  So what are they -- is the President offering to 
scale down his program -- is that what he's trying to do, buy it down 
to where Dole will sign on?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, he's trying to protect as much of it 
as he can.  But it's important to him to get some kind of a jobs 
package through the Senate and through Congress now.  And as soon as 
we reach some conclusions on that, we'll let you know.  But at the 
moment, he's continuing to consult with members of Congress 
including, obviously, Senator Dole.
	     
	     Q	  Is he talking to anybody else?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe he talked to any other 
Republicans yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Is he talking to anybody today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think anything is scheduled, but I 
wouldn't rule it out.
	     
	     Q	  We were led to believe that the President called 
Mr. Dole on the subject of Russian aid and that Bob Dole brought the 
conversation around to stimulus package.  Is that correct?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the President has contacted several 
people on Russian aid.  I think that it was always expected that the 
stimulus package or the jobs package will be part of any conversation 
he would have with Senator Dole.  The primary objective of the 
conversation was Russian aid.  That was the first order of business, 
but it was both.
	     
	     Q	  In the President's mind, are they linked 
politically in that if the Republicans continue to reject the 
stimulus package, he thinks it will be harder to sell Russian aid to 
the American people?  Has he made that argument?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I can't talk about specifically what 
arguments he might have made.  The President is obviously committed 
to both.  He liked to see a jobs package to the American people 
first.  But as you know, we outlined the details of additional 
Russian aid last night in Tokyo.
	     
	     Q	  But does the President believe that the stimulus 
package will make it more difficult to persuade Americans to vote for 
Russian -- to accept a vote for Russian aid?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that the President is going to 
continue to work to pass the stimulus package, to pass a jobs 
package, and we're still hopeful that we'll get some kind of jobs 
package through the Congress.
	     
	     Q	  Is it fair to say that the President is negotiating 
now with Dole?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's discussing options with him.
	     
	     Q	  On the stimulus, is it your understanding that over 
the break some Democrats, themselves, have left the support that they 
had earlier for the package, the stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think we still have wide support in the 
Senate for the jobs package.
	     
	     Q	  But specifically, that you've lost Democrats other 
than Shelby?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.  There hasn't been a 
vote.
	     
	     Q	  What about Kohl?
	     
	     Q	  Kohl and Feingold?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There hasn't been a vote yet.  And we'll 
continue to work with senators to try to get a majority to try to 
bring the package to a vote, because we believe that a majority of 
the members of the United States Senate support the package.
	     
	     Q	  If you're weren't worried about Kohl and Feingold, 
why did George mention Milwaukee projects the other day?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think George pointed out a number of 
projects in a number of states that stand to be funded, or to lose 
funding if this jobs package doesn't pass.
	     
	     Q	  No Democrats.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
	     
	     Q	  Does he plan to talk to Dole again today or any 
other Republicans again today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's nothing specifically scheduled, but 
again, I wouldn't rule it out.
	     
	     Q	  Does he plan to put out any more press releases to 
any other states today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  What we've done is we're in the process of 
breaking down the benefits of the jobs package state by state.  I 
think it's entirely feasible that as we sort of are able to sum those 
up, we'll send out press releases to the various states that suggest 
how their states would benefit from this package.
	     
	     Q	  Will you share those with us?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Sure.  As we did yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have copies of the ones you sent --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, we made those available yesterday.  And 
we certainly can continue to provide them today.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, since yesterday's questions and subsequent 
stories about the VAT, what further consideration of this issue has 
been given?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing's changed since yesterday.  I think 
the President commented on it this morning to say only that it was 
something he knew was being considered by the task force and that he 
has not made a decision on, and I don't think we have anything to add 
to that.
	     
	     Q	  But he also said that business and labor groups are 
telling him they support it.  Can you tell us --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that there has been -- I'm not going 
to speculate on who supports it.  I think the President said that 
there has been some support among business and labor groups.  I don't 
think he said he was directly contacted by them.
	     
	     Q	  Are we to take that to mean that the administration 
has sounded out business and labor groups on this --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think there's been plenty of public 
discourse on this over the years and even recently, but I don't think 
I want to add to that.
	     
	     Q	  In February, though, the President said that this 
was something to be considered 10 or 15 years down the road.  What 
has happened between then and now to cause this administration to 
change its mind?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think as we said yesterday, it is 
something that the working groups are looking at.  They're 
considering a wide variety of options on everything from funding to 
specific options that will be covered by the President's health care 
plan.  The President has not taken it up yet, has not made a decision 
on it.  And beyond that, I don't have anything to add.
	     
	     Q	  You haven't answered the question.  It wasn't being 
considered by anyone in the White House after the President's 
comments in February, and George reaffirmed that in a briefing.
	     
	     Q	  And then suddenly --
	     
	     Q	  What happened?

	     MS. MYERS:  The working groups, as we have said 
throughout, we instructed to consider a wide variety of options 
across-the-board.  And one of the things that has been talked about 
and that they are clearly considering is some kind of a value-added 
tax.

	     Q	  But the President himself took this off the table, 
Dee Dee, and suddenly it reappears.  And this goes to the credibility 
of this administration in a way.  What has happened in the meantime?

	     MS. MYERS:  The President has not looked at this, it 
hasn't been presented to him, again, yet.  The working groups are 
looking at it, as they're looking at a wide variety of options, and 
no decisions have been made.

	     Q	  And it raises the question of how independently the 
task force is working.

	     MS. MYERS:  The task force was instructed to consider 
all options, and they've taken that mandate seriously and they're 
considering all options.

	     Q	  But that's not the impression that the President 
left in February.  The impression he left was that this was something 
that was long-range, to be looked at 10, 15 years down the road.  The 
clear implication of his remarks was that this was something that was 
not on the table, not an option. 

	     Q	  "If it changes I'll tell you."
	     
	     Q	  Bring him on.

	     Q	  And you repeatedly referred to the President's 
remarks, telling us that those were still in operation.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's changed, and we told you.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  But that's what Alice Rivlin's comments and Donna 
Shalala comments were about.  I mean, that seemed like an 
orchestrated effort because you have two independent Cabinet officers 
--

	     MS. MYERS:  I wouldn't -- no, Alice Rivlin's not a 
Cabinet member, first of all.  Second of all, it was not 
orchestrated, but clearly, they both said yesterday and in the last 
couple of days that it's something that's being looked at.  We 
confirmed that yesterday.  And I don't have anything to add to that.

	     Q	  Is it because he has very few options?

	     Q	  Is this something that it will be incumbent upon 
the task force to convince the President about?  In other words, has 
the President himself personally ruled it out and it's now up to the 
task force to convince him to put it back on the table?  Or is it, in 
fact, back on the table, having been placed there by discussions with 
the President?  

	     MS. MYERS:  It is not the working group's mission at 
this point to convince the President of anything.  It is their 
mission to put before him his options and to explain the benefits and 
the costs and the basic pros and cons of each of those options.  I 
think that they will certainly present the VAT to him in that 
context, and at this point he's not -- that presentation has not been 
made, but it's something that he will hear and he has not made a 
decision on.

	     Q	  They will present it to him as one of his options, 
though he specifically ruled it out?

	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.

	     Q	  Dee Dee, is this more than a trial balloon?  Is 
this a serious consideration that the working groups are giving to 
this form of taxation?

	     MS. MYERS:  It's simply a statement of fact.  The 
working groups are considering a wide variety of options on a number 
of issues relating to health care reform.  One of the options that 
they're looking at is the VAT. 

	     Q	  Dee Dee, when the working groups were examining 
this possibility, was this on the table during the same time period 
that you were telling us that it was not?

	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know what the specific timing of 
their drafting of options is.  I don't know.

	     Q	  Who was telling you that it was not under 
consideration?

	     MS. MYERS:  I was referring back to the President's 
comments.

	     Q	  Have they discovered that the sin taxes won't raise 
enough money to fund the core benefit package?

	     MS. MYERS:  No, there's no decisions that have been made 
on how to pay for the health care plan.
	     
	     Q	  I'm asking whether the projections --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's a number of options depending on how 
the plan is structured.  You can't decide how much the plan is going 
to cost until you decide what the plan is going to look like.  And so 
you can't discuss what financing options have been ruled in our out 
until you know.

	     Q	  Dee Dee, we've been told that they have a computer 
models on a number of possible packages.

	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.  

	     Q	  The question is whether they have now determined 
whether sin taxes would not produce enough money for even the barest 
minimum package.  That is not a very difficult computation.

	     MS. MYERS:  It is a question that you know that we're 
not going to answer until -- there's a number of options being 
considered.  It depends on how the package is structured.  The exact 
details of the package and the financing mechanisms used to pay for 
them are all among the decisions that have yet to be made.  
	     
	     Q	  And when the President has been meeting with health 
care -- his health care advisors, which we are told he has been doing 
--
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	     they have never once said to him, these are your 
funding options, including the VAT?  He has never heard the word VAT 
in his --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:    I am not going to comment on the specific 
nature of the daily -- they're not daily, but the quasi-regular 
briefings.
	     
	     Q	  Well, you have.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I have not, other than to say that he's not 
considered the VAT.  And I think that is a true statement.
	     
	     Q	  No, but you said that it has not been presented to 
him as an option.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	  That doesn't mean he hasn't heard about it.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to get into the details of 
what's discussed.  I think that statement stands for itself.
	     
	     Q	     specific, Dee Dee.  When you say he hasn't 
looked at it, do you mean that he hasn't looked at it in terms of 
paying for medical coverage, or hasn't looked at it in general?  
Because back in Chilicothe he was very specific in defining how it 
works, what the advantages are, the whole thing.  It sounds like --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  But that was -- I think in Chilicothe, if 
you go back to his remarks there, it was a broader philosophical 
discussion of the tax structure.  And I think the comments were 
generally in reference to the overall economic plan.  But clearly, 
it's something that he's thought about in the broad context.  I mean, 
that was clear in Chilicothe.  What I'm saying is that in the process 
of the working groups it's something that he hasn't considered yet.  
It's something that the working groups will present to him among the 
number of options, and that no decisions have been made.  And I'm not 
going to comment any further on the details of the meetings where 
health care issues are being discussed.
	     
	     Q	  It's your statement from this podium that no 
discussion of this has taken place.  You say that no option -- that 
the option has not been presented to him.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That is correct.
	     
	     Q	  Do you stand by -- does the White House still stand 
by George's statement in March that this will not be in the proposal?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No decisions have been made.  We have 
nothing to add to what's already been said.
	     
	     Q	  Let me follow up here.  Do you stand by what Rivlin 
said yesterday, that if any kind of VAT were to be used or 
considered, that other changes to the tax code would have to be made 
so that it would be less regressive?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment any further on what 
might happen if.
	     
	     Q	  But do you stand by the previous conversations in 
February that if there were to be a VAT, I think the President said 
you'd exclude food and energy --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment on the specific 
structure of a decision that hasn't been made.
	     
	     Q	  Was the President aware prior to Donna Shalala's 
comments yesterday that this was under consideration by the working 
groups?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know specifically what --
	     
	     Q	  Could you check for us, because that's a real 
important credibility question?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Since the task force was brought together this 
issue has been discussed, at the beginning and throughout, as one 
fairly painless way to raise a lot of money.  Were you all kept in 
the dark?  Was the Press Office kept in the dark over the past month 
and a half when you've been denying that a VAT tax would be 
considered that it was actually on the table over there as an option?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think we've said all that we have to say.  
It is something the working groups are looking at.  The President has 
not made a decision about it yet.  And beyond that, I have nothing to 
add.
	     
	     Q	  Well, sorry, Dee Dee, there are still a couple of 
questions that we are going to have to ask because we have a problem 
with credibility here -- yours primarily.  What we're asking is, if 
you all were not told at all that this thing was being considered 
while you were coming out here and telling us that it was not, or if 
it's a case that you were coming out here and deliberately misleading 
us.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe that anyone has ever come 
out here and deliberately misled you from this podium -- ever --ever.
	     
	     Q	  Has anyone tried to shade it a little bit to 
indicate something -- has anybody told anybody to come out --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're not trying to shade answers or 
deliberately mislead anybody.  I've said what I have to say about 
this issue.
	     
	     Q	  All we were trying to find out --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I understand what you're trying to find out 
and I've given you the answers, Helen.
	     
	     Q	  We're trying to find out what changed -- what made 
it an option again.  That's the --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The working groups were given a broad 
mandate to investigate all options, and they are doing that.  
	     
	     Q	  Yes, but it wasn't an option before.  How can you 
investigate it if the President has taken it off the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It is something that they're obviously 
considering and the President has not made a decision on.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, but he took it off the table in February.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Working groups are considering it.  They'll 
present it to the President at some point and he'll make a decision.
	     
	     Q	  Why would they consider it if he has taken it off 
the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's clearly on the table. 
	     
	     Q	  Yes, but he took it off the table.  Did he change 
his mind?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's back on the table, Bill.
	     
	     Q	  Did he change his mind?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He said this morning that he hasn't made a 
decision about it.  He obviously knows that it's on the table.  It's 
something that he will look at at some and when we have a decision on 
this we'll let you know.
	     
	     Q	  So he must have changed his mind, right?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  At some point it will be looked at.  I mean, 
--
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, there's like two options -- either he 
changed his mind or the working groups think they're authority 
exceeds the President's.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The working groups were given a broad 
mandate to look at all options; they've done that.
	     
	     Q	  Are you going to put out his income tax?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, there will be something available on 
his income tax probably later this afternoon.  His return will be 
available. 
	     
	     Q	  Will there be any kind of briefing to go through 
it?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, nothing's planned.  I think someone will 
be available, probably not in a briefing setting, but to walk you 
through the questions.
	     
	     Q	  We're used to be walked line-by-line through the 
presidential tax forms.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I've seen those briefings.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Could we have one?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:   No, I don't think there will be any kind of 
a formal briefing, but there will be somebody available to answer 
your questions about it.
	     
	     Q	  Did they file a joint form?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  When did he file it?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe it's being filed today.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, is there going to be a backgrounder for 
Miyazawa?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, there will be a readout after the 
meeting.
	     
	     Q	  No backgrounder today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No backgrounder today.
	     
	     Q	  This is complicated stuff.  We need help.  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We can't give you taxes and Miyazawa all in 
one day, it's too confusing.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Vance and Owen have opened the doors on the use of 
force in Bosnia.   They've both said that, A, they never ruled it 
out, and B, it might be necessary now.  Does that influence your 
thinking on whether or not to change your approach?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's been no change in our policy towards 
Bosnia.  We have always said that we'd consider --
	     
	     Q	  But does that impact upon your decision?  Are they 
people whose opinions would carry weight with you?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  They're people whose opinions carry weight 
certainly.  I mean, the President supports the process that they've 
initiated.  But there's been no change in our policy for Bosnia, 
although we're considering a number of options right now.  If the 
Serbs don't come back to the negotiating table, if they don't sign on 
to some kind of an agreement, we will consider additional options, 
which we've been saying regularly.
	     
	     Q	  One follow-up question then?  We cannot get a 
straight answer from anyone in the administration.  Why do you not 
set a deadline for the Serbs?  Can you tell us the strategic or 
tactical reasons for not giving them a deadline to come to the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're continuing to put pressure on them 
every day.
	     
	     Q	  Which doesn't work so --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, we think it is having some effect.  
We're going to continue to tighten sanctions.  As you know, we 
support the omnibus resolution.  We expect that to come to a vote on 
the 26th.  
	     
	     Q	  You say it's having an effect -- can you give us 
any documentation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'd be happy to provide somebody to talk to 
you about the impact of the sanctions and things like that.
	     
	     Q	  There's been no -- you have not been able to 
provide anybody who can tell us that the sanctions have had any 
effect in Bosnia.  Serbia, yes; in Bosnia, no.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that they've had effect in Serbia 
and we think they've had some effect in Bosnia.  And again, I'll be 
happy to provide somebody to walk you through the details of that, if 
you'd like.
	     
	     Q	  We would like to hear from someone who can show us 
what the effect has been in Bosnia.  We had the briefing on all of 
the terrible things that are happening in Belgrade, but we haven't 
seen anything that indicates an impact on the fighting.  Can you 
provide something along those lines?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I will see what I can get you.
	     
	     Q	  On the extra Russian aid that Christopher announced 
this morning -- where is that money coming from?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll have to work with Congress on the 
details of that package.
	     
	     Q	  So that would be new money that you would hope to 
get?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:    Yes, that's new money, in addition to the 
$1.6 billion announced in Vancouver.  So I assume that you all have 
seen the $1.8-billion package that was announced this morning in 
Tokyo by Secretary Christopher.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't there a concern, though, about offering 
something which you have to get in Congress?  I mean, that was the 
concern with Vancouver; you didn't want to do that.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The concern with Vancouver was to do 
something immediately, which required money that was already approved 
in the Fiscal '93 budget.  What we're looking at now is a little bit 
longer-term plan to build on top of the $1.6 billion that we 
announced in Vancouver.  This clearly will require congressional 
approval, or some of it will anyway, and we're going to continue to 
work with Congress to make that happen.
	     
	     Q	  To what extent has that been vetted or agreed to by 
Congress?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The President has had a number of 
conversations with members and will continue to work with them as 
this process moves forward.
	     
	     Q	  Was Christopher able to put this package out with a 
fair degree of understanding that you will be able to get it through 
Congress?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It was created in consultation with 
Congress.
	     
	     Q	  In meeting with the law enforcement officials, is 
that -- does that have a set speech and a goal?  A direction?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, the President will talk about -- and 
the law enforcement organizations are endorsing the President's jobs 
package.  They believe particularly the summer jobs package will help 
give kids something to do.
	     
	     Q	  Who are they?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's members or leadership from three 
organizations:  NAPO, which is the National Association of Police 
Organizations; IBPO, which is the International Brotherhood of Police 
Organizations, I believe; and IUPA, which is the International Union 
of Police Associations.
	     
	     Q	  Will the FBI chief be there?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The FBI chief?  No.
	     
	     Q	  Or any other federal law enforcement officials?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, it will be the President and these 
national law enforcement organization leaders.
	     
	     Q	  Does the $1.8 billion announced today include the 
$400 million that's in the FY '94 budget for disarmament?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.  The Nunn-Lugar money is separate.
	     
	     Q	  So this would be the $700 million that's in the 
budget already, plus another $1.1 billion?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe all of this is on top of the $700 
million already in the budget.
	     
	     Q	  Is this going to be part of the supplemental or 
Fiscal '94 --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll work with Congress on the exact 
funding mechanism -- on exactly how this will be paid for.
	     
	     Q	  This $1.8 billion on top of --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  On top of $700 million -- on top of the $400 
million Nunn-Lugar money we announced earlier.
	     
	     Q	  And this is what prompted the President to call Bob 
Dole -- it was on this tranche, not on the previous money he was 
calling Bob Dole?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	  Is there a briefing on Miyazawa?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There will be a readout after the meeting 
with Miyazawa.  Tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, on a totally unrelated matter, some 
Republicans who are active in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are 
complaining about this new cozy relationship between the White House 
and the Chamber of Commerce.  There are -- the town hall meeting the 
other night, the satellite and all of this relationship.
Does the White House feel that you're getting too close to these 
Chambers of Commerce?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That's an interesting charge.  (Laughter.)  
After how many years of Democrats being accused of not paying any 
attention to the Chambers, now there are those who would accuse us of 
being too close.  I think that's interesting.  But no, we're thrilled 
by the support we've received from the national Chamber and local 
Chambers across the country and we'll continue to work with them on 
this and other initiatives.
	     
	     Q	  What's the status of the President thinking about 
going to this Democratic retreat?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's on his calendar.  I think he'll almost 
certainly go.
	     
	     Q	  All three days?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We haven't figured out exactly when he'll be 
there yet.  
	     
	     Q	  Is it open to coverage?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I believe the whole thing is closed.
	     
	     Q	  Is he going to have any kind of address, statement, 
anything at all on the gay rights march on the 25th?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're still looking at that.  We haven't 
made a final decision about how we'll -- who will make a statement or 
what --
	     
	     Q	  Any meetings scheduled with any of the leaders?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing is scheduled, but I wouldn't rule it 
out.
	     
	     Q	  What about an AIDS czar?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's coming.
	     
	     Q	  Anything on the weekend?
	     
	     Q	  There's been a suggestion that he's going to this 
retreat to avoid having to participate in the gay rights -- or appear 
or have any involvement in the gay rights march.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I think this is something he's been 
discussing for a long time -- appearing at the Senate Democratic 
retreat.
	     
	     Q	  The weekend?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Weekend?  Don't know -- the only thing on 
right now is the radio address on Saturday.
	     
	     Q	  Any travel plans?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  If it changes -- none right now.
	     
	     Q	  He's not going to be off campaigning for his 
stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No specific plans right now.
	     
	     Q	  What about mid-week?  Anything likely?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's possible.  Yes, I think it's likely 
that we'll travel next week -- certainly the weekend.
	     
	     Q	  Has he called Thurmond about his daughter?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  I'll check.
	     
	     Q	  Going to name a drug czar this weekend?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  This weekend?  I don't believe so.
	     
	     Q	  And the radio address on Saturday -- is that going 
to be focused on the stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm sure it will.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END10:10 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178549
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: VP Gore Joins Students in Orlando for 1st Kids Earth Summit



                           WHITE HOUSE
                   OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
_________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                CONTACT:  Heidi Kukis
THURSDAY, April 15, 1993                       202-456-7035
                                               Julia Payne
                                               202-456-7036


    GORE JOINS STUDENTS IN ORLANDO FOR FIRST KIDS EARTH SUMMIT
    Will Take Part in Special Town Meeting On the Environment
 ******** SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 1993 - ORLANDO, FLORIDA **********

     WASINGTON -- Joining students from across the United States 
and around the world for the first ever Kids Earth Summit, Vice 
President Al Gore will travel to Orlando, Florida, on Saturday 
(4/17) and participate in a special town hall meeting, hosted by 
Linda Ellerbee for broadcast on Nickelodeon, to hear the young 
people's concerns and share ideas about the environment.

     The Vice President will take part in the "Kids World 
Council: Plan It for the Planet" from 2-5 PM (EDT) Saturday 
(4/17) in Orlando, Florida.  He will tour a display of student 
environmental projects, then videotape the town hall meeting 
where he will discuss with student delegates their concerns about 
the environment and their plans for an environmentally sound 
future.

     The town hall meeting will be moderated by Linda Ellerbee 
and taped for a news special, "Nickelodeon Special Edition:  Plan 
It for the Planet," which will air on Sunday, April 18 at 8 PM 
(EDT).  It is sponsored by Nickelodeon and the Children's Earth 
Fund.

     "Young people care about the environment because they know 
it affects our future.  Across the country and around the world, 
young people are speaking out about the environmental challenges 
we face.  They are identifying problems, thinking about 
solutions, and they are demanding action from their leaders," the 
Vice President said.

     The Kids World Council delegates are meeting for three days 
in Orlando to discuss how to save energy and switch to renewable 
energy.  They will be following the format and goals of the Earth 
Summit that took place last year in Rio de Janeiro.  The Vice 
President led the Senate Delegation to the Earth Summit.

     "I look forward to hearing what young people have to say 
about the environment and their future.  Their insight into the 
world around us is important," the Vice President said.

                                (MORE)


   

     

     	  

                 SCHEDULE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
                     Saturday, April 17, 1993


2:15 PM (EDT) VICE PRESIDENT TOURS display of student                           
 environmental projects.
              Nickelodeon Studios
              Orlando, Florida


3:30 PM (EDT) VICE PRESIDENT TAKES PART IN TOWN HALL MEETING
              with Kids World Council delegates and
              Linda Ellerbee.
              Nickelodeon Studios
              Orlando, Florida


5 PM (EDT)    VICE PRESIDENT DEPARTS from Kids World Council
              for Washington, D.C.




     NOTE:  PRESS THAT WISH TO ATTEND SHOULD CONTACT EILEEN                    
PARISE OR MARTY VON RUDEN IN FLORIDA AT 407-352-7589.

 


                                ##
             


      	   
     
     

       


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178550
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks to Law Enforcement Leaders



	     	  


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 15, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                   TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
	     
	     
                           The Rose Garden 


2:52 P.M. EDT


	     THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Ladies and gentlemen, 
two months ago I presented a comprehensive plan to reduce our 
national deficit and to increase our investment in the American 
people, their jobs and their economic future.  The federal budget 
plan passed Congress in record time, and created a new sense of hope 
and opportunity in the country.  
	     
	     Then, the short-term jobs plan I presented to Congress, 
which would create a half a million jobs in the next two years passed 
the House of Representatives two weeks ago.  It now has the support 
of a majority of the United States Senate. 
	     
	     All of these members of Congress know it's time to get 
the economy moving again, to get job growth going again, to get a 
fast start on the investments we need to build a lasting prosperity.  
Unfortunately, a minority of the members of the United States Senate 
have used gridlock tactics to prevent their colleagues from working 
the will of the majority on the jobs bill.
	     
	     When Congress returns, I ask every senator from every 
state and from both parties to remember what is at stake.  The issue 
is not politics, it's people.  Sixteen million of them are looking 
for full-time jobs and can't find them.  These men and women don't 
care about who's up or down in Washington.  They care about paying 
the rent and meeting the mortgage payment, about putting food on the 
table and buying shoes for their children, about regaining a sense of 
dignity that comes from doing a day's work and supporting their 
families and drawing a paycheck.
	     
	     They're asking those of us who have the privilege of 
serving to put aside politics and do something now to move our 
economy forward.  I am prepared to do that.  And I have been working 
with the Senate to come up with an adjusted package that meets some 
of the concerns of those who have been blocking action on the jobs 
plan.  I'm willing to compromise, so long as we keep the focus on 
jobs, keep the focus on growth and keep the focus on meeting unmet 
national needs.  
	     
	     Our opponents have been asking for a smaller package.  
Today I ask them to join me in determining exactly what kind and what 
size package Congress can approve that actually meets the needs of 
the American people. 
	     
	     But even as we make those reductions and the package 
will be smaller, I believe we must address problems that are on the 
minds of millions of Americans, and one in particular, and that is 
the need to toughen law enforcement in our society to deal with the 
dramatic rise in violent crime. 
	     
	     So I will ask, even in this reduced package, for an 
additional $200 million in federal funding to help local communities 
to rehire police officers who have been laid off because of the 
fiscal problems caused by the national recession.  Together, with a 
matching effort by local governments, this could put as many as 
10,000 police officers back on the job, and back on the beat in 
communities all across our nation.
	     
	     At a time when too many of our people live in fear of 
violent crime, when too many businesses have closed and too many 
people have lost their jobs because people are afraid to leave their 
homes, rehiring thousands of officers is one of the best investments 
America can make.  And I ask both Houses of Congress to make that 
investment in our people's safety and in their piece of mind.  
	     
	     I believe in the need for strong federal action to keep 
the economy going toward recovery and to create jobs.  Make no 
mistake about it:  I will fight for these priorities as hard as I 
ever have.  I will never forget that the people sent me here to fight 
for their jobs, their future and for fundamental change.
	     
	     I want to thank the police officers who are here today 
and tell you that not a single one of them knew before they came here 
that I had determined to ask for more money in this jobs bill to 
rehire police officers.  They came here because they believe in the 
summer jobs portion of the package.  And I want them to be free to 
talk about that.  They came here not out of any law enforcement 
concern other than the fact that they wanted the kids in this country 
to have a chance to have jobs this summer, to have safer streets and 
a brighter and more peaceful future.
	     
	     I say what I say today not just because it's good for 
law enforcement but because it's good for the people who live in 
these communities.  I have always supported community policing not 
only because it helps to prevent crime and to lower the crime rate, 
but because it cements better relationships between people in law 
enforcement and the people that they're hired to protect.  It reduces 
the chances of abusive action by police officers and increases the 
chances of harmony and safe streets at the same time.
	     
	     These are the kinds of things that we are trying to do.  
I promised in my campaign that I'd do everything I could to put 
another 100,000 police officers on the street over the next four 
years.  This makes a good downpayment on that.  This keeps in mind 
the core of the jobs package.  And this will help us to move forward.  
	     
	     So I ask the people in the Senate who have blocked the 
jobs bill, let's work together.  I can accept a reduced package if 
you will increase your commitment to safe streets.  I do not accept 
the fact that we should reduce our commitment to summer jobs or to 
building our infrastructure or to doing those other things that will 
create real and lasting  prosperity for our people.  I have done my 
part now to end the gridlock; I ask you to do yours.  
	     
	     I want now to give the people who are here with me on 
the platform a chance to make some remarks and to be heard by the 
American people -- beginning with Janet Reno, the distinguished 
Attorney General.
  
	     
	     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, can you tell us -- do you think that 
the jobs package could be put in further jeopardy by controversy over 
the suggestion of a VAT tax at this point in the congressional 
dialogue?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Not at all.  I think it should have --
they wouldn't have any relationship one to the other.  First of all, 
I made absolutely no decision on that.  You should know that there's 
a lot of support in the business community and the labor community -- 
people have asked us to consider that because of the enormous burden 
of the present system on many of our major employers, particularly 
many of those that we depend upon to generate jobs and to carry the 
strength of this economy.  But I have made absolutely no decision 
that would even approach that on that or any other kind of general 
tax.
	     
	     Q	  Do you personally believe that the American public 
is ready to pay for -- to have another tax to pay for health care?  I 
mean, apart from what business and labor leaders have said --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm not going to speculate on that.  I 
will say this:  The real issue is how quickly we can recycle the 
benefits of all the savings to cover the cost.  I mean, that is --
everyone knows that if you do what we're proposing to do, if you 
streamline the insurance system, if you fix the system so that 
there's no longer an enormous economic incentive to over-utilize or 
over-provide certain services, if you provide primary and preventive 
care in places where it isn't now, every single analysis shows 
absolutely massive savings to the health care system.
	     
	     The real question is whether you can transfer those 
savings to cover those who have no coverage now or those who have 
virtually no coverage so that you provide people the security.  I 
have no idea.  The polls say that, but I don't know.  All I know is 
the polls that I see in the press that many of you have commissioned, 
they say overwhelmingly the American people want the security of an 
affordable health care system.
	     
	     But I don't think that has anything to do with this 
stimulus, and it certainly shouldn't have.  People want a job first 
and foremost.  They want that more than anything else.
	     
	     Q	  Now that you've announced your willingness to 
compromise on the stimulus package, can you tell us what parts of 
your package you consider vital and uncompromisable?  I assume summer 
jobs is one.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I want the summer jobs; I want the 
highway program and I want the police program.  I still intend -- let 
me say this:  I still intend to fully and aggressively push the crime 
bill, which did not pass the Congress last year.  This is a 
supplement to that, not a substitute for it in any way.  But I think 
we need to do that.
	     
	     I think we need the Ryan White funds because of the 
enormous health care burdens to the communities that are inordinately 
and disproportionately affected by the problems of caring for people 
with AIDS.  And there are several other things that I think should be 
done.  We have to do the Agriculture Department meat inspectors; the 
safety of the public depends on that.  
	     
	     There are a number of other things that I don't -- I 
don't think any of it should be cut, but I have given Senator 
Mitchell and Senator Byrd -- I talked to them.  And Senator Dole 
called me yesterday to discuss this, and I told him that I would call 
him back.  I called him back last night in New Hampshire and we 
discussed this.  And I basically asked them to talk today, and said 
that I would not make any statements about any specifics until at 
least they had a chance to talk to see whether or not they could 
reach some accord.  
	     
	     So I don't want to be any more specific than I have been 
already, and let's see if they can talk it out.
	     
	     Q	  When you talked to Senator Dole and Senator 
Mitchell did you tell them about your -- increase also, that $200 
million, that you want that as part of the package?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I did -- I told Senator -- I left word 
for Senator Mitchell last night about it.  When I talked to Senator 
Dole -- I don't remember for sure -- I do not believe I mentioned it.  
But I did tell him that I was prepared to reduce the package and I 
wanted to break the gridlock, and I told him that I was working on a 
reformulation of it so that -- in the hope that it would become even 
more focused on jobs and the kinds of issues that I thought the 
American people wanted us to address.  And this is certainly 
consistent with that.
	     
	     Thank you.

                                 END3:12 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178555
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

In article <1993Apr15.162802.20933@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:
>
>The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train?
>
>I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With
>the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think
>people in Dallas or Houston need it either.

I totally agree.  Really, the only people this is going to benefit, are
those who live in the cities where the train stops.  Who wants to drive
to the train station from X (Lubbock for example)?  It's probably farther
to drive to the train station than it is to the nearest national airport.

I really can't see spending 5.7 billion on a system that only three cities
will benefit from.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178556
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Trip to Pittsburg



                         THE WHITE HOUSE


                  Office of the Press Secretary

                                                                   
For Immediate Release                             April 15, 1993



                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY



     The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April 
17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the 
state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818 
full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a 
public address at Pittsburgh International Airport at 9:30 am.  

     The President will leave Washington early Saturday morning 
and return that afternoon.  A White House press charter will 
depart Andrews Air Force Base at 7:30.  Filing facilities will be 
available in Pittsburgh.

                               ###




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178557
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

In article <1993Apr13.150740.6221@iqsc.COM> rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black) writes:
>rail in Texas.  Being from California, I have come to the conclusion 
>that one has two choices for preventing economic strangulation through
>traffic:  High speed rail or growth limits.
>
>Rex

Growth limits?  How will HSR help with the traffic congestion?  From what
I understand, the rail will not stop in places like Waco, or Bryan, or
lots of intermediate places in between.  Even though I live in Austin,
I don't see myself using the train except on rare occasions.  probably
twice a year.  And at $65 dollars a ticket I could probably drive for 
cheaper also. (even if the price of gas went up)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178558
From: chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue




> Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
>
>

>10. Men in uniform are persona non grata in the home of our Commander in
>    Chief.
>
>9.  Algore's enviro-mentalism will make the Clean Air Act look like an
>    industrial policy.
>
>8.  Higher taxes are once again the prescription for all that ails America.
>
>7.  Tax dodging is unpatriotic; draft dodging is a symbol of pride.
>
>6.  Beaded curtains hang from the Oval Office windows.
>
>5.  Socialism may be dead in the ex-Soviet Union but we are told to prepare
>    for the nationalization of our health care resources. (These people
>    must be inhaling something.)
>
>4.  Not quite free love but eating Flowers is considered healthy.
>
>3.  The feminazis have a President in the White House whether the rest of
>    us realize it or not.
>
>2.  Slick may be the first draft dodger to send American troops into
>    combat.
>
>1.  Slick may be unpopular with middle-class Americans, but he's a BIG HIT
>    on campus with the professorial class.
>
>
>
>Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
>

Here's my own top ten response to Mr. Ipser's list


10.  It's about time we have a President that might actually stand up to the
     military.  Our men and women in uniform must learn that the world does not
     revolve around them, and that one of the things they're out there defending
     is our right to be critical of them, even denounce them.

9.   Let me explain something to you.  Environmental policy and industrial
     policy MUST go hand in hand.  Our nation, and indeed, our planet cannot
     afford to continue ignoring this as was done over the last twelve years.
     Our industrial/environmental position has been downright SHAMEFUL! We
     must have active government support of the key industries such as,
     telecommunications, microelectronics, medical, biotech, and environmental
     tech.  Meanwhile weed out old, inneficient, high-polution, industries
     that are better left to other nations.  This will make us richer, help
     produce new jobs, and help the environment.  To give credit where credit
     is due, I heard a lot of this in a speech by Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
     tonite.  In addition, it's time we get really, really serious about 
     issues like overpopulation, globabl warming, and ozone depletion.  The
     planet on which we live should be our utmost priority!

8.   It just so happens that that it takes money to make this country work,
     to provide the services that people need, and to help solve the problems
     that need to be solved.  Granted, some things can probably be done more
     efficiently for less money, and should be.  But some things are going to
     cost more money and I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone whining about
     taxes all the time.  You want to live in my country, you pay your fair
     share!

7.   I can't believe what hypocrites people are when they ask people to give
     up their lives for their country and then complain about taxes.  If you're
     willing to send me off to die for some stupid obsession with fighting an
     enemy which at best doesn't affect us and at worst really should be our
     friend, then you have no right to tell me you shouldn't pay taxes!

6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!

5.   Look, Canada, Europe, and Japan manage to provide health care for their
     citizens (and, yes, basic health IS a human right which people are
     entitled to).  If these nations aren't capitalist enough for you, then
     I guess we've found something better than capitalism!  There is nothing
     sacred about the capitalist system, and if something, be it socialism
     or anything else, works better, then I say let capitalism die.

4.   Make love, not War!

3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
     at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
     to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
     them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly 
     have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
     discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
     the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.

2.   See number 10.

1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!

        

    -Amar Chaudhary

     Peace, Land, at Matzoh! 
     "AC in DC in 2008!"

None of the opinions here necessary reflect the opinions of Yale University or
anyone or anything associated with it, except for me, of course :)

Please post reponses or send them to chaudhary-amar@cs.yale.edu



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178559
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writ
es:
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR
.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>
>

Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready 
immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one 
frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health 
care service.

(I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are 
slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't 
deserve my tax help).

ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178560
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <15377@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #But what came out,
> #in much lower profile reporting, was that the "victim" was a
> #prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the false
> #accusation.
> 
> There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the
> defense merely alledged that she was. Even Clayton knows the
> difference. Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know the difference. 

Evidence given for her prostitute status, besides the admittedly 
questionable claim of the man on trial included:

1. Prior employment in a number of massage parlors, with women who
claimed that she worked as a prostitute;

2. Walking around a truck stop at 4:00 AM wearing a lace miniskirt,
a halter top, and no underwear of any sort;

3. Not having a purse or other I.D. with her.

Not enough to convict her, but enough to create reasonable doubt
whether a rape actually took place, or theft of services.

Are you just ignorant, or lying again?

> #the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the 
> #Marines were engaged in self-defense.
> 
> No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder
> on proof. A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines: 
> 
> #	New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in
> #the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving the
> #Marines acted to cause injury.

The accounts on the evening news indicated that they claimed self-
defense, and the judge agreed that they were so operating.

> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178561
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

In article <1993Apr14.164549.24069@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
> In article <15342@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # # And now those "other options" don't exist.  We probably agree on this
# # # more than you think--welfare was invented to solve a problem of the
# # # 30's, but the poverty is now so much worse, and our economic infra-
# # # structure has been so eroded, that it just can't keep up any more.
# 
# # You mean, since your philosophy took over, the economy has almost
# # collapsed.
# 
# Excuse me, *my* philosophy?  You don't have any idea what *my* philosophy
# is.  The American economy has had its ups and downs through a number of
# prevailing economic philosophies.  But then, economics is hardly a science.

In my lifetime, your philosophy -- socialism masquerading as a liberal
welfare state -- has been in ascendancy.

# No, I mean exactly what I wrote--the welfare system of the New Deal is
# wholly inadequate to cope with the current state of affairs.

Absolutely.  So the response of socialists is take us even further
into socialism.

# # # # # (2) Whether or not the fathers work
# # # # # is not germane to single mothers.
#  
# # # # Very true.  But the promotion of casual sexuality is something that
# # # # plays a part in the single mother problem.
# 
# # # I'll buy that--and there's lots of reasons for it, extremely far down on
# # # the list being the flash-in-the-pan media attention a bunch of middle-
# # # class dropouts got for their philosophy and experimentation.  
# 
# # Flash-in-the-pan?  No, your subculture has utterly dominated the
# # TV and movie industries for two decades now.
# 
# *My* subculture?  My, we're getting personal.  The only subculture I see
# dominating the TV and movie industries is *money*.  If you'll buy it,
# they'll sell it.  And as recent movements to boycott TV advertisers have
# shown, they're *very* sensitive about what sells.  Whatever happened to
# personal responsibility, anyway?  Or am I personally responsible for
# the decline in that, too?

To the extent that people have been encouraged to NOT be responsible
for themselves, yes.

# # # # Come on.  You and I both know that the major problem of this society
# # # # today isn't a lack of employment, it's a lack of people willing to work.
# 
# # # Huh???  Tell that to the single mother I know who was laid off from
# # # her $10/hour job at a hospital and now works 2 full-time minimum-
# # # wage jobs to barely be able to support herself and her kid.  *Barely.*
# # # Hey, she's too proud to go on public assistance, but the only jobs
# # # she can find are menial and with no benefits.  And no career path
# # # either--they find excuses to lay people off and hire new ones rather
# # # than give raises and perks.  And why not?  It's a lot cheaper.
# 
# # Oddly enough, all the unskilled or semiskilled people I know manage
# # to find employment almost immediately.  Maybe she needs to move to a
# # cheaper part of the country, where jobs are plentiful, and the cost
# # of living is lower.
# 
# The west side of Chicago is about as cheap as it gets--squalor city.
# Tell me about all these places where it's cheap to live and jobs are
# abundant--I'll pass them on.

Sonoma County.

# You live in a strange and wondrous place, sir.  Inexpensive housing,

Not exactly cheap, but not Los Angeles, either.

# lots of employment, and utterly surrounded by socialists.  Well, I suppose
# that's the sort of environment that would attract socialists, or at least
# not dissuade them.

No, it's that areas with a lot of wealthy breed socialists -- all the
spoiled rich kids, feeling guilty about their wealth.  But not guilty
enough to give it away -- they just look for politicians to take MY
more limited wealth away.

# # # I see a lot of people willing--nay, eager--to work.  What I don't see
# # # is a system that makes it at all feasible to do so.  It's not just
# # # welfare, which nobody enjoys, but there just aren't the jobs any more.
# # # When the US was expanding industrial capacity there was always a mill
# # # to go work in--skills to learn, a future.  Now there's only McDonalds.
# 
# # Odd.  Not the experience of anyone I know.  Just the opposite.
# 
# In California???

Yup.

# # # Mr. Cramer, I was there:  Hippiedom was a very low-budget operation.
# # # Our drugs were cheap.
# 
# # The money I was referring to was Aid to Families with Druggie 
# # Cohabitators (AFDC).
# 
# Well, I doubt that much of this goes to drugs--there isn't much left after
# buying food, and there is very little in the first place.  Sure, you read
# about such cases now and then, but that's what makes them news.  Show me
# your statistics about AFDC abuse.

I can tell you that relatives I have known, the drugs came first, the
food was secondary.

# Ken Perlow   ***** *****
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178562
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <CB.93Apr5130728@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> Craig Depken writes:
> 
>     The fact that the South had a number of slave owners is true, but
>     relatively small numbers (around 1200) had more than a few hundred slaves.
>     (I have to get references that I do not have here for 
>     exact numbers.)
> 
> If it has any bearing on this discussion, I saw a figure for the total
> number of slave-owners as 300,000.  Does anyone have a figure for how
> many slaves there were?  How many farmers without slaves?
> 
> Chris Brewster                            E-MAIL ADDRESS: cb@cray.com

In 1860:

region              total population  free blacks  %       slaves   %
U.S.                32,227,616        487,070      1.5%    3,953,818 12.3%
Confederacy          9,103,332        132,760      1.5%    3,521,110 38.7%
Union Slave States   3,212,041        128,158      4.0%      432,586 13.5%
All Union States    23,124,284        354,310      1.5%      432,708  1.9%
Union "Free" States 19,912,243        226,152      1.1%          122  0.0%


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178563
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Evidence

In article <115298@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> BK:
# ##So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality?
# 
# CC:
# #The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it.
# 
# Hmmm.
# 
# I've told you more than once that I've been monogamous for almost 4 years
# now, and that I really don't get into fetishes.

Then you are nearly the only homosexual who is.  I don't believe you.
You've changed your story before.

# Yet you maintain my homosexual activity is still immoral.
# 
# Care to elaborate?
# 
# For that matter, explain why fetishes are immoral?
# 
# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

The fact that your fetish is more important than who you are making
love to.  (Actually, in your case, "having sex with.")
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178564
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: New Study Out On Gay Percentage


From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:

    Male sex survey: Gay activity low

    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.

The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178565
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr13.104856.25246@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> In article <C581G8.Kw8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> >In article <15283@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ##For a while, homosexuals paid higher insurance rates than straights,
# ##and with very good reason, until the government made it illegal to
# ##do so.
# 
# Well if we go by this philosophy how many Children do you think
# we help pay for with our insurance premiums???  Children who obviously
# cannot be afforded, since the insurance companies have to pay for
# all of the prenatal and birthing.....  What about the children born
# with horrible flaws who cost the system an arm and a leg to be kept alive?
# We all pay because we are all part of this society and we should take
# care of one another.....

Oddly enough, dependent coverage costs a bit more than for one self
alone.  But if you really believe your claims, you could make a lot
of money starting the "Homosexuals Health Insurance Co." and refuse to
insure "breeders."  But I shudder to think what your premiums will be
like.

# Bil Snodgrass III


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178566
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

In article <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.
edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>>}
>|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
>|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
>|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
>|>>
>|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
>|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
>|>
>|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary
>
>Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection
>effectively makes it a tax.
>
>

>|>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
>|>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
>|>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.
>
>Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
>don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
>has done to the country.
>
>Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselve
s,
>thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
>ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
>class.
>

This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
1980 election.

This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame,
pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.

Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more than 
the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples' 
books.  What a joke.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178567
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Release on USIA Appointments



                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                        April 15, 1993



 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT JOSEPH DUFFEY NAMED TO HEAD USIA,
        MICA TO CHAIR BOARD FOR INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING


Washington, D.C. -  President Clinton today announced his 
intention to nominate American University President and former 
State Department Assistant Secretary Joseph Duffey to be Director 
of the United States Information Agency. The President also 
designated Daniel Mica Chairman of the Board for International 
Broadcasting.
     
     "Joe Duffey's expertise in the fields of education, 
communications and foreign affairs is vast and will serve him 
well as he takes the helm at USIA and works to promote the ideals 
of democracy and freedom abroad," the President said. 

     President of American University in Washington, D.C. since 
1991, Duffey previously served nine years as Chancellor and 
President of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In 1977 
he served as Assistant Secretary of State, Education and Cultural 
Affairs in the State Department. Duffey served as Chairman of the 
National Endowment for the Humanities under both Presidents 
Carter and Reagan. 

     In 1978 and 1980, Duffey served as a United States delegate 
to the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific and Cultural Organization. In 1991, Duffey served as 
joint head of the U.S. Delegation observing national elections in 
Ethiopia. 

     USIA, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, is an 
independent foreign affairs agency within the executive branch 
that explains and supports U.S. foreign policy and national 
security interests abroad through a wide range of information 
programs. Among the agency's programs are the Fulbright academic 
program, Voice of America, the Worldnet satellite television 
system and a network of overseas libraries and cultural centers.  
The agency has more than 210 posts in more than 140 countries.

                              (more)
Press Release
pg. 2




     Mica becomes Chairman of the Board for International 
Broadcasting after serving as a member of the board since 1991.

     "Dan Mica has done an excellent job on the Board of 
International Broadcasting and I expect he will continue as 
chairman to promote the cause of democracy abroad," the President 
said.


     Biographical sketches of the appointees follow:       


Joseph Duffey has served as President of American University 
since 1991. Prior to his tenure at American, Duffey served as 
Chancellor and President of the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst (1982 - 91) and as a Guest Scholar at the Brookings 
Institution (1982). He served as Chairman of the National 
Endowment for the Humanities from 1977 - 82 and as Assistant 
Secretary of State, Education and Cultural Affairs with the 
Department of State in 1977. Duffey holds 14 honorary degrees 
from American colleges and universities. In 1980 he was named 
Commander of the Order of the Crown by the King of Belgium and he 
has been a member of the Council of Foreign Relations since 1979. 
Duffey received a BA from Marshall University in 1954, a BD from 
the Andover Newton Theological School in 1958, a STM from Yale 
University in 1963 and a Ph.D. from the Harvard Seminary 
Foundation in 1969. Duffey is a member of the National Business-
Higher Education Forum and a founder and co-chairman of the 
Western Massachusetts Economic Development Conference. Duffey is 
married to Anne Wexler and has four sons.


Daniel Mica is a former U.S. Representative from the 14th 
District of Florida and has served on the Board of International 
Broadcasting since 1991. During his tenure in Congress from 1979 
- 89 he served on the House Committee on Foreign Relations and 
was appointed by President Reagan as the Congressional 
Representative to the United Nations. 


                           -30-30-30- 




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178568
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights

---
51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally
The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993

   Melbourne, Florida --   [...]

   Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets
   within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice.
   Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses
   or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.

   The protesters say the ruling all but wiped out the First Amendment
   to the Constitution.

   ``This is our sidewalk,'' said Joe Carroll, 33, a landscaper who
   marched with his children, Mary Grace, 8, and John, 7.

   ``I am not a rescuer.  I am not a trespasser.  It's just that this is
   my sidewalk.  I am not really protesting abortion.  We are protesting
   denial of our rights of assembly, religion, speech.  This judge is
   trashing the Constitution.''

   The children's grandmother led them away, sobbing, as Carroll and
   his father were arrested.

   Outside the clinic, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Washington,
   D.C.-based Feminist Majority Foundation, called for the Florida
   Legislature and Congress to pass laws as tough as the judge's
   order, which covers only Brevard and Seminole counties.

   ``This cannot go on,'' she said.  ``This is not freedom of speech,
   this is total psychological warfare with violence.  It is ridiculous
   to have to ask clinics to go court-by-court . . . to get protection.''

   [...]

---


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178569
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: The DEFAMATION LEAGUE

 
 The following was posted and no doubt retyped by Yigal Ahrens and considering 
 the importance of the issue and the almost total blackout except in 
 California, I am reposting to other appropriates groups.
 
 
 
 From LA Times, Friday, April 9, 1993.  P. A1.
 
 EVIDENCE OF ADL SPY OPERATION SEIZED BY POLICE
 
 By Richard C. Paddock, Times staff writer
 
 SAN FRANCISCO -- Police on Thursday served search warrants on the
 Anti-Defamation League here and in Los Angeles, seizing evidence of a
 nationwide intelligence network accused of keeping files on more than
 950 political groups, newspapers and labor unions and as many as
 12,000 people.
 
 Describing the spy operation in great detail, San Francisco
 authorities simultaneously released voluminous documents telling how
 operatives of the Anti-Defamation League searched through trash and
 infiltrated organizations to gather intelligence on Arab-American,
 right-wing and what they called "pinko" organizations.
 
 Representatives of the Anti-Defamation League, a well-known
 organization in the U.S. Jewish community dedicated to fighting
 anti-Semitism, declined detailed comment Thursday but denied breaking
 any laws.
 
 Police allege that the organization maintains undercover operatives to
 gather political intelligence in at least seven cities, including Los
 Angeles and San Francisco.
 
 Groups that were the focus of the spy operation span the political
 spectrum, including such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan
 Resistance, Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, the National Assn. for the
 Advancement of Colored People, the United Farm Workers and the Jewish
 Defense League.  Also on the list were Mills College, the board of
 directors of San Francisco public television station KQED and the San
 Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper.
 
 People who were subjects of the spy operation included former
 Republican Rep. Pete McCloskey, jailed political extremist Lyndon H.
 LaRouche and Los Angeles Times foreign correspondent Scott Kraft, who
 is based in South Africa.
 
 Authorities said much of the material collected by the groups was
 confidential information obtained illegally from law enforcement
 agencies.  They also alleged that data on some individuals and
 organizations was sold separately to the South African government.
 
 In addition to allegations of obtaining confidential information from
 police, the Anti-Defamation League could face a total of 48 felony
 counts for not properly reporting the employment of its chief West
 Coast spy, Roy Bullock, according to the affidavit filed to justify
 the search warrant.
 
 The Anti-Defamation League disguised payments to Bullock for more than
 25 years by funneling $550 a week to Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I.
 Hochman, who then paid Bullock, according to the documents released in
 San Francisco.  Hochman, a former president of the Jewish Federation
 Council of Greater Los Angeles and one of the state's leading tax
 attorneys, will be out of the city until late next week and could not
 be reached for comment, his office said.
 
 Until 1990, Hochman, a former U.S. prosecutor, also was a member of a
 panel appointed by then-Sen. Pete Wilson to secretly make initial
 recommendations on new federal judges in California.  Hochman is a
 former regional president of the Anti-Defamation League.
 
 The league, which initially cooperated with police, has denied
 repeatedly that its intelligence-gathering operation broke any laws.
 League officials will not confirm or deny whether Bullock was an
 employee and have said they simply traded information with police
 departments about people who might be involved in hate crimes.
 
 But in an affidavit filed to obtain warrants for Thursday's searches,
 San Francisco police alleged that "ADL employees were apparently less
 than truthful" in providing information during an earlier search
 conducted without a warrant.
 
 David Lehrer, executive director of the Los Angeles ADL office, said
 the organization has not violated the law.  "There is nothing
 nefarious about how we operate or what we have done," he said.  "Our
 record speaks for itself."
 
 The police affidavit contends that Lehrer had sole control of a secret
 fund used to pay for "fact-finding operations."  Lehrer, according to
 the documents, signed checks from the account under the name L.
 Patterson.
 
 An ADL official said the account was used to pay for subscriptions to
 a wide variety of extremist publications that might balk at sending
 them directly to the Anti-Defamation League.
 
 Bullock, 58, who has been collecting intelligence for the ADL for
 nearly 40 years, defended his efforts during a lengthy interview with
 San Francisco police.  He said that he gathered names from many
 sources and entered them into his computer under headings such as
 "Skins" and "Pinkos," but that did not necessarily mean that they were
 under surveillance.
 
 "I might never see or call up on 99% of them again," Bullock said.
 "And it doesn't mean anything that they're in the files.  It's not a
 threat to anyone's civil rights that a name appears in my files under,
 say, 'Pinko.'"
 
 In recent years, Bullock worked closely with San Francisco Police
 Officer Tom Gerard, who fled to the Phillippines last fall after he
 was questioned by the FBI in the case.
 
 A former CIA employee, Gerard supplied Bullock with criminal records
 and Department of Motor Vehicles information such as home addresses,
 vehicle registration, physical characteristics and drivers license
 photographs.
 
 Using files gathered for the Anti-Defamation League, Gerard and
 Bullock also provided information to the South African government,
 receiving $16,000 over four years, the documents show.
 
 The file on Times staff writer Kraft, which was apparently sold to the
 South African government, provides some insight into the hit-and-miss
 nature of the spy operation.
 
 The file notes that Kraft's articles "appear frequently in The Times
 and are well researched and written," but little else about the file
 is accurate.  The brief entry confuses The Times' Kraft with another
 Scott Kraft and provides the South African government with the wrong
 Kraft's physical description, photograph and other personal
 information.
 
 Nevertheless, the documents provide illuminating details of how
 Bullock for decades infiltrated all manner of organizations, from
 skinheads to left-wing radicals, searching regularly through the trash
 of target groups.  Using Anti-Defamation League funds, he also ran his
 own paid informants under code names such as "Scott" and "Scumbag."
 
 He worked closely with police officers up and down the coast,
 exchanged information with the FBI and worked with federal agencies,
 including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
 
 It was Bullock's work as a paid informant for the FBI -- while spying
 on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League and the South African
 government -- that proved his undoing. The FBI learned that he was an
 agent of a foreign government and began investigating, leading to the
 probe of the Anti-Defamation League's intelligence network.  The
 Anti-Defamation League employed undercover operatives to gather
 information in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Washington,
 Chicago, St. Louis and Atlanta, according to the affidavit and
 investigators.  Joining San Francisco police in searching league
 offices and a Los Angeles bank were investigators from the office of
 San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith and the state Franchise Tax
 Board.  The Los Angeles Police Department, which earlier refused to
 cooperate with the investigation, was informed of the searches in Los
 Angeles but not invited to participate.  Investigators suspect that
 some confidential information in the Anti-Defamation League files may
 have come from Los Angeles police officers.
 
 
 
 From Los Angeles Times, Saturday, April 10, 1993.  P. A23.
 
 ADL VOWS TO COOPERATE WITH SPY INVESTIGATION
 
 By Richard C. Paddock, Times staff writer.
 
 SAN FRANCISCO -- The Anti-Defamation League defended its record as a
 civil rights group Friday and said it will cooperate with authorities
 who are investigating whether the organization collected confidential
 police information on citizens and groups.
 
 But San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith said that Anti-Defamation
 League employees involved in intelligence gathering could face many
 felony counts of receiving confidential files, eavesdropping, tax
 violations and conspiracy.
 
 Police have accused the Anti-Defamation League of not being truthful
 about its spying operations, which collected information on more than
 12,000 individuals and 950 political groups across the political
 spectrum.
 
 Hundreds of pages of documents released by prosecutors Thursday show
 that the ADL maintained a nationwide intelligence network and kept
 files on political figures.
 
 Even so, Smith suggested that if the Anti-Defamation League shut down
 its spy operation, prosecutors would take that into account when
 deciding what charges to file.
 
 In a statement released in Washington, National Director Abraham H.
 Foxman described the ADL as "a Jewish defense agency which has fought
 to protect all minorities from bigotry and discrimination for 80
 years."
 
 Foxman said the organization is regarded as a credible source on
 extremist groups and has a tradition of routinely providing
 information to police, journalists, academics, government officials
 and the public.  It has never been the policy of the ADL to obtain
 information illegally, he said.
 
 "Like other journalists, in order to protect the confidentiality and
 physical safety of its sources, ADL will not comment on the nature or
 identity of any source of information," Foxman said.
 
 The Anti-Defamation League refused to acknowledge that one of its
 longtime employees, Roy Bullock, was anything more than "a private
 individual who is alleged to be an ADL 'informant.'"
 
 Among the documents released by prosecutors were detailed statements
 showing how the ADL funneled weekly payments to Bullock through
 Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I. Hochman.
 
 "Roy would penetrate organizations and needed this arrangement to be
 distanced from ADL," Hochman told a San Francisco police investigator.
 Hochman could not be reached Friday at his home or office for comment.
 
 Despite the Anti-Defamation League's assertion that it will cooperate
 with authorities, San Francisco police said the group did not turn
 over all pertinent documents during a voluntary search of the group's
 offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco last fall.
 
 A second round of searches Thursday, this time with search warrants,
 produced a vast quantity of records, primarily dealing with financial
 transactions, Smith said.  Further searches may be necessary and it
 will be at least a month before any charges are filed, he said.
 
 "The investigation, of course, will go wherever the facts lead us,"
 the district attorney said.
 --
 Yigal Arens
 USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
 arens@isi.edu
js


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178570
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Red Army Fraction (RAF) communique

As quoted from <c115184.734895755@assn119> by c115184@cs.UAlberta.CA (Merth Eric William):

> 
> >In article <C4vBM1.Gs0@NCoast.ORG>, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> 
> >|>As quoted from <C4vCtB.J1H@dscomsa.desy.de> by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
> >|>
> >|>> Isn't it wonderfull the way people can make the sadistic and indescriminate
> >|>> murder of the Bader-Meinhof gang sound like altruism?
> >|>
> >|>Gee Phil, I'd remember where you are and that these people are monitoring the
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >|>net.  I'd also remember that they have about as much sense of humor as Ed
>    ^^^
> 
> Damn. It isn't Big Brother after all? And all this time I thought that all
> those revolutionaries, while blowing things up and killing the odd
> innocent person in the process, really did love all us proles. ('cause
> _everybody knows_ that dialectical materialism will save you [even
> if it has to get you killed first]).
> What a fool I've been. 

What you fail to see is that in order to make a nightmarish stew of psychosis
and repression, you have to break a few eggs.  You the evil productive 
elements in society, are those eggs....

Damn the spirit, full speed ahead....

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178571
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.15.93



	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 15, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

                          The Briefing Room



1:04 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Good afternoon.  
	     
	     Q	  Could we do this on the lawn?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That would be nice.  Let's go out 
to the cherry blossoms.  We'll do like the President.
	     
	     Q	  Is the stimulus package dead? 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely not.  
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us more about the Dole talks?  You 
said it was a good visit, but no compromise.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.  The President had a good talk 
with Senator Dole last night.  I think that as we said before, there 
were no specific compromises on either side, although it was a very 
good discussion about the jobs package and about other issues as 
well.  As you know, the President first called Senator Dole I believe 
Tuesday night to talk about the Russian aid package.  They did not 
speak -- Senator Dole called him back Wednesday morning -- when the 
President was out.  Instead he spoke with Tony Lake, and at the close 
of that conversation, indicated that he wanted to speak to the 
President about the jobs and stimulus package.  They finally talked 
about that yesterday afternoon.
	     
	     At the close of that discussion they said that they 
would have another talk last night, which they did, when the Senator 
was up in New Hampshire.  And although there were no specific 
compromises made on either side, they did say that they would 
continue to have some discussions.  And that's where we are.
	     
	     Q	  Well, who is giving in?  Where is it standing --are 
both making concessions?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that it's at that 
phase.  No compromise has been made.  As the President has said 
consistently, he intends to come forward with an adjusted package.  
He believes in the package, but he believes that if it's going to 
take adjustments to get the minority to release it, he's willing to 
make those adjustments.
	     
	     Q	  On the subject of a VAT --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, boy.
	     
	     Q	  Can we stay on this for one more minute?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  We have a problem with the five minutes --
	     
	     Q	  I know no decisions have been made, but what would 
lead the health group to believe that a VAT might be necessary?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sorry, Andrea, I'm not going to go 
down that road.  No decisions have been made.  As the President said 
this morning, a number of groups, a number of members of Congress, a 
number of other organizations have recommended that this be looked 
at.  The working group is looking at it, but no decisions have been 
made.
	     
	     Q	  To follow, have they done that directly through 
him?  Have labor and business groups been in touch with the President 
about it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, although 
there's a lot of people who have public decisions in support of the 
VAT.  But the President has not made a decision.
	     
	     Q	  At the meetings that he's had with his own task 
force advisers, have they discussed the funding issue and what the 
possible options would be?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that that has been 
presented for a decision, no.
	     
	     Q	  Not for a decision, but has it been discussed as an 
option?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, there are a lot of levels of 
briefing.  I do not believe that the VAT has been presented to the 
President as, okay, this is something for you to decide on.  
	     
	     Q	  You're not saying he didn't know it was being 
considered, though, are you?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he said it's being considered.
	     
	     Q	  He knew that.
	     
	     Q	  But has he discussed that with his advisers?  
That's what I'm asking.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has said it's being 
considered.  I do not know what level of discussion there has been 
over the VAT.  It is something the working groups are looking at.  I 
don't even know that it's --
	     
	     Q	  But he didn't say he was considering, did he, at 
this stage?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he is not.  I think we're 
getting into something of a metaphysical debate right here.  What is 
considered -- 
	     
	     Q	  Well, he is the one who said, I haven't reviewed 
it.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That is true.  That is what I just 
repeated. 
	     
	     Q	  George, is there any concern here that as a result 
of the definite statement he made in February and the promise that if 
it were to be considered he'd let us know, and having it trickle out 
the way it did, that there may now be the development of a 
credibility gap on this issue and others?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think so.  I mean, it is 
now public knowledge that this is being considered.
	     
	     Q	  Is he or you at all embarrassed about the absolute 
statements that were made from this platform to the effect that it 
was off the table and was not being considered, and then to have it 
come out not from you people, but --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, wait a second.  It came out 
from the administration.  What are you talking about?
	     
	     Q	  What I'm saying is, though, that the President said 
he would let us know. 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.
	     
	     Q	  You people then said -- you said, I believe, that 
it's not going to be on the program.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  On March 25th.
	     
	     Q	  On March 25th. 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Circumstances change.
	     
	     Q	  Well, I understand.  But we have to find that out 
by rooting around in the fine print of an interview
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Rooting around -- I know you did do 
a very good job there to read the USA Today article.  But this is --
(laughter) -- the Deputy Director of the OMB and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services.  I mean, that is common anytime you guys 
write a story that has an unattributed quote from somebody in the 
Clinton administration, the headline is -- I'll look at it right 
here, and AP story -- "Clinton wants more money for spying."
	     
	     Q	  What about his remark that if it were being 
considered, he'd tell us about it?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  And the administration's concerned, 
and he'd let you know.
	     
	     Q	  And did he?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.  Absolutely.  What did he say 
this morning?
	     
	     Q	  It had to be dragged out of you here yesterday.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It didn't have to be dragged out of 
me.  We had the Deputy Director of the OMB, we had the Secretary of 
Health of Human Services say it was being considered.  That is his 
administration.  That is his administration policy.
	     
	     Q	  Were these authorized trial balloons, or were they 
orchestrated leaks?  I mean, what was the --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They were asked questions, they 
answered the questions.
	     
	     Q	  You're saying here that it didn't have to be 
dragged out, that you more or less made it clear yesterday you were 
considering it.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  I was very clear.  
Painfully clear.
	     
	     Q	  Was there a particular political strategy in making 
it clear the administration is considering a new tax increase on tax 
day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, it was just this issue is being 
considered.  They were asked if it was being considered; they 
answered that it was being considered.
	     
	     Q	  George, The New York Times --
	     
	     Q	  Why do it yesterday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They were asked.
	     
	     Q	  The New York Times reports today that Secretary 
Reich and the chief economist at the Labor Department used apples and 
oranges numbers in order to portray last month's unemployment figures 
in a way that was supportive of the President's job stimulus bill, 
but which turned out to be totally false.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if it was totally 
false, but I think -- (laughter) -- the chief economist at the Labor 
Department did grant that it was an inappropriate mixing, and they 
say that. 
	     
	     Q	  The question is, is the President concerned about 
behavior that amounts to corrupting government data?  And what's he 
doing about it, if so?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The chief economist has said that a 
mistake was made, it won't happen again, and that's the end of the 
matter.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't that the same information that goes to the 
President?
	     
	     Q	  If I could go back to the stimulus package --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There's two separate pieces of 
information.  I think that's where the confusion was.
	     
	     Q	  When did you all first learn about this mistake 
that was made?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I read the article this morning.
	     
	     Q	  And as far as you know, is the President aware of 
it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think so.
	     
	     Q	  And was he aware of it before he read about it in 
The New York Times?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  Not to my knowledge.
	     
	     Q	  Did you ever hear about it before this morning?  
Anything?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I didn't.
	     
	     Q	  Wasn't the President given an erroneous spin on 
this for his own purpose?  For his speeches, for his arguments?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well again, I'm not sure.  Both 
statements are true.  What the Labor Department has granted is that 
mixing them in one sentence, essentially, was misleading.  They said 
it was a mistake.  They said they wouldn't do it again.
	     
	     Q	  Did they drop it -- is this something that you 
choose to spin or make an issue of?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Whenever fewer people are out of 
work, we're gratified.  But that doesn't take away from the need to 
get this jobs package going.
	     
	     Q	  If I could go back to the stimulus package for a 
minute.  You said that the President plans to come forward with an 
amendment.  Is the timetable still what it was -- that the amendment 
would be laid down on Monday and voted on on Tuesday, or did he, in 
the conversation with Dole, talk about the possibility of putting 
that off for a few more days to give more time for the discussion?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think at this point there's no 
changes in the schedule at all.  I don't know that they discussed the 
timing like that.
	     
	     Q	  Do you believe that you're closer or getting closer 
this week than you were last week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I believe that we're going 
to pass a jobs package.  The President is prepared to make 
adjustments in order to get that to happen.  I don't know where the 
votes are on cloture at this particular time.  I don't know what's 
going to happen until we have a vote.  But the President believes 
deeply in this jobs package and wants to get it done.
	     
	     Q	  Has there been any indication that this situation 
has changed?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're going to continue to work on 
it.  We'll know when the votes are taken.
	     
	     Q	  George, last week you said that there are -- or 
various people in the administration were saying that you couldn't go 
through Dole, you were going to have to try and go around him because 
he was immovable on this subject of a compromise, or at least the 
compromise he wanted was not anything like the one that you could 
accept.  This week you're talking to him.  Is that because you've 
realized that the peeling off effort wasn't going to work?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's because Senator Dole wanted 
to talk to the President about the stimulus package.
	     
	     Q	  He initiated the conversation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Secretary Reich this morning said that, in fact, 
the President is not willing to compromise on this bill at all.  You 
say he's making --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that that's exactly 
what he said.  I think he said he didn't have any indication that 
there was any compromises yet or that there would be a compromise, 
and the President doesn't want to compromise.  And the President 
doesn't want to compromise.  But if he has to make adjustments to get 
it through, he will.
	     
	     Q	  Officials here yesterday said that Panetta was 
working on a series of adjustments that might be made public before 
the actual vote.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's possible.
	     
	     Q	  Today?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure exactly when that will 
happen, but I think that it's very possible that we'll come forward 
with some sort of a different package, or Senate Democrats will come 
forward with some sort of a different package in order to get it 
passed.
	     
	     Q	  As we understood his conversations with Dole, the 
first one was some discussion of this and I'll get back to you 
tonight with some details or some adjustments, or whatever the phrase 
is.  Did he offer him some details or some adjustments?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it's a question of how 
detailed.  I mean, I think they had a general discussion about the 
package last night, subsequent to their conversation yesterday 
afternoon.  I believe that there will be follow-up discussions today 
in the Senate, not necessarily between the President and Senator 
Dole.  And let me just reiterate, neither side has made specific 
compromises at this date.  When we have something we'll let you know.  
And I'm not suggesting that Senator Dole has accepted anything that 
we've talked about or that we've offered anything in a hard way.
	     
	     Q	  What are the follow-up discussions if not the 
President and Dole?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think Senator Mitchell is going 
to talk to Senator Dole.
	     
	     Q	  Is that a threat?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Did the President say to Senator Dole, all right, 
how about this number as an overall size, or did Dole say to the 
President, I can go as high as this?  Did they talk numbers?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think it was a negotiation 
in that respect.  It was more of a discussion about their positions.
	     
	     Q	  Did they discuss actual numbers?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.  I know they 
talked about the basic outlines of the packages.  I think they talked 
about the programs they cared about.  I don't know if they got to the 
level of this many x-billion dollars. 
	     
	     Q	  Does Dole have to sign off before there is a 
package?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, of course not.
	     
	     Q	  Did the White House have anything to do with the 
protesters who showed up in New Hampshire today where Senator Dole 
was speaking?  Was that in any way organized by --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, no.
	     
	     Q	  And has the President been in touch with Senators 
Kohl or Feingold?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think he's talked to them, 
no.
	     
	     Q	  George, is the President considering the more 
palatable fact of having a national sales tax instead of having the 
haves having to continuously pay for the have-nots?  And is he going 
to scrap his proposed tax on the privileged few, with the haves 
having to pay for the have-nots?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes deeply that 
the tax rates on upper income Americans, as he presented in his 
budget, should go up.  And I think for the second half of your 
question, I'll refer you to my briefing from yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  George, on the subject of accuracy in information, 
you suggested the other day that the stimulus package included money 
that would solve the water problem in Milwaukee.  Apparently that is 
not true.  It's actually waste water money.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's waste water money for 
Wisconsin, and some could go to Milwaukee. 
	     
	     Q	  But it would not affect the drinking water problem 
because it's waste water money, right?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It would affect the water treatment 
overall. 
	     
	     Q	  But the implication from your statement the other 
day was that it would help fix this disease problem in Milwaukee now.  
Would you agree that's not the case?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure of the specifics.  I 
know that it goes to the overall water treatment in Wisconsin.
	     
	     Q	  A leftover question from this morning, which was, 
when did the President find out that the task force was deliberating 
on a VAT?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure exactly when.  I just 
don't know.  I assume it came up over the last -- certainly between 
the time that we had commented on in the past and two days ago.  
	     
	     Q	  So sometime since March 25th?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's right.  I don't know 
the exact date.
	     
	     Q	  George, the President this morning mentioned that 
some labor and business groups are for the VAT tax.  Apparently, the 
National Association of Manufacturers talks about perhaps the VAT tax 
being okay if it replaces the BTU tax.  So does the President feel 
that perhaps this might be in place of some other tax he's proposed, 
or is this totally in addition to the other taxes he's already 
proposed?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we've said all we have to 
say about the VAT at this point.  I mean, there's just no -- this is 
being considered by the health care working groups, and that is all.  
The President hasn't made any further decisions beyond that. 
	     
	     Q	  But it would be to finance health care, it wouldn't 
be to replace some other tax that finances -- it wouldn't replace the 
income tax, for instance?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There have been no discussions on 
that.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of getting a VAT tax through Congress, 
Senator Dole's press release today said VAT -- on tax day.  Do you 
think -- does it have a chance of getting through Congress?  Would it 
have a chance?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I have no idea. 
	     
	     Q	  Is that a consideration whether you all put it 
forward?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That would become a consideration 
if the President were to decide to do it.  It's not in consideration 
now.
	     
	     Q	  You said at the beginning of the briefing that 
circumstances had changed and that had caused the VAT to now be under 
consideration.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, what the President referred to 
this morning.  These groups came forward and said this is something 
that has to be considered.
	     
	     Q	  Those are the circumstances that have changed?  
That's the only difference between now and when he emphatically ruled 
it out that groups have asked it to be considered?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's what he said. 
	     
	     Q	  Is that true?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Was there, in fact, some understanding that sin 
taxes would not produce enough money for the health care benefits?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not going to get into the 
deliberations.
	     
	     Q	  But, George --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  What the consideration is, as 
the President said, groups came forward and said this is something 
you ought to consider.  The working groups are looking at it. 
	     
	     Q	  Is that the only thing that's changed since his 
prior statement and your prior statement on the VAT?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Can you explain how those groups -- how that 
information got to him that groups wanted it?  Was it just reading 
the newspaper or did groups make presentations?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the groups -- as you know, 
the health care task force has met with dozens of groups.
	     
	     Q	  But this is the President's knowledge that these 
groups had come forward.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he was referring to what 
was coming to the working groups.  Obviously, there have also been 
published positions in the newspapers.
	     
	     Q	  Have certain groups briefed him on the group's 
presentations to them?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they've briefed him 
-- I mean, how detailed the briefings have been.    I know that the 
working groups decided to look into this after being pressed by these 
groups.
	     
	     Q	  What kind of arguments did the groups make that 
were persuasive enough that the President would change the position 
that he had enunciated previously?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know, it's just they've had 
longstanding positions that this would be a good way to finance 
health care.
	     
	     Q	  The President wasn't aware of those longstanding 
positions?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He may have been at some level.  
Obviously, he's been a governor for a long time and he knows the 
basic arguments for and against a VAT tax.
	     
	     Q	  What we're trying to figure out here -- you're 
telling us that the only change, the only thing that affected this 
change in the President's attitude toward the VAT between February 
and now --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President's attitude hasn't 
necessarily changed.  I mean, he has not made a decision.
	     
	     Q	  I know, but the President said that it was off the 
table.  So did you.  And you're saying that the only thing that's 
changed is the positions of these groups, except you're also 
describing them as longstanding positions.  I don't see the change.  
If these groups haven't had any change in their position that's been 
made to the President --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, they've made the 
presentations to the health care task force.
	     
	     Q	  There's no relationship at all between the fact 
that sin taxes that he had said -- suggested in February that he 
favored will not produce enough revenue to finance --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think he ever suggested 
that they would produce all the revenue.
	     
	     Q	  Well, he suggested that he thought that those were 
appropriate ways to finance health care.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He did say that.  I don't know that 
he said anything to refute that.
	     
	     Q	  But, in fact, has the task force discovered that 
there wouldn't be enough revenue from those taxes to finance the kind 
of core benefits --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't think that the task 
force ever suggested that there would.
	     
	     Q	  George, if he advocated a VAT tax, would that break 
his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his 
programs?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't comment on a hypothetical 
situation.
	     	  
	     Q	  But does that promise -- would that promise not to 
raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the programs prevent him 
from seeking a VAT tax?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has made no decisions 
on the VAT tax.  When he does, we'll tell you and we'll explain the 
implications then.
	     
	     Q	  Which specific groups can you cite -- business, 
labor or otherwise -- whose recommendations to the health care task 
force has prompted this consideration?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't have the specific.  I just 
don't have that.
	     
	     Q	  George, can you tell us to what extend these other 
alternatives, for instance, the employer tax or the sin taxes or 
other financing options are also still on the table and what these 
options are?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, as members of the task force 
and representatives of the working groups have said, they are looking 
at a wide variety of options.  I think that Ira Magaziner said that 
there are 20 different options under consideration.  But I'm not 
going to comment --
	     
	     Q	  What's the scope --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not going to comment on 
them, no.
	     
	     Q	  What's the scope of the need?  How much are you 
talking about that has to be produced by one or a combination of the 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's what the health care task 
force is looking at.
	     
	     Q	  Since there's not going to be any briefing on the 
Miyazawa visit, two questions:  One, generally what does the 
President hope to use that meeting for, but more specifically, is his 
task complicated by the Japanese anger over the Vancouver note and 
the remark about market access at the press conference?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Vancouver note?
	     
	     Q	  Does no mean yes.
	     
	     Q	  Yes and no.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I don't know.  I saw the 
Prime Minister's press conference where he was asked the question 
about that note and he gave a very gracious and complete answer when 
he was asked the question.  The questions of trade are something that 
certainly will be discussed between the Prime Minister and the 
President.  There is obviously a trade imbalance between Japan and 
the U.S. that we want to do something about.
	     
	     Q	  Also in those comments the Prime Minister made he 
suggested that the United States should come down heavy on him in 
terms of trade.  Are you going to oblige?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:   I think the President will state 
our views on trade very clearly and our views on the trade deficit 
very clearly.  I don't necessarily want to agree with your 
characterization of the Prime Minister's comments.
	     
	     Q	     that we need specific export targets, specific 
numerical targets -- is that what he's going to discuss with 
Miyazawa?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They're going to have a broad 
discussion of a wide range of trade issues.  I don't want to get into 
those specifics until after the meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Why?
	     
	     Q	   That's the crux of the issue, right?  Whether or 
not -- does the President believe that without specific numerical 
targets, it is really, as he said in his press conference, sort of 
hopeless that this is going to change very much?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that we must 
have pressure on Japan to turn the trade imbalance around.  I do not 
want to get into the specifics of how that would be done.
	     
	     Q	  But does the President believe that their stimulus 
package announced yesterday will rectify the imbalance?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think, first, the President wants 
to get a full briefing on the stimulus package from Prime Minister 
Miyazawa himself, and then he'll make the comment on it.
	     
	     Q	  How about the Russian aid package?  There seems to 
be some confusion about how the U.S. views that, Secretary 
Christopher saying -- or Bentsen saying the Japanese may need to do 
more, the Japanese saying that that's not what they heard?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, we're going to continue to 
work with all our allies in the G-7, and we're going to continue to 
press for help for Russian reform, Russian democratic reform.  And I 
think that, so far, we had a very good announcement out of Tokyo and 
we're going to continue to work with our allies for bilateral 
packages.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think the Japanese need to do more?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're going to continue to work 
with all our allies to do as much as we can.
	     
	     Q	  Secretary Christopher was asked today on the Today 
Show this morning what he thought of Margaret Thatcher's comments on 
the Bosnia policy.  And he said, "It's a rather emotional response."  
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Over an emotional issue.
	     
	     Q	  Right -- to an emotional problem.  Does the White  
House condone that kind of remark?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that Secretary 
Christopher's remarks speaks for itself.  The President believes also 
that this is a deeply troubling situation that we're trying to find 
answers for. 
	     
	     Q	  But that specific -- "rather emotional response" -- 
specific term?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, it speaks for itself.
	     
	     Q	  In connection with that, doesn't it seem that with 
the numbers of people who are being killed at this very moment, is it 
good American policy to put off some decisions that might be made now 
to help Boris Yeltsin win a referendum?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  For example?
	     
	     Q	  To take stronger action, to take military action -- 
air strikes, anything that can be done?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that what 
must be done now is to push harder for sanctions.  He is also -- as 
you know, the administration has been discussing lifting the arms 
embargo.  He believes those are the appropriate ways to increase 
pressure at this time.
	     
	     Q	  What is your response to the critics who would say 
that the U.S. is now stymied by trying to help Boris Yeltsin retain 
the presidency?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They're wrong.  We're pressing hard 
for the Serbs to come to the negotiating table.  We're pressing hard 
for increased sanctions, and we're talking to our allies about the 
arms embargo.
	     
	     Q	  You were putting great store in Vance and Owen 
getting people to agree to that.  Now, Vance and Owen have both said 
that military force to some extent would be acceptable.  Does that 
change your thinking?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Clearly, we're going to listen to 
whatever people who have put so much time into a situation have to 
say.  But at this point, the President is moving forward on sanctions 
and talking about the arms embargo.
	     
	     Q	  A follow-up on a Dee Dee comment this morning.  She 
said she would be able to provide some administration officials who 
could document the effect the sanctions are having in Bosnia.  Are 
you going to be able to do that, or do you have anything --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that's what she said.
	     
	     Q	  That's exactly what she said.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that's true.  But 
what she said -- we would look into the situation of what kind of 
evidence can be provided in Bosnia.  Obviously, if there are 
connections between the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs in Belgrade and 
we are tightening the screws on the Serbs in Belgrade, that will have 
an effect over time.  I do not know day by day, minute by minute, 
what kind of help is being given between the two and what the exact 
effect has been.   But, clearly, we are slowing the shipment of goods 
into Belgrade.  We are having an effect on the Serbs there.  What 
kind of effect that will eventually have on the Bosnian Serbs I don't 
know.  But one thing I would say is if it were having no effect at 
all, I don't know why they'd be fighting it so much.
	     
	     Q	  Are the First Lady's tax returns going to be 
released?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's a joint tax return.  
And it will be probably later today.
	     
	     Q	  Is the President considering signing an executive 
order banning discrimination against homosexuals in the federal work 
force as part of the gay rights march here next week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think there's any proposal 
for that at this time, not that I know of.
	     
	     Q	  It's something that the President promised during 
the campaign that he would do.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I have not seen any -- I don't 
think it's anything that's on his plate right now.
	     
	     Q	  Is he meeting with gay rights leaders at any point 
on this issue?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about on this issue.  
I assume that he'll meet with representatives of the gay and lesbian 
community sometime soon, as he meets with representatives of lots of 
different groups and communities.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if that's scheduled --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's probably going to be tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Probably going to be tomorrow?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  It's a good thing you asked.
	     
	     Q	  Who's probably going to be there?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.
	     
	     Q	  How long --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  That's all I know.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if it's at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow?  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know what time it is.  I 
don't even know for sure if it's going to be tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Environmental groups have asked him to make a major 
speech next week of some kind.  Is that going to happen, do you know?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they've asked, but 
I think the President has always planned, as he did last year, to 
give a speech on Earth Day and I expect that he will.  If it's not 
exactly on Earth Day, it might be a day before or something like 
that.
	     
	     Q	  Is he planning to sign or announce the signing of 
the biodiversity treaty in connection with Earth Day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know the specific 
timing of something like that, but it's certainly something under 
discussion and something we've been working on.
	     
	     Q	  Campaign finance reform?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're working on it.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think it will be next week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.
	     
	     Q	  The biodiversity treaty is something you're working 
on?  I missed the question.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, something we're working on.  
He asked if it was ready to be signed, and I said I didn't know 
anything about that but it's something we've certainly been working 
on.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know what organizations might be represented 
in this meeting with the gay and lesbian groups?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if he is going to reconsider being out 
of town on the day of the march?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's got to be at the Senate 
meeting in Jamestown, and I believe he's also going to be giving a 
speech to the American Association of Newspaper Publishers in Boston 
on Sunday, as he did last year.
	     
	     Q	  Would you have told us if she had not pressed you 
on the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  On what?
	     
	     Q	  On the gays.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  When we went through the 
President's schedule for the day, certainly.
	     
	     Q?	    George, what day is the publisher's speech?  Is 
that Sunday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it's a Sunday.
	     
	     Q	  And Saturday he'll be in Jamestown?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  So you're just going to be in Jamestown for one 
day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, I'm not sure.  I don't know how 
long the Senate thing goes.  It might go overnight.  I just don't 
know.
	     
	     Q	  You would have made the gay meeting public, right?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm certain if we had the meeting 
-- I don't know about open to the press, but we would have told you 
about it.
	     
	     Q	  I mean, because it is, as far as I can tell, the 
first time in history a President has met in the Oval Office with --  

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I didn't say it was going to be in 
the Oval Office.  (Laughter.)  But I didn't -- I'm not say that it's 
not, but I didn't say that it was.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	     at the White House in the Bush administration 
gay officials were invited to a bill signing ceremony and the White 
House had to repudiate having done that.  So I just wanted to make 
sure --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the President wouldn't do 
anything like that.
	     
	     Q	  Certainly not.
	     
	     Q	  What marching orders did the President give to 
General Vessey?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They had a very good discussion for 
about half an hour today.  He wanted -- the most important thing was 
he had a full accounting for American POWs and MIAs.  He will 
obviously look into the circumstances surrounding this new document.  
The President stressed that he wanted the fullest possible accounting 
and said that only when we have that can we even consider any changes 
in our policy towards Vietnam.  He'll be looking at Vietnam's 
response to the questions raised by the document and he'll also look 
into investigations on discrepancy cases, increased efforts on 
remains, implementing trilateral investigations -- and access to 
military archives.  
	     
	     And Ambassador Toon also briefed the President on the 
activities of the joint commission and on the document.
	     
	     Q	  Vietnam says it's a fake.  What is the DOD analysis 
at this stage?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's not completed yet, and it's 
also the first thing that General Vessey will bring up with the 
Vietnamese.
	     
	     Q	  A number of Defense officials have been saying that 
they think that the 600 or so prisoners referred to are, in fact, 
non-Americans that the Vietnamese had captured who they referred to 
as Americans from time to time.  Do people -- 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We don't have any final 
determination.  We're going to wait for the complete review; when we 
have it, we'll make a judgment.
	     
	     Q	  I know you don't have any final determination, but 
given all of the intense public interest in this, do you think that 
that's a likely possibility?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't want to characterize 
it in any way until the review is complete.
	     
	     Q	  George, was there a topic scheduled for the speech 
in Boston?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No. 
	     
	     Q	  Is the President going to have a press conference 
tomorrow with Miyazawa?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think so, but I'm not positive.  
Yes, I expect, yes.
	     
	     Q	  Was Toon in with Vessey?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes. 
	     
	     Q	  He was in on the meeting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  What was the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Was Ambassador Toon in with Vessey, 
and the answer is yes. 
	     
	     Q	  Do you have any response to The Wall Street Journal 
report this morning the President's distressed about some of his 
press clippings and that perhaps he's distressed with you about that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  Well, I do have a response.  I 
think the article was highly misleading to the extent that it implied 
that the President has had restricted access to the press.  I would 
point out that he's answered 358 questions on 77 occasions, more than 
any of his predecessors. I would also point out it also --
	     
	     Q	  How many questions?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Three hundred fifty-eight, on 77 
occasions.
	     
	     Q	  How many were while he was jogging?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, no, that's actually a very 
good question, Andrea.  And I would point out further that the 
article also implied that these questions were only answered at 
tightly controlled photo opportunities, which is just patently false.  
He's had 13 press conferences in either the East Room, the Oval 
Office or the Roosevelt Room or the Briefing Room, in addition to 
questions taken at photo opportunities, and that is only the --
	     
	     Q	  Oval Office press conference -- when was that? 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's answered questions in the --
East Room.  He's had five in the East Room, he's had one in the Oval 
Office, he's had one in the Rose Garden, he's had one or two in the 
Roosevelt Room.  And this is just to the White House, Washington 
Press Corps.  In addition to that, he's had 17 interviews with local 
television anchors.  He's met with the editorial board of The 
Portland Oregonian.  He's had an hour-long interview with Dan Rather. 
He's had interviews with local press from California, Florida and 
Connecticut --
	     
	     Q	  Can you address the question of the attitude?  The 
article implies that he doesn't --
	     
	     Q	  Why doesn't he like us?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Did you really get blamed for that Post story?
	     
	     Q	  The story is that you -- are you held responsible 
for it.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think I'm going to comment 
about this.
	     
	     Q	  Are you denying that the President has shown 
displeasure publicly?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I am not commenting on the 
discussions between the President and myself.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President write that letter to Chris 
Webber?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  What?
	     
	     Q	  The letter to the University of Michigan basketball 
player?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, yes.
	     
	     Q	  That is an authentic letter?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Since the President first talked about the VAT in 
February, he said at the time that he thought there probably should 
be exceptions made in basic necessities such as food and clothing.  
Does he still hold that position given the impact it could have?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I just can't comment on a 
proposal he hasn't made.
	     
	     Q	  George, does the President have some agenda for 
this meeting with the gay leaders tomorrow?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think it will just a 
general meeting on the wide range of issues that they care about 
including AIDS and other issues -- civil rights.
	     
	     Q	  The military issue?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm certain it will come up.
	     
	     Q	  Is he using this event to name the AIDS --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think so.
	     
	     Q	  George, what specifically is the President doing to 
prepare for tomorrow's meeting with the Prime Minister Miyazawa?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's had briefing memos.  He's had 
general discussions with members of the Treasury Department, the 
Trade Representative and others.
	     
	     Q	     report yet?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if he has the report 
referred to in The Times, but Ambassador Kantor was here to brief him 
today.
	     
	     Q	  He was?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Does he intend to use any of these instances that 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know that the 
report's been presented.  But obviously, the President will press 
hard in any case where he thinks that a violation has occurred.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of the Wall Street Journal, the thrust was 
that there's a real schism here -- a hostility.  Do you think he 
feels that way?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  As I said on the 
record in the article, I think the President likes reporters.  Again, 
I think that the thrust of the article was still misleading.  The 
thrust of the article was that in some way, some attitude which the 
President may or may not have is affecting access when, in fact, he 
has the most open, accessible administration than have any in recent 
history.

	     Q	  Can we come up to your office?  (Laughter.)

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  If you're invited.  
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END                    1:34 P.M. EDT
	     
#57-04/15
	     




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178573
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Drug Use Up At Younger Age


The article that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14,
1993 issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up At Younger Age" by Mike
Snider, p. 1A).

    Drug use is on the rise among kids as young as eighth graders -
    usually 13 - and they're using more LSD and inhalants like glue
    and air fresheners, says a new survey.

    The annual National High School Senior Survey on Drug Abuse finds
    "statistically significant increases" in eighth-graders' use of
    many drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, crack, LSD and inhalants.

    "We may be in danger of losing some ... hard-won ground (in reducing
    drug use) as a new, more naive generation of youngsters enters
    adolescence," says Lloyd Johnston, University of Michigan, chief
    researcher on the study sponsored by the Department of Health and
    Human Services.

    But drug use among high school seniors is continuing a decade-long
    decline.

    The study of 50,000 students shows the percentage who tried the
    following in the 30 days before they were polled:

        * 8th-graders  - alcohol 26%; cigarettes 16%; marijuana 4%;
                         cocaine 0.7%.

        * 10th-graders - alcohol 40%; cigarettes 22%; marijuana 8%;
                         cocaine 0.7%.

        * 12th-graders - alcohol 51%; cigarettes 28%; marijuana 12%;
                         cocaine 1.3%.

    Among 12th-graders, use of marijuana, cocaine and inhalants
    declined over the year before.  Not so with LSD.

    * 2% of eighth-graders have tried LSD in the last year, up 24%
    over 1991. 

    * Use of LSD among seniors is at its highest point since 1982; 6%
    tried it in the last year.

    Reducing drug use among students "requires a different kind of
    strategy" that Health Secretary Donna Shalala says will be part
    of an overall illness prevention plan.

    The survey shows drugs are easier to get and fewer eighth-graders
    disapprove of them.

    "It's scary," Shalala says.  "Dealers are focusing on younger, more
    vulnerable kids."


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178574
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: We're winning the war on drugs.  Not!

The DEA and other organizations would have the American people
believe that we are winning the "war on drugs".  I'm going to
dispel the propaganda that the DEA is putting out by showing
you the drug war's *real* status. To help prove my assertions
I've also posted two articles from USA Today that clearly
demonstrate that drug use among certain age groups *is* on the
rise.  If WOD is working, as we're led to believe, then drug
abuse should have gone down substantially by now.  The reality
is, is that it has not gone down very much.  If anything,
substance abuse is on the rise.  I'm also going to supply a
possible solution to this problem.

The following text is an excerpt from an article about rock music
and pot entitled "Hello Again, Mary Jane" which appears in the
current issue of Time magazine (April 19, 1993, p. 59).

    Law-enforcement officials say pot advocates are just blowing
    smoke when they talk about the comeback of the weed.  "Perhaps
    because of the change of administrations, the marijuana lobby
    is out in full force," says Robert Bonner, head of the Drug
    Enforcement Administration.  "The fact is, they're losing the
    battle."  In 1985 more than 23% of youths ages 12 to 17 said
    they smoked marijuana; in 1991 that figure was 13%, and Bonner
    says it is still falling.  Bonner also offers a reminder that
    studies confirm such marijuana health risks as destruction of
    nerve cells in the brain and lung damage.

The chart that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eigth-graders" by Mike
Snider, p. 6D).

    Adolescents' choices

    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
                      Estimated, per 100 students
                             1991     1992   Pct. chg.
    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16% 
    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%

    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
    1993 report

We are not winning the "war on drugs".  I think you can see that one
of the tactics that the DEA employs to give people the impression that
the "war on drugs" is being won is to selectively quote statistics---
only statistics that support their contention that drug use has gone
down.  The excerpt from Time magazine that I included in this post is
an excellent example of how organizations like the DEA attempt to
deceive the public.

Usage of *one* particular drug may have gone down but at the same
time usage of other drugs may have gone *up* (a.k.a. substitution).
Also, drug usage among *one* particular age group may have gone down
but drug usage among another age group may have gone *up*.  Therefore,
if one takes a look at the big picture, taking into consideration *all*
the statistics, then it's obvious that the so-called "war on drugs" is
being lost.  Perhaps the drug war is being won as far as illegal drugs
go, but if one factors in alcohol abuse, smoking, and use of inhalants,
then the magnitude of the drug problem in this country can then placed
in its true perspective.

For those of you who don't consider alcohol to be a drug then try
drinking a fifth of whiskey sometime and then come back and tell me
that it's not a drug.  Agencies like the DEA only go after *illegal*
drugs.  This is one of the reasons why the drug war is a fruitless
attempt at preventing substance abuse---people will merely switch to
another drug if the one they were using becomes scarce or unpopular.

The solution to the drug abuse problem in this country may be to
legalize some---not all---drugs whose toxicity has been shown to be
within reasonable limits (you won't drop dead after using it a few
times) and then couple this with a massive drug education program.
The reason why I think legalization is *part* of the solution is
because people seem to be able to easily obtain drugs despite the
government's efforts to the contrary---the money spent on drug
interdiction could be spent more effectively elsewhere (e.g., drug
education).  Additionally, legalization would reduce crime because
the profit motive would be taken out of drug trafficking which often
goes along with other kinds of crime.  Not to mention the fact that
addicts would have less reason to prey on innocent people for their
money and posessions in order to support their expensive habit;
legalization would cause the street price of drugs to fall
substantially so drugs would be much more affordable to addicts.

IMHO, the way to reduce substance abuse is to do to drugs what has been
done to smokers:  make drug use socially unacceptable rather than try to
employ heavy-handed law enforcement and punish people by incarcerating
them.  As you already know, people in the U.S. smoke a lot less than
they used to.  This reduction in the number of smokers has been brought
about by public awareness campaigns, laws restricting where people can
light up, warning labels on cigarette packages, taxation on tobacco in
order to reduce consumption, and so on.  I propose that similar methods
be used to reduce substance abuse after legalization has been carried
out.  They are as follows:

    * Drugs being sold must come with clear, concise information which
      states the possible health hazzards involved with using this
      product and recommendations on how the drug should be used.
      Things like dosage levels and how long the drug should be used
      ought to accompany the packaging the drug is contained in.

    * All drugs should be taxed at a rate that generates a lot of
      revenue but not so high as to encourage people to acquire drugs
      through illegal channels.  Part of the revenue collected from
      drug taxes should be used to fund drug education and law
      enforcement.

    * Make it a felony to sell drugs to minors (people under the age of
      18).  Anyone can sell drugs but they must not dodge paying the
      taxes on drugs or sell drugs with the warning information absent.
      Failure to pay the appropiate taxes on drugs or omitting warning
      information should also be a felony.

    * Establish a government agency whose job is to insure that the
      purity and safety of all drugs is as high as possible.  This
      agency would try to prevent people from getting a hold of bad
      drugs---something that is a fairly serious problem now.

I'm sure that many of the things I've discussed in this article have
been hashed out before in this newsgroup.  Nevertheless, I thought
it was a good idea to give my two cents (actually a buck and a half...)
all at once so you could get a good idea of where I currently stand on
WOD.  Go ahead and tear into my post; I'm sure there is something in it
that you may wish to take a different view on or flame. :) :) :)  BTW,
I posted the articles from USA Today to not only help prove my
assertions but also to provide information on LSD usage among youths---
something which I noticed some posters to this group were interested in.

Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178575
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eighth-graders


The article that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. eighth-graders" by Mike
Snider, p. 6D).

    A new national survey says drugs are easier to get, more teens are
    using them and fewer deem drug use as risky. 

    For the last two years, government officials have trumpeted results
    from the National High School Survey as signs that the drug war is
    being won.  But this year, officials are retreating - drug use by
    eighth-graders has risen, according to the survey of 50,000 students
    nationwide.

    Possible reason for the increase:  more experimentation.  Why?  If
    drug use dropped during the '80s, eventually some students will
    have fewer "drug-using contemporaries" who act as examples of
    substance abuse's drawbacks, says social psychologist Lloyd Johnston,
    one of the survey authors.  Each new wave of youths "must be given
    the knowledge, skills and motivation to resist using these drugs,"
    Johnston says.

    This type of resurgence "is possible," says Eileen Shiff, author of
    "Experts Advise Parents" (Delta, $14.95).  But that's not the issue,
    she says.  The prevalence of alcohol and drugs among teens today
    could result in more alcoholic adults decades from now.

    Aggravating the problem:  baby boomer parents - who experimented with
    drugs and alcohol as teens - trying to be friends, not parents, to
    their children.  "I've even seen parents serving kegs of beer" to
    their underage kids and friends, Shiff says.  For a recent graduation,
    Shiff and other parents organized an all-night, "lock-in" party where
    no booze or drugs were allowed.  "We need to fulfill that parental
    role, otherwise the peer group takes over," she says.

    Officials may "talk about the war on drugs, but they really haven't
    done anything that I've seen," says Suzanne Linkous, Scottsdale,
    Ariz., 16, a volunteer who talks with teens about drugs, dating and
    other issues on a peer counseling and suicide hot line.  Linkous, a
    member of USA Today's Teen Panel, says "there's always going to be
    experimentation" with drugs.

    A real war on drugs could be waged "education-wise," she says.  But
    "some don't want to give kids the facts.  They think it will give
    them ideas; it's the same with birth control.  I think you should
    give the kids the information or have it accessible" through classes,
    pamphlets and speakers, she says.

    Education efforts need to start as soon as kids get in school - in
    kindergarten, says Dallas Owens, 17, teen panelist from Miami Shores,
    Fla.  "I remember in kindergarten, I used to see (drugs).  I think
    kids in the 10th and 12th grades have already made up their minds
    (about using drugs)," he says.

    Scare tactics in public service announcements aren't working; only
    one commercial has gotten it right, he says.  The commercial opens
    with two "good-looking girls" in the restroom talking about having
    no prom date.  Then they take a hit off a joint.  "That hits home
    because it's not attractive," he says.  "You can't be doing drugs if
    you want somebody to like you."


    Adolescents' choices

    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
                      Estimated, per 100 students
                             1991     1992   Pct. chg.
    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16% 
    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%

    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
    1993 report


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178576
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: The Manitoban Candidate

smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>
>> In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to
>> govern all American institutions (starting with the American health
>> care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators.
>
>With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
>pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
>that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
>shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
>time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian
>socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got
>the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the
>control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high
>public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market
>forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.


And not only that, made a second clone from the same tissue sample
after that of said domineering wife, to run at the helm of the
more-pro-business party under guise of more free trade ... and
she did inhale, many times, to boot ...

(-; (-; (-; 

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178577
From: vlad@netcom.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>(discrediting Kinsey) says so.
>-- 

Yes, I saw today in 6 o'clock news on KCBS here in San Francisco
this statistic quoted. 

2.2% men had sex with another man.
1.3% cinsider themself homosexual.

I understand of course that because this statistic goes against
common believe and not PC-correct it must be complete BS.

Thx

vlad
-- 
Vladimir Kuznetsov                         (408)252-5455
Natural Intelligence Consulting            vlad@netcom.COM
                                           73437,3344@compuserve.com
                                           vkuznetsov@mci.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178578
From: texx@ossi.com (Robert "Texx" Woodworth)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws

#1

Clayton, my man...

You are a tad out of touch....

First, gay comunities all over the country are in the process of excluding NAMBLA
from parades etc.

#2

Nobody from NAMBLA is gonna get a job in a day care centre.  The same liberals you are
upset about are also passing laws that make tough background checks for childcare
people.

#3

Tell me, how would you feel if your employer fired you for your antigay post on the
internet?  Would you be upset ?  I`ll bet you would be pissed!
To some, your posts ,ight make the company look bad.
While your posts offend me I dont think it would be right for you to get fired over
it.

I dont believe the gay comunity is asking for hiring quotas like the affirmative
action laws of the 60's did.
My understanding is that the gay community just wants the same rights the srtraights
have.  I dont think people should have their leases cancelled when their landlord
finds out they are gay.  I dont think that when someone sees someone walk out of
a gay business and then blabs it all over work that the gay person gets fired.
Do you REALLY think these are justified ?

#4

Clayton, I am told you are a parent a couple times over.
Have you been following the strip in the paper "For Better or For Worse" ?

I honestly want your opinion as a parent on the strip.  

Do you really care about your childeren
as much as friends of mine tell me ?  How much do you care about your childeren ?
How much do you care about other people's childeren?  Do you care about MY childeren?
Do you care about my sister's childeren ?

If one of your kids told you he/she was gay, would you throw them out of your home
in the middle of the night?

Would you approve of your childeren driving down to San Francisco to trow bottles
at and beat up on gay people?  Would you condone your childeren beating up on someone
elses childeren ?


I await your answers to these queastions.  PLease no flaming...
This is to be a civilised discussion, from one father to another.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178581
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>(discrediting Kinsey) says so.

Wow, does this mean 2 out of 5 homosexuals will be at the March
on Washington?  How *very* interesting.

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178582
From: kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.

Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer; 

I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there. 

Eliminate the C-17 transport. Overwight, overdue, overbudget, it was
supposed to carry tanks. New tanks are now too big for the airplane. 

Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. The breakup of the USSR has
left us with a number of sticky military problems, but NONE of them will
require "God's gift to submarines". 

Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. I'm sure it's a great airplane that will do
EVERYTHING its designers said, but at half-a-gigabuck a copy, we can't
afford for even ONE to crash. And airplanes DO crash. 

Elmo Zumwalt said it best 20+ years ago; "High/Low". A MIX of a FEW
extremely capable weapons systems and a LOT of CHEAPER,
moderate-capability systems. 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the
kmitchel@netcom.com| Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
Citrus Heights, CA | reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178583
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <mattm-140493165729@mcmelmon.apple.com>, mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Anyway, I was under the impression that the Marines
> in question invited Clinton down for the same treatment.  While a
> bar fight is a bar fight, threatening the Commander in Chief seems
> a rather unprofessional thing for a professional soldier to do...
> 
>
Also, it appears that two of the three Marines have some sort of charges
pending against them from another fight they were in a week before. 
Interesting.

Frank


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank R. Chloupek 
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University) 

"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:  
somebody else's place."
							--P.J. O'Rourke



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178584
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <1993Apr14.152634.16128@pony.Ingres.COM>, jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles) writes:
> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
>>questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate in?"
>>and you think he made a good case????? The arresting officer said the
>>bastards told him they did it on purpose and hoped the victim would die,
>>and you think the defense made a good case????? No wonder we're losing! 
>>We're aparently not trying to win!
> 
> The clip I saw was even worse than that. The defense attorney was asking
> something like "what have you done to serve YOUR country, as compared to
> these fine upstanding examples of patriotism?"
> 
> I didn't see the response; I don't think it was shown on TV. I wish the
> response had been "I vote. I pay taxes. I pay my salary. I support the Bill
> of Rights, unlike you, Counselor."
> 
> In my dreams :-(
> 
> Now, the real question is, could this be a federal civil rights case, since
> the state case was a sham? (Sound like a well-known Los Angeles trial?) Probably
> not: fags and dykes aren't protected (for being fags and dykes) under civil
> rights laws.
> 
>
I would doubt any civil rights case would be in order for the point that you
mentioned.  Even if it were possible, I think it is a bad idea since it smacks
real strongly of double jeopardy.  A civil case for damages is fine since that
is a trial that would proceed regardless of the first.  I think a bad precedent
has already been set in the King trial in L.A. and something like this would
make it worse.  Regardless of how bad anybody feels about this decision, it
must stand that charges of assault were not not proven against the three
marines and that's how it should stand.

Frank (who is still mad, but now somewhat sane)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank R. Chloupek 
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University) 

"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:  
somebody else's place."
							--P.J. O'Rourke



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178585
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <1993Apr16.030703.23005@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready 
>immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one 
>frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health 
>care service.
>
>(I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are 
>slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't 
>deserve my tax help).

Hmmmmm......what about their kids?

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178587
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:

[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them 
  together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent
  him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ]

>As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
> 
>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>condition.

Part of what started this was my earlier example of Illinois, USA requiring
anyone doing more than X automobile transfers a year (X = 10, I think)
to become licensed as a used car dealer.  In addition, it requirs anyone
with a used car dealer's license to own at least 10 cars at a time, all the
time. 

Let me continue with this example and try to answer Steve's questions.

Steve, let's say you have the talent and inclination to fix up and resell
cars.  Either you've gotten good enough at it in your spare time to bump
up against these limits, or you would like to do it full-time but these
stupid, arbitrary laws prevent you from starting out small and pulling
yourself up.  So I'm protected from a hungry neighborhood competitor willing
to take a low profit while working extra hard to fulfill my needs, and you're
protected from doing what you want with your life.

Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:

Your money is truly yours; it belongs to you.  You can use it to buy a car.
If you use it to buy a car, it is truly your car; it belongs to you.  You
can use your money to fix up that car.  Since it is your car, you can sell
that car.

Your life is truly yours; it belongs to you.  It matters not if someone
thinks that it's "wrong" for you to buy and sell 10 cars within 12 months
rather than, say, 9 cars.  They may dissaprove, but it is not their life or
their money, it is your life and your money.

My money is truly mine; it belongs to me.  I can use it to buy a car.
Perhaps your car.  Perhaps that 10th car, the one that someone, somewhere
dissaproves of you selling and, presumably, of me buying.

That someone could go to the government and insist that the government make
us stop it.  But the government would be powerless to stop us from doing
what we like with our own property, in the abscence of fraud or agression.
And it would be powerless to stop us from associating with each other.

This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency
and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty.
And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or
rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me
as a wonderful way to improve the human condition.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178588
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

In article <1ql7tuINN8j8@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary) writes:
>
>Here's my own top ten response to Mr. Ipser's list
>
>8.   It just so happens that that it takes money to make this country work,
>     to provide the services that people need, and to help solve the problems
>     that need to be solved.  Granted, some things can probably be done more
>     efficiently for less money, and should be.  But some things are going to
>     cost more money and I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone whining about
>     taxes all the time.  You want to live in my country, you pay your fair
>     share!

Some people pay shares that are more "fair" than others, and will continue
to do so, even with the presence of President Clinton.  Until the rich 
elite *hurt* from taxes and shower me with their blood dripping from the
wound of the tax dagger, I will scream and yell.  Because, taxes are 
killing the poor and middle-class, and I'm tired of the wealthy getting
a free ride in this country.  Sure, they pay a lot of taxes, but I want
them to SHARE MY PAIN!!

And, not even Slick Willy is *that* fair, is he, seeing that he and his
wife qualify as one of those wealthy people I was talking about?  [They're
on the lower end of "wealthy", but "wealthy" they are.]

>7.   I can't believe what hypocrites people are when they ask people to give
>     up their lives for their country and then complain about taxes.  If you're
>     willing to send me off to die for some stupid obsession with fighting an
>     enemy which at best doesn't affect us and at worst really should be our
>     friend, then you have no right to tell me you shouldn't pay taxes!

Yah, I think the draft for Vietnam was a sack of shit.  But, do we get
to pick and choose which laws we obey, Mr. Chaudhary?  If so, shall we
set up a "you follow the laws you like, and I'll follow the laws I 
like" arrangement?

>6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!

I never thought much of beaded curtains.
 
Now beaded seat-covers, on the other hand....

>5.   [Health care is a human right--deleted]

I didn't think I was going to respond to this, but I changed my mind.

Tell me, why do you think health care is a human right?  

This isn't a flame or anything, I just wonder.  Next thing you know, 
free public transportation will be a human right.  Maybe membership
at prestigious health spas?

[Sorry to grease the hill on ya there....]

>4.   Make love, not War!

Be sure and wrap that wanker when you go spreadin' that free love stuff
around.  (Or, after the FDA gets its thumb out of its ass, use that neat
new "Reality" femi-condom.)

>3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
>     at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
>     to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
>     them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly 
>     have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
>     discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
>     the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.

So do I.  Amen.  And all that.

>1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!

What the hell is an "acadamia" anyway?  Is that like a macadamia?  

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178589
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
[purile babble deleted]

Well, some form of guaranteed health care isn't a bad idea, but,
yah, I'm a bit worried of a gubnint-run HMO myself.  I'd much
rather have something like Canada has [and I'll *belt* anyone
who tells me to move to Canada :)], but since people will yell
and scream "NO!!! NOT ONE LIKE CANADA HAS!!!", we're
probably all screwed.

>      BROMEISTER PREDICTED:
>
>	  " $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES "
>
>          " A NATIONAL SALES TAX "


Impressive.

Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you
will:

1.  The sun will rise tomorrow.
2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show.
3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.

Chances are, I'll get at least one of those right, if I'm lucky.
I may even get two.

>      Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions!
>
>      i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996.
>	   Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it.
>          
>	   Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.


Can't argue with you there.  Once the gubnint has its hands in yer
pocket, they just can't help but feel around a bit....


>      ii)  Unemployment will rise!


Oh, no SH**?!  You mean, our weakened economy will collapse in
the face of all this gubnint tax-and-spending, and everyone will
be in the handout line?  You're a GENIUS!!


>      iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase!
>	    We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997!
>	    Everyone will DANCE AND SING!


Deficit reduction.  Spending cuts via fee increases?


>      To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
>      the middle class to pay for my programs "
>
>      To paraphrase Bill Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
>      the middle class to pay for my programs "

No, any first-year PoliSci major will tell you that the Prez
*never* raises taxes.  Congress does it.

All those who voted the Clinton ticket get to wear this *new*
label.....

+----------------+
|     SUCKA!     |
|                |
|  Made in USA   |  
+----------------+

Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178590
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

In article <1993Apr16.031616.23130@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>
>This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
>1980 election.
>
>This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame,
>pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.
>
>Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more than 
>the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples' 
>books.  What a joke.

Drive down to Cincinnati and take a look.  Not pretty, is it?
Things were much better there in 1980.  All that growth went into
the hands of Ron and Georgie's pals, and I DIDN'T GET A SINGLE
DIME OF IT, DAMMIT.  And, now, I'm gonna be bled to death by tax
leeches to pay for the damage.  F***ing great.

Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in 
Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm.
I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in
Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178593
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights

Do the words "chilling effect" stimulate impulses within that
small collection of neurons you call a brain?

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178594
From: de@cup.hp.com (Dan Epstein)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3

Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@dscomsa.desy.de) wrote:

: First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the
: Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil
: production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment 
: Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would
: use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.

I agree with most of what Phill says, except the point about it being in
our interests to bring down the oil price.  Consider that both the U.S.
and Great Britain have domestic sources to partly satisfy 
their energy needs.    Pricy OPEC oil impacts both Germany,
Japan and many other "industrial rivals" more than these two.  
In addition, the proceeds from the sale (especially by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
U.A.E. etc) are disproportionately reinvested in the U.S. and G.B., 
propping up these economies and further providing an incentive 
to keep prices from falling too low.

Dan Epstein

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178595
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'

In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
writes:

>Naw, I think you are. While both organizations may, on paper, support the
>abolition of the age of consent, there the resemblance stops.

>One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade
>to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.

I get it.  One organization wants to abolish age of consent laws,
whereas in contrast the other wants to abolish age of consent laws.
This makes it respectable to belong to one organization, but not the
other.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178596
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Subject: Representation of Territories? (Was: Re: The $11,250,000,000,000 lunch)

boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:

> In article <ws0s2B1w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
  (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> > BTW, is anyone besides myself peeved that non-US citizens (Puerto
> > Ricans, etc.) are very close to having full representation in the U.S.
> > House of Representatives?
> >
> 
>    Sorry Chris, Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

OK.  I stand corrected.  I guess, then, that the comments about payoffs
(i.e., "pork") to Puerto Ricans that others have been making still
stands?

Now, everybody, how about some opinion on the following related topic:

Should the people who are natives of U.S. territories have
representation in the U.S. House of Rep's or the U.S. Congress?
The U.S. Constitution sets up the House of Representatives to represent
each State in proportion to its population, and the Senate to represent
each State equally.  What should be done with U.S. territories like
Puerto Rico?  Does anyone have knowledge about how this was handled in
the past, such as with the Louisiana Territory or the Northwest
Territory?

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178597
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>
>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>
>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>
>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.

1) So what?

2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
   us then this is an event unprecidented in history...

>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.

Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....

>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  

And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
you....

>It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.

Fuck off

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178599
From: techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
Subject: The earth also pollutes......

FURY OF MOTHER NATURE

Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those 
of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy 
Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data, "all 
of the air polluting materials produced by man since the beginning of the 
industrial revolution do not begin to equal  the quantities of toxic 
materials, aerosols, and particulates spewed into the air from just three 
volcanoes: Krakatoa in Indonesia in 1883, Mount Katmai in Alaska in 1912, and 
Hekla in Iceland in 1947." To which could be added Mount St. Helens in 
Washington State in 1980 (which pumped out 910,000 metric tons of carbon 
dioxide alone). El Chicon in Mexico in 1982 (which sent more than 100 million 
tons of sulfur gases into the stratosphere), and Mount Pinatubo in the 
Philippines (which in 1991 hurled upwards of 30 million tons of material into 
the stratosphere).
LOS NINOS
Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global 
warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 
Boulder Colorado reported that the freakish weather was actually due to a 
natural phenomenon, the interaction of El Nino and El Nina, two massive 
currents in the tropical Pacific. El Nino is a huge strip of warm water that 
periodically appears off the coast of South America and disrupts the world's 
weather patterns. Now and then, it alternates with El Nina, a mass of cold 
water that comes from the ocean depths along the equator and drifts for 
thousands of miles.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE'S  Peter Gorner summarized the phenomenon: "Cold water along 
the equator clashed with warmer than normal water southeast of Hawaii. The 
result was both the U.S. drought and the devastating floods that swamped 
Bangladesh...... Nina's cooler water disrupted tropical weather patterns and 
distorted the path of the Jet Stream across North America. Then the Jet 
Stream shoved rain-producing weather systems away from the interior of the 
U.S. resulting in drought."
TERMITE TERROR

Sundry animals and insects also contribute their share to environmental 
"degradation. TIME for April 20,1992 noted that in "the Netherlands... manure 
from pigs poses a major ecological threat, defiling water supplies with 
excessive nitrites and acidifying local soils. Sheep have permanently scarred 
the landscape in Spain and Portugal, while in India ... bovines [cows] are 
ravenous wraiths whose constant quest  for food drives them to ravage 
standing forrests."
The February 1983 issue  of SCIENCE DIGEST reported that "an international 
team of researchers has discovered that termites generate more than twice the 
Carbon Dioxide  that fuel burning does." According to a study reported in 
SCIENCE for November 5, 1982, the "estimated gross amount of Carbon Dioxide 
produced [by termites] was more than twice the net global input from fossil 
fuel combustion." In addition, "Termites are a potentially important source 
of atmospheric methane: they could account for a large fraction of global 
emmisions." The wood-eating pests have a bacteria that enables them too 
digest carbon so efficiently that some 90 pe is converted too Carbon Dioxide, 
methane, and other gases they belch into the atmosphere.
Ants are another natural source of "pollution." In 1987, an atmospheric 
chemist with Bell Laboratories, and zoologists from Cornell University, 
reported that ants of the subfamily FORMICINAE make and store huge quantities 
of the formic acid that contributes most of the acidity of rain that falls in 
remote areas and is found in atmosphere gas and precepitation around the 
globe. It is abundant, for instance, in the fog and mists that hang over the 
rain forests of Central Africa. According to the July 6, 1987 INSIGHT 
magazine, the "ants release the acid when defending themselves and 
communicating with each other and upon dying. Since  30 percent of the world 
ant population belongs to this subfamily, there is significant concern about  
the acid the ants release," an amount estimated at "600,000 metric tons 
annually." which is equal to the combined formic acid contributions of 
automobiles, refuse combustion and vegetation."
Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the 
environment.
By Robert W. Lee.


------
techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178600
From: techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
Subject: some scientists do not believe in the green house effect

The following statement was released
on February 27,1992 by the Science &
Environmental Policy Project

As independent scientists researching atmosphere and climate problems, we are 
concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on 
Environment and Development, being developed by environmental and  activists 
groups and certain political leaders. This so called "Earth Summit" is 
scheduled to convene in  Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of 
global envionmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on 
the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.
Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncetain scientific theories. They 
are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming 
follows from the burning of fossill fuels and requires immediate action. We 
do not agree. 
A survey of U.S. Atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, 
confirms that there is  no consesensus about the cause of the slight warming 
observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even 
suggests sunspot variability (which is directly proportional to solar 
activity),  rather  than a rise in greenhouse gases is responsible for the 
global temperature increases and decreases recoded since about 1880.
Futhermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that 
the theoretical climate climate models used to predict a future warming 
cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. 
Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.
Finally, agriculturalits generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide 
levels from fossil fuels burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on 
world food supply.
We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, 
are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent 
changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global 
regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, 
standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences 
falling on developing countries and the  poor.
David B. Aubrey, PhD, Senior Scintist, Woods  Hole Oceanographic Institute. 
Nathaniel B. Guttman, PhD, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic 
Data Center. Hugh B. Ellsaesser, PhD, Meteorologist, Lawerence Livermore 
National Laboratory. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Center for Meteorology and 
Physical Meteorolgy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Robert C. 
Balling, PhD, Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University.
Patrick Micheals, PhD, Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, 
Universityy of Virginia. Roger Pielke, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science, 
Colorado State University. Micheal Garstang, PhD, Professor of Meteorology, 
University of Virginia. Sherwood P. Idso, PhD, Research Physicist, U.S. Water 
Conservation Laboratory.
Lev S. Gandin PhD, Visiting Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric 
Research. John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research group, Forecast Systems 
Laboratory, NOAA. H. Jean Thiebaux, PhD, Research Scientist, National 
Meterological Center, National Weather Service, NOAA. Kenneth V. Beard, PhD, 
Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois. Paul W. Mielke, Jr. 
PhD, Professor, Department of Statistics, Colorado State University. Thomas 
Lockhart, Meteorological Standards Institute.
Peter F. Giddings, Meterologist, Weather Service Director. Hazen A. bedke, 
Meteoroligist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service.


Gabriel T. Csanady, PhD, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University. Roy 
Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillet Weather Data Services. Terrance J. 
Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force. Neil L. Frank, PhD, Meteorologist, 
National Weather service. Bruce A. Boe, PhD, Director, North Dakota 
Atmospheric Resource Board. Andrew Detweiler, PhD, Assoc. Professor, 
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, South Dakota School of Mines And 
Technology.
Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American 
Meteorological Society. Stephen R. Hanna, PhD, Sigma Research Corporation, 
Elliot Abrams, Meteoroligist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc. 
William E. Reifsnyder, PhD, Consulting Meteorologist, professor Emeritus, 
Forest Meteorology, Yale University. David W. Reylnolds, Research 
meteorologist. Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Ocean Routes, 
Inc.
Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile test 
Center.Werner A Braum, PhD, Former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida 
State University.David P. Rodgers, PhD, Assoc. Professor of Research 
Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanograghy. Brian Fiedler, PhD, Asst 
professor of Meteorology, University of Oaklahoma.
Edward A. Brandes, Meterologist. Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological 
Research Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOAA. Joesph Zabransky, Jr., Associate 
professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College. James A. Moore, Project 
Manager, Research Applications program, national Center for Atmospheric 
Research. Daniel J McNaughton, ENSR Consultating and Engineering. Brian 
Sussman, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorologist, fellow, American 
Meteorological Society. H Read McGrath, PhD, Meteorologist. Robert E. 
Zabrecky, Meteorologist.
William  M. Porch, PhD, Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos national 
Laboratory. Earle R. Williams, PhD, Associate Profesor of Meteorology, Dept. 
of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Atmospheric Physsicist, University of 
Virginia, Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project. (Affilitions 
listed are for identification purposes only).

------
techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178602
From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at 
>> the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior 
>> Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?  
>>
>> Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers 
>> get brought out.
>
>Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops),
>who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the
>density of the crowd in small regions.
>
>These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA
>methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be
>methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers,
>so as to justify bigger budgets.

Judging from past experience (the '87 March, a Peace and Justice March the 
same year, and 3 different Pro-coice Marches), The Park Service will come out
with an estimate that is approximately 1/2 the estimate that organizers will
come up with - though the last Choice march I went to had a sign-in system, 
and the numbers ended up closer.  And then you've got the media types in their
helicopters, rolling dice.

I believe the MOW plans and handing out some sort of wristband thingy, and 
basing their count on those.  I see two problems with this.  One, can they 
get *everybody* to take one (and only one)?  Two, they couldn't possibly have
been able to choose a color/design that won't clash with *somebody's* outfit!

:->
bearpaw


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178603
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|
|> # 1) So what?
|> 
|> Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
|> involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
|> about "10%" to keep politicians scared.
|> 

Back your statments with proof, or shut up.

|> # 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
|> #    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
|> #    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
|> 
|> But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
|> other members of the leftist agenda.
|> 

Again, back your statements or shut up.

|> # #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
|> # #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
|> # 
|> # Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
|> 
|> Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.
|> 

Hmm...  Tell me, did you go to the Mickey Mouse school of logic?  You have
just stated that there are not many homosexuals as Kinsey reported in his
survey (and the surveys of the Kinsey Institute since).  Then you say that
the reason many young people are promiscuous is because homosexuals form
a large part of that group, or there are some homosexuals whose lives 
consist of having sex, with no gaps for eating &c.  Using *your* logic
it would seem to suggest that on average gay men have about 2000 partners each
a week!  Try to think through your arguments carefully.  Or then again, not,
because I like to laugh every now and then.

|> # #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
|> # #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
|> # #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
|> # #male population.  
|> # 
|> # And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
|> # who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
|> # you....
|> 
|> It wasn't published.
|> 

Hence the argument cannot be resolved using this data.  Next point, please.

|> # #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
|> # #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
|> # #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
|> # 
|> # Fuck off
|> 
|> Typical homoseuxal response.
|> 
|> 

This depends on the premise that there are only three types of behaviour: gay, bi
and hetero.  This has yet to be proved.  See an earlier post about the Kinsey
Institute of grading.  This, although rough, seems more logical.  Also you use
"this would show", defining a fact and not an assumption.  Again, back your 
statements or shut up.

> 
|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178604
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15430@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
|> pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
|> hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
|> my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
|> to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

Your post is based on the premise that the laws as they stand do not
discriminate anybody, so your argument falls over immediately.  Are you
really that dumb as to use emotive language to prove an argument?
Please feel free to answer, that is, if you have anything intelligent
to say on the matter.



|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178605
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15437@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:



|> You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
|> straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
|> 

Excuse me a moment when I laugh my head off...  I defy you to prove
your statement "damaged and screwed up".  You can't?  Oh dear.  Your
argument, once again, Mr Logic(NOT!), falls flat on its face.

Take a course in civil behaviour and logic.  Then come back and defend
your arguments.

|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178606
From: busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April


In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes...
> 
>In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
>|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
> 
>|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>|>   I note with insufficient emotion that amongst the five survivors of the 
>|>   Waco debacle, there were two Brits and an Aussie. The Anglo-Saxon persona 
>|>   really doesn't lend itself to martyrdom for a spurious messiah.
>|>
>|>I don't see how you draw that conclusion.  Around 20 of the 80 inside the
>|>buildings were British (one quarter).  Two out of the eight (latest count I
>|>heard) survivors were British (one quarter).  Anyhow, British doesn't equate
>|>to  Anglo-Saxon.
>|>
>|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
>|>a mile of the compound?
> 
>Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
>has a range of 3000 meters.


  What crap, Phil. 50mm? Wrong. To give you a clue as to how big 50mm is, the
 F-16 fighter aircraft have 20mm gattling guns used to shoot down other 
 aircraft. A 50mm gun would be somewhere in the `cannon' realm. They might
 have had .50 calibre but definitely not 50mm. 



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 Paul R. Busta	                                    Busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com
 Salem,N.H.                                   
 603-894-3962


           "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
                       violent revolution inevitable..."


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178607
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15436@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
|> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
|> obedience.
|> 

Perhaps you should change your name to Clayton "Mr Logic(NOT!)" Cramer!
Please give evidence of the above statement or shut up.  I believe that I
may have answered that elsewhere, amongst your other ravings.


|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178608
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15440@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
|> > In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> > #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....
|> > 
|> > Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
|> > 
|> > -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
|> 
|> When you force people to associate with others against their will,
|> yes.
|> 
|> 


Good grief!  I do believe that for once you may have an argument which may
be discussed intelligently!

I guess that you are a person who dislikes contact with people of ethnic
minority.  However, your argument again falls flat on its face.  You state
that you, under an anti-discrimination bill, would be forced to associate
with others [homosexuals, I assume] against your will.  How do you know that
you do not associate with them now, except they may be closeted?   Would you
like to change your argument to read "forced to associate with truthfully
homosexual people against my will"?  You have no proof that anyone you
now know may not be homosexual and this punches a large hole in your
argument.  Is it your belief that a homosexual comes in only one flavour (sic)
and that is the camp mincing type?  Prove it.  You cannot.

I must admit though, that it looks as if you actually thought about your response
this time instead of just raving.


|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178609
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15441@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> # I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
|> # huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being
|> 
|> That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.
|> 

Hey, Clayton, it's me again!  I just love your arguments.  They completely
clinch each and _every_ one of your points!

But then again, that, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up your are.

Hehe.  I haven't had so much fun since I started blasting christians in alt.atheism!



|> # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> # Xavier
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178610
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <15442@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> The Walz monster above, however, was past 40 when he molested these
|> kids, as he says above.


Hehehe!  Dontcha just love these carefully constructed arguements?

Clayton, babe, please define the word `molest`.  Are you using a legal
term or a proper dictionary term?  Molest, as far as I can remember, means
`to do damage to person(s)`.  My mate, Mike, was lured into a woman's parlour
when he was 14.  Is that molestation?  A number of my friends (straight) lost
their virginity before that.  Were they 'molested'?  They told me that they
thoroughly enjoyed the experience.  I see no damage.  

Please stop pushing your objective morality on others.  If you push, people won't
fall over and say 'Ye gads, you're right!', they'll just push back.

Have you signed up for that logic course yet?

|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178611
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6011 talk.politics.misc:22764
|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9k
|>From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu
|>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
|>Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA
|>Message-ID: <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>
|>Date: 20 Apr 93 03:02:34 MDT
|>References: <1993Apr20.004224.66488@cc.usu.edu> <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
|>Organization: Utah State University
|>Lines: 34
|>
|>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
|>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
|>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
|>
|>	Firstly, they could have backed off.  When you put a power freak, like
|>David Koresh, in that kind of situation he is going to explode.  (no pun
|>intended).  Koresh wanted to be a martyr and the government played right into
|>his hands.
|>
|>	If the government hadn't given him the attention he wanted nothing
|>would have ever happened.
|>
|>	Secondly, the Davidians were expecting everything the government did. 
|>They thought that they were facing the apocalypse, and that they were to perish
|>in fire.  They weren't scared of the FBI.  They are not the average hoods, they
|>are very devout followers of a religion.  PsyOps didn't work and the government
|>got frustrated so they murdered them. 
|>
|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
|>
|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
|>first place.


The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
the doorbell.

The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 


If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
hear it.


Phill Hallam-Baker


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178612
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

In article <FOX.93Apr20083448@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>No one has time to chase down every rumor that gets printed
>in the National Enquirer or whatever.  The point is to wait
>and see if the assertions of the (rather bizarre) original
>post will be corroborated in any way.  Perhaps they will.
>The recent posts of the rather bizarre original poster speak
>for themselves.

This story was in the LA Times a few months ago.
The Clinton administration is exploring every avenue of
"revenue enhancement", but not all will be chosen.

There was a funny cartoon in Sunday's NY Times: "Bill
Clinton's Calendar".  Every day was April 15.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178614
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence

   A person sees the front of their home is strewn with garbage. That
person removes the trash, and sweeps the sidewalk. His next door neigh-
bors have not. The person then approaches his two neighbors and talks
to them about cleaning the front of their homes, and why it would be
good for their own living conditions, and that of the neighborhood.
   There's nothing wrong with holding your neighbors accountable for
their actions. That is the basis for a viable, safe community.

Regards,

Neal

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178615
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative

In article <1qn252INNot4@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>
>>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
>                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>>
>>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	bill.
>
>What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be
>so kind as to explain how this is "Clinton's" initiative, when it
>has been before Congress for "at least the past 6 months"?

    It is Clinton's initiative now.  He is pushing it hard
    Aren't the liberals supposed to be concerned about privacy
    rights?

    If you want to know more about the wiretapping initiative,
    read "1984" - it's in there, installed in every bedroom.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178617
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: No facts, just yapping --> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.
>

Out and out lie.  Not substantiated. I do not understand statments
like these. Please stop making such ridiculous claims.  Maybe you
should consider working for or getting your information from the
National Inquirer for now on.

>But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
>other members of the leftist agenda.
>

Ahh!  Rabbit from a hat.  Here is another desperate step to discount
any activity of the Washington Gay March.

># #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
># #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
># 
># Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>
>Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

Yes, Mr. Cramer- and supposibly they are only 1% of the entire
population.  Plus you stated that the 7.3 figure is a 'MEDIAN'.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178618
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Could it be backwards? --> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15430@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
># What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
># with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
># hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
># 
># (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
># 
># ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
>
>Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
>pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
>hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
>my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
>to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

But aren't you imposing your moral standards against gay people because
you do not want to rent to, or hire, or as you put associate with, (
and I do not know of a law that requires you to associate with gay
people)?  It works both ways.

All people want to have an equal opportunity for all things that
lie in the public domain.  It will be a gigantic step forward when
people take other people based upon ability and talent, rather
than skin color, eye color, height, weight, sexual orientation 
(and I use this last one as meaning gay, bi, straight, let's not
go off on the tangent about pedophiles, rapist, etc.)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178619
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: More verbal garbage this way ---> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15437@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
>> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be 
>> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners?
>> 
>> 	Just a thought.
>> 						-Matt
>
>You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
>straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
>

This is getting sad.  All you can do is make this ridiculous statements,
based upon some old information and a Press Democrat article that was
poorly written.

Please show the numbers for your use of "MUCH more".  I have not seen
them.  And I want them to be true and accurate, or at least show a 
trend within the everyday gay population.

There are all kinds of 'damaged and screwed up' people, and most of
them are not gay.

Keep it up, you just shoot your own position down over and over.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178620
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

Well, they never should have gotten into this situation.

Look at the history of this group. David Koresh has been arrested
?twice?  by local police. Both times, he accepted the arrest warrant
and went peacefully. So, the feds decide to arrest him. How do they
choose to arrest a person with a record of peaceful obedience under
arrest? They throw a concussion grenades at his building. 

In addition, we KNOW that we've been lied to. Initially, we were told
that they suspected him of molesting children and having several
wives. But these are NOT ATF offenses, were they? So they changed
their story, several times. And the original warrant is STILL sealed.
And we were told about the rockets and ammunition they had... but did
anyone notice any ammo exploding in the fire? They claimed that Koresh
hadn't left the compound in months... but people in town report seeing
him just a week before the raid.

How would I have handled it differently? 

Well, first, I haven't seen any evidence that the BDs did anything
wrong. There's a sealed warrant, and a collection of stories which
keep changing about what they did. So I might not have done ANYTHING.

OK. Now, supposing that I know what the BDs are being arrested for.
Well, they've got a history of accepting arrests... so, I send
officers to the door with a warrant. Wearing bulletproof vests.
Covered from a distance by sharpshooters. Now, there's no good reason
to suspect that these people will do anything, right? Why didn't
anyone TRY serving a warrant?

OK. Going further. They refuse the warrant. It becomes necessary to
raid. You plan a raid. You hear an hour before that there was a leak,
and they know your coming. SO what do you do?  Well, change your
plans, right? Nope... they go ahead with it anyone... including
sending in unprotected men to break into the place. It was idiotic. I
don't know what I would have ended up doing. But that original raid
should NEVER have happened.

The shit that came later should NEVER have happened.

The full record of the raid should be released to the public to let us
know what the hell really happened there.

The lies should NEVER have been told.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"We the people are getting tired of your lies
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| We the people now believe that it's time
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || We're demanding our rights to the answers
|| carroll@udel.edu             || We elect a precedent to state of mind"-Fish

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178621
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Stop forcing me!  --> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>> 
>> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
>> 
>> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
>
>When you force people to associate with others against their will,
>yes.
>

You are forced everyday to associate with people that you do not
wish to, and there isn't even a law that makes you do it.  But 
you do, becuase you want to go shopping, or go to work, or go to
a public park, or go to a baseball game, etc.

The process of ending discrimination is based upon the rational
concept 'that all men (women, people) are created equal', have
the same equal standing and chances in society.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178623
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.
>
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.
>
>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
>
>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.

There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)

>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.

Let's be realistic here, shall we?

You're a member of a rather paranoid religious organization. Someone
comes to your building, dressed in black suits, carrying firearms.
They throw a concussion grenade at the place, and try to break in.
What, exactly, are you going to do?

I would not allow anyone to enter my home without first identifying
themselves. If someone attacks my home by firing weapons or throwing
explosive, I think I'd be entirely justified in defending myself.

Regardless of what I think of the BDs, and regardless of whether or
not they were guilty of firearms violations, this is NOT the way you
treat people in a supposedly free society.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"We the people are getting tired of your lies
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| We the people now believe that it's time
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || We're demanding our rights to the answers
|| carroll@udel.edu             || We elect a precedent to state of mind"-Fish

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178624
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Clayton Cramer wrote:
: Lawrence C. Foard writes:
: # #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
: # Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
: Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

Implying, no so tacitly, that homosexual men are more promiscuous than
heterosexual men.  Interesting, especially in the wake of a news report
last week about a group of high school seniors (heterosexual, I might
add) who boasted monthly conquests of up to *67* girls *each*.  It
seems that promiscuity is not limited to homosexuals.

This is a sad fact of life: no matter what you look for -- whether it 
be homosexual promiscuity, racial discrimination, or sexual harassment
-- you *will* find it.  Whether or not it actually exists where you're
looking.

-garison


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178625
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU wrote:
: The median of a distribution is that variate-value which divides the
: distribution halfway, i.e. 1/2 of the distribution (population) have
: lower and half have higher variate-values.

: So for Males 20-39 the median=7.3, this means that half of these men
: are higher than this and half are lower than this.  Now if the population
: sample size is 3300, and 1% of them are gay, 33 males are gay.  If we
: say they are distributed equally then only 16.5 are greater than 7.3
: sexual partners, of course, this means that 49.5% heterosexual men are
: greater than 7.3.

Not quite.  First, the median does not imply that half of the men are
above and half below 7.3: it simply means that 7.3 is the mid-point
between the maximum number of partners and the minimum (which is most
likely zero).  However, assuming your implication to be more-or-less
correct, your final result is still invalid.  If 50% of *all* males
have had more than 7.3 partners, and you deduct the assumed 1% of 
homosexual males, what remains is not 49.5%, but still *50%* of all
*heterosexual* males.  Which is to say: hey, we're all human.

-garison

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178626
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <1993Apr19.031846.6874@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
 writes:
>In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer
 kyle cramm) writes:
>>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoef
er kyle cramm) writes:
>>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy tha
t
>>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>>>
>>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>>
>>       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many
>>of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective

>>is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about
>>the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that
>>Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this
>>ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a
>>descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have
>>used it in the past.
>
>No one is questioning whether Mr. King is black.  The question arises
>whether King's race should make police officers "afraid as hell."  Your
>statement seems to imply that cops should have a different standard for
>large black guys than for just large guys in general.

The original poster never said they were afraid of King because he was
black.  In fact the officers were afraid of King because of WHAT HE DID,
not because OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.  It is you, Mr. Frank that read the
phrase "large black man" and cried racism in a typical knee-jerk fashion.
When you (and others, I suspect) can get past this problem maybe the real
problems in this issue can be discussed.
>
>That two posts later you don't understand why anyone pointed out your use
>of the adjective is almost as informative as your original use.
>--
>ted frank                 |
>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
>the u of c law school     |
>standard disclaimers      |

JSL.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178627
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <1993Apr19.141933.29924@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.
chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer
 kyle cramm) writes:
>>
>>      The entire second trial was about race, Ted.  I don't feel compelled to
>>discuss Mr. King's racial background, but had Mr. King been white there would
>>not have been a second trial.  You probably are saying that the beating would
>>not have occurred if he were white, but that is an extremely difficult call
>>to make.  It is possible the case, but not definately.
>>
>One could easily point out that the jury decided that this "extremely
>difficult call" could be made, which is why the two of the defendants
>were found guilty.  One could also make some interesting observations on
>our system of justice, where the men were not guilty of excessive force,
>but guilty enough to have violated his civil rights by use of the
>(non-existant) excessive force.
>--

It is also interesting to note that Powell (and maybe Koons) were found
guilty of aiding and abetting the deprival of King's civil rights...but,
two others who also beat King and all the others who watched were not.
Go figure?  Can you say sacraficial lambs?  Can you say appeal?

>John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
>Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
>Midland TX


JSL.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178628
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Study after Study? --->Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <15445@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.174605.21907@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
># 
># So, what can we deduce from these figures?  Are there a lot
># less male homosexuals than there used to be or are men
># (perhaps women too) not as honest as they used to be about
># there sexuality?  Presumably, the people that were polled in
>
>You mean, in the 1940s, men and women were much more open about
>their homosexuality than today?  Want to try that one again?
>

That probably is not true.  But today it may not be much better for
the gay population in general.

>
>You mean, ignore study after study, so that we can continue to 
>accept a study (Kinsey's) that is obviously wrong?  
>

Where are all of these studies?  You have cited a few, and my research
shows that there are not that many.  Do Not Confuse a survey as a
study, there is a big difference.  Asking people outside of a polling
booth and adding up numbers is NOT a study.

># as easily of been gay I suppose.  One of the big debates about
># homosexuality is whether or not it's a type of behavior that is
># learned or if one is just born that way.  IMHO, the more likely
># explanation is that it's some combination of the two.
>
>Based on what, besides your own warm fuzzy feelings?

But this is what you base most of your conclusion upon. Warm
fuzzy feelings.

Maybe he has stated an educated opinion based upon the studies
that involve genetics and psychological influence.  There are a
lot of those types of studies, aren't there?  Try reading some.
>
># Here's something to ponder upon:  have any of you gay-bashers out
># there ever considered that homosexuals probably deem their sexual
># orientation as being a state of affairs that is just as much an
># intrinsic and "natural" part of their life as heterosexuals do
># about their own sexuality?  In other words, someone who is *truly*
>
>Alcoholics share that feeling, until they hit bottom.

This is a crap statement and comparison.  Many people use this sad
and stupid argument.  There is not relationship between alcoholics
and people's sexual orientation- except that some may find what it
really is when they are drunk (repressed inhibition released).
>
>Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
>of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
>recent works suggest.

Nonsense- this simply is not true.  I suppose it is a waste of time
to try and tell you to understand what a study presents.  Most of
what you cite does not extrapolate anything, you do.

>
>If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their
>morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children

If people in general would stop using irrational position to oppress
other's and leave our private lives to ourselves, I would have no
support for laws and rules to protect people form this.  But we need
only look at post such as yours to see that they lack rational
thought and intelligent outlooks.

>alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But
>until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of 
>government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice
>but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative
>lifestyle," but a sickness.
>

Remember that peaceful people are not necessarily doing the right 
thing.  Peaceful, tolerant, enlightened, educated, rational thinking
people- that is what we need.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178629
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes
:
>>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives
on
>> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watc
h
>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to
>> finish.
>
>sorry, i didn't see him "charge" the cops.  i saw him trying to get away
>from people who were beating him.  i guess we each see what we want to
>see.
>candace miller

I guess your view of the video from your sofa gives you a better view than
the cops involved?  I guess one can see what one wants to see after all.

JSL.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178631
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved Damn Ferigner'

Marc.Steinkoenig@f4567.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Marc Steinkoenig) writes:

>*** Quoting Drieux, Just Drieux to All dated 04-11-93 ***
>> 
>> My point, if it alluded you, is that as LONG
>> as the USA remains in the State of REBELLION
>> against God's Divinely APPOINTED Vicar over
>> these colonies, what more can YOU expect from
>> PaganIdolators Alienated From God's Wonderful Plan???
>> 
>> 
>> ] > obGeoPoliticalContext: I was Pleased that the 
>> ] > restoration of the Bourbon de Bourbon's to
>What tree did you just climb down from, the church is an opressive farce which
>destroys cultures. I'm not knocking religious "morality", but I think that
>Americans take their religion TOO SERIOUSLY to the point of trying to convert
>anyone or anything to their particular sect. It's a  question of power and not
>salvation... All monotheistic religions breed intoleraance into their flock
>(Islam, Judaism, AND CHRISTIANITY). Religion is not the opiate of the masses,
>fanaticism is and brother, it lookes like you're pretty hopped up on your own
>self-rightousness.


never heard of arguement by absurdity, eh no?  Also called
sarcasm.  The usual procedure is to accept some part of the
'oppositions' arguement and run with it until one goes
beyond 'rational thought' and then ring the changes.

z.B. The idea of a minimum wage is considered a good one.
And in these times of economic difficulty, the Washington
legislature is propossing to raise the State MinWage from
$4.25 (the federal level) to $4.90 (fifteen cents over
Oregon's).
	It would seem to me that this increase does not
keep pace with inflation, that the minimum wage should be
to $6.08 by my figures, so it is proposed that we raise
the minimum wage to $6.50 per hour by 1 July and then give
a 10% cost of living increase every 4 July.

and anyone who doesn't like it is obviously a country club
republican getting rich off the exploitation of poor people.

chus
pyotr

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178632
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
## Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
#
#Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

Err, earth to Clayton, you posted this to show that 2% were
homosexual. So if we assume EVERY homosexual was promiscious, that
leads us to conclude that 23 percent of heterosexuals are promiscious.
And that first assumtion is a bad one.

Clayton, it *IS* suprising from the claims you are making.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178633
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

#> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 

Clayton Cramer writes:
#When you force people to associate with others against their will,
#yes.

Earth to Clayton, the topic under discussion was the US military, an
all volunteer force.

I realize you can't stop your knee jerking, but at least use half a
clue. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178634
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15453@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
#Really?  I thought that insurance companies hired all of
#their actuarial staffs to determine the risks correlated
#with all groups of people, and that gays are more likely
#to have AIDS than are those of other sexual orientations.

Correlation != causality.

The risk factor is having non-monogomous unprotected sex, not being
homosexual. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178635
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: The Continuing Decay.....

[much blathering on the Role Of Military Forces in
Enforcing Civil Law deleted]

The main problem with trying to get the Military involved in Police work
is the differences in the missions.

The Police take names, try and find out what happened,
stop suspects (thats the meaning of 'arrest') and
turn them over to the custody of the Judicial Branch
for the adjudication of their case.

The Military's mission is to kill the enemy before
they can escape or surrender.

chus
pyotr

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178636
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


In article <C5qyuG.LuF@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:

|>In article <1993Apr19.132847.23755@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|>> 
|>> Looks like the Branch Davidian is out of buisness.
|>> 
|>> This morning the "police" (FBI/BATF) started ramming
|>> holes in the walls of buildings and shooting in tear gas.
|>> Shortly there after, a fire began that has now engulfed 
|>> all the buildings in the compound.  Only one Brach Davidian
|>> member has come out.
|>> 
|>> Authorities are saying that Branch Davidian members were
|>> seen starting the fire.  It looks like there will no
|>> witnesses to dispute that claim.
|>> 
|>> There were ~90 adults an 19 children in the compound.
|>> 
|>
|>
|>Funny, how the fire seemed to start on the right hand side of the 
|>building just next to where a tank was backing away, though!
|>
|>Probably just a coincidence.

Watch the videotape carefully, the CNN coverage was fairly decisive.

The first fire starts in the Tower, this is three storeys high and there
is a flag to the right of it on the picture. The second fire starts 
in another tower which is similar to the first only two storeys high.
The flag is on the left in the camera picture that shows this fire
starting.

Thus the camera pictures cleraly show the fire starting at two separate
locations. The FBI report a third. I was not able to verify it from the
videotape however someone else identified a fire shown to be starting behind
the small tower in the second (flag on left) camera angle.


The flames coming out of the building are yellow/orange. This is the
normal colour for carbon compounds burning. The flames were those of a 
solid or confined liquid burning, not of a gas exploding. 


The explosion that occurs mid way along the building is certainly not an
explosive though. The cloud itself is on fire. This would seem to
be most likely to be some sort of fuel oil store exploding rather than
the explosion of a magazine.


|>Funny, how considering there was to be a great cache of explosives
|>ammunition, etc in the compound, I did not see any series of explosions.

Depends entirely on how they were distributed. You would not be able
to identify ammunition rounds going off from video camera coverage
from a mile away. If and when the FBI release pictures from cmeras
on the armoured vehicles (which presumably exist) it might be possible to 
get a clearer picture. 

If anyone expects to see explosions hollywood style aka Rambo movies then
remember that in real life cars do not burst into flames when going over cliffs.

Just about the most you could expect would be to see the grenades
going off. Since the building was designed to be blast proof to some
extent it would be difficult to distinguish the grenades going off from
the collapse of the building due to the fire.


|>And, oops, the automatic weapons were probably burnt up in the fire
|>with the other witnesses.

Paranoia.

|>Unless, I see videotapes showing the davidians starting the fire, I
|>guess I may have a problem believing the feds saying they saw them
|>doing it, but couldn`t or didn`t manage to tape it.  They have
|>been taping everything else.

You wouldn't beleive the FBI if they showed you a picture of Koresh himself
setting light to the place. Your mindset is such that you are simply
unable to accept as true anything that might suggest that a group of
heavily armed weapons fanatics might indeed be in the wrong.

The gun lobby can't accept that the B-D set light to the place because
that would mean that Koreh had murdered 17 children, that would mean that
their taking his account of the murder of 4 BATF agents would be even
less credible than it was to start with.

Koresh had 51 days to come out with his hands up and face a fair trial. 
Instead he ordered the murder of everyone in the place.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178638
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
>government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
>them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
>them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
>up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
>set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
>to get gun control legislation through.

What's despicable is that this sordid incident is being glommed onto by all
sorts of people desperately trying to "get a revolution." It makes
"ambulance chasing" by lawyers seem like a harmless pastime.

For the last few months, benighted souls have been calling C-SPAN on issues
as mundane as budget resolutions, saying that "I don't know, I just have
the feeling there is going to be a revolution in this country," and so on.

Get real! For a real case study in revolution, go to Blockbuster Video
and check out "Underground," a film made about the Weather Underground in
the 70's. Even with all the strife back then, the "revolution" never did
come. And Waco is supposed to be the spark of the end times?

In the tape, it is interesting to see the way the Weatherpersons dance
around the issue of one of their defining moments, which was when a few
of their comrades managed to blow themselves up manufacturing bombs in
a Greenwich village townhouse. The problem, one of them said, was that
they were so caught up in their armed struggle that they *forgot* about
their own personal safety and weren't "careful." But of course that was
*society's* fault, a society that didn't instill a sense of worth in
the people, so they neglect their own safety.

Current apologists for Koresh may pick up some important rationalization
tips from this tape!

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178639
From: busta@vicki.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes...
> 
>In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6011 talk.politics.misc:22764
>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9k
>|>From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu
>|>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
>|>Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA
>|>Message-ID: <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>
>|>Date: 20 Apr 93 03:02:34 MDT
>|>References: <1993Apr20.004224.66488@cc.usu.edu> <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>|>Organization: Utah State University
>|>Lines: 34
>|>
>|>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>|>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>|>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>|>
>|>	Firstly, they could have backed off.  When you put a power freak, like
>|>David Koresh, in that kind of situation he is going to explode.  (no pun
>|>intended).  Koresh wanted to be a martyr and the government played right into
>|>his hands.
>|>
>|>	If the government hadn't given him the attention he wanted nothing
>|>would have ever happened.
>|>
>|>	Secondly, the Davidians were expecting everything the government did. 
>|>They thought that they were facing the apocalypse, and that they were to perish
>|>in fire.  They weren't scared of the FBI.  They are not the average hoods, they
>|>are very devout followers of a religion.  PsyOps didn't work and the government
>|>got frustrated so they murdered them. 
>|>
>|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
>|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
>|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
>|>
>|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
>|>first place.
> 
> 
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.


 The above statement ignores reality. The BD WERE provoked.


> 
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.


 Damn, Phil. You must have seen a different tape of the initial raid than
I did. Your `doorbell' happened to include lobbing percussion grenades and
attempting to storm the compound through the windows. I can honestly say
I have never seen a `doorbell' that works like that.



> 
>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.


  THINK, man. The BATF are serving a warrant on someone who they feel might
 have illegal automatic weapons. If they expected, as you state, that `the B-D
 to be anything other than peaceful citizens' they could have sent one, maybe 
 two agents up to the front door, knock, and attempt to serve the warrant on
 the person answering the door. Scenario one, that person lets them in to 
 perform the search and no one gets hurt. Scenario two, the person answering
 the door pulls a weapon aand kills both officers. Now you have two dead BATF
 agents instead of four, the BATF knows exactly where they stand with regards
 to the BD and began to formulate a plan of action to arrest those responsible
 without harm to the innocent people/children within the compound.


> 
>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 


 No, the stupidity was the attempt to serve the warrant SWAT style.


> 
> 
>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.


 Sure, do it within the law. The BATF is there to uphold the law, not
 circumvent it to fit their needs.....


> 
> 
>Phill Hallam-Baker
> 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 Paul R. Busta	                                     Busta@vicki.enet.dec.com
 Salem, N.H.
 603-894-3962

         "One only sees what one observes, and one observes only 
              those things which are already in the mind."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178640
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

For starters, they could have gone on waiting and negotiating.  The Davidians
weren't going anywhere, and their supplies had to be limited.  Large, perhaps,
but limited.  If they had simply fired the compound by themselves without
gov't tanks smashing down their walls, then at least the gov't would not be
guilty of having _again_ used an inappropriate level of force, and would have
been able to use the meantime to continue to pressure and negotiate.  No, they
would not have looked good on the news in six months or a year.  But they sure
as hell don't look very good now.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178641
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

That has not been demonstrated.  Had he come to trial, there was a very real
possibility that Koresh would have gotten an acquittal on grounds of self-
defense.  All survivors of the debacle have sworn that the BATF shot first.

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

They "rang the doorbell" using a concussion grenade!  And if the bloody
warrants were "legal" then why were they _sealed_ after the fight started?
And if Koresh had declared himself a "private state" and was just daring the
gov't to go in, then why did he surrender last year to a local sheriff who
served a warrant _for_his_arrest_ (as opposed to the BATF search warrant,
which did not include arrest unless violations were found) by just calling
him up to tell him and then going out to collect him with his squad car?
That doesn't sound like a dictator to me, it sounds like someone who knows
he has a court battle.  Things might have gone very differently if the BATF
_had_ "rung the doorbell".

>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

This is stupid.  That is no paranoid assertion, it is testamony from surviving
witnesses, and the BATF _has_ no tanks, nor am I aware of either the BATF _or_
the FBI using any until yesterday.  When they use maximum force they do just
what they did that first day that got four officers killed.

>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

"Underarmed"?  You flabberghast me, they were loaded for bear and every
picture shows them wearing bullet-proof vests!  They were using concussion
grenades and full-auto weapons, what was missing low-yield tac-nukes?  This
is a transparent attempt to retcon a justification for the ridiculous amount
of force used, both initially and yesterday.  You should be ashamed.

>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.

They _had_ a sure-fire method: keep them bottled up and talk them to death or
surrender without giving him justification for some looney-tune religious
stunt.

Phil, I've been reading your postings for months and I'm convinced that you
will back anything, no matter how damaging it may be to yours or anyone
else's rights if you think it will hurt people you don't like.  It's people
with that attitude that set up the preconditions for the Holocaust, a process
that is in place _now_ in this country, even if the tattered, pitiful remains
of the Constitution is slowing its progress.  This isn't a Libertarian issue,
others may argue that line, but from a strictly Constitutional view of a
democratic gov't, what the FBI and BATF did was wrong, wrong, wrong, even if
their _reasons_ for trying to arrest Koresh were 100% right.  _Anything_ that
leads to the deaths of 17 children, if nothing else touches your stoney
heart, is _wrong_ no matter who pushed the button.  For God's sake, man, get
your morality back.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178643
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
>of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
>recent works suggest.

Which number is that?  Zero?

Please present "a number" of authoritative works which "suggest"
that "homosexuality is a form of mental disorder, caused by
childhood sexual abuse."

Don't present your own biased conclusions, based on a collage
of tidbits you've extracted from a few hours' research, as the
conclusions of people who study mental disease and sexual abuse
professionally.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy 	Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178644
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <F3ZB3B1w165w@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz>, system@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:
|> > brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:
|> > 
|> > >Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because 
|> > >someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....  
|> > >Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...
|> 
|> Hmmm, what statistics are these? Can you offer any references. The only
|> studies I've seen indicate a higher proportion of homosexuals in prison
|> than in the general population, but I don't think that allows for the
|> "default" you refer to. Prison is not a normal situation...
|> 
|> But I haven't seen anything that suggests that the "default" proportion is
|> lower than in the general population (although it seems plausible).
|> 
|> Anyway, as I say, can you provide any references?
|> 
|> 

Is this an arguement against or for?  Or simply a statement of agreeance/
disagreeance.  The fact that there are more homosexuals in prison does not
mean that homosexuals are immoral and more liable to commit crime.  And one
must remember that prison is not necessarily a reflection of the type of
people who are criminals.  What are the statistics for unsolved crime?



|> -- 
|> 	This posting is definitive. bljeghbe'chugh vaj blHegh.
|>   Wayne McDougall :: Keeper of the list of shows better than Star Trek(TM) ::
|>             Ask me about the Auckland Festival of Missions, 18-25 April, 1993
|> I always change my mind when new evidence is available. What method do you use?
|> 

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178645
From: gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5s5D2.4uu@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes...


> 
:So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce
:third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples
:where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two
:primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help?

Of course it helps,  but only if the decision to involve third parties
is the primary partis' to make.  A corrupt and ignorant third party
isn't going to say,  "we're corrupt and ignorant,  we'll stay out of this".
Pointing out that they are corrupt and ignorant won't help,  they either
won't believe you or won't care.


> 
:>  It's impossible (or at least beyond my abilities) to formulate a rule
:>that will always tell whether the involvement of a third party would be
:>good or bad,  but there's one that seems better than any other I've ever
:>heard suggested:  voluntary good,  mandatory bad.  That is,  a third
:>party should involve itself in a transaction ONLY at the request of
:>the primary participants.
> 
:So we *don't* formulate a rule that will always tell; we try to use
:knowledge about other properties of situations.  To some of us, it
:appears that trying always to apply "voluntary good, mandatory bad"
:is not only less than optimal, it is in some circumstances seriously
:damaging.  The interesting question is to characterize those
:circumstances as best we can.

Look,  somebody has to have the power to decide whether a third party
will regulate your transactions or not.  That somebody is going to
be either you or the third party.  You can argue until you are
blue in the face that regulators shouldn't get involved (in fact,  people
have tried this),  they won't listen.    The fundamental question you
have to ask is,  whose decision is it whether or not to involve regulators,
ours or theirs?  After you've answered thed first question,  you can
try to move on to such questions as "should regulators be involved" and,  if
so,  "what regulations are appropriate?"  Although with your answer to
the first question,  the second and third are taken out of your hands.


Mr. Grinch 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178646
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND)
Subject: Re: Bush's WI 

In article <1qt61e$d7e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (B writes...
>In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) says:
>>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes...
>>>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
>>>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
>>>	you are still able.
>>> 
>>Have you?
> 
>        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in.
>        My savings have already been converted.
> 
Bye.
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
 come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
"The probability of someone watching you is proportional
to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178647
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
># #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
># 
># Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>
>Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

...which would make the number 15%, right Clayton?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy 	Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178648
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In <philC5LqAD.K5u@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

|What WILL you do for a religion now that Marxism-Leninism is dead?

Who said it was dead. It seems to be alive and well here on the net.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178649
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's AND 90'S

In article <1993Apr17.055654.21764@midway.uchicago.edu>, dave@seaview.bsd.uchicago.edu  writes...
>In article <1993Apr17.043704.23702@oracle.us.oracle.com>  
>mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr17.023211.23547@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM   
>writes:
>> >In article <philC5Lru6.LxA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)  
>writes...
>> >>In article <1993Apr15.195139.29457@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM   
>writes:
>> >>You dumb shit.
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >	It's amazing that someone with your limited vocabulary learned
>> >how to use a computer. Didn't they require you to take English at the  
>school
>> > where you went? Or are you just crude by nature?
>> 
> 
>I'm forced to agree with Garrett here.  There's no need for vulgarity,
>or even hostility.  I mean, it's not as though Garrett _asked_ to be born
>dumber than a bag of hammers.  While it can occasionally be annoying,
>there is a noble tragedy to someone with no knowlege of geography or 
>pre-Madonna history thinking that his political views are worth reading.  
>Something like a hydroencephalic trying to master nuclear physics.  
>I was the first to note that the population of the PRC isn't gonna
>fit into Cambodia unless you puree them, so there's no need to keep 
>pounding on that idiocy.  There are plenty of other idiocies in his post.
>Find your own and stop hogging mine.
> 
At first this kind of ranting annoyed me, but now it's rather entertaining.
These kinds of posts don't require ANY facts, logic, or even sense. It's 
kind of like what 10-year old kids do on the playground. So go on and play.
Not everyone on the net is as simple minded as you guys seem to be.

>Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
>Biological Sciences Division               dave@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu
>Brain damage was what we were after. The chromosome damage was just gravy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
 come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
"The probability of someone watching you is proportional
to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178650
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Suffer the little Children, was Welcome to Police State USA

azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:

>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

lightly off track, but still relevant: why all the crying
over the children?  I know we are hardwired to consider
the future of the race, and comapssionate people are concerned
for all children; but so what?

For the Branch Davidians, the options were to die or
submit to Evil[tm] - and have their children's very
souls lost due to the brain washing of the Ungodly
State.  (to put this in terms the 'average' netter might
	grasp: they considered it the equivalent of putting
	Jesse Helms in charge of NEA _and_ MTV.)

And remembering that in 1983 the Supreme Court Struck Down
Freedom of Conscience (IRS vs Bob Jones et al.):

Who's next?

Is your religion / belief system Government Approved?

Jim JOnes had won numerous awards from the state before
he moved to Guiana?  Obviously state regulation would have
stopped that tragedy too.


chus
pyotr

p.s. The Mormons weren't always Saints, but they did go a long
way to be left alone. Always a ThoughtCrime in any ProperState.

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178651
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

Of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have staged the
raid in the first place.

>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 


>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.

Napalming seems a bit redundant.

The Stupidity was in the BATF mindset 'We're from Washington
We Know Better"  Execute Plan A: Storm the compound in a No-Knock
- the locals are gullible rubes, who cares that they served
warrents by knocking on the door.  Such an old fashioned, out dated
method of Law Enforcement anyway.  Gotta have the latest Armament
Technology, doncha know?

Sweet baby buddah - didn't these clown ever read "Dealing
with Paranoids"?

chus
pyotr


>Phill Hallam-Baker

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178653
From: jpr1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (James P. Reynolds)
Subject: HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT (Re: will they ever learn?)

In article <D3F72B1w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes
:
>They Refuse To Learn From History Or From the Present

>Pointing to Canada's vaunted socialized medical care program, he
>contends that "it is failing even while the cost is catching up with
>angry taxpayers." He notes: "Americans don't go to Canada and
>elsewhere for medical care; it's the Canadians and others who come
>here. Why should the United States duplicate what doesn't work well
>in other countries? We have the world's best medical care; let's not
>mess it up with Hillary Clinton's plans for socialized medicine."
>
>
>John F. McManus, National President of the John Birch Society
>


When McManus says, "We have the world's best medical care," I can hardly
believe he's referring to a system:

1.  That costs us 14 percent of our GDP, while there isn't a
    single other country in the industrialized world that spends more than
    10 percent.

2.  That leaves 37 million of us with no coverage, even though all
    the other systems in the industrialized world cover virtually everyone.

3.  Yet, Americans rank near the bottom of the list in terms of life
    expectancy, childhood immunization rate, infant mortality, and many
    preventable diseases.

4.  We pay, on average, about $1000 each for MRIs.  (To put that in
    perspective, they cost $177 in Japan.)

5.  The average US company spends over 2500 dollars a year per employee on
    health benefits.  Seven hundred to 1500 is the range just about everywhere
    else.


How can anyone say that such a system is the best in the world?  The only
thing the USA health care system is good at is showering well-insured patients
with a champagne treatment of care and outrageously overcharging for it.  And
the "private" system of insurers and paperwork is so bloated and inefficient
that it itself sucks up over 100 billion dollars a year in money from every
other sector of society - individuals, government, and industry.

Of the < 800 billion dollars Americans threw into the bottomless pit of health
care costs last year, the Consumer's Union estimated that at least 200 billion
was thrown away on overpriced, useless, and even downright harmful tests and
procedures, and the most bureaucratic, regulated insurance system in the world.

There are more than 1200 different private insurers in the USA.  But did the
"private competition" stimulate more efficient paperwork?  Ask any doctor
who's had to hire a full-time clerk to deal with it all!

The competition among hospitals is driving costs UP, not down.  The
competition among hospitals for both doctors and patients has encouraged the
hospitals to traffic in expensive superfluous equipment.  Spending millions on
expensive machines of dubious value that spend 80 percent of the day idle
isn't my idea of the world's best health care system.

Competition among specialists is driving them to perform dangerous and
expensive procedures where they are very marginally helpful.  I'm especially
thinking of heart surgery and some women's surgeries like hysterectomy and
Cesarean section.  Sound like the world's best health care system?



Ever notice how, every time someone tries to bring about some real change in
health care, the Libbies start bashing Canada's system?  First of all, Hillary
Clinton is not advocating another Canadian system.  I think that's been made
abundantly clear in the news for the last couple of months.  Where did John F.
McManus get that idea, anyway?

Let's say you're a Canadian living in a small town near the USA border.  Your
child needs a complicated procedure only available in city hospitals.  The
nearest Canadian cities are 6 hours west and 20 hours east, and there's an
American city one hour south.  Which way are you going to go?  Is it because
the American system is the "best" in the world, or just for convenience?

It still amazes me that people can't seem to see more than just black and
white on health care reform.  There are a million different ways we ould
restructure the system.  It's not just a choice between total government
control and total private control.  I wish the people screaming "socialized
medicine" every time soemone wants to change the current syste would INFORM
THEMSELVES on health care issues.



The current system sucks.  I want to keep providers private but that doesn't
change the fact that we will never be able to deal with the deficit if we
don't REFORM THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.  Purely private health care without any
government intervention doesn't work.  Hillary Clinton is not thinking of
nationalizing providers or evern insurers.  How can you scream "socialized
medicine" at her programs?  Don't you even know what you're talking about?



Ever see Clinton's graphs of projected deficit versus year for the rest of the
decade?  Notice how the line falls, then starts increasing?  Why?  I'll give
you one wild guess as to which component of spending will overwhelm us if we
don't do something about it.



PEOPE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.  The current health care system is a cancer which is
killing our economic well-being.  Costs are still rising 10 percent a year
even as Americans by the tens of millions go without, or are forced into
managed-care programs, which are certainly pretty socialized already if you
ask me.

A couple of months ago I posted a message asking any Hillary-bashers to please
come forward and present (no gimmicks, straight talk) just how THEY would set
about keeping costs down.  I didn't get a single answer.

The only thing I keep hearing from Libbie organizations are press releases
filled with evasive platitudes like "give health care back to the people."
Just do you expect to do that without serious reforms?  What is it about the
current system that you would change and how would that help?


How can anyone read the news, live under our system, and NOT see these faults?
How can we deal with the deficit, our cities, our educational system, our
infrastrucure, AIDS, modernizing our industry, etc. if we don't quit throwing
away money which could be used to SOLVE those problems?


America needs health care reform NOW.  Don't just sit there and Hillary-bash,
inform yourself!

Jim Reynolds


-- 
James P. Reynolds    (that's Jim to you and me.)     jpr1@lehigh.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178654
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

|> 
|> In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
|> the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
|> suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
|> the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
|> by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
|> claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
|> AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
|> grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
|> they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.
|> 
...
|> The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
|> government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
|> them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
|> them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
|> up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
|> set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
|> to get gun control legislation through.
|> 

I must object to the characterization of those opposed to the
government's handling of the Waco situation as "gun supporters".
Your argument tries to paint the BATF critics as right-wing
gun nuts, and just mixes up two issues.

I am one of the BATF/FBI critics, and yet I am a liberal
and just as anti-gun as you are.  I just happen to believe
that everyone has civil rights, even religious crazies.
They're all human beings, not some nest of wasps that
you're trying to exterminate.

The BATF created the crisis situation by the way they handled
the original raid.  It was well known that Koresh regularly
went jogging outside his property.  He could have been served
with a search warrant then.  He could have been arrested if
he had refused to comply.  Instead officers armed with grenades
invaded the property.  This escalated into a shooting war
with tragic deaths on both sides.

Those were the first two mistakes:  the bad judgment of
asking for a no-knock warrant, and the bad and probably
illegal way the already-unwise warrant was served.

At this point, the situation escalated to where it was
described as an armed standoff and a hostage crisis.
That's when the government started covering their traces,
sealing the warrant, revising their reported history of
the incident, etc.

Things were already building up to disaster.  Now the
government could have simply closed the supply routes
and waited.  But according to Janet Reno, that option
had "never been seriously considered".  So, supposedly
because the agents were "frustrated and fatigued", and
because there supposedly were no backups, they felt
they had to go in.

Now it's entirely possible that Koresh was responsible
for the fire.  If that's so, he deserves the blame
for the deaths of the people in his compound.

But the government's hands are far from clean.
Their first raid demonstrated bad judgment plus
contempt for the 4th amendment.  The motivations
for the second raid are just too unbelievable.
And their coverup of the events of the first
raid undermines their credibility in anything
they do thereafter.  We have only some very
biased FBI agents' word for what happened.

And please let's not turn this into a pro-gun vs. anti-gun
discussion.  Anti-gun people do not believe that gun-owners
deserve to get frontally assaulted by armed government
agents.  And Koresh's civil rights exist whether his
guns were legal, illegal, illegal-but-should-have-been-legal,
or whatever! 


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178655
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15430@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1993Apr16.164638.27218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:


># What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
># with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
># hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
># 
># (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
># 
># ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

>Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
>pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
>hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
>my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
>to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

Gosh, I have to associate with heterosexuals against my will every day! 
That means you've imposed your moral codes on me, now doesn't it? 
Fortunately, I have taken the time to get to know some members
of the het community and discovered that, hey!  They really AREN'T all evil
elitists with no concept of reality!

I've got a few clues for you.  (a) I'm not working to pass any laws.  (b)
Our morals are YOUR morals: I imagine you value freedom.  So do we.  If you
value your own freedom, you must necessarily accept that these laws are
important to protect it.  After all, discriminate in one area and you're
open to discriminate in the rest.  (c) I suggest learning a bit more about
gays, lesbians, and bis before you post the kind of drivel you have been. 
It's obvious that you haven't a clue who you're talking about.

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

But not between members of the same sex, right?  How can you live with such
hypocrisy?

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178656
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>> In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....
>> 
>> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
>> 
>> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

>When you force people to associate with others against their will,
>yes.

We're having to associate with you against our will.  This is fascism! 

You don't have to associate with anyone against your will.  Go live in a
cave.  We won't miss you.

Drewcifer


-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178658
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: race and violence

In article <1993Apr18.190534.28044@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> alaramor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron C Laramore) writes:
>Basically, I think this tendency for non african americans to believe that
>something is wrong with us exists because non african americans don't want to
>deal with the possiblility that the society is deeply biased against african
>americans, and that this is about 80% of the problem.

There is something terribly wrong, however, with a culture which
condemns, attacks, and all too often kills any of its members who
attempt to get an education.  My mother is an elementary school
teacher, and she tells me that she and her african american collegues
are frustrated to tears by the fact that any african american child who
attempts to do well in school and get an education is accused by
his/her peers of "trying to be white", and is beaten, bullied, and
tormented by them.  It goes beyond each passing grade on a test earning
a beating.  In my mother's school, one of the most promising young
students, who happened to be african american, had her throat cut by
one of these young thugs.

Nobody who buys into such a culture has any hope of being anything but
poor and/or a thug and/or dead, regardless of their color.

What has to be changed is the culture.  If that culture can't be
changed, then those african-american kids who are willing to separate
from it *must* be separated from it and the murderous thugs of whatever
color.  Otherwise, future bright young african american girls who
wanted to be doctors will end up dead on the school bus.
-- 
Let's face it, when it comes to utilities,  Microsoft has | Mike Van Pelt
performed about as well as a savings and loan.  These are | mvp@netcom.com 
the guys,  remember,  who put BACKUP and RESTORE - not to | mvp@lsil.com     
mention EDLIN - on your hard disk.  - Lincoln Spector     +----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178659
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15441@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>> In article <15409@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># 
># Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
># if the oppertunity presented itself?
># 
># I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
># huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being
>
>That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.


No Cramer it does not.  In this instance you are telling porkies to
*yourself* as well as everyone else.  Haven't you ever been to a
cafe or restaurant and been absalutely stuffed full of goodies and yet
when one more item, just a little different, with a new texture and
a new taste, was presented you *somehow* found the space for it.

Maybe you haven't, so what?  It is a widely reported phenomina and
I reckon the same applies to sex.



>
># #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
># Xavier
>
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

Xavier

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178661
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

In article <1qocun$h2r@access.digex.net> carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron) writes:

>>and the word "liberal" definitely has a different connotation 
>>than what you have written above.  Just ask Michael Dukakis. 
>
>Yeah, the Republicans have defined it to mean "spends money on things that
>don't make our rich buddies richer"
	If you have something reasoned and intelligent to say then you should
post. If all you can do is rant and rave- save it.

>
>or maybe they mean that liberals believe in "tax and spend" rather than
>"borrow and spend"
	True conservatism is cutting spending and taxes. It's a matter of
debate just how succesful the last few presidents have been at that.

>
>finally, it means "open-minded about things that I don;t want to be open
>-minded about"
	I hear it again and again, and I've noticed far more often from 
liberals than anyone else- "if you don't agree with me you are close-minded"
	Look who's talking. I suggest you take a look at your post. I see
nothing but unfair and unsubstantiated generalizations. It suggests that the
author is anything but open-minded.
	Next time you feel like posting something like this- save it for 
somebody who cares.

>
>Carl

	*********************************************************
	  William Everett		These opinions are mine-
	  Harvy Mudd College		You can't have them
	*********************************************************    
	 "The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
	arms of despotism."  -- Tocqueville, 1852
	"The insane fear of Reaganism throws the Liberals headlong into the
	arms of socialism."  -- McGuinness, 1993
	*********************************************************


    


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178663
From: kevin@msai.com (Kevin Smith)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

>>You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice somthing
>>for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ? To bad.
>>What is immoral is: people like you and the current president who don't
>>have any idea why this country still exists after 200+ years.
>
> >I don't consider these ideas selfish; I consider them rational. 

I agree with the body of your post, but please reconsider your phrasing
here.  I think these ideas are selfish AND rational, which
is commendable.

Don't give selfishness a bad rap.  If we were all selfless there would
be no moral reason NOT to have a draft.  It [the draft] is the ultimate 
in mindlessly serving your fellow man with no thought to the importance
of the self.
-- 
    __    
| / |  |  | | |\  |    The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily
|<  |- |  | | | \ |    shared by my employer -- they came to me while
| \ |_  \/  | |  \|    viewing prime-time sit-coms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178664
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <15445@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
wrote:
> Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
> of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
> recent works suggest.

Mr. Cramer, when are you going to stop indulging in such blatant lies?
This is not only not true, you know damned well that it's not true.  None
of your research supports this; no mental health expert has taken this
position.  This is *your own* opinion which is not backed up by any
research or any knowledge.

According to one survey, done in San Francisco, the number of heterosexual
men who were molested as children was on the order of 5%.  The number of
homosexual men who were molested as children was on the order of 8%.
Source:  a book on sexual abuse of children by David Finkelhor (sorry,
the title escapes me).

Conclusions that can be drawn from this:  none.

> If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their
> morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children
> alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But
> until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of 
> government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice
> but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative
> lifestyle," but a sickness.

Oh, you definitely have a choice.  You realize, of course, that you
are approaching the two-year anniversary of your crusade.  How are
you planning on celebrating two years of lies?

Incidentally, we are still waiting your crusade against African-Americans,
women, and other minorities who also want to "impose their morality on
others".  After all, they also want the government to "tell peaceful
people how to live."  Therefore, you really "have no choice", but to
continue to point out that being a woman or an African-American is not
a lifestyle, but a sickness.

It's bullshit, Mr. Cramer.  It was bullshit when you began this crusade
and it's still bullshit.  I am continually amazed at the depths to which
you'll stoop to carry on this deliberate attack.

Paul Bartholomew
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178665
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April


In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)

|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
|>   I note with insufficient emotion that amongst the five survivors of the 
|>   Waco debacle, there were two Brits and an Aussie. The Anglo-Saxon persona 
|>   really doesn't lend itself to martyrdom for a spurious messiah.
|>
|>I don't see how you draw that conclusion.  Around 20 of the 80 inside the
|>buildings were British (one quarter).  Two out of the eight (latest count I
|>heard) survivors were British (one quarter).  Anyhow, British doesn't equate
|>to  Anglo-Saxon.
|>
|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
|>a mile of the compound?

Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
has a range of 3000 meters.

Next question.


The problem is of course the laws that allow a bunch of raving nutters
to collect a huge stack of arms in the first place.

The sequence of events meant that there really was no option but to
attempt some sort of breakthrough via an intervention. If the FBI had
had the stomach for it they could have mounted a commando type
raid and attempted to save the children by shooting all the adults.
It really was a no win situation. Koresh had plenty of opportunity 
to give up and stand trial for the murder of the 4 ATF officers. Instead
he ordered the murder of the children.


In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.


The B-D seige could not be allowed to go on indefinitely. The B-D were
quite capable of commiting mass suicide and murdering the children at any
time. A commando assault was the only other likely action that could have
achieved that objective, that would have been very risky, orders of 
magintude harder than Antebbe or the Iranian Embassy Seige. Airplanes
and Embassies are not designed for defense against attack ranch 
apocalypse was. 6 terrorists are far easier to disloge without casualties
than 80.

Allowing the siege to go on was not an option either, besides the serious
risk that Koresh would proclaim armageddon at any moment there was the 
question of the difficulties of keeping the emmergency team on standby over
a prolonged period. The longer the siege went on the more mentally prepared
Koresh and his followers would be for a prolonged siege. Rather than go
in prematurely the mistake was probably to go in too soon.


Can you think of a better way of getting the children out?

A 100% certain way?


The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
to get gun control legislation through.

This conspiracy theory assumes that the BATF deliberately got 4 of its
agents killed and that the FBI etc actually enjoy sitting out in the
middle of Texas being shot at by religious nutters.

Still the conspiracy theory is comforting, it allows them to pretend that
WACO proves nothing except about how incompetent the government is in 
resolving a hostage crisis. No govt in the world has ever faced a 
comparable situation, quite probably there was no manner in which it
could be peacefully resolved. The blame does not rest on the FBI, it
rests on the fact that Koresh was allowed to get so far, in particular
the person who tipped the B-D off in advance has the murder of 4 ATF
agents and 17 children on his or her conscience.


There are a large number of people in the US who predict the end of society
preach salvation through armed security. The fact is that these are the
very people who pose the threat to society in the first place. The next WACO
may not be religious nutters but a political movement. A splinter group
of the Klu Klux Klan taking over a schoolhouse in a black area for example
and holding several hundred children hostage.

The only possible solution to such situations that can work is to prevent
them arising. No other government in the world has faced such a situation. 
this is because no other government has so carelessly allowed high power
weaponry to become avaliable to any little Hitler or would be Messiah
to set themselves up as dictator in their own little empire.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178667
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:

+>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
+>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?


After the seige began:

Surround the place with Razor wire and then let them sit.  Do not
have daily press conferences, do your best to keep things out of
the press.


As things get more and more miserable inside, one of two things is
going to happen:

	1. People will start coming out.

	2. They will commit suicide in mass at some point.


The thing to remember about (2) is that hysterical situations and "assults"
play into the hands of a "leader" who has picked this course.   Its
much easier to stampede people into something like suicide if there
is gas coming in and bullets in the air.  Let them be hungry and miserable
for longer and longer and it will probably be more effective.

	The "possiblity" that they would all kill themselves at some
point would not bother me in the least or alter tactics.  If people
are going to take their own lives, the best you can probably do is
prevent yourself from giving them the opportunity or an excuse to
do it.

	If the FBI and Attorney General Vampira really were concerned
with sanitation and welfare of the children inside, they would not
have turned the water to the compound off as a "pressure" tactic in
the first place.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178668
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: Drug Use and Policy in Japan

Is anyone out there knowledgeable on drug issues in Japan?  I'm interested
in knowing if Japan has or has ever had a problem with drugs, and how they
dealt with it.  I've heard, undocumented, that Japan years ago used heavy
legal penalties to end a serious heroin problem.  I'd like to know both
sides of the story.  Does anyone recall such a problem?  What were laws
at the time relating to drug use, drug dealing, and drug trafficking?  What
are the laws now?  What other anti-drug measures, like education and treatment
has Japan used?  How are drugs regarded by the Japanese people?  How effective
have anti-drug measures been in Japan?  Thanks for your help.


  - David Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178669
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15436@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> [Some chump at Brandeis:]

>> I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long
>> as you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.

> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
> obedience.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find
out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  The Colorado
boycott has fizzled, Slick Willie was effectively prevented from
implementing his military policy wrt homosexuals by members of his
_OWN_ party, this new study casts a large shadow of doubt on their
claims of large numbers, and coming this Saturday they are going to
wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more
than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are
promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be
there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in
the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle
America.

Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
where they belong.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178670
From: halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

>In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes
>:
>>>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives
>on
>>> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watc
>h
>>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
>>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to


Even if Rodney King had come out of that car waving a gun and they 
managed to disarm him, the police still had no right right to beat
him senseless the way they did once he was on the ground.  If they 
can't handle their jobs, they should be relieved of them.

Additionally, Anna Quindlan of the New York Times said it best (paraphrase):
Many people bring up what happened before what is shown on the tape.  Here's
what came before:  the 80's, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, racism,...

-jim halat
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178671
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT (Re: will they ever learn?)

jpr1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (James P. Reynolds) writes:

>PEOPE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.  The current health care system is a cancer which is
>killing our economic well-being.  Costs are still rising 10 percent a year
>even as Americans by the tens of millions go without, or are forced into
>managed-care programs, which are certainly pretty socialized already if you
>ask me.

>A couple of months ago I posted a message asking any Hillary-bashers to please
>come forward and present (no gimmicks, straight talk) just how THEY would set
>about keeping costs down.  I didn't get a single answer.

    The first thing I would do would be to disband Medicare and Medicade!  They
are a primary reason why health care costs are going up.  To cover the people
that are currently on these programs, I would sell their coverage in blocks
to insurance companies.  The private companies would bid to get these large
blocks of people, and prices would go down.

    To get away from strong federal control on health care, I would pass off
more control to the states.  Everyone is always spewing forth about how 
wonderful Hawaii is doing.  Well, how about giving some other STATES incentive
to try their own plans

    What I would NOT do is try to implement some far reaching federal program
program to cover all Americans, because this is the surest way to fail!


>How can anyone read the news, live under our system, and NOT see these faults?
>How can we deal with the deficit, our cities, our educational system, our
>infrastrucure, AIDS, modernizing our industry, etc. if we don't quit throwing
>away money which could be used to SOLVE those problems?

   One sure way to stop throwing money away is to stop giving so much to the
federal government.  Our FEDERAL taxes should be slashed, and our STATE taxes
increased.  A strong central government always fails.  Give power back to the
states/counties/cities, where it belongs.

>America needs health care reform NOW.  Don't just sit there and Hillary-bash,
>inform yourself!

  The more I inform myself, the more I want to Hillary-bash.  :->


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178672
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>
>Okay, but do doctors willingly testify against each other in 
>malpractice cases when they do go to court (obviously, absolutely 
>essential to prove malpractice)? It used to be impossible to get
>doctors here to do that (A possible advantage of the US system 
>you won't hear about from the AMA). 

Our doctors' monopoly is exactly the same as in the U.S., if not
more powerful now that they can dictate insurance payment rates,
but I don't know an answer to this one.  Anecdotally, my friends
who are MD's (including my main buds from high school) talk about
how hard it is to turn "state's witness" against someone else ...
no direct experience there, though.

>Also, in some circumstances you may have to sue the insurance plan-
>people here, after all, sue health insurance companies all the time. 
>I heard about a guy in Alberta who came down with some rare eye 
>disease that he had to take repeated trips to Seattle to get treated.
>It cost him and his family something like $6000 and the province, 
>years later, still has only reimbursed them for $500 or so.

Well, what American private insurance plans cover travel expenses???

Since our public insurance plans are publicly accountable, one can
raise a stink in the media to try and extort benefits beyond which
one is entitled (hey, not Alberta's fault that he lives there) ... 
If he lived in Cheyenne, WY his private insurance would've told him
to go to hell for the travel expenses and that's that.  An HMO would
have just kept quiet and let him go blind.

>>>Well, yeah, tell us about the National Defense Medical Centre
>>>outside Ottawa.
>> 
>>It serves the same purpose as the Bethesda Naval Hospital ... since
>>not all hospitals can provide everything, maybe they have some stuff
>>that others don't?  (Ottawa's population is only a quarter million,
>>if you include the surrounding counties.)
>
>My point was that something that should necessarily remain 
>unpoliticized has become very politicized, to the detriment 
>of its mission.

I don't think that this has been shown with the DMC ...

>>>The problem is, in a system where hospitals' annual budgets are
>>>>approved by the government, how do you keep political considerations
>>>out of medical decisions?  I bet that if you're an MP or MPP, or good
>>>friends with one, you're put on any hospital's "urgent" care list no
>>>matter how minor your problem. Which is OK unless you're someone who
>>>gets bumped off the list for some bigshot.
>> 
>>People of influence will get their way in any system, American or
>>European.  It's the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the
>>rules. (-;
>
>But to what extent does it affect the system? And why is an urgent 
>care list necessary in the first place? It's worth thinking about.

It's regular practice in a hospital to figure out who needs to get
at what facilities.  Don't Americans have to arrange in advance for
operations too?  I think that there are two standards being applied
here, and that Canada can't give Beverly Hills-style treatment to
everybody.  It's not a big brother list ... it's more like calling
around town for a table for dinner ...

>Yeah, but private nonprofit foundations have to make money somehow, 
>especially in the hospital business. 

Yes, and the Tories in Ottawa are trying to make them do that rather
than hope for a bigger grant from the feds and their province the 
next time around.  Whether it's using mop a couple of weeks longer
or even selling services to Americans (remember, our system is cash
based and since our health care infrastructure is overbuilt except
in specialties that require larger populations to generate business,
why not?  The alternative is closing unused wards ... business.).

>whether Canadians would be thrilled at the prospect of their own 
>health services catering toward Americans, who would be willing 
>to pay more than they do, is another issue entirely), it must be 
>noted that they said they were doing it partly because their grants 
>from the province were getting smaller If those grants are so 
>insubstantial, why the need to attract foreigners to make up the 
>difference?

You answered the question yourself ... "private nonprofit foundations
have to make money somehow", and I think that it's about time that
they acted like the private hospitals that they are.  Personally,
I'm fed up with Canadian socialists trying to tell everyone that
their health care is free when we are actually buying insurance
(that's one at you, Bob Rae!!).

>>The GDP figures are combined public and private expenditures for total
>>outlay, and  are compiled use the same methods by the OECD that yield 
>>the 13-14% figure for the U.S.
>
>But don't the US figures include dentistry and optometry where the 
>Canadian one (until recently, anyway) didn't?

Since we have always been evaluated in an OECD style, I don't see
how ... remember, OECD counts both private and public funds, and
in Canada like France and Germany, 30% of health care spending is
private funds (i.e., not the basic health insurance money).

>>>So what happens if the health care systems financially collapse.
>> 
>>How?  They are collecting premiums ... and I'm an advocate of having
>>copayments like the French do in their system ...
>
>Well, if you spend more than you take in, you go bankrupt. It's that
>simple. If the provincial insurance systems find themselves paying
>out more than they get in revenue, they won't be able to pay for
>everybody's primary care. Yes, the infrastructure will be there. 
>But will everybody be able to continue using it at the same rate.

Minor copayments can flush out abusers.  Remember that our "system"
is only an insurance policy.  But our costs aren't rising fast
enough to ensure adequate copayments/deductibles ... last year,
Quebec's user-fee proposal came out with the number of "$5" as
the necessary hike that could be done through a copayment rather
than give the QMA a raise.  And it's not contract time yet, as
far as I can tell from UPI Clarinet ...

Even the new Reform Party, a breakoff of traditionalists from the
Conservatives with a mildly "libertarian" faction, holds our public
health insurance as an untouchable but that just a few people have to
be reminded that it's not free (the average Canadian/European is more
fiscally naive than their American counterparts on issues like these).
But no mention of copayments anywhere to be seen ... but cutting public
spending all over the place, and bringing back the death penalty, with
little haste if elected.

>I know that, for Pete's sake, I live right on the border. I know the
>Canadian system isn't socialized medicine (unlike Britain's NHS). 

Sorry! (-;  It's just that I even run into people from Buffalo
and from Michigan who don't know ...

>The point is, that means that if the money runs low in the plan,
>you're out of luck unless you can afford it yourself.

Yeah, but there'd be a lot of lead-time and a health-care crisis that
would preclude it.  If provincial governments (as bad as some of them
are; heck, we have the NDP cleaning up a spending mess made by the
Conservatives in Saskatchewan - embarassing!) can be so irresponsible,
there is still reallocation --- health insurance is so important that
it's about the only thing that can inspire open rebellion and violent
insurrection outside of the hockey rink.  Right now, attempts to get
the system and its users to learn good habits are being treated like
cod-liver oil ...

>>>Would the private insurers take up the slack? They'd be under no
>>>obligation to. Of course, they could eventually make money again, 
>>>but if what you say is true, they'd be loathe to do so (and out of
>>>practice in handling such basic services, too).
>> 
>>Some of the companies providing extra insurance are subsidiaries of
>>American companies, and their parents provide full insurance down
>>here.  Regardless, all firms up north can easily turn on cable TV
>>to see how well the American firms are doing by being involved in
>>basic coverage.  The private firms are making too much money after
>>having gotten rid of basic coverage.  They run around patting them-
>>selves on the back for their own cooperation in providing extras 
>>for those people who "deserve it".
>
>Yeah, but eventually it's going to create a kind of two-tiered 
>effect that will be noticeable after a while, like in Britain. 

Most Americans are fearful of a single-tier system ... (-;

Seriously, there are few areas that have sufficient population for a
two/more-tiered system like what the French have ... a health policy
prof, D.G. Shea, has cited studies in the NEJM that indicate having
a population of 500,000 is necessary for adequate competition ...
and in Canada, there are only four cities west of the Great Lakes
with that population or larger.

Anyways, the numbers show that costs have held steadier than those
in the U.S. and barring any future Chernobyl-like crisis, sudden
transients in spending are unlikely.  In fact, the health allocation
is one of the most well-behaved sectors of spending up north so any
talk of bankruptcy is talk-radio fodder far away from the border.

>If the provinces hit fiscal rough spots and have to cut back, the
>things private insurers have to offer will seem less and less like
>luxuries and the gap will be more and more noticeable.

This won't be overnight, and something like this would force Canada
to have a system more like the French one ... but that's not a bad
thing, and the change will be minimal (i.e., add copayments and
frustrate the socialists chanting "Hey, it's *free*!").

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178673
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
: 
: It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
: setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
: that never seems to occur?...
 
Advances in freedom have been made in the past.  The "divine right of
king" concept was questioned at one time and may have used the same
argument, that it hadn't come about before.  But our ancestors had the
courage to throw off the old system that said that one man ruling many
was necessary to have a decent, wholesome society.  In the 1800s the 
concept of slavery was questioned.  Our ancestors had the courage to
question a practice that had existed for thousands of years.  Was
the idea that one man owning another necessary to have a decent, 
wholesome society?  Now libertarians question the necessity of
majoritarianism.  Is it necessary that many people rule over many
others to have a decent, wholesome society?
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178675
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

In article <C5qqKE.97J@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

   In <4916@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

   |>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993

   |                       *Paranoia part deleted.*

   |  Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?

   I don't remember the article that you removed so I can't comment on it.
   What I can comment on though is your response.

   Do you really believe that what you wrote is sufficient to refute
   the article?  Do have any facts in addition to your opinion?

No one has time to chase down every rumor that gets printed
in the National Enquirer or whatever.  The point is to wait
and see if the assertions of the (rather bizarre) original
post will be corroborated in any way.  Perhaps they will.
The recent posts of the rather bizarre original poster speak
for themselves.

-david

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178676
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

    Anything but...

    Bill Clinton and Janett Reno should not have started the whole
    shenanigan in the first place.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178677
From: scatt@apg.andersen.com (Scott Cattanach)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>In <1993Apr19.223257.24652@teetot.acusd.edu> jerry@teetot.acusd.edu (Jerry Stratton) writes:

>happen.  It seems that what they were trying to do was get the
>children out.  The idea was that ramming the compound with the
>tank and pouring in tear gas was supposed to send all the "mothers"
>fleeing outside with their children.

If any reliance was put on women's "mothering instinct" in an official
explanation of a govt. action during a Republican administration, would
it generate so few complaints?  (as opposed to complaints about the action
itself)

--
"Spending programs are now 'investments,' taxes are 'contributions,' and 
these are the same people who say _I_ need a dictionary?"  - Dan Quayle 2/19/93

My employer is not responsible for ANYTHING that may appear above.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178679
From: bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>

How about tell everyone what the hell they were doing there in the first place?

If we knew that, we'd be in a much better position to judge their actions.
Until then, we can only speculate and develop nice conspiracy and/or police
state stories.

-Bob

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178680
From: bu534@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill E Jones)
Subject: Re: race and violence


Not this again.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178681
From: mauser@terminus.apexgrp.com (Richard Chandler)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

> From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) 
     Bzzzzt.  THANK you for playing, but obviously you are not reading the 
  material as it is presented.  According to the report I've got in my 
  hands, the Newsweek article (which reported that "2 to 3 percent" of the 
  population is gay) used the criteria of "No heterosexual contact in the 
  past year."  But at the same time, the University of Denver study points 
  out, quite dramatically, that 60% of all self-identifying gay men have 
> had some form of heterosexual contact in the past year. 

I think the big mistake in that study must be that if one had had no sexual 
contact of any kind in the previous year, they are counted as heterosexual.
Even if they didn't intend it that way, that's how the figures are being used.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178682
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...

>Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.

>There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
>no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
>concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)

	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF,
	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF
	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were
	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade 
	range. 

	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?  

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178683
From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......


People *die* of natural causes, too.  We hear all this bellyaching over
things like murder and war while Mother Nature is killing people all of
the time.

In fact, more people die of natural causes than due to the conscious
actions of other people.  So, what's a few murders here and there?


-- 

                                              John Berryhill


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178690
From: lynn@granitt.uio.no (Malcolm Lynn)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?


this is a tesrt
s

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178691
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
: 
: No.  I make a distinction between working for yourself to survive and
: paying dues to Mother Nature in the form of labour and working for
: Joe propertyowner because you do not have the option of working for
: yourself.  Joe propertyowner stands between you and the earth you
: work and expects you to pay him *and* mother nature for the right
: to survive.  The property laws create a layer of parasites that get
: fat on the fact that people have *no option* except to work in
: factories.  
: 
I want people to be able to get the things they need in life.  Property
ownership may not be ideal, but it is far better at letting people get
what they need to live a productive, fulfulling life.

The first experiment in America, where property ownership was denied,
caused, starvation, hunger, and death.  Few people know that the
Pilgrims originally tried to have common property to grow food and a
common food store.  Many people know the hardships they suffered the
first few winters because of it.  After arriving, the Pilgrims made all
property common.  They all shared in the work and the resulting crops
went into a common store.  After much debate the new Governor Bradford
privitized the land; assigning plots to each family.  According to Perry
D. Westbrook:  "The change was immediately justified by the increased
industry of the inhabitants and by the larger acreage planted."

Bradford himself acknowledged this failure of communism.  He wrote:  "The
experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried
sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the
vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of
later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into
a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser
than God.  For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much
confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been
to their benefit and comfort."

Bradford did not blame this failure on the "strangers", but on the basic
selfishness in all men.  He wrote "seeing all men have this corruption in
them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them."  In other
words, according to Westbrook, "Bradford found private enterprise to be
the most suitable economic policy for mankind in its fallen state."

Let's not make the same mistake that the Pilgrims made.  Private
property allows a society to flourish, the alternative brings
starvation, poverty and discontent.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178692
From: fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.

I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems
to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.

>Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer; 
>
>I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there. 
>
>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 

Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few
airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the
answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane
from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls
again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend
the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.

>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. 
>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. 

It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe
SSN-21, I know litttle about.

fpa


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178693
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans



Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans



10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of
    America's health care resources.

9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft.

8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic
    constituencies.

7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court.

6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military.

5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos
    over to socialzed health care.

4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation.

3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the
    Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate,
    the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs.

2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism.

1.  Resign, now!



Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993

Be sure to look for:
_Slick Willie's First Very Own Book of Top Ten Lists_
Available soon in paperback.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178694
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

> Clayton Cramer:

>> But what came out, in much lower profile reporting, was that the
>> "victim" was a prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the
>> false accusation.

> There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the
> defense merely alledged that she was.

The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
apparently found this compelling.

> Even Clayton knows the difference.  Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know
> the difference.

Clayton does indeed know the difference.  Greg apparently doesn't.

>> the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the Marines
>> were engaged in self-defense.

> No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder
> on proof.

Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the
Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?

> A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines: 

>    New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in
>    the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving
>    the Marines acted to cause injury.

Because, in part [REPEAT AFTER ME], "the judge found that there was
some credible evidence that the Marines were engaged in self-defense".
Hopefully, one of these days you will understand.

> Interesting that in 2 of the 3 cases Clayton does what he accuses
> others of doing.

With respect to credibility, I would rate Clayton Cramer an order of
magnitude higher than a) the news media, and b) homosexuals.

> But I never thought Clayton was consistent.

Clayton is indeed consistent.  And so are you.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178695
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5KH8G.961@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them 
>  together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent
>  him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ]
>
>>As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>>is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>>tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>> 
>>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
>>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>>condition.

		   [Patrick's example of anti-competitive regulations for
            auto dealers deleted.]
>Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:
>...
>This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency
>and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty.
>And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or
>rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me
>as a wonderful way to improve the human condition.
>
>   Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick

Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As
I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of 
eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers,
barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian
agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of
allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without
regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be 
free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.  
(As some/many libertarians would argue.)  

On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of 
difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic, 
to say the least.

I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education, 
national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile 
analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.  

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178696
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

Jamie R. McCarthy (k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu) wrote:
: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: >
: >Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
: >of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
: >recent works suggest.
: 
: Which number is that?  Zero?

The only time I have heard mention of such a mechanism is
with respect to FEMALE homosexuality resulting from HETEROSEXUAL
childhood abuse.
(and this as only one of several factors affecting the same person)

As Mr Cramer appears to concentrate on MALE homosexuality
I doubt this is what he has in mind.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178697
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.
>
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.
>
>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

So, you approve of the BATF launching a 100-person raid, complete
with flack jackets, men hidden in horse trailers, stun grenades,
semi-auto weapons on peaceful citizens?  who would also accept
a search authoried by a court?

There is still no proof that the Branch Davidians had illegal weapons.
Nothing else was in the jurisdiction of the BATF, unless they were
thought to have a still, or be smoking untaxed cigarettes.

The automatic firearms violation is a TAX matter !  You don't serve
no-knock warrants on someone with .50 CAL MGs.  It isn't necessary
(they can't flush a machine gun down a toilet, you know), and it isn't
smart (if you are right, you got a good chance of getting blown away.
if you are wrong, you shouldn't have done it.)

>
>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

The stupidity was indeed related to this.  But the stupidity may have been to
attempt to serve the warrant by ludicrously over-armed, over-protected
and over-confident gestapo.  Escalation isn't automatically brilliant.

IT WAS A TAX MATTER !  YOU CAN"T FLUSH MGs DOWN THE TOILET !
YOU DON"T NEED NO-KNOCK WARRANTS FOR EVERYTHING.

Actually, IMHO nothing justifies them, but that is another argument .
>
>
>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.
>
There wasn't any murder of police officers.  There was probable cause
to arrest them for murder perhaps.  We US citizens are innocent until proven
guilty.

There also wasn't any killing until the BATF screwed up real bad.

>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
>

Lew
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178699
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:


>In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6011 talk.politics.misc:22764
>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9k
>|>From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu
>|>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
>|>Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA
>|>Message-ID: <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>
>|>Date: 20 Apr 93 03:02:34 MDT
>|>References: <1993Apr20.004224.66488@cc.usu.edu> <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>|>Organization: Utah State University
>|>Lines: 34
>|>
>|>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>|>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>|>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>|>
>|>	Firstly, they could have backed off.  When you put a power freak, like
>|>David Koresh, in that kind of situation he is going to explode.  (no pun
>|>intended).  Koresh wanted to be a martyr and the government played right into
>|>his hands.
>|>
>|>	If the government hadn't given him the attention he wanted nothing
>|>would have ever happened.
>|>
>|>	Secondly, the Davidians were expecting everything the government did. 
>|>They thought that they were facing the apocalypse, and that they were to perish
>|>in fire.  They weren't scared of the FBI.  They are not the average hoods, they
>|>are very devout followers of a religion.  PsyOps didn't work and the government
>|>got frustrated so they murdered them. 
>|>
>|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
>|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
>|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
>|>
>|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
>|>first place.


>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

+>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
+>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
+>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
+>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
+>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

	The search was a "no-knock" warrent.  Meaning that what
those on the scene see is a bunch of men with guns storming 
their compound and lobbing grenades at them.  The terms of the
search warrent are secret and the BATF has yet to even reveal
what they were.




+>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
+>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

	They did not serve a warrent, they basically attacked the
compound and expected a surrender.  They had semiautomatics and
concussion grenades that we KNOW about.  

	Look at the death and injury toll inflicted on both sides in the first
battle and its difficult to believe that either side had any
superiority in weapons.


+>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
+>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
+>hear it.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178700
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: A few questions for Janet Reno

	A few questions for Janet Reno:

	Why don't you think generals have any place in law enforcement?

	If the ATF/FBI had proof that Koresh was:

		A child molester
		A child abuser
		A wife abuser
		Bigamist
		Sexual Deviant (not a crime in all 50 states, yet)
	As well as
		Illegally modify weapons

	Why wasn't he simply arrested during one of his morning jogs?  Why did
the allegations of child/wife/sex crimes only come out after the Branch
Davidians repelled the initial assualt?

	Was it because it became necessary to demonize David Koresh?  Do you
feel responsible for the deaths of over 80 people?  How many would be alive to
day if Koresh had been arrested outside the compound?


	Inquiring minds want to know.

	[Although Janet was installed after the siege began, her purge of the
justice dept. leaves only her people in charge.]

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178701
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: What is Clinton ???

In article <9649@kielo.uta.fi>, csfraw@vehka.cs.uta.fi (Francis Akoto) writes:
> I would like to know Clintons background. Is he Anglo-saxon, Irish, Italian
> hispanic etc.

	He's 1/2 liar, 1/2 cheat and 1/2 demagogue.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178702
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: The "Big Secret"

In article <9304182100.AA08789@poly.math.cor>, harelb@math.cornell.edu writes:
>     ******************************************************
>     "IT IS A MATTER OF LOGIC that government-run systems are
>     inefficient, and the fact that the highly bureaucratized private
>     sector system in the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore
>     irrelevant.  

	Proof that the entire private sector is vastly more inefficient?

> It is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross
>     of Massachusetts employs 6680 people, more than are employed in
>     all of Canada's health programs, which insure 10 times as many
>     people"

	Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.

	Oops.

	[Ads for Z magazine deleted to Save the Earth]

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178703
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15454@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>> Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
>> if the oppertunity presented itself?
>
>> I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
>> huge variety of willing partners.
>
>If true, and if gays were the same as straights except
>for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would
>have much less sex than straights because the available
>pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for
>straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!


You miss the point.  A lot more negotiation is needed to convince women
to have sex because there is a big taboo about women being free with 
their sex.  Many of the women I know would do almost anything rather
than be known as a slag, slut or whore.

With men however there is *status* attached to being able to fuck 
constantly.  And with gay men, where both partners can prove status
through their constant verility then you are going to get a situation
where there is a lot of sex.

The difference is between het sex being rationed as a valuable commodity
and gay sex being virtually unlimited due to the *appetites* of men.

Straights suffer a bottle neck where women are concerned, gay men who
do not experience this bottle neck go to excess.


>-- 
>Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh


Xavier



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178704
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
into killing the children.

The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with 
a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person.
In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes 
him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the
hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically
threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would
release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would
pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178706
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Presidential Statement on Waco



The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release                             April 19, 1993



                  STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON


I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in Waco today.  My 
thoughts and prayers are with the families of David Koresh's 
victims.

The law enforcement agencies involved in the Waco siege 
recommended the course of action pursued today.  The Attorney 
General informed me of their analysis and judgment and 
recommended that we proceed with today's action given the risks 
of maintaining the previous policy indefinitely.  I told the 
Attorney General to do what she thought was right, and I stand by 
that decision. 

                                #



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178707
From: wolfe@wolves.Durham.NC.US (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr14.135948.3024@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, 
>tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) said:
>
>> A good case? A F**KING GOOD CASE? The defense lawyer asked the victim
>> questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate
>> in?"  and you think he made a good case?????
>
>Speaking as someone who's only about six weeks and a $6,900 tuition bill
>away from becoming an unemployed slob with a law degree, I'd really like
>to see a transcript of this trial.  I'd especially like to know what
>happened immediately after the defense attorney asked that question
>(assuming that the reports that he did so are accurate... I'm not
>accusing Tom Farrell of making anything up, but this _is_ the sort of
>case that spawns garbled misquotes, false rumors and urban legends like
>tribbles).  It'd be nice to think that the prosecutor objected
>(irrelevant, prejudicial, inflammatory... take your pick) and that the
>judge upheld the objection.

	Having watched most of the televised trial, I can answer that
when such statements were made by the defense atty, the prosecutor did
object, and the judge tended to sustain the ones that were obviously
falling under the "self-incrimination" type of objection.  There was
quite a bit of meta-discussion during the trial over the use of graphic
language, with most folks asking the judge if she wanted to hear the
exact language.  Practically every time the defense tried to get the
plaintiffs to "self-incriminate" by asking them such questions, there
were objections and sustains.

	At one point the defense managed to get in a quip about
"solicitation for a felony" and the judge herself said "sustained"
before the prosecutor could get the objection stated.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC	[This site is NOT affiliated  ]
wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us			[with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178708
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>into killing the children.

Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178709
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
> In article <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
# #
# #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
# 
# Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.

Not really.  The percentage of gays was low.  Headline writers aren't
noted for accuracy.

# #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
# #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
# #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
# #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
# #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
# #
# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
# 
# #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
# #-- 
# 
# Now let's take a quick look at what you are saying.
# 
# The median of a distribution is that variate-value which divides the
# distribution halfway, i.e. 1/2 of the distribution (population) have
# lower and half have higher variate-values.
# 
# So for Males 20-39 the median=7.3, this means that half of these men
# are higher than this and half are lower than this.  Now if the population
# sample size is 3300, and 1% of them are gay, 33 males are gay.  If we

Actually, 2% were either exclusively homosexual, or bisexual.  You aren't
readiing very carefully.

# say they are distributed equally then only 16.5 are greater than 7.3
# sexual partners, of course, this means that 49.5% heterosexual men are
# greater than 7.3.
# 
# Interesting results.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178710
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Can't have it both ways- News as enemy, News as supporter.

In article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
# Mr Cramer-
# 
# You are on one hand condemning the news media as;
# 
# "The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions" that
# was your message subject I believe.
# 
# Then you turn around and actually take; From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat,
# April 15, 1993, p. B2: 
# 
# Male sex survey: Gay activity low title.
# 
# You even use such a title for the San Jose Mercury News- the Murky News.
# 
# Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around
# and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory
# doesn't it.

If you can show me that the Press-Democrat misrepresented the Guttmacher
Institute's study, do so.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178711
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation

In article <115993@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> Clayton Cramer, did you read this carefully?  :
> 
> In article <C4tz28.Cpp@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
> 
> >it should not be assumed that we [NAMBLA] agree with the specific 
> >agendas of each and every other participating group, nor 
> >should it be assumed that each and every other group 
> >supports our specific goals and ideals. 

Yeah, just like you shouldn't assume that Aryan Nations supports
genocide.  Who are they (and you) fooling?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178712
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Can't have it both ways- News as enemy, News as supporter.

From article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU:

> Mr Cramer-

> You are on one hand condemning the news media as;

> "The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions" that
> was your message subject I believe.

> Then you turn around and actually take; From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat,
> April 15, 1993, p. B2: 

> Male sex survey: Gay activity low title.

> You even use such a title for the San Jose Mercury News- the Murky News.

> Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around
> and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory
> doesn't it.

I believe that this is not contradictory on the basis that
the quality of media reporting varies greatly based on the
subject at hand.  The media has proven itself very accurate
is the areas of presenting raw, undisputed data.  One good
example would be the weather page in which high and low
temperatures of the previous day for a large number of
locations are posting.  There is little evidence to show
that they are in error.

The American media has failed us in its analysis of complex
events, however.  I'm sure that we can come up with many
news stories that have left us angry because so many facts
have been ommitted.  Cases that come to mind are the
invasion of Panama, the war with Iraq, the disaster in Waco,
the issues surrounding the acceptance of gays into the
military, the war on drugs, and many others.

The story that you bring to light was regarding the new
sex survey.  While I'm sure that due to lazyness some of
the data was ommitted from the article, I would venture to
guess that the data that was presented did not deviate
from the survey.  I do, however, think that it would be
folly to have blind faith in a single newswriter's
analysis of this data.  In this particular case, there was
little analysis, and the reader was left to draw his/her
own convictions.

Many netters, Mr. Cramer included, often forget that the
American media are merely a number of businesses, who's
purpose in life is to make money for their owners and
stockholders.  Revenues come largely from advertisers
who merely want maximum useful exposure per dollar.  The
media is like fast food; the quality of the food (or of
the reporting) will improve only if the customers demand
as such.  Otherwise, it is business as usual.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178713
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Press release on "Clipper Chip" encryption initiative

In article <1qvnmkINNoc6@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes:
>
>                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
>
>[...]
>
>The initiative will involve the creation of new products to 
>accelerate the development and use of advanced and secure 
>telecommunications networks and wireless communications links.
>
>[...]
>
>A state-of-the-art microcircuit called the "Clipper Chip" has 
>been developed by government engineers.  The chip represents a 
>new approach to encryption technology.  It can be used in new, 
>relatively inexpensive encryption devices that can be attached to 
>an ordinary telephone.  It scrambles telephone communications 
>using an encryption algorithm that is more powerful than many in 
>commercial use today.
>
>This new technology will help companies protect proprietary 
>information, protect the privacy of personal phone conversations 
>and prevent unauthorized release of data transmitted 
>electronically.  At the same time this technology preserves the 
>ability of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to 
>intercept lawfully the phone conversations of criminals. 

       While also allowing law enforcement agencies to intercept phone
conversations of criminals *and* non-criminals unlawfully.  ("No, Rev.
King, we aren't spying on you.")

       I wonder how long it will take for "the wrong people" to put their
hands on the equipment necessary to read this stuff.  It'll probably
be as safe as weapons locked safely in evidence rooms.

>"keys," numbers that will be needed by authorized government 
>agencies to decode messages encoded by the device.  When the 
>device is manufactured, the two keys will be deposited separately 
>in two "key-escrow" data bases that will be established by the 
>Attorney General.  Access to these keys will be limited to 
>government officials with legal authorization to conduct a 
>wiretap.

       And people to whom they sell them to.  All it takes is corrupting
the right guy.  No, that never happens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178714
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Richard Chandler (mauser@terminus.apexgrp.com) wrote:
: > From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) 
:      Bzzzzt.  THANK you for playing, but obviously you are not reading the 
:   material as it is presented.  According to the report I've got in my 
:   hands, the Newsweek article (which reported that "2 to 3 percent" of the 
:   population is gay) used the criteria of "No heterosexual contact in the 
:   past year."  But at the same time, the University of Denver study points 
:   out, quite dramatically, that 60% of all self-identifying gay men have 
: > had some form of heterosexual contact in the past year. 
: 
: I think the big mistake in that study must be that if one had had no sexual 
: contact of any kind in the previous year, they are counted as heterosexual.
: Even if they didn't intend it that way, that's how the figures are being used.

Could someone please post some date such as what questonnares where used
and how they were distributed and returned.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178716
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car

In article <1993Apr20.001815.14049@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:

>In article 735071359@utkvm1.utk.edu, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr14.195912.16613@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>>>
>>>Directly contradicted by the NEJM study that compared crime in Seattle and
>>>Vancouver, B.C.  The non-gun rates were roughly the same for both cities.  The
>>>difference in violent crime rates was almost totally gun-related.  
>>
>>        And as was not pointed out in the study, but in critiques
>>of it, (two seperate articles by James Wright and David Kopel come
>>to mind) it was pointed out that the difference was *also* almost
>>entirely minority related.  That is, the gun crime rate skyrocketed
>>for poor minorities (Blacks and Hispanics primarily) while when you
>>compared the white majority they were virutally identical.
>
>Many of the people who never read the NEJM article believe that this
>critique is valid.  In fact, the study explores the minority issue at length
>and cites studies to back up its contention that poverty, not minority
>"type", is the relevant factor in violence statistics.  

      Perhaps I failed to make myself clear:  Minorities in the U.S.
*correlate* with poverty.  This isn't good and we should address it,
but we shouldnt' ignore that minorities and poverty *do* tend to go
together.

      *Does* Vancouver have a consistantly poor population drawn along
racial lines?  If it doesn't, then assumptions of being able to compare
minority vs. majority in both cities is questionable at best.

>>...
>>>Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Those areas implemented gun control because of
>>>the high rates.  
>>
>>       True only to a certain extent.  Take Washington D.C., where
>>gun control was instituted while it had crime problems true, but that
>>crime proceeded to explode afterwards.  Similarly for New York.
>
>Actually, I don't know whether any serious studies have been done for both
>cities.  Usenet-style statistical arguments are not very serious, usually
>involving people sitting by computers with the latest World Almanac figures.
>I had heard of a study on Washington, DC, that seemed to indicate a significant
>drop in gun-related violence there after the laws were implemented.  I heard
>Gary Kleck comment on the radio that he thought the decline in suicide rates
>was related to the new laws, but he doubted their affect on other gun-related
>violence.  I have never seen a report on the study, nor have any of my pro-gun
>friends had much to say about that report.  Remember, you can't just say that
>crime increases indicate a failure of the laws to affect crime rates.  You don't
>know whether the *rate* of increase would have been different without the
>laws.   

       If the *rate* of increase over a period of several years remains
unchanged, or increases, I think it's not a far jump to say that the laws
are not effective.  No, you can't sit down and say that things wouldn't
have been worse.  I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you.  However,
that road leads us to a place where it is impossible to critique *any*
action.  If it gets down to be, "It might have been worse without them,"
then there *is* no valid objection, which I'm sure would amuse certain
people to no end.

>You don't know whether the laws prevented a threefold-increase or 
>failed to stop a two-fold increase.  

       So we've got a situation where we have several options:

	1)  The crime rate decreased:  Obviously gun control worked.

	2)  The crime rate remained the same:  It would have been worse
	without gun control.

	3)  The crime rate increased:  Perhaps the laws prevented an
	even bigger increase.

       Cute testing ground we've got.  All responses support the proposition
that gun control works.

       The question is this:  Did Washington D.C. experiance an increase
in its violent and/or gun crime rate which was greater than the pattern
indicated prior to the implemented gun control laws.  If it did, then
the suggestion that the problem the gun control laws were designed to
"control" did not exist in their entirety prior to the gun control laws.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178717
From: v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <20APR199312325032@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes...
>In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...
> 
>>Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.
> 
>>There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
>>no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
>>concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)
> 
>	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF,
>	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF
>	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were
>	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade 
>	range. 

	What I saw on TV and what you claim are two different things. The
Davidians did not start shooting until after the BATF lobbed a couple
genades in the windows and started shooting themselves.

>	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?  

	EASY! If you see federal agents in body armor with sub machine guns
going in throught windows, that is a No-Knock warrant. Also since the 
videotape shows the BATF throwing grenades before the BD's etunred fire, 
you can safely assume that they didn't ring the doorbell.


P.Vasilion,

p.s. get rid of that bandwidth clogging .sig!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178718
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15464@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
>> In article <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
># #
># #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
># 
># Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.
>
>Not really.  The percentage of gays was low.  Headline writers aren't
>noted for accuracy.
>
But you stated that this study was presented in a very accurate and
dependable way.  This is confusing to the issue.

And if you read this title it implies that; gay sex (homosexual sex)
activities are low compared to the general population that they surveyed.


># #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
># #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
># #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 
># #    2 percent of the men surveyed HAD ENGAGED in homosexual sex and
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># #    1 percent considered themselves EXCLUSIVELY homosexual.   
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># #									     
>Actually, 2% were either exclusively homosexual, or bisexual.  You aren't
>readiing very carefully.

Well let us quibble- look at the above statement that you posted, I have marked
it with '^^^^^^', IT STATES THAT 1% ARE EXCLUSIVELY HOMOSEXUAL- IT STATES 2% ARE
OR HAVE ENGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX.

And please not the use of adjective here "HOMOSEXUAL SEX".

Now I stated that if we take 1% as homosexal this is a valid viewpoint.

I believe that you are either 1) you are not writing what you think you are
writing, 2) you can't read or remember what you wrote.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178719
From: curry@sctc.com (Russ Curry)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>their deaths.  She should resign immediately. 

( I AGREE ! )


>She should have 
>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>into killing the children.

	I think the problem here is that Mrs. Reno strikes me
( After watching NightLine Last night ) as a person who is incapable
of understanding OR dealing with a great number of things.

     
     fact is that Bill and Hillary had to clear the decks for their 
     "Dream Package" of "Free Stuff" for the American People (..Their
     subjects...). They couldn't have a wild card floating around while
     they and Robert  "the Fifth Reich" Reich plan the glorious "Peoples
     Democracy". That wouldn't fit in with their vision of themselves or 
     whatyou should be "progressively" working for... after all, 
     who do you think your'e working for... and if a handful of peasant 
     children have to die for the glorious vision of "the year of the Child"
     in America, its a small price to pay. Let them eat cake....



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178721
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>
>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>
>Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those 
>of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy 
>Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data,

Atomic Energy Commision - Hmm, they would say this.

The Earth may spew alot of substances into the atmosphere, but the quality 
of your toxic output can easily make up for the lack of quantity.  Furthermore, 
the planet is a system of carbon, sulfur and other chemicals which have been
acting for billions of years, we are but newcomers to the system - we must adapt
and control in order to bring about stability.  Also, two wrongs do not make a right, 
so continuing our practices despite overwhelming data is just ignorance in (non)action.

>LOS NINOS
>Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global 
>warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 

Educated and open minded environmentalists do not.

< My opinions are not reflective of my employer - DISCLAIMER >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178722
Subject: Re: some scientists do not believe in the green house effect
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <26VB3B9w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
The word some sums it up, alot of scientist have concluded that without a
doubt Global Climate will/is occur(ring) and should be dealt with by source
reductions.  This includes making sure that the "price" of fossil fuels
reflects their "true costs".

< My opinions are not reflective of my employer's. - DISCLAIMER>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178723
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: The "Big Secret"

demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>harelb@math.cornell.edu writes:
>
>>     "IT IS A MATTER OF LOGIC that government-run systems are
>>     inefficient, and the fact that the highly bureaucratized private
>>     sector system in the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore
>>     irrelevant.  
>
>	Proof that the entire private sector is vastly more inefficient?

Good point, Brett.  It might merely be proof that basic health care
markets operate differently, with certain nonmarket phenomenom that
the private sector can't handle well (like armies vs. warlords). In
that respect, the effects on American society vs. Canadian/European
society might also be different.

>> 	It is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross
>>     of Massachusetts employs 6680 people, more than are employed in
>>     all of Canada's health programs, which insure 10 times as many
>>     people"
>
>Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.

Good point again.  Blue Cross in the U.S. is quite convoluted compared
to the Canadian and German insurance funds, which have a minimal
organization to coordinate it.  If anything, bureaucracy now needs to
be built up in Canada to combat fraud, such as Americans crossing the
border individually to use insurance cards borrowed from friends and
relatives or using phony domestic addresses, or fraud rings stealing
them in blocks.  Our private practices are now recording insurance
account numbers, both public insurance and private insurance, which
most have never bothered to do before on assumption of an honour 
system.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178724
From: matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1qumqkINNq1i@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:
>
>(ca.politics omitted from the distribution line because my site's news
>posting software doesn't believe in it and refuses to try to post to it.
>:-(  I sure hope that Matt also reads either a.f.r-l or t.p.m...)
>

Saw it in t.p.m., thanks.


>In article <C5qK7t.2qK@voder.nsc.com>,
>matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) said:
>
>> I like to call the form of government that I advocate "Fractal
>> Federalism."  With Fractal Federalism, there is a representative
>> national government that has only certain limited powers to do what is
>> absolutely necessary at that level.  Next there are the state
>> governments, again with only absolutely necessary powers.  Onward to
>> counties, cities/townships, districts, and neighborhoods...
>>
>> 1) The lowest (read- "most local") levels are the ones that have the
>> most power over individuals' day-to-day lives, which is good because
>> that is the level where individuals have the most voice.

>You know, if you take all this to its logical conclusion, doesn't it
>seem that the _real_ "lowest level... the level where individuals have
>the most voice" is that of the single individuals themselves?  Why have
>you omitted that level from your model?

Yes, and the individual is not omitted; I just didn't fully articulate the 
principles of Fractal Federalism.  All government powers derive from the
People; each level can receive a new power from the level below through 
the amendment process, where a true consensus (say a 3/4 majority) writes 
that power into the Constitution of the level above (in the case of the 
lowest level, an amendement is passed by a 3/4 majority vote; in the case 
of higher levels, it must be passed by 3/4 of the legislatures.  We can
of course haggle about the specifics of "true consensus" when we hold our 
Constitutional Convention :-).  Once a power has been granted, it may be 
exercised by the legislature.  Powers not in the original Constitutions must 
percolate upward, starting from the individual.  The ratification process 
for the original Constitutions should involve consensus and not simply a 
plurality or majority.

Granting a "right" in a constitution is of course the same as empowering
the government at that level to restrict the activities of the governments
at the lower levels, so it operates in the same way as the amendment process 
(again, that crazy resemblance to the supposed-but-not-actual U.S. government 
structure).

This government structure is a very frustrating one for those people (read-
"liberals") who would like to have concentrated power to use the government
to force people to do "good" (a difficult-to-define word, and one that it 
is difficult to reach a consensus on).  It is also a frustrating structure 
for those who want to use the government to dictate personal behavior (read- 
"big-government conservatives").  I personally would rather see those types
of people frustrated than the incredible erosion of liberty (both civil and 
economic) that is going on now.

This is IMHO a "good" government stucture for those who see the role of
government as the protection of individual liberties, while still recognizing
that individuals need to have some influence in the type of community that
they live in.


>> 2) A free market works on government, not just economics.  Succesful
>> ideas propogate, unsuccessful ideas die.

>What is your definition of a "successful" idea or a "successful"
>government?

One which maintains peace, liberty, and the opportunity for happiness for its
people, while working within the realities of human nature.  You do bring
up the point (intentional or not) that a "lasting" idea is by no means
necessarily a "successful" idea.  I believe that Fractal Federalism would
at least bring many ideas to light, and The People would have the opportunity
to democratically choose between "good" ideas and "bad" ideas.  If the
Docialists, er, I mean Democrats are right and government activism fosters a
prosperous People, they will have a plethora of local opportunities to  
check their thesis.  If Libertopia is possible, it will arise.  If a balanced
Conservative Republic is democratically received as the best level of
government activity, it will become clear to The People that it is best.



>> As far as "set the moral tone" is concerned, if a community does not
>> collectively want to put up with prostitution going on in front of
>> their kids, why should they have to?  If a community does not want to
>> see proliferation of drugs among their kids, why should they have to?

>For the same reason that they have to put up with a church operating
>right out in the open, where their kids can see it, and with the owner
>of the house across the street flying an American flag right out there
>in the open every day in front of their kids.  It's called "freedom."
>If they don't like the ideas to which their kids are exposed, they can
>try to educate and persuade their kids as to why the things that they're
>seeing other people doing are wrong or bad.

Right, and people would not rescind any freedoms (read- "empower the
government") except through the amendment process.  That is how the Federal 
Government is supposed to work now, but the Supreme Soviet, er, I mean the 
Supreme Court put a stop to that "republican government" nonsense.

In my hypothetical government, if there were a constitutional provision
empowering the government to regulate churches the government (whatever
level we are talking about) could indeed ban churches.  The constitutional
provision would be invalid if a higher level had a constitutional provision
protecting free exercise of religion.  The uppermost Constitution is still
the Supreme Law of the Land.



>(I find it interesting that you applaud the idea of free-market
>competition among various ideas, and yet support the right of he
>majority in a community to suppress ideas which they don't like.)

It is a matter of individuals being able to control their own associations
and environment, not a matter of suppression of ideas.

One dilemma of the human condition is that individuals need liberty, and
they also need to have some control over their environment.  In my
"Fractal Federalism" government, certain "rights" are protected by the 
constitutions.  Other "rights" are protected simply because the government 
has not been empowered to infringe upon them.  When a consensus is reached
that the government should have a certain power, then freedom is infringed
upon.  This cannot be avoided -- murder statutes infringe upon freedom,
but I think that the consensus of the American people is that murder statutes
are a good idea.

I am sure that many parents believe that they have a "right" to control
the environment that their children live in.  People feel that they have
a "right" to sleep peacefully at night; thus, there are noise ordinances.
There are zoning laws that keep businesses from overrunning residential
neighborhoods.  I do not view these as bad things (certainly some individual
instances are bad, but the concept is not necessarily bad), I view them
as the people in a community having some control over the type of community
that they live in.  I see the alternative as near anarchy.

Like I said in another post, if you can come up with a scenario where an 
individual can do something truly autonomously -- with absolutely zero
effect on anyone else -- then no individual or government has the right
to restrict that activity.  There are simply not very many behaviors that
fit into the category of the truly autonomous, so the whole thing becomes
an issue of one individual or group having power over another individual
or group.  I think that the "Fractal Federalism" approach is a sound, if
not ideal, approach to limiting this restrictive power.  The libertarian 
scenario degenerates to "might makes right," and the system we have right
now is one of "lawyers abusing natural rights philosophy to decide what 
powers the government should have by subverting the democratic process 
though the Supreme Court."



>> The problem with the egalitarian view is that it tries to deny the
>> fundamental dilemma of democratic government: The People have a right
>> to exercise a voice in their community, yet individuals have the right
>> to be left to themselves.  This is a serious dilemma precisely because
>> there is not much that takes place in a vacuum.

>Oddly enough, if what you say is taken literally there is little or no
>conflict: the people do indeed have a right to exercise a voice -- where
>"voice" equals "persuasive speech" in their communities... it's only
>when they somehow get the idea into their heads that they also have a
>right to dictate behavior in their communities that the trouble begins.

I think I answered this above already, but let me expand a little more
with an example.  If I stand naked in front of your house and masturbate 
in front of your children while they play, in your libertarian (small 'l')
scenario the only recourse you have is to yell at me.  "Autonomous" is
a value judgement 99.99% of the time, it is not a scientific reality with
a clear definition.  Exactly who would you empower to make that value
judgement?



>[stuff deleted]

>> Certainly not the only cause, Mike, but people in a local neighborhood
>> should have a voice in what goes on in that neighborhood.  To deny
>> this is to create another concentrated centralized power to keep the
>> locality from abusing its power -- in essence, using a pit bull to
>> keep a toy poodle from biting your leg.  Chances are, the pit bull is
>> going to turn on you some day, and you have much less defense against
>> it than you do against the toy poodle.

>The argument here appears to be that tyranny of the individual by the
>local majority is superior to having the federal government have and
>exercise the power to protect the individual from his neighbors because
>that federal government will eventually and inevitably become corrupt
>and use its power to tyrannize everyone.  Okay, there's a lot of truth in
>that; certainly we're seeing something like that happening in the United
>States today (though it's unclear that he progression here matches the
>model, since our beloved and benign federal government hasn't
>_ever_shown much enthusiasm for the idea of protecting any individuals...)

Lots of people are long on complaints and short on practical solutions.
Although I am pessimistic that my idea will ever bear fruit, I am at least
trying to be long on solutions also.  I am truly interested if you have
any improvements to make on my ideas (I call them "my ideas", but they
all come from an "average guy" reading of the U.S. Constitution without
benefit of the indoctrination of Constitutional Law academia).



>But I have to say that I think that your solution is at least just as
>bad.  Trading the yoke of federal tyranny for the yoke of local tyranny
>doesn't cheer me up much... I think I'd prefer to put my faith in a
>larger government that at least _might_ protect the individual from time
>to time rather than place it in local mob rule.  Admittedly, it's the
>lesser of two evils, and it's not less by very much, and they're both
>pretty damn evil...

Sorry, the confusion was my fault.  When I said that "Fractal Federalism" 
resembles the U.S. constitution, I meant it and thought it was pretty clear.  
I should have more clearly explained that the ultimate derivation of government
power is from the CONSENSUS of the people (although not the CONSENT of every
individual; a practical observation, not a moral judgement).  It is certainly 
better than having all government power derive from nine lawyers, which is the
situation we have now.  That is why I think the Supreme Court should be
a jury court, with a different jury for each case.  

It is certainly not perfect (no philosophy of government is), but do you still 
find it a repugnant idea?  If so, what is your solution?



>> Ideally, everyone would leave everyone else alone and no government
>> coercive power of any kind would be necessary.  This will never work,
>> because people are different and by their nature they will always want
>> to force their views on others.  If this were not the case, nobody
>> would try to force their view that murder is wrong on anyone else.

>This is true... the question is, what we you going to do about it?  Your
>proposed solution seems to actually _encourage_ these bozos to lord it
>over their victims.

I think that you misunderstood the structure of the form of government I
advocate, and it was my fault for not being more clear.



>Oh, and by the way...

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> LiBORGalism:
>>              THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
>>           FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
>>                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
>>                      CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
>>                       YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>How much would freedom of speech or private property rights be respected
>in a community in which the majority was allowed to make all the rules?
>("That man's saying things in public that I don't want my children
>exposed to!  Let's shut him up!  Those homos are living together and
>fornicating in that house over there!  Let's run 'em outta town!")

The majority does not make the rules.  The majority (or possibly a 
plurality) simply elects representatives to exercise limited government 
powers; those limited government powers derive from a large consensus, 
not a simple majority.  And the Federal Government, in my scenario, still
has the power to protect freedoms.



>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>



Matt Freivald


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178725
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <1r0tvhINNh3s@ctron-news.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>
>For starters, they could have gone on waiting and negotiating.  The Davidians
>weren't going anywhere, and their supplies had to be limited.  Large, perhaps,
>but limited.  If they had simply fired the compound by themselves without
>gov't tanks smashing down their walls, then at least the gov't would not be
>guilty of having _again_ used an inappropriate level of force, and would have
>been able to use the meantime to continue to pressure and negotiate.  No, they
>would not have looked good on the news in six months or a year.  But they sure
>as hell don't look very good now.

  True.  Today's Boston Globe interviewed a former Unification Church
  leader who is now a consultant on cults.  He said the FBI's approach
  was totally wrong.  He said they should have tried to break down the 
  BD's loyalty to Koresh through psychological means.   Koresh's whole
  theology was based on an approaching confrontation with the forces 
  of evil in the world and a seige mentality based on this.  The Feds
  played into his hands **PERFECTLY**.   By surrounding the compound
  with tanks and playing loud rock music and glaring lights at them 
  they strongly reinforced Koresh's message that the outside world was
  evil and threatening.    He said instead they should have set up 
  a picnic atmosphere, and acted inviting and friendly.  If they
  broadcast anything over PA systems it should have been loving 
  relatives reflecting on pleasant events from the cult members'
  childhoods.   The idea is to make the outside world and surrender
  seem like a pleasant, desirable alternative.   Interesting comments.


---peter




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178729
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In <11974@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

+>1.  There is no such thing as non-toxic tear gas.  Tear gas is non-breathable
+>    remaining in it's presence will cause nausea and vomiting, followed eventually
+>    by siezures and death.  Did the FBI know the physical health of all the people
+>    they exposed??  Any potential heart problems among the B-D's??

	They certainly knew that there were pregnant women in there plus 
children.  I could not believe when they said that the gassing was
an attempt to "save the children" yesterday.  I can't think of a much
worse sort of child abuse that pouring tear gas into a building.


+>2.  Have you ever seen a tear gas canister??  Tear gas is produced by burning a
+>    chemical in the can.  The fumes produced are tear gas.  The canister has a 
+>    warning printed on the side of it.  "Contact with flamable material can result
+>    in fire."  Now, how many of these canisters did they throw inside a building 
+>    they admited was a fire-trap??

	I have heard two things recently explaining this:

	1. They pumped the gas into the building from outside via some
	sort of pipe rather than by canister.

	2. The sort of tear gas they are using was described as some
	sort of powdery material that sticks to things.  Kind of
	like a powder cloud.

	And once again, these are government lacky explainations and
	since government stories always change, none or all of the
	information might not be true.


+>This whole thing was a case of over-reaction by the officials at every step.
+>I hope it is thoroughly investigated and the responsible parties are held
+>accountable.  But that is highly unlikely when you figure they are going to
+>be investigating themselves.

	Or better yet, the Texas rangers will be investigating which is
probably worse than the FBI or ATF investigating itself.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178730
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

In article <1993Apr19.132847.23755@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>Authorities are saying that Branch Davidian members were
>seen starting the fire.  It looks like there will no
>witnesses to dispute that claim.

The FBI says that some of the survivors claim to have seen the leaders
of the cult talking about setting a fire, and to have smelt kerosene.
I assume this will come out at any trial that occurs as a result
of these events.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178731
From: houts@zelda.ehs.uiuc.edu (Todd Houts)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.20.10.27.01.1993.9195@romulus.rutgers.edu>  
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

> I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find
> out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  (Non-relevant
> stuff deleted) and coming this Saturday they are going to
> wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more
> than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are
> promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be
> there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in
> the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle
> America.

How wrong you will be.  I participated in the last National March on  
Washington (MOW) for LesGayBi rights (Oct 11, 1987) - with a turnout of  
about 750,000 people - and we didn't have alot pissing us off at the time.   
The big issue was the AIDS crisis, but we weren't being slapped around  
quite as bad as we are now.  This time its AIDS, and Equal Rights,  and  
the Military Squabble.  And this MOW has been in the planning for YEARS  
whereas the last one was pulled together in a relatively short time.  The  
last MOW was the largest ever on D.C. and you can bet we are going to  
exceed that by a long shot.  I truly believe we will exceed the 1.0  
million goal the MOW committee has always had set for this event.

- Todd Allyn Houts
- email: t-houts@uiuc.edu OR houts@zelda.ehs.uiuc.edu
- MESSAGE OF THE DAY:  5 days til MOW


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178732
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5s8Gz.1zE@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>   ALL human communities impose their values on individuals.  
>   That's virtually an operational definition of one.  If you can
>   find an example of a human community that doesn't then you
>   have discovered a new phenomenon in nature.   
>
>   It's pointless asking whether communities "should" do this;
>   they DO do this.  It's like asking whether a leopard "should"
>   have spots -- it just evolved that way.  Human communities
>   evolved (in both the biological and social senses of "evolve") 
>   to have this characteristic.    You can debate whether some 
>   *particular* matter should be left up to the individual or
>   not -- this is part of the above process of "evolution" -- 
>   but it is the nature of a human community to impose its values
>   on individuals and you will not find a single counterexample
>   in nature.
>
>---peter

At all times in human history, people have killed and stolen from one
another.  If you can find an example of where this hasn't happened in
history, then you have discovered a new phenomenon in nature.

It is pointless asking whether people "should" do this;
they DO do this.  It has just evolved that way.  Humans have evolved to
have this characteristivc.  You can debate whether this should be
particular matter should be left up to the individual or not, but it is
the nature of humans to kill and steal from others and you will not find
a single counterexample (of a society without these types) in nature.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find a better argument than that's the way it has always been.
Child mortality has always been, yet we find it in our hearts to have
made an attempt to change that.  
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178733
From: gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <JASON.93Apr19110829@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin
<j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.111054.3748@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>-> Recent studies have been all over the map.  So have less recent
>-> studies.  None can be said to have "shown" anything to within an
>-> accuracy of 1/10 of 1%, as you claim here.

>This study is from the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers
>in Seattle and was a hot topic in the news last week.  The study
>questioned at random 3,321 men in a face to face interview.

This is not a "studies", but a study.  Other studies, including the
just-published "Janus Report", give very different figures.  The Janus
Report figures are not too different than Kinsey: 9% homosexual men,
and 4% bisexual men.

>-> Earlier studies have been all over the map also.  

>I think he's talking about Kinsey who came up with the 10%
>statistic used heavily by gay groups to push their political agenda.
>Kinsey's work has often been accused of lacking a strong scientific
>backbone.  

Don't be stupid.  The Kinsey report is one study, so it can't be "all
over the map" all by itself.  Other studies, including the Battelle
one, have also been criticed.  As far as agendas go, this is really
chutzpah.  *Your* agenda is obvious.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178734
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>
>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Which is a helluva lot more than any Republican attorney general ever did!

 BTW, why all the crocodile tears over wasting a few religious nuts, who
 wanted to be wasted anyway?  We just got back from wasting a few hundred
 thousand religious nuts over in the Middle East, and everybody cheered!!

Mike


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178735
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <1qs7anINNin6@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu (Douglas Young) writes:
    >>You should face the facts. Love Canal was not, and is not, an
    >>environmental disaster, nor even a problem.
    >>
    >>Nor is Times Beach and TMI and acid rain killing trees and
    >>....
    >>
    >Not a problem? Would you move to Three Mile Island? I would
    >imagine there is some cheap property available!

No, because I don't like the weather back East. However, it would bother me
not one bit to live in an equivalent area here. By the way, do you KNOW what
the extra exposure to radiation from TMI was?

    >The naturally occurring catastrophic events [disasters] that
    >destroy property (ie: hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes) do
    >not usually leave toxic wastes that prevent people from
    >re-building their lives there. The man-made disasters (oil
    >spills, toxic dumping, radioactive waste dispersions) cause
    >death and make an area unliveable far beyond the initial
    >event.

O.K., in the U.S., tell me about some of these deaths and some of these
unliveable areas. Oh, and if you manage to find some of these unliveable
areas, tell me what percentage of the total US land area they are.
(Hint - the total waste produced by all nuclear reactors in the US can be
safely stored in the area of three footbal fields.)


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178736
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Subject: Waco and Panama

I haven't recognized any names from previous discussions, but I do
notice that there are a few who blame Clinton for the actions of the
BATF in Waco.  Unless you felt the same way about what we did under
Bush's *direct* command in Panama, it's just partisan whining.  Which is
what I expect most of it to be.  I can see no way to condemn one and not
the other.  

But I'm sure some Limbot will tell me how killing thousands of
Panamanian civilians to serve an arrest warrant is much better than
allowing 80 religious fanatics to commit suicide following a botched
attempt by the BATF to serve a search warrant.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178740
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On 20 Apr 93 13:34:03 GMT, Gary Piatt observed:

: First, the median does not imply that half of the men are
: above and half below 7.3: it simply means that 7.3 is the mid-point
: between the maximum number of partners and the minimum (which is most
: likely zero).  

Actually, the median *is* defined as the 50th percentile.  If the
median number of sexual partners for men is 7.3, it means that 
at least 50% of men have had 7.3 or fewer sexual partners, and
at least 50% of men have had 7.3 or more sexual partners.

(Question: What is 0.3 of a sexual partner?  :)

To confuse matters more, take the following data set:

[5.0, 6.0, 6.0, 7.0, 7.0, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, 9.0, 250.0]

The mean (arithmetic average) of the above set of numbers is 29.4.
The sample standard deviation is 73.2.
The mode is 9.0.
The median is 7.3.

--
Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

             "It's a strange quirk, but I hardly ever sing along
                   with people who tie me up."  -- Mork

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178741
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <1993Apr20.131452.23310@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
    >Clayton, babe, please define the word `molest`. Are you using
    >a legal term or a proper dictionary term? Molest, as far as I
    >can remember, means `to do damage to person(s)`. My mate,
    >Mike, was lured into a woman's parlour when he was 14. Is
    >that molestation? A number of my friends (straight) lost
    >their virginity before that. Were they 'molested'? They told
    >me that they thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I see no
    >damage.
    >
    >Please stop pushing your objective morality on others. If you
    >push, people won't fall over and say 'Ye gads, you're
    >right!', they'll just push back.
    >
    >Have you signed up for that logic course yet?

Yep -- and the child that "Tree Frog Johnson" adbucted for 6 months reportedly
"enjoyed" her experiences as well. They trained her using food. As an FBI
agent reported (on his disciplinary action for beating up "Tree Frog") "when
you see a 2&1/2 year old baby cheerfully tell you she wants a peanut butter
sandwich and she'll suck your pee-pee, you lose control".

You are quite sick.


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178742
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr20.125526.23076@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
    >I guess that you are a person who dislikes contact with
    >people of ethnic minority. However, your argument again falls
    >flat on its face. You state that you, under an
    >anti-discrimination bill, would be forced to associate with
    >others [homosexuals, I assume] against your will. How do you
    >know that you do not associate with them now, except they may
    >be closeted? Would you like to change your argument to read
    >"forced to associate with truthfully homosexual people
    >against my will"? You have no proof that anyone you now know
    >may not be homosexual and this punches a large hole in your
    >argument. Is it your belief that a homosexual comes in only
    >one flavour (sic) and that is the camp mincing type? Prove
    >it. You cannot.

You are quite incoherent. Perhaps YOU should be forced to associate with
some people against YOUR will. I think a nice large group of skinheads
in a locked basement for 12 hours will wonderfully educate you.

After all, as you don't believe in Freedom Of Asscoiation, you can't
complain can you.

Bloody turdlet ...


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178743
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <1993Apr16.221546.1208@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

   On the other hand, Rush made an interesting point: The Democrats ran
   one of their best campaigns in years against a pathetic Republican and
   a paranoiac and still only pulled 43% of the vote, lost 10 seats in
   the House, and gained 0 seats in the Senate.  1994 might be pretty
   interesting.

Clueless of the world, take heart!  57% of the electorate is willing
to vote for "a pathetic Republican and a paranoiac"!!

-jmc

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178746
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <Apr.20.10.27.01.1993.9195@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <15436@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>> [Some chump at Brandeis:]

>>> I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long
>>> as you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.

>> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
>> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
>> obedience.

>I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find
>out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  The Colorado
>boycott has fizzled, Slick Willie was effectively prevented from
>implementing his military policy wrt homosexuals by members of his
>_OWN_ party, this new study casts a large shadow of doubt on their
>claims of large numbers, and coming this Saturday they are going to
>wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more
>than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are
>promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be
>there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in
>the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle
>America.

Sigh.  You're absolutely right.  We have no political power whatsoever. 
Therefore, we should be oppressed and ignored and denigrated, right?  I
certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir, because if she heard how
disparaging you are towards political minorities, and if she had any shred
of self-respect, she'd be out the door.


>Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
>where they belong.

Don't count on it, sweetheart.

>-- 
>  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>  as this would hold such views??? |
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Certainly not.  Most major universities wouldn't touch views that display
the brainpower and the perspective of a mayfly with a ten-foot pole.

Drewcifer

P.S.  Incidentally, I think even mayflies could come up with more
enlightenment than the above bullshit.  Evolve a bit, will you?
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178747
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>|>
>|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
>|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
>|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
>|>
>|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
>|>first place.
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

        As you're no doubt aware, Phill, there are probably five or six
different, mutually contradictory versions of the events in Waco on
Feb. 28 all of which are from reputable news sources, ranging the the 
Associated Press to TIME to Newsweek.

        Some of the earliest reports issued by the AP were not at all
flattering the to BATF, and produced some question as to who fired first.

        Now, for all I know, you were there to witness it.  But
I kind of doubt that.

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

        The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people,
says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of
surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it
slammed in their faces.

        It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to
serve a warrant by knocking on the door.

        There are at least questions that need to be answered.

>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. 

        This paranoid assertation was made by witnesses to the original
assault who stated that the BATF initiated hostilities by throwing
concussion grenades and reported by the Associated Press.

>Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

        Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five*
minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful
citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would
have retreated immediately.

        If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over
a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying 
sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters?

        I don't know who did what, but, as I said, there are questions that 
need to be answered.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178748
From: bbrewer@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Robert Brewer)
Subject:  Rush Joke   

  I heard the other day that Rush has gotten together with Tammy Faye Baker.
  They were crawling in bed the other night and Rush's feet brushed up against
  Tammy's legs.  "God! your feet are cold" she said.  Rush looked back at here
  and said, "Tammy honey, I told you when we're alone you can just call me
  Rush."  


  Ba dump Bump!  pishhhhh

  Bob


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178749
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?


Wow, I hadn't realized how VENOMOUS this was getting!  Be careful here...the
problem isn't the rich but the values and the systems that make the rich
rich.  Things are designed in such a way that in order to go with the system
and make money, everything ELSE we care about goes to shit.  I have to
constantly remind myself that the goal of human society is not to make
money.  Money doesn't make us happy; it just prevents certain things making
us more unhappy.

Therefore, don't shoot the rich.  Shoot the conservatives!

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178752
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <1qunlgINNfdr@titan.ucs.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:
-> >	I think he's talking about Kinsey who came up with the 10%
-> >statistic used heavily by gay groups to push their political agenda.
-> >Kinsey's work has often been accused of lacking a strong scientific
-> >backbone.  
-> 
-> I really must defend my man Alfred.  Not that this poster was really
-> to be taken seriously, since the deletiae are a phobe's rants.  But
-> still, some who aren't such phobes mistakenly criticize my man. 

	You really need to be able to support yourself without
insults.  The article you're calling rants actually had absolutely
none of my opinions and was only a series of factual statements.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178753
From: civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
> 
> 
1. Withdraw
2. leave the people in the compund to lead their lives as they choose.
3. prosecute the BAFT agents for murder

-- 

Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
                  New Zealand


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178755
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In <30146@ursa.bear.com> halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

|>In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes
|>:
|>>>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives
|>on
|>>> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
|>>> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watc
|>h
|>>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
|>>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to


|Even if Rodney King had come out of that car waving a gun and they 
|managed to disarm him, the police still had no right right to beat
|him senseless the way they did once he was on the ground.  If they 
|can't handle their jobs, they should be relieved of them.

They police did not beat King when he was on the ground. They beat him when
he was on his knees trying to get back up. If you had watche d the entire
video you would have seen this.

|Additionally, Anna Quindlan of the New York Times said it best (paraphrase):
|Many people bring up what happened before what is shown on the tape.  Here's
|what came before:  the 80's, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, racism,...

If you think this is true, much less relevant, than you are in sadder shape
than I thought.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178756
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate..

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

> I want to know that I have a competent doctor when I am ill.  Government
> regulations have driven up costs and decreased quality by providing a
> monopoly for licensed M.D.s.  Many procedures could be performed by
> qualified nurses but doctors are forced to do them.  The common cold
> must be diagnosed by a licensed doctor who is the only one who is
> allowed to write a perscription.  Doctor's are spending much of their
> time on such mundane cases that they cannot have the time to spend on
> the really tough cases.  This results in higher cost, lower quality
> medical care.

Here in Georgia, the state legislature in 1992 "accidentally passed a law 
lobbied for by Opthamologists prohibiting anyone but a licensed MD from
giving shots. They were trying to limit Optometrists from competing with
them.
They inadvertantly forbade nurses, EMTs, dentists, and tattoo artists 
from "piercing the skin." (probably diabetics too). The Secretary of State's 
office announced on June 30th that they wouldn't enforce it pending
reconsideration in the 1003 Legislature. In the hassle over the state flag
I heard nothing about repealing it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178757
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5sCqI.4By@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
   In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

   >They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
   >non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.

       Non-toxic tear gas?!?  Do you know what tear gas is?

       I do: once upon a time I happened to be in a room when someone threw 
       a tear-gas grenade in (that was supposed to be a joke:).  The sensation 
       was incredible: I felt my eyes and nostrils were being torn apart.
       I remember us - a bunch of young men in our early 20's - running out
       like a herd of wild animals, knocking down the door and jumping
       out of the windows (thank G-d we were on the first floor).

       I can't imagine this kind of stuff being used against children.

For them, the worst effect might not be the physical effects so much
as the psychological effect of being incapacitated without fully
understanding the cause.  Many years ago, I was accidentally exposed
to a tiny dose of tear gas.  (It was in Athens, on the street leading
to the American Embassy; there'd been a march that had been broken up
with tear-gas; I must have stumbled into a remaining patch of gas the
next day.)  Aside from the tears, feeling sick to my stomach, etc.,
the really horrible psychological effect was that of suddenly falling
to pieces and not knowing why it had happened---I was horrified and
wondered what disease or other health problem I had.  (I didn't find
out about the march and the tear-gas till hours later.)  I can imagine
how horribly disorienting this might be to very young children:
suddenly crying uncontrollably and feeling sick, weak, and out of
control of your body---and not knowing the cause.

``This gives us a chance to try the Gas of Peace.''  Yeah, right.

--
-30-
Bob Ingria


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178758
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
# #
# #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
# #
# #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
# #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
# #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
# #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
# #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
# #
# #    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
# #    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
# #    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
# #    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
# 
# 1) So what?

Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
about "10%" to keep politicians scared.

# 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...

But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
other members of the leftist agenda.

# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
# 
# Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....

Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

# #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
# #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
# #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
# #male population.  
# 
# And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
# who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
# you....

It wasn't published.

# #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
# 
# Fuck off

Typical homoseuxal response.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178759
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:
> Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
> homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
> of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
> to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
> put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual

Such as?  Not being able to get married isn't a roadblock to a permanent
relationship.  Lack of a marriage certificate doesn't force a couple
to break up.  This is an excuse used by homosexuals because the 
alternative is to ask why they are so much more promiscuous than 
straights.

> Dan


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178760
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.164638.27218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
# #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
# #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
# #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
# #male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
# 
# Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?

Marriage isn't a requirement for a couple staying together.

# What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
# with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
# hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
# 
# (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
# 
# ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178761
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <C5L780.Apu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> Kaldis writes:
> #The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
> #presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
> #apparently found this compelling.
> 
> Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
> they are not prostitutes.

Do they have a history of working in massage parlors, and telling
co-workers there that they are prostitutes?  Do they frequent truck
stop parking lots at 4:00 AM, without ID on any sort?

> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178762
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April


In article <C5sIrA.pEw@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:

|>In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>|> 
|>|> In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
|>|> the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
|>|> suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
|>|> the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
|>|> by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
|>|> claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
|>|> AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
|>|> grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
|>|> they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.
|>|> 
|>...
|>|> The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
|>|> government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
|>|> them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
|>|> them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
|>|> up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
|>|> set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
|>|> to get gun control legislation through.
|>|> 
|>
|>I must object to the characterization of those opposed to the
|>government's handling of the Waco situation as "gun supporters".
|>Your argument tries to paint the BATF critics as right-wing
|>gun nuts, and just mixes up two issues.
|>
|>I am one of the BATF/FBI critics, and yet I am a liberal
|>and just as anti-gun as you are.  I just happen to believe
|>that everyone has civil rights, even religious crazies.
|>They're all human beings, not some nest of wasps that
|>you're trying to exterminate.
|>
|>The BATF created the crisis situation by the way they handled
|>the original raid.  It was well known that Koresh regularly
|>went jogging outside his property.  He could have been served
|>with a search warrant then.  He could have been arrested if
|>he had refused to comply.  Instead officers armed with grenades
|>invaded the property.  This escalated into a shooting war
|>with tragic deaths on both sides.
|>
|>Those were the first two mistakes:  the bad judgment of
|>asking for a no-knock warrant, and the bad and probably
|>illegal way the already-unwise warrant was served.
|>
|>At this point, the situation escalated to where it was
|>described as an armed standoff and a hostage crisis.
|>That's when the government started covering their traces,
|>sealing the warrant, revising their reported history of
|>the incident, etc.
|>
|>Things were already building up to disaster.  Now the
|>government could have simply closed the supply routes
|>and waited.  But according to Janet Reno, that option
|>had "never been seriously considered".  So, supposedly
|>because the agents were "frustrated and fatigued", and
|>because there supposedly were no backups, they felt
|>they had to go in.

Yes the govt handled it in the Rambo Hollywood type style
with extreeme Machismo. Perhaps thats not the way to handle
it. 

It is a completely different thing to start asserting as many
have done that the government is primarily to blame. The comparisons
with the NAZIs in particular are purely gratuitous.

Since you have provided a constructive opinion on the issue your
post desreves to be taken seriously. Peter Nelson also made some
very good points about how a low key approach might have been 
more effective.

The point is though that you learn through mistakes. The govt
played the wrong card and lost. Thats not a big deal. They
had had four guys murdered at the begining and maybee they 
just were not prepared for wuite this situation. Who could be?

If the same thing were to happen all over again we might perhaps
be able to castigate the Govt if they used the same tactics and failed
in the same way. As it is I can't say that I would not have made the
same mistake. Maybee I wouldn't because I don't as a rule go in
for a confrontational situation if I can avoid it. Maybee I would
because with all those press about its very difficult not to try
the macho stuff.


The FBI had information from within the compound we had no access
to. They may have calculated that the B-D followers resolve was
cracking based on their listening devices within the compound. They
knew that Koresh had chickened out of one suicide attempt. This
may have been the reason why they considered that fear might have 
been a weapon for breaking his resolve. Again in Panama they had used
the heavy rock music to great effect during Bush's invasion. Funny that
few of the Koresh supporters and appologists complain much about the
death of several thousand Pananmanian civilians while the US govt attempted
to arrest their former ally.


|>And please let's not turn this into a pro-gun vs. anti-gun
|>discussion.  Anti-gun people do not believe that gun-owners
|>deserve to get frontally assaulted by armed government
|>agents.  And Koresh's civil rights exist whether his
|>guns were legal, illegal, illegal-but-should-have-been-legal,
|>or whatever! 

Koresh negated his civil rights the minute his followers fired
on the police helicopter. No matter whether the warrant was or
was not technically valid the guys who were carrying it out 
thought that it was. Thus the assault on them was completely
inexcusable no matter what rationalisation people might wish to
employ.

Of course we have to consider the guns issue. That is the whole
core of the question. Everything else is a diversion.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178763
From: SML108@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: Re: race and violence

In article <mvpC5rB2H.D2F@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) says:
>There is something terribly wrong, however, with a culture which
>condemns, attacks, and all too often kills any of its members who
>attempt to get an education.  My mother is an elementary school
>teacher, and she tells me that she and her african american collegues
>are frustrated to tears by the fact that any african american child who
>attempts to do well in school and get an education is accused by
>his/her peers of "trying to be white", and is beaten, bullied, and
>tormented by them.  It goes beyond each passing grade on a test earning
>a beating.  In my mother's school, one of the most promising young
>students, who happened to be african american, had her throat cut by
>one of these young thugs.

You know, you have a point here, but don't stop with African Americans...
When I was in high school in the early 1980s, on various occasions I had
knives pulled on me, had friends who were stabbed, and I was beaten up
repeatedly by those that couldn't accept me as different.  And don't
let the teachers off the hook either.  On many many occasions, there
were teachers that either resented me or were too scared out of their
wits by the bullies to even stop the people who attacked me and they
would just watch quietly...  All of this was in a nice white middle
class high school.  In fact, we were so nice and white that we made
sure that the one black kid in my class was unable to go to the prom
with his white girlfriend...  This isn't a race thing, it's the
way public schools seem to be run...

I'd hate to be in high school right now...  At least I didn't have
to deal with guns, just the roving psycho-drug-dorks and the jocks-
without-a-future-but-with-plenty-of-testosterone...

I'd separate everyone who wants to learn from these assholes...  But hey,
the valuelessness of learning and glorification of jocks is an American
tradition, you think anything is going to change?  If you have kids,
take 'em out of the public school system and educate them yourself...
That's what I'll do if I ever have them...  I wouldn't wish what I went
through upon any kid...  Maybe on some of their parents though...

Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178764
From: markp@wri.com
Subject: Re: Worshipping the Constitution? (was My Gun is...)

>>papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) said:
>>
>>> Sorry.  Reading this newsgroup I can't help but get the impression of
>>> frothing at the mouth lunatics. I get a lot of:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> c) Constitution worshiping "It's right because it's in the
>>> constitution" As if the constitution wasn't framed by men, centuries
>>> ago in a totally different world.

We have three options with respect to the Constitution:

1. Abide by it.
2. Duly amend it.
3. Abandon those parts of which a majority disapproves.

Of course, since the whole point of the Constitution is to restrain the
will of the majority, and since even in unfettered democracy we have 
nothing to fear from minorities, #3 amounts to abandoning the 
Constitution altogether.

Which will it be?

---
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178765
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
# 	Actually, I was rather surprised to see an article on this subject
# (i.e. the "new, inproved" survey saying that roughly 1% of men are gay)
# on the front page of The New York _Times_ recently (I think it was
# on Thurs, 15 April).  The headline was something to the effect of 
# "New Survey Finds 1% of Men Are Gay"
# 
# 	I was shocked, not because the New York _Times_ was running a story
# on a sex survey (although that was part of it), but because they thought
# that this news was actually important enough to warrant front page space.
# I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long as
# you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.  

If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
obedience.

# 							-Matt
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178766
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <VEAL.755.735336029@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

|>In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

|>>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
|>>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
|>>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
|>>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
|>>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
|>>the doorbell.
|>
|>        The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people,
|>says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of
|>surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it
|>slammed in their faces.
|>
|>        It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to
|>serve a warrant by knocking on the door.

Presumably the B-D did not mount a continuous state of alert with gunmen
ready to fire on people who casually walked up to ring the doorbell.

Once inside the building the BATF would have been in control. Trained
police officers are a match to any bunch of Bozos playing at soldiers.


|>>Had they
|>>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
|>>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
|>>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
|>
|>        Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five*
|>minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful
|>citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would
|>have retreated immediately.

Not a smart move. Unless meant to be part of the surprize cover. Even so
the narrow opening of the trucks simply was not a good idea. A side opening
truck would have been much better, more like a covered waggon.


|>        If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over
|>a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying 
|>sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters?

Sounds just about right to me. Its the minimum amount of force that I
would consider necessary to serve a warrant on the talk.politics.guns
annual dinner.

Michael Hesseltine ordered the use of over 5000 crack troops including
members of the parachute regiment to remove approx 250 hippy peace
protestors on a site where they wanted to install cruise missiles. He
even turned up in a flack jacket to monitor the proceedings. Just about the
most dangerous tool the women possesed was a tin opener. That single
action probably cost him the position as Prime Minister. One of the elders
of my church got arrested in that heroic action by the forces of Toryism.
Hesseltine ever after was something of a national joke.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178767
From: dave@seaview.bsd.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <C5t74u.5vC@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill  
Hallam-Baker) writes:
> 
> The point is though that you learn through mistakes. The govt
> played the wrong card and lost. Thats not a big deal. They
> had had four guys murdered at the begining and maybee they 
> just were not prepared for wuite this situation. Who could be?
> 
> If the same thing were to happen all over again we might perhaps
> be able to castigate the Govt if they used the same tactics and failed
> in the same way. As it is I can't say that I would not have made the
> same mistake. Maybee I wouldn't because I don't as a rule go in
> for a confrontational situation if I can avoid it. Maybee I would
> because with all those press about its very difficult not to try
> the macho stuff.

My god, how many chances do they get?  Operation Move (Philedelphia, early  
80's), Black Panthers (Chicago, 1969), etc., etc.  Hell, we get heavily armed
millenial cults out west every couple of years.  Do with have to start a  
cascade of times the feds have been in situations like this?

--
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Biological Sciences Division               dave@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu
Brain damage was what we were after.  The chromosome damage was just gravy.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178768
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <20APR199312325032@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6038 talk.politics.misc:22844

|>In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...
|>
|>>Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.
|>
|>>There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
|>>no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
|>>concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)
|>
|>	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF,
|>	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF
|>	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were
|>	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade 
|>	range. 
|>
|>	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?  

Hey don't confuse these guys with facts dude! You might break some
beautiful illusions!

Of course by BATF admits this they mean that the BATF did not deny some
post by a pro-Koresh/gun lobby person some time back.

If anyone wants to understand the paranoid mindset of Koresh I offer you
talk.politics.guns. There you can dredge the sewers of minds so hung
up on power and ego trips that they bend reality arround their own
particular set of beleifs.

I long ago gave up arguing the case for arms control directly. Instead
I invite people to ask themselves, would you want to be in a room full
of the occupants of talk.politics.guns, their personal armouries and
attempt to enter a discussion with them?


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178769
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you

In article <1993Apr18.192508.12442@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:

> >|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to...
> >|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
> >|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I
> >|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.

> >You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your
> >own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted
> >but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not
> >a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That 
> >poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages 
> >in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who
> >think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you
> >really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting
> >the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?

> Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general
> welfare" in another portion of the constitution.

> Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
> taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL
> WELFARE of the United States..."

> I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they
> said in the preamble.

> ...But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense
> in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional
> functions.  Right?

    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41:

    "It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and
     collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts,
     and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
     United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise
     every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common
     defense or general welfare...

    "No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which
     these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a
     misconstruction.  Had no other enumeration or definition of the
     powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the
     general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection
     might have had some color for it; ...  But what color can the
     objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by
     these general terms immediately follows, and is not even
     separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?  ...  Nothing is
     more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and
     then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178770
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <1r15l1INNh91@ctron-news.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith) writes:

|>>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
|>>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
|>>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
|>>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
|>>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
|>
|>This is stupid.  That is no paranoid assertion, it is testamony from surviving
|>witnesses, and the BATF _has_ no tanks, nor am I aware of either the BATF _or_
|>the FBI using any until yesterday.  When they use maximum force they do just
|>what they did that first day that got four officers killed.

These surviving witnesses being members of which cult pray tell ??


|>>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
|>>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 
|>
|>"Underarmed"?  You flabberghast me, they were loaded for bear and every
|>picture shows them wearing bullet-proof vests!  They were using concussion
|>grenades and full-auto weapons, what was missing low-yield tac-nukes?  This
|>is a transparent attempt to retcon a justification for the ridiculous amount
|>of force used, both initially and yesterday.  You should be ashamed.

We were having a discussion about whether Bush would have done anything
differently. On the basis of Panama, Grenada, Tripoli, Kewait etc we 
decided that Bush would have asked for a surgical airstrike  or used a 
cruise missile, some people suggested that he would have used the nuke
warhead cruise, others pointed out that he would be too cheap to use 'em.

What was missing? Armoured vehicles! 


|>>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
|>>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
|>>hear it.
|>
|>They _had_ a sure-fire method: keep them bottled up and talk them to death or
|>surrender without giving him justification for some looney-tune religious
|>stunt.
|>
|>Phil, I've been reading your postings for months and I'm convinced that you
|>will back anything, no matter how damaging it may be to yours or anyone
|>else's rights if you think it will hurt people you don't like.  It's people
|>with that attitude that set up the preconditions for the Holocaust, a process
|>that is in place _now_ in this country, even if the tattered, pitiful remains
|>of the Constitution is slowing its progress.  This isn't a Libertarian issue,
|>others may argue that line, but from a strictly Constitutional view of a
|>democratic gov't, what the FBI and BATF did was wrong, wrong, wrong, even if
|>their _reasons_ for trying to arrest Koresh were 100% right.  _Anything_ that
|>leads to the deaths of 17 children, if nothing else touches your stoney
|>heart, is _wrong_ no matter who pushed the button.  For God's sake, man, get
|>your morality back.

The person who murdered 17 children was Koresh. He kept them there and 
brought about their deaths deliberately.

You may consider that I am a complete bastard and a not very nice chap.
Thats quite true. I don't pretend to be. Being nice is what amateurs
try to do. If you want to talk politics you are talking hard decisions
such as whether the lives of the troops should be risked attempting
to rescue the children. Anyone who has held the office of President
of the United States since FDR has held the threat that if the USA
or its allies were to be threatened then the USA would risk nuclear 
Holocaust in order to protect freedom. Beleive it or not, that is not
the sort of threat that nice chaps make. Do they have a gun nutters
section of the US version of CND by any chance?


There are cases where society has to be protected from
madmen such as Koresh or Hitler. If it were not for the consideration
of the 17 children in there the question of the tactics to be used would
not be a matter of anything but academic significance. It is not for
the govt to prevent people from commiting mass suicide.

The latest reports are that cult members were shot attempting to
leave the compound by Koresh loyalists during the fire. If proven
that would entail the final nail in the coffin of those who want to
promote Koresh as some sort of role model or hero.


I need hardly add that it is Koresh that has created the Holocaust in
this case by the deliberate arson of the ranch appocalypse.



Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178771
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Subject: HHS Secretary Shalala to Address AFT's Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel Conference


Here is a press release from the American Federation of Teachers.

 HHS Secretary Shalala to Address AFT's Paraprofessional and
School-Related Personnel Conference
 To: National and Assignment desks, Education Writer
 Contact: Jamie Horwitz of American Federation of Teachers,
          202-879-4447

   News Advisory:

   Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala will speak
to the 16th annual AFT Paraprofessional and School-Related
Personnel Conference at 8 p.m., Friday, April 23, at the
Washington Hilton.  Shalala will discuss HHS's agenda for helping
children over the next four years.
   AFT's Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel Division
includes school workers such as paraprofessionals and teacher
aides, school bus drivers, school secretaries, school custodians
and maintenance workers and school food service workers.  More
than a thousand school employees will attend the conference which
is being held at the Washington Hilton, April 23-25.  Most of the
school workers attending the conference come from urban school
districts where child health and nutrition, welfare reform and the
availability of Head Start and other preschool programs are major
issues.
   Workshops scheduled for the conference include sessions
addressing issues around reauthorization of Chapter 1; how
paraprofessionals and school-related personnel, especially
minority men, can serve as student role models; the increasing
problem of school violence; dealing with abused children; and
assisting children with serious health problems.
   For a complete conference schedule, contact Jamie Horwitz
at 202-879-4447.
   The American Federation of Teachers represents 805,000
elementary and secondary teachers, paraprofessionals and
school-related personnel, higher education faculty, nurses, state
and municipal workers.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178772
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:

> I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir,

What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a
person, not a euphemism.

> because if she heard

Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

> how disparaging you are towards political minorities,

Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

> and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.

I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were
I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the
door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as
"homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would
further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on
the way out.  Who needs such an airhead?

>> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
>> where they belong.

> Don't count on it, sweetheart.

Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout
history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as
to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.
Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_
_CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend
otherwise.

Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178774
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Bush's WI


In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND) says:

>In article <1qt61e$d7e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (B writes...
>>        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in.
>>        My savings have already been converted.
>> 
>Bye.


      Gosh.  Does this mean I'm not invited to the next
      White House "barbecue" ?


      The real difference between you and I, Garrett, is that
      *I* knew when it was time to leave L.A. :)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178775
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <fern.735342004@camelot> fern@camelot.bradley.edu (Jill Rosencrans) writes:
>
>i'm not saying i'm satisfied with the outcome, it's very upsetting.
>you are simply blaming the wrong person.  
>

Oh are we Jill?  Let me tell you a story then...

One evening not long in this country a man, a parolee, a convicted KNOWN 
violent crimminal lead police on high speed chase after breaking another law.
He decided that police had no right to do their jobs and enforce the law
and assualted two of while attempting to resist arrest.  When police use
metal sticks to force him into submission we heard all the reason why certain
people in this country have and excuse when they refuse to obey the law, 
how this was a perfect example of police oppression, how all the police
had to do was behave a certain way and all would have been finei, how nothing
the victim did could have possibly warranted the response - some blows with
a few sticks - he got from the authorities.

Funny, how when it's Bloodbath Billy or his hitwench calling the shots,
a group of people who were bothering no one, were not know to have broken 
any law, who asked only that they be left alone to practice their religion
as they fit, how it is now that the government is justified in assualting
those people with 100 heavily armed commandos simply because the gun 
grabbers in DC thought these people had more guns thay they thought they
should have.  Now when it's the Clinton administration that has the blood
of dozens on its hand AAAALL of a sudden it's the people who refused to
have their civil rights violated, it's their fault, those evil fanatics
provoked it...

How is it in the mind of the liberal Democrat-Clinton supporter that a
crimminal puke, scum bag, piece of garbage like Rodney King could not have
possibly provoked the beating he got, but this bunch of wierdos could cause 
a fifty one day stand off that ended with the burning deaths of all of them
and their children, all by themselves with no help from the the police.  
And to here people say they deserved what they got, to hear Clinton say
the blame rest solely with Koresch, what a cowardly piece of work that
man has shown, again, himself to be.

WE'RE blaming the right people.  It is you and others that defend ANY of the
actions of the BATF, FBI or Justice Department in this matter, that with 
each word prove again and again the depth of the hypocrisy, the double
standard that people like the Clintons would hold certain Americans to. 
While at the same time allowing others to do as they please with only 
excuses to offer their victims.  It's all to clear these days, from the
comments of the "president" and the rationalizations of his supporters
in these groups, that in a liberal Democratic vision of America only
a certain select few people can expect to have civil rights enforced, 
and this administration intends to enforce laws, apply the Constitution
and obey the laws only when it suits them to do so. 

The Rooster

				WARNING!

                   By order of Heir Clinton and for your own
                personal safety: Remember to maintain membership
                 in ONLY BATF approved religious organizations.
	 	   BATF approved religious services.


.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178776
From: matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test


In article <1993Apr19.183819.5324@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com 
(Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <C5qK7t.2qK@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com 
>(Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
>>
>> In article <1993Apr16.033313.18356@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com
>> (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>
>> As far as "set the moral tone" is concerned, if a community does not
>> collectively want to put up with prostitution going on in front of their
>> kids, why should they have to?  If a community does not want to see
>> proliferation of drugs among their kids, why should they have to?
>
>  By what right? And do tell, from the standpoint of the drug
>dealer or prostitute, what is the difference if the gun is pointed
>by the local hick city council or the feds?
>  If something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. If it is not
>sustainable at a federal level why should it be OK just because
>the geographical unit is smaller?
>

Peter Nelson posted a very eloquent response to this point in 
talk.politics.misc, so I need not consume more bandwidth here.


>
>> The problem with the egalitarian view is that it tries to deny the
>> fundamental dilemma of democratic government:  The People have a right
>> to exercise a voice in their community, yet individuals have the right
>> to be left to themselves.  This is a serious dilemma precisely because
>> there is not much that takes place in a vacuum.
>
>  You are seriously misusing the word egalitarian. You should
>look the word up before you use it. There is a vast difference
>between Equal Justice under the Law and Egalitarianism.

What I meant, if it was not clear, was the intersection set of liberal
and libertarian philosophies of "natural rights" and how the government
(and Constitutional interpretation in particular) fits into that 
philosophy.  This philosophy engages in the very serious practical 
error of endowing the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court with an almost 
totalitarian authority, completely outside of the consent or consensus 
of The People.  This is why Supreme Court nominations are such amazing
political fist-fights these days, because He who Controls the Court
Rules the Country.  The people on the Court may well be trying to do
the best job they can, but they are at best a benevolent oligarch, even
if you approve of every Supreme Court decision ever.  Eventually, an
oligarch will arise that will decimate that which you hold dear.  Try 
Supreme Court cases by Jury, and the problem would be mitigated a great 
deal.

Those who would create broad, non-enumerated government powers at any 
level (as in European Parlamentary Democracies and the current de-facto
standard in the U.S.) have essentially engaged in the same fundamental 
mistake, except that it is some different body that has the totalitarian, 
virtually unchecked (except by plurality election, death, or retirement), 
government power. 


>  And *why* should your community be allowed to stop my activities
>when I'm not picking your pocket or defrauding you? Just because
>you don't like it? Because you find it morally repugnant? 

This is like asking why the wind blows, unless you can prove that
the fact of your engaging in certain activities has absolutely no 
effect whatsoever on any other human being who has not consented to
your engagement in those activities.  Very few human activities indeed
fit into this category.  

Even for those few that do, who would you empower to make the judgement 
of what is and is not a fully autonomous activity?  Who defines "picking 
my pocket" and "defrauding"?  Are economic assets a person's only assets,
or are peace of mind, stability, confidence in a child's emotional 
environment, security, and many other things not also a part of a person's
assets?  What gives you the right to create a moral environment that a
parent strongly objects to?  What gives you the right to create an 
environment of social unrest and instability?  If you say that what you
do does not have those effects, by what authority do you say that?  Who
is empowered to make these value judgements?


>How 
>would *you* feel if I got a gang together and found xtianity
>(or insert your favorite cause here) morally repugnant and
>passed laws to outlaw its free exercise? (all at a local
>level, since that seems to be A-OK with you)
>

If the Federal Constitution explicitly prohibited you from doing so, the 
federal government would prevent you from doing so.  If it did not, and
you could muster enough local support to pass an amendment to the local
Constitution (by, say, a 3/4 majority) empowering the local government 
to do so, then I would have to vote with my feet and move to a neighborhood
more friendly to my own system of values.  This is not an ideal situation,
but it is far better than the mess we are mired in right now.


>> As to the "gang of pitchfork and torch wielding friends", there are very
>> few restrictive local laws that I personally would advocate or vote for,
>> since I am of the view that exercising government power over your neighbors
>> should be done with extreme care and only when absolutely necessary.  But
>> I DO believe in protecting children from victimization by people who have
>> callous disregard for the effects they have on others.  I would certainly
>> leave a "well-behaved" massage parlor alone, so long as it had no
>> detrimental effects on the neighborhood.
>
>  You just don't get it. The debate is not whether you or a
>communitity would or would not vote away my rights; it is
>the propriety of whether that should even be an *option*.

When you define "rights" very broadly, there is no practical choice about 
whether people will or will not infringe upon your rights since these
"rights" overlap.  Even when rights are defined very narrowly, the government 
has been empowered to prevent others from infringing on your rights.  The 
fundamental question is, by whose authority is that power created.  If you 
support the current situation with a "natural rights" Supreme Court (rather
than an "original understanding" Supreme Court or, even better, Supreme
Court by Jury), you are consenting to having nine lawyers in Washington, 
D.C. create those powers out of the air.  In my "Fractal Federalism" scenario, 
it is a broad consensus of The People (i.e. the amendment process) that 
creates those powers.


>> Certainly not the only cause, Mike, but people in a local neighborhood
>> should have a voice in what goes on in that neighborhood.  To deny this
>> is to create another concentrated centralized power to keep the locality
>> from abusing its power
>
>  [!!!] You mean that horrific centralized power, the individual?

No, I mean the federal government that comes trucking in with guns to
tell the locals how to run their neighborhood.  Waco, TX is a nice example.


>
>>-- in essence, using a pit bull to keep a toy poodle
>> from biting your leg.  Chances are, the pit bull is going to turn on you
>> some day, and you have much less defense against it than you do against
>> the toy poodle.  Ideally, everyone would leave everyone else alone and
>> no government coercive power of any kind would be necessary.  This will
>> never work, because people are different and by their nature they will
>> always want to force their views on others.  If this were not the case,
>> nobody would try to force their view that murder is wrong on anyone else.
>
>  Fine. When they force their views on others prosecute them.
>Until then leave them alone. This is such a simple concept.
>How do you feel about speech codes? Hate speech certainly
>*could* be considered an indication that the "pit bull is
>going to turn some day". Should the "community" be allowed
>to limit it too? If not, why not?

If you create a community where public masturbation is permitted in the 
cause of "personal autonomy", have you done anything different?  What
precisely are these autonomous activities you are referring to?  If you
list them, perhaps we can get enough people to agree that they are truly
autonomous and pass a constitutional amendment protecting them.



>  And how do you feel about David Koresh? Did he deserve
>it? Should the BATF (or a local version of same) be allowed
>to toss him in jail just because they *think* he's off
>his rocker?

The Koresh Incident appears to be a horrendous abuse of government power,
power possibly illegitimately obtained through a means I would abolish. 
The constitutionality of "no-knock" warrants seems very dubious to me, not
to mention the mere existence of BATF and the government's propensity to 
ignore the word "infringe" in the Second Amendment.  This power is upheld 
by the same body, with its incredible concentration of power in the hands 
of nine people, that has upheld much so-called "Civil Rights" (read- affirmative 
action) legislation despite the Fourteenth Amendment.


>
>> >  Who said anything about the public till? Get rid of it, and
>> >get out of my face.
>> >
>>
>> I agree about getting rid of the public till.  Are you still sure you don't
>> want to come over for coffee?  You might not especially like my neighborhood,
>> and I might not especially like yours, but at least we can agree to let each
>> other live the kind of life we want to.
>
>  At the point you get rid of the public till, you lose all
>credibility as to *why* you should have a say about my private
>affairs. Are you sure you are ready for that?
>--

Money is certainly not the only asset I have in this world.  If it were,
this would be a bleak existence indeed.


>
>               Michael Thomas  (mike@gordian.com)


Matt Freivald


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178778
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: The Continuing Decay.....


In a previous article, pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) says:

>
>The Military's mission is to kill the enemy before
>they can escape or surrender.


    Yes, so?  You still haven't explained why they 
    can't be used to enforce Civil Law.  They certainly
    would have done a better job of Koresh.  Just call
    in an air strike.


>chus
>pyotr
>
>-- 
>pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
>OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.
>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178779
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
># #
># #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
># #
># #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
># #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
># #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
># #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
># #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
># #
># #    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
># #    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
># #    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
># #    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
># 
># 1) So what?
>
>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  

Put up or shut up. Where is your evidence?
Show a study indicating a link between liking >>GROWN UPS<< of the same
sex and liking children. Saying that 30% of molested children are male
shows nothing since it tells you nothing of the molesters preference
in adults (if they have any at all). 

>They also lie
>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.

The politicians will have plenty to be scared of in one week be it 1% or
90%.

># 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>
>But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
>other members of the leftist agenda.

I'm sure there will be a few non queers, but the vast majority are
queer.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178780
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) says:

>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.


       Or the contempt to ignore it.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178781
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <1r1pit$n7k@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
> In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
> >In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
> >> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
> >> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
> >
> >	Firstly, they could have backed off.
> 
> Regardless of who was at fault in the first assault (the one in which
> four ATF officers died), once that was over backing off was no longer
> an option.  The people inside, particularly Koresh, were criminal
> suspects.  They could have made a case of self-defense, if they wanted,
> in a court of law.  Until then the police had the responsibility to
> capture and arrest them.  I've never heard of a case where the police
> knew there was a criminal suspect in a building, and still decided
> to back off.  Continuing the siege was one of the few alternatives
> to what actually took place, and it's a matter of debate whether any
> of these would have ended any better.
> 

How about letting in the press?

How about letting Koresh out to talk to the press?

Maybe if he had been allowed to talk with the press/TV for a couple of
days he would have surrendered peacefully.


How about letting the relatives of Koresh`s followers talk?


Seems to me when you isolate someone, try to send them crazy by playing
loudspeakers through the night of Tibetan chants, etc., you don`t have
much to stand on when they behave as if they are crazy.  (I`m not too
sure of their sanity to start with.)

I am VERY suspicious when the government controls all communication,
and sends the press 2 miles away. 
I have a gut feeling that no-knock warrant, which is sealed, would not
stand up to scrutiny.

I don`t think no-knock warrants are what the constitution writers had
in mind when they gave us rights against improper search and seizure.
I don`t think an all-powerful central, high-taxing government was
what the constitution writers had in mind when it delagated rights
to the citizens and states and restricted central government.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178782
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet and the babies


In a previous article, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) says:

>	Evidently it was Janet's concern for the babies being slapped by Koresh
>that made her give the go-ahead for the ram-n-gas tactics. :(
>

    Larry King Live was both telling and sickening.  Every other word
    out of Janet REno's mouth  was "the little children" ,etc.  Sounded
    like Clinton talking.  She made claims that the children were 
    beaten, etc, DESPITE the pronouncements of social workers that none
    of the children who left the compound were abused.  But the REAL
    crime:


      Larry King, and his censored show.  NOT ONE FUCKING QUESTION
      about Reno's possible error.  Just two calls about how she
      had made a "good decision".  Now, it doesn't take a rocket
      scientist to figure out that SOME people are going to be upset.

      Nope.  No real questions at all.
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178784
Subject: "Stimulus" legislation?
From: brooks@icbr.ufl.edu

Does anyone know where I can access an online copy of the proposed "jobs"
or "stimulus" legislation?  Please E-mail me directly and if anyone else
is interested, I can post this information.

Thanks,

Mike Brooks

NOTE:  My E-mail address in the news header is NOT correct.  My correct 
address is:

brooks@icbr.ifas.ufl.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178786
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>> 
>>>I heard about a guy in Alberta who came down with some rare eye 
>>>disease that he had to take repeated trips to Seattle to get treated.
>> 
>>Well, what American private insurance plans cover travel expenses???
>
>Well, it wasn't just the travel expenses. It was the whole treatment.

When you buy insurance where you live, it is based on the local rates.
Tourists coming from, say, Utah will find that there is a difference
in what their insurance will cover FOB Provo and what they get stuck
with at Lenox Hill or Mount Sinai if they fall ill in the Big Apple.

>>>But to what extent does it affect the system? And why is an urgent 
>>>care list necessary in the first place? It's worth thinking about.
>> 
>>It's regular practice in a hospital to figure out who needs to get
>>at what facilities.  Don't Americans have to arrange in advance for
>>operations too?  I think that there are two standards being applied
>>here, and that Canada can't give Beverly Hills-style treatment to
>>everybody.  It's not a big brother list ... it's more like calling
>>around town for a table for dinner ...
>
>But Americans need far less advance time to book operations.

It would depend on where you live, downtown Toronto or Mile 101,
British Columbia (just like Cheyenne, WY vs. Boston, MA).  Again,
geography rears its ugly head.

Since our health care providers are private, they depend on an
adequate market size in order to sustain enough business.  Since
our health care professionals have equivalent take-home pay to 
their American cousins, it's not that they're being paid too
little to provide services.

>>>whether Canadians would be thrilled at the prospect of their own 
>>>health services catering toward Americans, who would be willing 
>>>to pay more than they do, is another issue entirely), it must be 
>>>noted that they said they were doing it partly because their grants 
>>>from the province were getting smaller If those grants are so 
>>>insubstantial, why the need to attract foreigners to make up the 
>>>difference?
>> 
>>You answered the question yourself ... "private nonprofit foundations
>>have to make money somehow", and I think that it's about time that
>>they acted like the private hospitals that they are.  Personally,
>>I'm fed up with Canadian socialists trying to tell everyone that
>>their health care is free when we are actually buying insurance
>>(that's one at you, Bob Rae!!).
>
>True, but I was thinking...Does/can anybody compete with the provinces
>to offer basic health coverage? I remember reading that that sort of 
>private health insurance is actually illegal in Canada. 

I have only hear Americans say that it's illegal ... but I could be
wrong, just have never heard it from a Canadian source.  our private
insurance has recently balked in Quebec when the Liberals proposed
privatizing some aspects of routine care ... also, our insurance was
put in place when no NDP (Labour) governments were in power in any
province to derail the effort 'cos they wanted real socialized
medicine.

>You're not buying insurance so much as being coerced into one 
>insurance plan.

No, it is optional ... as it is optional for doctors to accept it.
There are isolated religeous communities in particular that ask for
exemptions (and one e-mail from a Christian Scientist in Edmonton
verified for me that it is indeed negative option).  I guess that you
can argue that there is a right to having a particular insurance, but
so far I've not come across that up north ... and I take pains to keep
tabs with news from home.

>And that turns the private insurers offering the frills into an
>effective cartel-they don't really need to compete because, as you put
>it, they're in a "win-win" situation and they're guaranteed to turn a
>profit 

Believe me, they probably had orgasms when they figured that out.  And
according to my sister the yuppie, they pat themselves on the back to
the point of ungraciousness at Chamber of Commerce luncheons.

>(Interesting side note-have any new insurance companies started
>up-from scratch-since Medicare became standard in Canada?

I actually have doubts that any new ones have emerged since WW I ...
no, scratch that ... there are a few in Western Canada, and *quite* 
a few in Quebec as part of the post-1980 Quebec Miracle (out with the
nationalism, in with the French capitalism).  La Groupe des Cooper-
antes built a new tower by the Eaton('s) store at Les Terraces, and if
you were able to catch Urban Angel on CBS's Crimetime you'd see it as
the well-lit one with double-turrets at the top.  As for Ontario,
which still dominates and anchors business up north ...

Canada is a very old-money kind of place, and the 1989 Free Trade
Agreement saw a lot of odd alliances: labour unions and establishment
old money who wanted to preserve their traditional monopolies on one
side, and entrepreneurs and internationally oriented businesses and
professionals on the other.  The final Trudeau administration and
the first Mulroney government had a high percentage of nouveaux
riches who knew what it was like to make your own money, and that
motivated the McDonald Commission under Trudeau which set up Brian's
initiative (Macaroni was against free trade 'til he did a head count
of his caucus after the 1984 election).

>It's not really insurance if you don't have alternatives

Well, you have to realize that in our society that's like saying
that "it's not really national defence" because you can't hire
your own Rambo squad instead or even opting out as a pacifist.
(BTW, there are always pacifists in the news arguing about their
portion of taxes, but never people arguing over health insurance
alternatives ... and we're talking about a press that is hostile
to whomever is in government, regardless of party; one of their
few redeeming characteristics, it seems (-;).

>Also, in the April 14 Globe and Mail, there was a letter from the
>director of trauma services at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto
>responding to an article on a study comparing heart surgery in
>California and Canada in which some Canadian doctor worried that
>American analysts would seize on the results as proof that Canada
>rationed vital services. The doctor (I can't recall his name) said
>that Canada *is* rationing vital services "as any physician can
>plainly see". He said that a system in which people are refused
>treatment because they can't afford it is no different from a system
>in which people are refused treatment because the government can't
>afford it as a result of deliberate underfunding of the health
>insurance plan. In fairness, he did say that both the US and 
>Canadian systems are in the same situation.

The only way to hit at the Canadian system is transient periods of
high demand, which is more a function of the doctors monopoly's tight
fist on the licencing.  An obvious difference is that in such a
transient period, the rationing is of the nature of a mob battling
over Cabbage Patch Dolls^TM as we've seen recently as opposed by
rationing by ability to pay ... but the former is a *transient*
situation and if a large body of insured patients were to deluge the
California health infrastructure, the same would result --- rationing
among the insured population.  With smaller markets, there is much
less flexibility when dealing with our insured population than
California (which by the way, has 1/3rd more people than Canada in a
MUCH more dense area).  So he is correct in that the resources are
fixed (for a particular time window, or as a function of the doctors
monopoly licencing according to the market steady state) in either
case.  As for being "refused treatment" the government of the day
would be shredded to tatters if something like that were to happen;
Canadians can be geographically bad, too, not realizing that their
health care is private while only their insurance isn't ... too many
people have bought into socialist trype that we have socialized
medicine.

>I know, I know, the monopoly power of Canadian doctors often leads
>them to overstate the problems with the system in order to get more
>money from the government (another case of businessmen, once
>scratched, becoming socialists).  

Right, as I've pointed out above ...

>But hasn't that just shifted the locus of the problem from one place
>to the other? It hasn't really solved it.

Either way, the transient situations are hard to deal with since the
changes in the private medical care resource take place at a slower
rate than the ability of people to fall sick esp. in the light of
disasters (e.g., Chernobyl) or bad luck (a sudden wave of heart
disease). A doctor needs 4-6 years of training, plus internship 
and specialty training.

>People too often tend to put prescription cold medicine on their 
>insurance when they really don't need to.

That's why I've argued for deductible and copayments rather than
education, which is what most Canadian fiscal conservatives are
arguing for (the leftists?  "Ah, just let 'em spend!" --- yeah,
right!).  Also, note that only a few provinces cover prescriptions
under some high dollar threshold ... in most, it's your private
insurance that covers it just like in the U.S.  Still, it all
adds up in the OECD measures.

>In fact, Buffalo may be the only place in the US where people
>get Don Cherry jokes (:-).

We get the Sabres' feed as a replacement game on ESPN tonight (the
Devils' local metro NY coverage supplants the main ESPN game).

>(The NDP cleaning up a Tory spending mess? And just when I thought 
>I understood Canadian politics).

Yeah, it's a sad story and Saskatchewan Tory leader Grant Devine
has been on a nonstop PR campaign to save his sorry butt.  The
Sask NDP have taken a neo-conservative turn like Hawke, Gonzalez
and Mitterand did.

>has anybody considered following Singapore's example and going to a
>system where the company and the state buys basic and catastrophic
>coverage for everybody, and then you also have an IRA sort of thing
>to which you and your employer can can contribute for medical
>expenses only? It would tend to discourage you from overusing it.

The medical IRA would have limited use, as you'd need a lower
catastrophic threshold else there'd still be a drain on the public
purse if someone exhausts their IRA.  Also, Singapore has a much
more autocratic mentality which has seaped down into its masses
(if Singaporeans that I've met are any indication ... I don't
mean any disprespect here) where they'd let you just die.

>One of the good things about being the last country to create a
>national health care system, should we decide to, is that we have
>everybody else's mistakes to learn from.

That's true ... the question is how much leeway is there between
the U.S. approach and the second-most capitalist approaches of
Canada, France and Germany.

>>Seriously, there are few areas that have sufficient population for a
>>two/more-tiered system like what the French have ... a health policy
>>prof, D.G. Shea, has cited studies in the NEJM that indicate having
>>a population of 500,000 is necessary for adequate competition ...
>>and in Canada, there are only four cities west of the Great Lakes
>>with that population or larger.
>
>But there are many cities in the US with that kind of population. 

Yes, many ... and pretty close to a lot of smaller towns or not too
far from a bigger town.  Just take a look at a detailed atlas ...
or better, take a flight from Pittsburgh or Rochester to Toronto.
My first time across Lake Ontario to NYC, I was amazed by the
increase in density ... and the Toronto region is the densest 
in all of Canada.

>There was one about a group of doctors in Calgary who have opened
>Canada's first US-style MRI clinic, as an alternative to the
>provincially owned one.

It's about time!  I've ragged on my own doctor friends as to why they
don't invest in their own private practices ... in the end, it's their
money.  But they choose to spend it on America's Cup pipedreams, and
that's none of my business.  As for "provincially owned" ... for sure
it's against the law in Canada for governments to be directly involved
in the provision of health care except in the military or native reser-
vations.  What that term actually means is that the facility gets by
on public grants to meet shortfall from *lack of use* ... no kidding.
Medical practice itself is much more conservative up north.  My own
best friend did two clerkships at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN,
and is no stranger to high tech medicine ... but his boat comes first.

>There were some people expressing concern that it was the first wedge of
>two-tiered health care and that it might violate the Canada Health Act.

No, it's probably socialist whiners who are offended that we have
private practices ... and always have.  They can all take cash
anyways ... so why not have a particular facility?  The Canadian
big government mentality often imagines government where it does
not even exist ...

Since the French and Germans have become more entrepreneurial and less
laidback without sacrificing their culture and values, then Canadians
can do the same.  As I've pointed out above, the law states that it is
illegal for the *government* to provide any health services except for
the military and natives.

Look, nobody stopped the clinic when they planned on the MRI ...
nobody stopped them when they bought it.  Nobody seems to be stopping
them from using it, either.  Much ado about nothing.  Thank goodness
that hockey playoffs have started ...

>While it seemed currently unjustified, there was one anecdote told by
>the head of the partnership to demonstrate the MRI. He showed an
>image of an injured knee, which happened to belong to the manager of
>the bank who approved the loan. He said that without it, the guy
>might have had to wait a month or more at the provincial MRI, then
>another length of time for treatment, after which the muscles would
>have atrophied and rehabilitation would have been that much harder 
>If that isn't the first whiff of two tiers, I don't know what is.

I'm certain there is exaggeration somewhere, because the GAO study
of Canada cited often on USENET did not find access to MRI to be a
problem.  I'll bet the doctor is relying on people having listened 
to American trash talk on cable so that he can puff his chest a bit.
There are already a few treatment regimens for knee injuries without
relying on MRI ... unfortunately, I've had a few. )-;  And I'm not
a banker. (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178788
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) says:
>
>This, too, is ridiculous.  In no way can the provoker be considered
>to have played more than an exceedingly minor role.  A person
>who kills is ultimately responsible for his own actions.


      Frankly, I'm sick of being lied to.  It was bad before Clinton,
      and now it's worse.  Here, listen to Ricks' ( FBI ) words,
      ONE-HALF hour before the fire:

       " Come out with your hands up.  This matter is NOW OVER. "

      Now, I hear Ricks ( and REno ) claiming that this was just 
      "another incremental step in pressure".  More bullshit.

      Why did they pick 6 AM  Monday morning?  So nobody would
      NOTICE.  So everyone would be busy at work, starting a new
      week.  More bullshit.

      Did the FBI hold back fire engines?  Here, let me paraphrase
      Sessions"

       " no, we didn't hold back the engines.  We had them on 
         stand-by, blah, balh, blah...   And so, to protect the
         the fireman, we didn't allow the engines to enter until
         it was safe "

     WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?   " YES, WE HAVE NO BANANAS? "

     What the HELL kind of double-talk is this?  No, we didn't, so
     blah, balh, we did.    Huh?

     I WATCHED this.

     Clinton takes responsibility, "EVEN THOUGH" it wasn't his 
     decision.  MOre BULLSHIT.  Does he, or does he NOT, take
     responsibility?!   No more "even though" bullshit.  Yes.
     Or no.  

     Christ.


>Ed
>ed@wente.llnl.gov
>
>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178789
From: atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>>into killing the children.
>
>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.
>
The fact that Reno is actually taking responsibility (gee--that's a new
one for a politician) is a new thing for a member of Clinton's administration.
I actually respect her for having a backbone ( I never thought I'd say
that about someone from that bunch).

The way I understand what happened is that she discussed with Clinton
what was being planned for Waco.  Clinton didn't say no, so gave de
facto approval for the operation.  Things got messed up, and a lot of
people died horrible deaths.  (if I am incorrect about this, please 
feel free to correct it.  This is just what I've been able to pick 
up.)

I've just got a couple of questions about this whole thing.
(1)  Why did the government feel they needed to assault that compound?
(2)  Why didn't they try to flush them out in the first week of
     this fiasco instead of waiting 50 days.
(3)  Janet Reno jumped up to take responsibilty to take heat away
     from the President.  Does this sound anything like what a couple
     of Reagan's aides did?

--aaron









Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178790
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) says:

>In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>I've just got a couple of questions about this whole thing.
>(3)  Janet Reno jumped up to take responsibilty to take heat away
>     from the President.  Does this sound anything like what a couple
>     of Reagan's aides did?


    NO. NO, it couldn't POSSIBLY be the same.  Because America voted 
    For Change.  And elected William " George"  Clinton.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178791
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

First of all, I wouldn't have gone after the Davidians for a firearms
violation which I object to in the first place.  Second, I wouldn't
have executed a search warrant via an armed assault when all the
Davidians were sure to have been there.  Third of all, I wouldn't have
cut off all outside communication to Koresh.  And I certainly wouldn't
have gone in with a tank-- time was on the FBIs side.  Since they had
outside resupply, they could wait indefinitely.


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178793
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

Say WHAT?  Surrounding the compound with armed men and throwing
grenades isn't a provocation?

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

You're smoking something not legal in the US.  They never rang the
doorbell.  Not even the BATF has claimed that they have. This was a
no-knock search.

As to the good reason the BATF has-- the warrant and supporting
affadavit have not been made public. 

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178794
Subject: Carpeting in Bosnia
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>

         Anybody for carpeting in Bosnia/Serbia?  I mean like, carpet bombing
         of Serbian positions?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178795
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:

>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>> 
>> 
>1. Withdraw
>2. leave the people in the compund to lead their lives as they choose.
>3. prosecute the BAFT agents for murder

>-- 

>Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
>                  New Zealand
CHEERS Brandon.  That's the best suggestion I have seen that.  !!!

Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178796
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5t7wv.61E@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <VEAL.755.735336029@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>|>>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>|>>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>|>>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>|>>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>|>>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>|>>the doorbell.
>|>
>|>        The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people,
>|>says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of
>|>surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it
>|>slammed in their faces.
>|>
>|>        It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to
>|>serve a warrant by knocking on the door.
>
>Presumably the B-D did not mount a continuous state of alert with gunmen
>ready to fire on people who casually walked up to ring the doorbell.

       Let's try that again:  Why was the BATF concerned about surprise
when they intended to serve the warrant by knocking on the door?  The
BATF appears to be inconsistant in their own description of events.

       And in any case, how does one mount an ambush if one isn't
"on alert?"

>|>>Had they
>|>>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>|>>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>|>>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
>|>
>|>        Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five*
>|>minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful
>|>citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would
>|>have retreated immediately.
>
>Not a smart move. Unless meant to be part of the surprize cover. Even so
>the narrow opening of the trucks simply was not a good idea. A side opening
>truck would have been much better, more like a covered waggon.

       So, were the BATF fired on before or after they left the trailers
to knock on the door to serve the warrant?  Every description I've
heard indicates the BATF did not hang around in the trailers once
they decided to open them up.

       For that matter, if they expect peaceful citizens, why come in live-
stock trailers to being with?

>|>        If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over
>|>a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying 
>|>sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters?
>
>Sounds just about right to me. Its the minimum amount of force that I
>would consider necessary to serve a warrant on the talk.politics.guns
>annual dinner.

       Ok, just to make sure we've got this straight:  You consider
armed troops in disguised vehicles and multiple helicopters to be
used to serve search warrants on peaceful citizens.  (And just so
we don't have one of those entertaining shifts, *you* described them
as the BATF expecting them to be, peaceful.)

>Michael Hesseltine ordered the use of over 5000 crack troops including
>members of the parachute regiment to remove approx 250 hippy peace
>protestors on a site where they wanted to install cruise missiles. He
>even turned up in a flack jacket to monitor the proceedings. Just about the
>most dangerous tool the women possesed was a tin opener. That single
>action probably cost him the position as Prime Minister. One of the elders
>of my church got arrested in that heroic action by the forces of Toryism.
>Hesseltine ever after was something of a national joke.

       I don't see how past abuses excuse present ones.  Hell, you're
not even discussing the same government. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178799
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Law and Economics


I'm going to be mixing together here stuff from two of Ted Frank's
articles, <1993Apr15.143623.25813@midway.uchicago.edu> (which was a
response to me) and <1993Apr16.011455.20518@midway.uchicago.edu> (a
response to Tim Smith)...

> > (Yes, I know, the _Boomer_ court didn't call it eminent domain.  But
> > if it walks like eminent domain and swims like eminent domain and
> > quacks like eminent domain...)  [wdstarr]
>
> Are all tort cases really eminent domain cases then?  What about
> bankruptcy?  Contract?

Eminent domain is a state-mandated transaction in which one party is
required to sell a piece of property which it owns to another party,
regardless of whether the first party wishes to sell at all, at a price
which is set by the state.  I fail to see how this doctrine can be found
in tort, bankruptcy or contract cases in general.  Well, okay, sort of
in bankruptcy...

*  *  *  *  *

>> If so, so what?  Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
>> business of preventing parties from reaping windfall settlements
>> from other parties when those settlements arise from wrongful acts
>> by those other parties?  [wdstarr]
>
> Since you said that _Boomer_'s reliance on economics led to an unjust
> result.  I'm pointing out that your alternative is far more unjust, in
> the traditional sense of the world.
>
> [Atlantic Cement's] act was not wrongful.  It did something that we as
> a capitalistic society should want them to do: build a factory, create
> industry and jobs.  The cost of compliance was grossly
> disproportionate to the damage faced by plaintiffs.

Bang.  Here's one of the places where we widely diverge.  You believe
that the courts, in deciding a civil dispute between two parties, should
consider as a factor -- perhaps as an overriding factor -- issues which
I believe the court should ignore as being irrelevant to the dispute.
_Boomer v.  Atlantic Cement Co._ was an action brought by one party,
Boomer, whose property rights were being violated on an ongoing basis by
another party, the Atlantic Cement Company.  The facts supported
Boomer's contention that Atlantic Cement was wrongfully damaging his
property, and Boomer asked the court to order Atlantic Cement to stop
doing so.  End of story.  There was no reason for the court to consider
such issues as what a capitalistic society would want Atlantic Cement to
do or whether the cost of compliance was disproportionate to the damage
faced by the plaintiffs.  Those issues had nothing to do with the case
before the court.

> Bill, if the government had stepped in and the EPA made a regulation
> requiring multi-million dollar cement plants to be shut down because
> of a smattering of cement dust, at a cost-benefit ratio of 15+:1,
> you'd be up in arms.  Why is it okay for the judicial branch to
> interfere this way, but not the legislative or executive branches?

I'd be up in arms?  Why do you assume that?  Quite the contrary, I'd
probably support the action, since it would be based on the same general
doctrine as the decision that I believe would have been correct in
_Boomer_: the idea that people's property rights should not be violated
for reasons of economic efficiency.  In _Boomer_ it was Boomer's
property rights which I believe the court should have protected; in the
hypothetical EPA ruling you've presented, it's the American people's
collective property rights in a healthy physical environment.  What
good is cost-benefit ratio of 15+:1 if you wind up with cement dust in
your air?

*  *  *  *  *

>>> Your rule makes it per se illegal to ever operate a cement plant.
>>> If the State of Massachusetts came up with a similar regulation,
>>> you'd be up in arms and complaining about interference with
>>> property rights, and Fifth Amendment violations.  Once again--why
>>> is it okay for the judicial branch to interfere this way, but not
>>> the legislative or executive branches?  Or are you not the
>>> libertarian you present yourself as being?  [Ted Frank]
>>
>> How would it be per se illegal to operate a cement plant?  Wouldn't
>> it just mean that when buying land for a cement plant, you would
>> have to either buy enough land so that most of the pollution would
>> stay on your land, or buy pollution easements from the surrounding
>> landowners?  [Tim Smith]
>
> All it takes is one holdout out of hundreds of neighbors to scrap the
> plant.  Furthermore, each of the neighbors is going to want the full
> benefit of the bargain under the resulting bilateral monopoly.  A
> bonanza for lawyers, to be sure, who get to negotiate each of these
> agreements, a windfall for homeowners who can extort away any profits
> the plant would make, but not particularly good for society.

Yes.  So what?  The courts are supposed to protect the specific rights
of individuals, not the general interests of some nebulous society.  If
society can have its cement plant without violating anyone's rights,
fine.  Otherwise society will somehow have to limp along with one less
cement plant.  (See, Ted, I really _am_ a libertarian after all! :-)

> That's the whole point behind the Coase Theorem.  In a world without
> transactions costs, the land will automatically be put to the best
> use, as it is transferred from person to person instantaneously
> without friction; the legal regime will not matter, because the result
> will be the same.  In a world such as ours, one with transactions
> costs, one wants the legal regime to approximate the end result to
> begin with, in order to minimize the transactions costs.

"One wants the legal regime to approximate the end result to begin with,
in order to minimize the transactions costs."???  Which "one" are you
speaking of?  _I_ want the legal regime to protect people's rights.
Besides, Coase's Theorem only has real application in the never-never
land of perfectly rational actors.  In the real world (1) some people
are going to be stubborn, ornery, spiteful or otherwise "irrational"
from a economic point of view and (2) the purpose of the courts is to
protect their right to be so.  I don't care if you can show me logically
that your cattle are only doing $100 of damage to my property per head,
so I should rationally sell you grazing rights to my land for, say, $150
per head -- I still retain the right to tell you that I just plain don't
want any damned cattle on my property, not at any price.

*   *   *   *   *

>> And then you say: "Everyone's property rights were protected; the
>> plaintiffs were made whole; unnecessary settlement costs were
>> avoided."  As above, I dispute your claim that the plaintiffs were
>> "made whole."  They were, in fact, by court action deprived of their
>> rights as owners of property to choose to sell or not sell that
>> property at a price acceptable to them.  [wdstarr]
>
> Then, by your argument, no tort plaintiff is ever made whole, because
> the award of damages in involuntary.  Why should we treat a nuisance
> plaintiff any different than any other tort plaintiff?  We don't
> require specific performance in the analogous contractual situation;
> why in tort?

Last question first: For the same reason as in contract law -- because
to do so would come dangerously close to treading on the Thirteenth
Amendment.

As to your "Then, by your argument, no tort plaintiff is ever made
whole, because the award of damages in involuntary" claim, you're at
least partially right.  Faced with situations in which the wrong has
already been done and the damage to the victim has already taken place
and cannot be reversed or undone, courts will try to set an equitable
price tag on the loss suffered by the victim and require the wrongdoer
to pay this price (rather than an inflated price which the victim might
prefer).  In these cases, the "sale" has already taken place and is
irreversible, and the court simply tries to ensure that a fair price is
paid, under the doctrines that (a) only in certain circumstances should
even a civil wrongdoer be forced to pay punitive or excessive prices and
(b) even a genuine victim should not profit in an unjustified or
inequitable manner from his victimhood.  Both of these doctrines may be
worth discussing or debating elsewhere, but neither is relevant to cases
like _Boomer_ in which the wrongful act and the loss stemming from it
are still in the future and _can_ be reversed/undone (i.e., prevented
from happening at all) by order of the court.

In these types of cases, all the court has to do is require that the
potential victim's property rights are protected until and unless he
agrees to sell them at a mutually-acceptable price.  There is no need
for the court to guess at the equitable value of the loss and force both
sides to accept its finding.  It can leave that operation up to the
parties themselves.

>> And again I ask: Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
>> business of ensuring that "unnecessary" settlement costs are avoided?
>> (If so, I've been miseducated -- I always thought that the courts were
>> supposed to be in the business of ensuring that justice is done.)
>
> Unnecessary settlement costs are unjust because they are punitive.

In cases like _Boomer_, they're simply a cost of doing business.  The
fact that the proprietors of the Atlantic Cement Co. got themselves into
a position in which they found themselves over this barrel is simply a
result of their own poor business decision to start up a cement plant
without _first_ trying to negotiate with Boomer and everyone else whose
property rights they'd be violating via the operation of their plant.
There's nothing punitive or unjust about it.

>> (2) It is "completely sensible" only if you believe that the alleged
>> right of the owners of Atlantic Cement to stay in business and avoid
>> losing a lot of their own money due to their own wrongful act, and
>> the alleged right of several hundred Atlantic Cement employees to
>> not have their jobs disappear, should trump the rights of people who
>> own property which was damaged by Atlantic Cement's wrongful acts.
>> [wdstarr]
>
> Anybody who ever commits a wrongful act should disgorge their entire
> set of possessions to wronged person?  Weren't you complaining about
> excess punitive damages before?

Anybody who wants to commit a wrongful act in the future should be
required to buy the right to do so from the victim, in advance.  And the
seller should be allowed to set his or her price for the privilege.  No
injustice, no punitive damages.

*   *   *   *   *

>>> You'd like Posner, Bill.  He's a libertarian.
>>
>>Really?  I didn't know that... what, if anything, has he had to say
>>about cases like _Boomer_?  [wdstarr]
>
> In EAL, he cites it as an example of bilateral monopoly that the court
> correctly avoided.  I'm sure its covered in the Landes and Posner book
> on tort law, presumably favorably, but I don't have that book in front
> of me.

Doesn't sound very much like a libertarian to me.  Libertarians tend to
believe in the rights of individual people, not societies.

*   *   *   *   *

>> I've admitted that my understanding of the field generally referred
>> to as "law and economics" is weak.  If it advocates the use of
>> economical analysis as one of many "tie-breaker" factors which
>> courts may use to help them reach decisions in cases in which the
>> dispute, as measured by the scale of "justice", is evenly balanced,
>> fine.  But as illustrated by _Boomer_, it is _not_ fine when the
>> courts start viewing the economics of a case as being more important
>> than the justice of a case.  [wdstarr]
>
> In this case the justice of the case was intricately tied up with the
> economics of the case.  Atlantic Cement committed a tort causing $185K
> of damage.  Should it pay in the millions?  Or just compensate for the
> damage it committed?

As stated above, the tort was _ongoing_.  Atlantic Cement wanted to be
able to _continue_ to violate Boomer's rights.  While the court may have
been justified in setting an equitable price tag on the damage already
committed, it had no reason and no need to set a price tag on the
_future_ violations of Boomer's rights and to then force Boomer to sell
at that price.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178802
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <1993Apr21.090638.6253@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:
>In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>>
>>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>>
>>Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those 
>>of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy 
>>Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data,
>
>Atomic Energy Commision - Hmm, they would say this.
>

I'm no defender of the AEC, but it is worth noting that it is unfair to tar
that organization with the decidedly minority scientific views of its
former chairperson and one term Washington governor, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray.
Dr. Ray's political agenda is well-known and documented.  Likewise, her
lack of objectivity in analysing scientific data is well-known.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178809
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <1993Apr21.090638.6253@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:
>In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>>

>The Earth may spew alot of substances into the atmosphere, but the quality 
>of your toxic output can easily make up for the lack of quantity. 
	Excuse me? Quality? As in grade A CO2 and grade B CO2? I may not have
this quite right but I was under the impression that CO2 was CO2.

 Furthermore, 
>the planet is a system of carbon, sulfur and other chemicals which have been
>acting for billions of years, we are but newcomers to the system - we must adapt
>and control in order to bring about stability.  Also, two wrongs do not make a right, 
>so continuing our practices despite overwhelming data is just ignorance in (non)action.

	A) There is no reason to believe this system is inherently stable- 
The Ice ages occured without any help from humans.

	B) The point was that the human contribution of CO2 and other 
greenhouse gasses is insignificant and it won't really make a difference if
we make more or less.

	C) What overwhelming data? I see lots of 'projections' of the future,
which is fascinating, considering they can't predict the weather two weeks
in advance.

	*********************************************************
	*  William Everett		Tan, Rested, and ready  *
	*  Harvey Mudd College		     NIXON in '96       *
	*                                                       *   
	*  These opinions are mine- you can't have them         *   
	*********************************************************



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178810
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes:
>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the 
>environment.

BULLSHIT. How many lakes have ceased to be able to support life from
purely natural pollution? Man has already done this to scores of lakes.
Also, much of the "degredation" you cite was done by cows and pigs.

And why do think there are so many cows around?

Could it be.......cause people raise them?


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178812
From: jrv@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (JR VanMechelen)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <C5uxHI.H2B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes:
>>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>>Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the 
>>environment.
>
>BULLSHIT. How many lakes have ceased to be able to support life from
>purely natural pollution? Man has already done this to scores of lakes.
>Also, much of the "degredation" you cite was done by cows and pigs.

You have perhaps heard of the Dead Sea.  I may be wrong, but I believe
it is not misnamed.  And I don't believe that humans had a hand in it,
although it is possible since the great cedar forests of Lebanon were
but a memory by the time of Christ if not earlier.

But, more on the point, while Nature is the may be the more prolific
"despoiler", Man is certainly the more creative.  We have to our
credit pesticides and heavy metals, not to mention radioactivity,
which is so wonderfully persistent and fatal (not that we invented
radioactivity or heavy metals, we only concentrated them so that they
would be a more lethal threat).

In general I find Mr. Bacon's arguments rhetorical, devoid of sense,
and therefore trivial.

BTW, is there any reason this discussion is on phl.misc?

So long,
JR



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178817
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <1993Apr21.211635.3737@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) says:

>I'm no defender of the AEC, but it is worth noting that it is unfair to tar
>that organization with the decidedly minority scientific views of its
>former chairperson and one term Washington governor, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray.
>Dr. Ray's political agenda is well-known and documented.  Likewise, her
>lack of objectivity in analysing scientific data is well-known.

You are correct, I apologize.  My problems with the AEC are their (however inherent)
continuous barage of misleading data in order to support the statement
that nuclear is not only "safe and clean" but cheap to boot.  10 to 15 cents per
kilowatt hour is not cheap and neither are nuclear power plants.  As far as
being safe and clean - I'll let nuclear power plants speak for themselves all
the way from the uranium mines to their decommisioning.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178829
From: cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Trip to Pittsburg [sic]

In article <1ql6bgINNklu@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:

>                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

>     The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April 
>17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the 
>state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818
				 ^^^^^                   ^^^^^
*Would*? Ha Haaaa Haa ha haAA

How the hell can they come up with a number, specified to the units
column, on something as complicated as this?

Face it, it's the perceptions that matter here, folks, not the facts.
Especially this one:
 
>full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a 
			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that means over 7200 new jobs
for Allegheny county (metro Pgh) alone!

Haaaa   HAAA ha HA HAAA heh heh  HAAAA  <snif>

Doing what?  I hope it's fixing the potholes on my street. 

Let's face it, folks, we're in a depression and this is the WPA.

Clinton's really coming here to beat on Sen. Arlen Specter, who happens
to be vacationing in Africa (Don't know whether to laugh or cry)


-- 
** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch  -  In 1996, there will be two kinds  **
**      Slavic Cataloger         -  of computer professional : those  **
**  U. of Pgh. Library Systems   -    who know NeXTStep, and those    **
**       cjp+@pitt.edu           -              without Jobs.         **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178831
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
>tes:
>
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
>me how, I just have seen the results.
>
>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
>the head.

I'm sorry about your friend.  Really.  But this anecdote does nothing to
justify the "war on drugs".  If anything, it demonstrates that the "war"
is a miserable failure.  What it demonstrates is that people will take
drugs if they want to, legal or not.  Perhaps if your friend were taking
legal, regulated drugs under a doctors supervision he might not be in the
position he's in now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178832
From: brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>-- 

Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality 
uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all 
homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since 
the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity 
larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.

Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three 
times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.

So... whose promiscuous?

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because 
someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....  
Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...

Look closely at the person, not the group.

All flames will be ignored.  :)

Later,

 _______________________  ______________________________________
(                       )(                                      )
( Brian Stone           )(                                      )
( UNT-CAS Tech. Support )(   Life without your touch is hard,   )
(                       )( but life without you in unthinkable. )
( brian@gab.unt.edu     )(                                      )
(_______________________)(______________________________________)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178833
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: The Manitoban Candidate


In a previous article, smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) says:

>With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
>pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
>that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
>shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some


      Hey, he HAS been talking with Mulroney a lot, huh?



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178834
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: " Only $17 / Month! "



	Ahhh, remember the days of Yesterday?  When we were only 
	going to pay $17 / month?

	When only 1.2% of the population would pay extra taxes?

	Remember when a few of us predicted that it wasn't true?  :)
	Remember the Inaugural?   Dancing and Singing!  Liberation
	at last!  

	Well, figure *this* out:

	5% VAT, estimated to raise $60-100 Billion per year ( on CNN )
	Work it out, chum...

	     $60,000,000,000  /  125,000,000 taxpayers = $480 / year

        But, you exclaim, " I'll get FREE HEALTH CARE! "
	But, I exclaim, " No, you won't! "

	This is only for that poor 37 million who have none.  Not for
	YOU, chum. :)  That comes LATER.

	Add in the estimates of the energy tax costs - $300-500 / year

	Plus, all that extra "corporate and rich" taxes that will 
	trickle down, and what do you have?

	$1,000 / year, just like I said two months ago.

	And, the best part?   You don't GET ANYTHING for it.

	Deficit is STILL projected to rise at same rate it's  been
	rising at, by CLINTON'S OWN ESTIMATES.  And this assumes that
	his plan WILL WORK!

	I mean, come on, it doesn't take a ROCKET SCIENTIST to see
	that in another 2 or 3 years, we're GETTING ANOTHER WHOPPING
	TAX INCREASE, because the deficit will STILL be GROWING 
	FASTER THAN the ECONOMY.

	All Clinton is doing, is moving us to a HIGHER diving board.

        Face it.  Clinton is Bush X 2.  In four more years, our
	country will be completely bankrupt, and your children's
	future, so oft mentioned by Pal Bill, will be gone.

	And those of you still deluding yourselves will be faced
	with the guilt.

	Well, <glancing at watch>, gotta go.  I want to be out of
	here by noon.  Got an appointment at the lake.  No tax
	there, yet.

	:)



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178835
From: hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?

(NOTE: cross-posted to alt.politics.italy and talk.politics.misc
 This is a reply to an article by Ed Ipser which also appeared in
 alt.politics.usa.misc and alt.politics.libertarian, but no longer belongs)


I hate to defend Ed (the article was very poorly written) but here goes:

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Ed should take a look at the budget deficit Regan and Bush created together
>before he starts to make claims about europe collapsing based on the budget
>deficits here. None of them are serious on the USA scale.

Italy's per-capita debt is much higher than USA's.


>We do not want our countries to be run by a narrow elite of rich lawyers
>for the benefit of the super wealthy.

This is *exactly* what the public in France & Italy perceive to be the
problem-- thus the French election and Italian pulizia.


Regarding the post-pulizia Italy:
>What looks likely to happen is the fringe parties are going to do much
>better in the next election. Most of the parliamentary deputies are going
>to get replaced and the parties are going to be forced to look to people
>who are free of any hint of corruption. Look out for a parliament of
>Pavarotti's and porn stars.

Wrong.  This is true perhaps only for the Lega Nord.
The referendum Sunday is expected to establish a British/American style
first-past-the-post system in the Senate.  If implemented, it would
encourage a two- (or perhaps three-) party system in Italy.
Most likely the DC and PSI will not be these parties; rather there will
be a shakeup of the entire party structure from which 2 new parties
will emerge to dominate.  Will Lega Nord be one of these?  Who knows.

(The Camera dei Deputati (lower house) will likely remain with
Proportional Representation for a while, but there is talk of switching a
portion of that house, too. Maybe as much as 40% first-past-the-post)

Overall, the electoral reform in Italy is a welcome change.  Italians
are tired of having crappy government.  Porn stars, Pavarotti's and
Hunters & Fishers won't gain seats because PR is dead.  A good two-party
system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.

It's about time.

Jeff Hagen
hagenjd@ac.wfu.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178836
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie


In a previous article, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) says:

>Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you
>will:
>
>1.  The sun will rise tomorrow.
>2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show.
>3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.


     Hey, *I* wasn't the one dancing and singing on Jan. 20, now
     WAS I?   I was roundly ridiculed for my "predictions".

     Sure they were easy.  TEll that to the other 43% of the people. :)


>
>+----------------+
>|     SUCKA!     |
>|                |
>|  Made in USA   |  
>+----------------+
>
>Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*


      Just WAIT until the see what Clinton has planned for 
      their pension funds!  :)  This one doesn't take much thinking
       either.    Uncle Sam needs money, BAD, and pension funds got it.

      Well, they USED to have it.  Turns out the states  have been
      plundering state employee funds for the past 2-3 years.  ;)

       Ah, it's gonna be SWELL!




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178837
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <1qkl3i$9bj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Broward Horne) says:
>In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says:
>>In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>>(Broward Horne) says:
>>>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it?
>>
>>The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not
>>going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.

>      whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK
>      about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just
>      the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.

That was hardly the point, was it? I was commenting on this all-too-common
Republican attitude that if people disagree with us, they must be idiots, they
must be sheep being led around by the Evil Liberal Media Conspiracy. This is
a dangerous attitude indeed. Because it's not a very big step from "people
are sheep, they can't think for themselves" to "people are sheep and need
firm leadership from we, who know better"... this sort of attitude makes
me worry about what'll happen to the United States if the extremist wing
of the Republican party ever gets back into power again.

>      Holy christ! :)

Hey! This is a government-funded newsgroup! Let's have some separation
of church and state, damn it!

>        Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?

>    Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! "
>    Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "

>   ( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )

More like:

Broward: "Clinton's going to raise your income taxes by over $1000!"
Mark:    "No, he's not, only about $204."
Broward: (silence)

>    Want some more "free predictions" ?

OK, I predict that in 1996 the Republicans will STILL be bitter. Yeah, yeah,
I know, it's not very impressive to predict things that are inevitable...

   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178838
From: joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale)
Subject: Re: Clayton Need not Retract

In article <Apr.9.08.39.25.1993.15639@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>civilized society.  The _ONLY_ way a homosexual can maintain even a
>modicum of respectability is by remaining in the closet.
>-- 
>  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>  as this would hold such views??? |

Once again, it appears that the one-eyed man has appeared in the land of the sighted
and for some strange resaon has appointed himself the ruler and supreme power.

Joe Cipale

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178840
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <2671@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
> shapiro@sofbas.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
> : 
> : Oh, and BTW, its William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
> : 
> : Regards,
> : Steve.
> 
> 
> No, it's not- and I really fail to understand the use of that name
> as an insult.  Do you feel that being adopted implies some sort of
> moral failing?

Yes, it is -- you could look it up.  And spare us the thin-skinned
indignation, please; what's sauce for four years of using George Herbert
Walker Bush and J. Danforth Quayle as an insult is sauce for William
Jefferson Blythe Clinton.  Do you feel that calling a President by his full 
name implies some sort of disrespect?  Hint: this is a rhetorical question.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178841
From: dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:

>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>>-- 

>Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality 
>uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all 
>homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since 
>the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity 
>larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.  If the chances of 
promiscuity are larger, yet the rate of promiscuity is lower in the heterosexual
community, doesn't that imply that the homo/bi sexual population is then 
even more promiscuous than the raw statistics imply?  
(No axe to grind here I'm just a scientist and I hate to see statistics abused.)

>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three 
>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.

I am a hetero man and have had sex with one woman in my life (my wife).  It is 
very pleasing to me to be able to say that.  I hope you have the same feeling
as I do.  I also wish that you could (if you wanted) experience the joys and
trials of being committed to someone for life (there is something about marriage
that makes the commitment much greater than one might expect).

>So... whose promiscuous?

>Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because 
>someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....  
>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...

Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays 
are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?" 

Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)

Dan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178842
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans

In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) wrote:
> 
> 
> Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
> 
> 
[deleted for a very good reason which I'm sure you can guess]
>

0. Enact a law that bans people without a sense of humor from
   posting allegedly humorous items. If he did this, I think
   his approval rating would go through the roof!

> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993

This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists
in your .sigs, folks!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178843
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In <1993Apr15.170715.29896@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

|>Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
|>the cost and definitely make them safer to use.

|I think so.  And I don't use drugs, outside of the legal ones (alcohol
|and coffee).

I'm addicted to chocolate myself.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178844
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <1993Apr15.215912.1807@martha.utcc.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>>
>>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>>
>>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>
>       I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into
>problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even
>when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe
>that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side-
>effects, and bad reactions scares them.)  

    The immunization program is just a "useful first step". Among other
    things, the money will go to pay for creating and maintaning a
    a computerized "innoculation" database on all U.S. children.
    (code-named Big Mother... Just kidding, the name will be Children
    Defense Database, or something like that.)

    Once the money is spent and little or no tangible results achieved, 
    the goverment will have to start knocking down doors, in some 
    neigborhoods, and bribe parents in others (probably the ones that 
    are paying kids for attending the school - what a fantastic idea!)

>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178845
From: ihorton@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Dr Zippy)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?

In article <930316.144130.lynn@pcgeo23> lynn@granitt.uio.no (Malcolm Lynn) writes:
>
>this is a tesrt
>s

Of your spelling, eh?

			Dr Zippy.
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Zippy, proof that "Dum blonde" isn't a women only title |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
                   ihorton@uk.ac.coventry.cck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178847
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <15APR199320293386@utkvx.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes...
>>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>>
>>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide.
>Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to 
>do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations
>cost $$$.

    Nationwide, the immunization rate among toddlers is about 50%, but
    it is reportedly as low as 10% in some inner-city neighborhoods.
    I bet more than 10% kids living in such neighborhoods are already 
    covered by Medicaid.

    Here in Massachussets, we have had a universal immunization program,
    the kind of Clinton seems to be proposing, for many years (two decades?).
    Mass' immunization rate is 65%.  What about the other 35%?  I guess
    some parents are indeed too ignorant or too lazy , or simply do not 
    care.  

>
>Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.

    ???
>
>> 
>>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>> 
>> 
>>-- 
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178848
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15149@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <113328@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>When are you going to admit that the data you presented show
>>just this---that only about 3% of child molesters are gay, and thus are
>>NOT overrepresented with respect to the general incidence of homosexuality?

>When someone can show something besides a Redbook article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this irrelevant?

Either the data shows something, or it doesn't. Regardless of what other
studies show.

Admit it. What you SHOWED to us doesn't prove that gay men are more likely
to be molesters.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178849
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

In article <1993Apr16.131508.9518@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
>>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems
>to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.

Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would
be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.

>
>>Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer; 
>>
>>I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there. 
>>
>>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 
>
>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few
>airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the
>answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane
>from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls
>again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend
>the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.

If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the 
program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.

>
>>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. 
>>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. 
>
>It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe
>SSN-21, I know litttle about.
>
Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf.
The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there
is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing
the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail
getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.

Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get
Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.

In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station
and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being 
required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.

The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
a pork happy Congress.


-- Marc Mueller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178851
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie


SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It 
was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax
was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of 
quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final 
stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the
large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers."
In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the
tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer
paying the full load.

These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.
-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178852
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very

>      own CNN news LOGO!
>
>      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
>
>      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this 
>      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching 
>      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by 
>      now.
>      
>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
>

Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue
persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.

However....

Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
have in Europe)
and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, and
force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax
rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could
be increased only via a national referendum.

Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile...
shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get
health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate
all in one fell swoop.

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178853
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>,
 demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes...
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.

>	Thoughts?

>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.

>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

>	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

First, people should be aware that Brett's (no last name listed) 
posts on bit.listserv.politics indicate that he has been  
hostile toward GM's hiring policies and to the Moseley verdict 
when it came out.  Equal opportunity disagreement, I guess.  :-)

My guess, without seeing the judge's opinion, is that GM's motion 
was denied on due diligence grounds.  Otherwise, a party to a 
case could always keep one or two semi-credible witnesses in 
reserve to spring if they lose.  Not exactly a way to promote 
repose.

						Daniel Reitman

"The Uniform Commercial Code protects the innocent purchaser, but it is not a 
shield for the sly conniver, the blindly naive, or the hopelessly gullible."
Atlas Auto Rental Corp. v. Weisberg, 54 Misc. 2d 168, 172, 281 N.Y.S.2d 400, 
405 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1967).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178854
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:


>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.

Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?

What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.

(a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178855
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr16.141409.25036@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale
 Cook) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) w
ri
>>tes:
>>
>>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>>
>>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid

>>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as

>>me how, I just have seen the results.
>>
>>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in
>>the head.
>
>I'm sorry about your friend.  Really.  But this anecdote does nothing to
>justify the "war on drugs".  If anything, it demonstrates that the "war"
>is a miserable failure.  What it demonstrates is that people will take
>drugs if they want to, legal or not.  Perhaps if your friend were taking
>legal, regulated drugs under a doctors supervision he might not be in the
>position he's in now.
>

I do agree with you, in a way.  The war on drugs has failed, but in my opinion,
that doesn't mean we have to give up.  Only change the tactics.

For instance, here are how some penalties should be changed.

Dealing Coke -- Death
Dealing Heroin -- Death
Dealing Pot -- Death
Dealing Crack -- Death

The list goes on and on!!!......

JUST KIDDING!!!

However, on a more serious note, I do believe that we should take some money 
away from the foriegn operations in South America and costly border 
interdiction efforts.  (Don't think I'm going to say, "spend it to educate 
people", because I know plenty of educated dopers).  Actually, spend it on  
things like drug treatment programs.

I saw an interesting story on 60 minutes about how the British actually 
prescribe and addict his "recommended" dosage, and try to ween him off from it,
or cut the amount down to levels where it is "acceptable".  Sounds good so far 
from what I heard with a decrease in cost, lower addiction rates by wiping out 
the dealer's markets, etc. (But that was the only thing I have heard about it.)

However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to be 
bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never heard of a 
recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal meth and LSD.
The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine" cigarettes, pot and heroin.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178856
From: jmkerrig@vela.acs.oakland.edu (KERRIGAN JOHN M)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans

In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
:>Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
:>
:>10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of
:>    America's health care resources.
:>
:>9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft.
:>
:>8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic
:>    constituencies.
:>
:>7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court.
:>
:>6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military.
:>
:>5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos
:>    over to socialzed health care.
:>
:>4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation.
:>
:>3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the
:>    Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate,
:>    the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs.
:>
:>2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism.
:>

  ***SNIP***

And the number one way Slick Willie could improve his standing with
Americans...

(Drum roll Anton)

1.  Get himself an appointment with Dr. Kervorkian - and keep it!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**        John Kerrigan        a.k.a.  jmkerrig@vela.acs.oakland.edu        **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178857
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <1993Apr20.124358.22881@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:

|In article <15430@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

||> Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
||> pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
||> hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
||> my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
||> to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

|Your post is based on the premise that the laws as they stand do not
|discriminate anybody, so your argument falls over immediately.  Are you

Why not try to eliminate discrimination from existing laws instead of
trying to add discrimination that favors your group.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178859
From: za2cs220@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Andrew D. Simchik)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:

>> I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir,

>What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a
>person, not a euphemism.

Oh, do please try not to be ludicrous.  SO=Significant Other, a term I employed to avoid the awkward construction "girlfriend or wife".

>> because if she heard

>Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

A "deviant" is someone who does not fit an "accepted norm."  By that definition, I would certainly be a deviant, as bisexuality is not an accepted norm in American society so far.  This term, of course, really has no negative aspects inherent in its denotation.  I presume you intended it as a term of abuse.  It's a great pity you feel such tactics to be necessary, but hardly surprising since you have no factual basis for your absurd beliefs.

>> how disparaging you are towards political minorities,

>Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

May I attempt to emulate your style of discourse with a term of abuse?  Ahem...You addle-pated jellyfish!  The post to which I responded was a highly amusing one in which you belittled homosexuals for having no political clout.  I would be further amused if you would explain to me why having no political clout and constituting a political minority are different.

>> and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.

>I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were

And yet you call them "girls!"  The feminists would be up in arms.

>I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the
>door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as
>"homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would
>further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on
>the way out.  Who needs such an airhead?

Cough, cough.  Well, well, you certainly are a fine, upstanding fellow, you are, sir.  And like many "fine, upstanding fellows," you have the reading comprehension of a dyslexic anteater.  Perhaps I should have been more explicit in pointing out that females constitute a political minority in this country when last I checked, and that your obvious lack of respect for these minorities equates to a lack of respect for women.  That is, of course, a conceptual stretch of logic, but given your slow uptake as de




monstrated so far, I figure we should start simple and work up.  Don't worry, you'll get it
     
!
>>> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
>>> where they belong.

>> Don't count on it, sweetheart.

>Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
>inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout
>history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as

This is very true, this bit about nature asserting itself.  Homosexuality has always been a part of human society, and always will be, for that is the natural order.  If you're naive enough to believe otherwise, go right ahead; we'll try not to snicker too loudly behind your back.

"Inevitable."  Chortle.  Anyone would think you had some idea what you were talking about.  I haven't seen fact one from you, and until I do you can just dispense with the bullshit, and tell us what we already know, that you're a clueless little slime mold with no concept of reality beyond The Donna Reed Show.  Live a little, and then come back and tell us all about the "natural order of things."  You're in a bubble, and it's really going to rock your world when you come out.

>to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
>nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.


"Foolish and misguided."  Oh, this is too much.  So which religious figure do YOU believe you are?  And how do you know so much about the nature of man?  You're almost too amusing to be worth the effort of crushing your pealike brain.      
>Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_
>_CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend
>otherwise.

Gee, you sound awfully sure of yourself.  "Methinks the bigot doth protest too much."  Admit it: you're scared shitless that what you've been spoonfed all your sorry little life was wrong, and you're trying to escape that fear by a blind faith that you know, deep down, is based in nothing, nothing at all.  Go ahead, clutch your unfounded declaratives to your empty breast; ignore the myriad of societies that have accepted homosexuality as equally valid or even mystical.  Ignore the solid, inescapable fact t




hat we've existed as long as humans have.  Fear us.  Go ahead.  Laugh at us if it makes you feel better.  We both know you're just whistling in the dark.  There's one group that's stamped out whenever it appears, in any form, and that's the group of boneheads who fancy themselves morally superior.  You're in that group, and you're slowly and steadily being stamped out.  Preach while you can, little man...it won't be long.

>Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".

That's the first truth you've told so far.  I don't hate hets, sir.  I'm bisexual, and I embrace man- and womankind alike.  I have nothing against those who don't understand my love.  But you deny its potency and validity.  You would crush us all, human beings to a one, in your imagined divinity.  It's fools like you that stir my ire...idiots with the small minds, who can't think for themselves, who know nothing about how the real world operates, and who hate because they are told what to do and do it like




 sheep, who hate everyone who refuses to be a sheep.  You're not part of the norm.  You're part of a minority--YES, a minority!--with supreme, o'erweening arrogance.  Your hubris will topple, because it always has, because those with intelligence know it to be a clown's costume.

Wow, that was pretentious!  I sometimes wonder why I waste my talents on zeroes like you.  I really have no interest in continuing this effortless discussion; after all, this is for me the proverbial battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  Come back with some swords--i.e. facts--and we shall do battle.  Till then, begone from my sight.

Drewcifer

P.S.  You were very entertaining, however.  Have you considered taking this on the road?  I hear escapism is back in.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178860
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
> 	One of you said "Nixon didn't use the office of the presidency
>   for personal gain."
> 
> This is a lie. The Senate committee issued an indictment that listed
> Nixon's crimes. The relevant ones were: 
> 1) Violating his oath of office.
> 2) ABUSING HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

"Personal gain": for his own monetary advantage.  I don't think
anyone would dispute that he both violated his oath of office, and
abused his powers.  But that's not for personal gain.

> "Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178861
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes:
> In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical
# #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS.
# #-- 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

# You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about 
# tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything

What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything
different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality
spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other
methods of spreading it as well.

# about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now,
# you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced.
# 
# Joe Cipale

Typical homosexual response.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178862
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr19.134809.24975@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
# # 	Actually, I was rather surprised to see an article on this subject
# # (i.e. the "new, inproved" survey saying that roughly 1% of men are gay)
# # on the front page of The New York _Times_ recently (I think it was
# # on Thurs, 15 April).  The headline was something to the effect of 
# # "New Survey Finds 1% of Men Are Gay"
# 
# Does anyone else see the difference between "1% of Men Are Gay" and 1%
# of Men surveyed *say* they are gay?  Does the NY Times think that
# there is no one "in the closet"?

I see.  When survey after survey show 1-4%, we are supposed to believe
ONE survey, done with very poor assumptions, with a very atypical
population, 40 years ago when the society was FAR more repressed about
homosexuality than it is now.  Yeah, right.

# Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178863
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

Has anybody heard an explanation of why the FBI was using tear gas
in a 35 mph wind?

Doesn't seem like vry good tactics to me ...

Any other explanations?

Lew
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178866
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <1r2seh$qv9@network.ucsd.edu> jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (ch'rowl-Captain) writes:



>I find it very interesting that you say there will be 2.5 million
>queers in the march on Washington.  The largest figure I've seen in
>the press is 1 million and we all know how liberal the press is with
>their numbers. :)

>For another thing, 1% of 250 million is 2.5 million not 6.  Maybe
>that's where you got the 2.5 million number.  Also, the number cited
>in the actual report is 1.5% so that would be about 3.75 million.

>As for this march on Washington, I wonder how much the media is
>going to inflate the numbers this time.  Last time, for the
>pro-abortion rally, they more than doubled the actual number of
>people who showed up.  That and all the stories coming out of how
>the press "slants" the news really makes one wonder who's watching
>the watchers.

Why are you all playing these pathetic number games?  The number of people
showing up at the MOW hardly constitutes the entire queer populace.  I doubt
that it constitutes more than a handful of us.  I'm queer, and I won't be
there, simply because I don't have the time or the transportation.  What the
hell makes you think the participants in the MOW embody more than a minimum
number?

Face it, people, we're everywhere.  There are always more of us than you
think.  Our numbers are constantly GROWING, not diminishing...some of your
children will grow up to join us.  Hell, some of MY children may grow up to
join us.  The best way to deal with this phenomenon is not to fear it and
blind yourself to it, but to realize that you have nothing to fear.  We're
not perverts, we're not dangerous, we're just here, and we're human just
like you--er, most of you.

Idiots like Cramer and Kaldis can rant all they like.  It won't do them one
iota of good.

Drewcifer

P.S.  I still can't get over the fact that some people actually believe that
every queer in the U.S. would show up at the MOW, and that these numbers are
meaningful.  And, come to think of it, what about those of us in OTHER
countries?  Tree.

-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178867
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

<more tripe deleted>

Phill, are you trying to convince everyone on the net that
you are in fact an abject moron for some reason? Repeating
the same rubbish over and over again may make something a 
"fact" in whatever backwater you are posting from, but it doesn't
wash here, so save it.


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
If guns are outlawed, only government outlaws will have guns.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178868
From: 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Subject: rodney king (was marine gay bashing)

In article <C5qo0o.888@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
> 
>
> 
> |sorry, i didn't see him "charge" the cops.  i saw him trying to get away
> |from people who were beating him.  i guess we each see what we want to
> |see.
> |candace miller
> 
> If this is what you saw, then you did not see the start of the video.
> When the vidoe starts, King is lying on the ground, surrounded by cops.
> Noone is beating him. King then gets up and charges one of the officers.
> (Powell?) While falling back the officer pulls out his nightstick and strikes
> King with it. The blow appears to land near the shoulders of the head.
> -- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178869
From: kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)

Dave O'Shea (dos@major.panix.com) wrote:
: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

: > > However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
: > > be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never
: > > heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal
: > > meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine"
: > > cigarettes, pot and heroin.
: > 
: > Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea
: > that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply
: > decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why
: > the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes"
: > is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...

: I'm all in favor of drug legalization, but I do see some problems with
: it. My hope is that people disposed to doing so would simply overdose
: quickly, and be done with it, before making a mess of thisgs.

It's actually quite simple. We sell Drug Use Licenses to anybody over age
18 who wants one.  Costs $100 and you're required to attend a week of
night classes on the effects of drugs on the human body. At the end of the
class, you sign an informed consent waiver acknowledging that you've been
told that drugs are bad for you, but you want them anyway. In doing so,
you giver up ANY right to state-paid medical care for whatever might
happen to you as a result of doing drugs, or any right to collect welfare
or unemployment should you lose your job as a result of using drugs. You'd
also give up your right to drive a car.  

Anybody caught using drugs without a license has a choice; pay a $1000
fine and accept a backdated drug user's license, or go to prison. 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the
kmitchel@netcom.com| Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
Citrus Heights, CA | reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178870
From: jmorriso@rflab.ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <19APR199319282297@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>> 
>More likely than most places.  When I was there the most "important" 
>state issue was whether to have a state income tax or instead legalize
>a popular vice for fund raising,  and vice won a decisive victory!
>
>>jsh
>
>Mr. Grinch
>
>p.s.  Now that he's safely dead,  I expect David Koresh to become the
>hero of popular folk ballads,  and the ATF to be generally equated with
>Santa Anna  


dead? I saw David Koresh at a local 7-11......

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     | 
 University of British Columbia, Canada | Hey hey!! Ho ho!!
 Electrical Engineering                 | Tax & spend liberals
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM | have got to go!! 
________________________________________|____________________________________

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178871
From: mlf3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Matt Fante)
Subject: [COMMENT] Clinton/Reno/BATF and Waco

\input amstex
\documentstyle{amsppt}
\pagewidth{6.5in}
\magnification=1200
\pageheight{7.5in}
\
\title {Letter to the Editor} \endtitle
\author {Matthew L. Fante} \endauthor
\date {April 20, 1993} \enddate
\endtopmatter

In a letter to the FBI, David Koresh said: ``Do you want me to
pull back the heavens and show you my anger?! ... fear me.''  The 51 day
standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidians ended on April 19
in what appeared to be a mass suicide by fire.  Now that the multi-million
dollar standoff is over, a few things remain: cleaning up the mess, and
assigning blame.

\

From the onset of the April 19 tear gas attacks by federal agents, President
Clinton already started passing the buck by saying ``Talk to the attorney
general or the FBI... I knew it was going to be done, but the decision was
{\it entirely theirs}.  {\it They} made the tactical decision.'' Enter
Attorney General Janet Reno.  After most of the Branch Davidians died,
Reno said she took ``full responsibility'' for the decision.  ``I approved
the plan'' she said adding that she ``did not advise him [Clinton] as to the
details.''  In fact, she told Clinton that it was ``the best way to go.''
As the fire was roaring through the Branch Davidian's compound Clinton said
that he was ``deeply sadened by the loss of life'' and in the same breath that
``the law enforcement agencies involved in the Waco siege recommended the
course of action pursued today.''  Later he went on to say ``I stand by that
[Reno's] decision.''

\

How did this all begin?  At 0930 on February 28 agents of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) launched a full-scale, high-profile
assault on the Branch Davidian's compound.  This raid was much
more than an assault on a group suspected of possessing illegal weapons.  The
assault was a planned media circus used as a propaganda device of the BATF
to show their might and just purpose.

\

At the onset of the ``no-knock'' raid, gaggles of heavily armed BATF agents
made their way inside the compound without identifying themselves or state
that they had a warrant until long after the shooting began.
Silently, the agents made their way to the compound's buildings and started
their ``search'' by charging at the buildings and throwing concussion grenades
and ordering the cult members to come out of the buildings.

\

If unknown persons dressed in black ninja costumes and combat fatigues
were to attack you, throwing grenades and brandishing firearms, would you not
assume that these people are criminals and attempt to defend yourself?  The
tactics employed by the BATF provoked the battle.

\

The initial assualt by the BATF was not successful.  Unfortunately, lives
were lost on both sides.  But, had the assault been a success, the liberal
media would have praised the BATF by showing the footage of BATF agents
carting away a bunch of gun-wielding religious nuts.  Of course, any
violation of the cult's rights would have been overlooked and the media
would proclaim America's fortune in having super-cop organizations like the
BATF that can systematically ``take out'' terroristic groups such as the
Branch Davidians.

\

As far as I can see, the BATF and the FBI dropped the ball - just like
Philadelphia did in the 1985 MOVE crisis which left 11 dead, 250 homeless,
and a city block razed.
It appears that the BATF has adopted the shoot-first tactic of no-knock
raids to execute search warrants.  Don't let the BATF convince you that
the no-knock raid was justified.  No-knock assaults make sense when looking
for, say, drugs that can easily be hidden or disposed of in a few seconds.
The BATF was looking for illegal weapons, not drugs that could be hidden or
flushed down the toilet in a matter of a few seconds.  What ever happened to
``This is the police!  You are surrounded...''?  {\it This policy of no-knock
raids, by federal and local agencies, should be restricted}.  Further, the use
of military firepower against presumed innocent citizens is a very scary idea,
and is why the Davidians were justified in using lethal force to ensure that
their fourth ammendment rights [``the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures''] are not denied.

\

\

\

\noindent Matthew L. Fante \newline
\end











-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Matthew Fante
mlf3@Lehigh.EDU             For a good prime call 2^756839 - 1

410 Webster Street          a public key is available
Bethlehem PA 18015          upon request

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178872
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: Can't have it both ways- News as enemy, News as supporter.

In article <15467@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>From article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU:

 Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around
 and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory
 doesn't it.
>
>I believe that this is not contradictory on the basis that
>the quality of media reporting varies greatly based on the
>subject at hand.  The media has proven itself very accurate
>is the areas of presenting raw, undisputed data.  One good
>example would be the weather page in which high and low
>temperatures of the previous day for a large number of
>locations are posting.  There is little evidence to show
>that they are in error.

I believe this true when we speak of physical data, in the
sense of pure science.  But when we speak of data that revolve
around social sciences then we have to be careful.

>
>The American media has failed us in its analysis of complex
>events, however.  I'm sure that we can come up with many
>news stories that have left us angry because so many facts
>have been ommitted.  Cases that come to mind are the
>invasion of Panama, the war with Iraq, the disaster in Waco,
>the issues surrounding the acceptance of gays into the
>military, the war on drugs, and many others.
>

I quite agree.  But these are cases or 'news events' that contain
politics, social science information, sociology, etc.  and at
best are reflections of the group that reports them.

As you have pointed out, it is difficult to report that the
temperature was 98 degrees when it was 60 degrees and have
people believe you.

>The story that you bring to light was regarding the new
>sex survey.  While I'm sure that due to lazyness some of
>the data was ommitted from the article, I would venture to
>guess that the data that was presented did not deviate
>from the survey.  I do, however, think that it would be
>folly to have blind faith in a single newswriter's
>analysis of this data.  In this particular case, there was
>little analysis, and the reader was left to draw his/her
>own convictions.

Yes and no.  The survey presented, according to Mr. Cramer,
a value called the median- which one used this makes us 
believe that 1/2 of the males had 7.3 plus sex partners and
1/2 of the males had 7.3 or less sex partners.  Homosexuals
are purported to make up only 1%.  In this case, the majority
of people with 7.3 plus sex partners are heterosexual.

It is my feeling that median was not the intended word usage.
But if it is then we have little evidence to support Mr. Cramer
claims about gay promiscuity > hetero promiscuity.

>
>Many netters, Mr. Cramer included, often forget that the
>American media are merely a number of businesses, who's
>purpose in life is to make money for their owners and
>stockholders.  Revenues come largely from advertisers
>who merely want maximum useful exposure per dollar.  The
>media is like fast food; the quality of the food (or of
>the reporting) will improve only if the customers demand
>as such.  Otherwise, it is business as usual.
>-- 
 Very good- this is a point that I have tried to bring out,
and as any network news program will show you, it is true.

The News Media is a business and as such becomes skewed because
of where its loyalties lie.

There is an old statement by a man ( and I cannot remember him
or his statment exactly) but it warns against the merger of
business and news reporting, because of the obvious consequences.
What master is news going to serve in the end... The advertiser
and the bias of the news group.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178873
From: kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu
Subject: Drugs And Crime: A New Approach (was Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized)

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
 
> In article <1993Apr19.090836.6878@msuvx1.memst.edu>, 
> kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu said:
> 
>> I'm for creating a class of "noncommercial" drugs which would include
>> the currently illegal ones, which would be legal to possess, grow,
>> produce, but not to sell.  Bomb the pushers back to the barter age!
>> (And tax production, too.)
> 
> Um, why?  What's wrong with the act of selling recreational drugs, even
> for mercenary reasons (e.g., getting rich)?  (Note: by "selling," I mean
> "selling the product to a consenting adult at a mutually agreeable
> price"... I point this out in an effort to pre-emptively prevent this
> thread from getting sidetracked onto a flamefest about "pushing drugs to
> schoolchildren" or the like.)
> 
> And why should the users be subjected to special taxation?
> 
> -- William December Starr

[Note: This is a repost of my earlier response to Mr. Starr,
which was not properly formatted.  Apologies to those who've
seen the following before:]

To explain my position on the "War On Drugs," I offer this:

Drugs And Crime: A New Approach

by Ken Barnes


Given that:

1. The trade in illegal drugs is responsible for 
much of the crime which afflicts our nation.

2. People who want drugs (particularly people who 
are predisposed to addiction) will find a way to get 
them, whether or not they are legally available.

3. Despite current law enforcement efforts, drugs 
are readily available to those who want them.

4. Addiction to drugs, both legal and illegal, is 
responsible for a significant drain on the productive 
resources of our country, and this occurs in a variety 
of ways, from the cocaine-addicted babies who are 
unable to learn, to the spread of disease among 
addicts, to the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse 
and tobacco smoking.

5. A general economic principle of government is 
that whatever is subsidized you get more of, and 
whatever is taxed you get less of.  To be most 
effective in confronting the nation's drug problem, 
some way must be found to utilize these additional 
powers of government to make drug dealing and drug use 
less attractive.

While this country's current efforts to combat 
legal drugs have succeeded in some respects, (there is 
a greater awareness of the health consequences of 
smoking, and designated-driver programs have helped 
reduce drunk driving, for example), the same cannot be 
said for the "war" on illegal drugs.  There remains a 
core group of illegal drug users which support 
international networks of smugglers, pushers, growers, 
processors, kingpins, and gangsters.  These networks 
and their "marketing activities," which include drive-
by shootings, corrupting law enforcement authorities, 
and smuggling weapons, are directly or indirectly 
responsible for a large proportion of the crimes 
committed in our country every day.

Clearly, illegal drugs and rising crime are 
linked.  It takes only a moment's reflection to 
recognize how they are linked.  The link is money.  As 
with this country's failed effort to prohibit alcohol 
consumption, a black market has been created, in which 
greedy local monopolies, like the gangsters of a 
bygone era, have profited enormously from their 
illegal trade.  The victims of this trade include not 
only the innocent people unfortunate enough to be 
caught in the crossfire, but, I would argue, the drug 
users themselves.

Were it not for the black market, and the violent 
monopoly of the drug lords, drug users might not be 
the thieves, robbers, prostitutes and murderers they 
have become in order to pay the high prices the drug 
lords demand.  In the absence of the drug lords, most  
would be, I believe, simply people with a problem, 
either a moral problem_or_a medical problem, but_not_a 
criminal problem.

Let me be clear however, I am_not_advocating that 
we let the criminals who have been preying on our 
society for these many years of Prohibition off the 
hook.  On the contrary, the new approach I advocate is 
one which would not result in either the government or 
private industry getting into the business of 
promoting crack cocaine, or any other presently 
illegal drug for that matter.  Neither is it an 
approach which sees law abiding citizens handing over 
more and more of their freedom and privacy in an 
effort to track down illegal drug users, until "the 
land of the free and the home of the brave" looks like 
a police state.

Here then is my proposal:

1. Possession and use of all presently illegal 
drugs is decriminalized, but buying and selling them 
remains illegal.  'Potheads' can grow their own 
marijuana (as many already do today), other drug users 
can legally import their poison of choice as long as 
they pay the tariffs, and a barter economy of drug 
experimenters develops.

2. Because of the barter economy which supplies 
the drug users, the black market profits that have so 
enriched the drug lords dwindle.  If these drugs can 
be obtained for 'free' or next to nothing, why buy 
them?  Nevertheless, there will be those who will seek 
to sell these "noncommercial" drugs even at relatively 
low prices.  Therefore,

3. Law enforcement activity is concentrated on 
those individuals who continue to buy and sell, and 
also on the crimes committed by drug users too poor to 
afford even low prices.  But here is where the 
strategy begins to differentiate between the drug 
dealers, the victimizers, and the drug users, their 
victims.

4. Upon arrest for_any_crime,_suspects are 
permitted to choose whether or not they will undergo a 
drug test.  Those who choose to cooperate are informed 
that upon conviction for the crime they are accused 
of, if they are found to be a drug user, they will be 
institutionalized until they are clean, and only then 
will they begin to serve their sentence.  If they 
choose to cooperate and are already drug-free, they 
can begin to serve their sentence right away.  Those 
who choose not to undergo the drug test and are 
convicted face stiffer fines and serve longer 
sentences.

5. Institutionalization of drug using criminals 
serves several purposes:

Drug using criminals (and this includes drunk 
and/or 'stoned' drivers) are separated from their 
sources of supply, thus reducing the total number of 
drug users in society at large, and consequently 
decreasing the demand for drugs on the street, putting 
more of the remaining drug dealers out of business.

Institutionalization provides an incentive for 
drug using criminals to straighten themselves out, 
before becoming part of the general prison population.

While helping protect society from crime, 
institutionalization could also serve to deter drug 
users from becoming criminals, since drug using 
criminals, unlike other criminals, would be delayed 
prior to serving their sentences by the additional 
time it takes for them to sober up.

Institutionalization of drug using criminals 
separate from the general prison population would also 
provide a closely monitored pool of addicts who could 
volunteer for research studies of new techniques and 
treatments for addictive disease, with the potential 
to benefit both themselves and others.

6. Dealers in illegal drugs are generally not 
drug users themselves, and this is particularly true 
of the drug bosses or kingpins running large illicit 
organizations.  Under this proposal, dealers would be 
more readily identifiable, since upon arrest they 
would presumably pass the drug test, or else decline 
to take it in order to avoid having to explain why 
they are in possession of drugs when it is apparent 
they do not use them.  Declining to take the test, 
they would of course face stiffer penalties.  While 
each case of attempted sale of a noncommercial drug 
would have to stand on own its merits, the outcome of 
a suspect's drug test could provide additional 
evidence for the prosecution.

7. Just as cigarette taxes have contributed to 
the decline of smoking in our country by making 
cigarettes more costly while at the same time 
providing revenue for anti-smoking campaigns, 
noncommercial drugs should be taxed, and the money 
generated should be used to combat their use.  
Enforcement of this tax should be on a voluntary basis 
however, and should not be used as an excuse to 
infringe on the rights and privacy of noncommercial 
drug users, since to do so would have the effect of 
reintroducing Prohibition.

Instead, drug users will be encouraged to pay the 
tax by reminding them that if untaxed drugs are ever 
found in their possession during the course of routine 
police operations, they will be required to pay the 
tax immediately or else forfeit their untaxed drugs to 
be destroyed.  If drug dealers are found to be selling 
noncommercial drugs on which taxes have not been paid, 
they will face additional prosecution for evading the 
tax.  The strategy of adding tax evasion to drug 
dealing charges is already in use in some 
jurisdictions, but its effectiveness is currently 
limited by the illegality of drug possession.

Revenue from drug possession taxes and import 
tariffs would be used to fund anti-drug advertising 
campaigns, and provide support to private sector drug 
treatment programs for those unable to afford 
treatment.

8. Taxpayer subsidies to all drug producers must 
be ended.  Federal support of tobacco farming is both 
immoral and wasteful in this era of tight budgets, and 
the marijuana crops grown illicitly on federal lands 
in many states must likewise be eliminated.

While my proposal would have the effect of 
permitting the use of what are now illegal drugs, it 
would hold the users of all drugs responsible for 
their actions, and I believe, would reduce the harm 
drugs have on our society, particularly the crime 
caused by the illegal drug trade.  So long as we 
remain a free nation, with relatively porous borders, 
and freedom for our citizens to travel, we will always 
have a drug problem.  Whether it takes the form of 
heroin addicts dying in abandoned buildings, drunk 
drivers killing and maiming others on our streets, or 
emphysema patients struggling for breath after a 
lifetime of smoking, the results are the same: 
needless suffering and death.  As a society we must 
recognize that while our society permits us to harm 
ourselves with drugs, as we are already doing 
(regardless of the drug laws), we must take a stand 
against the harm that drugs and drug users cause to 
others.  We must particularly oppose the vicious and 
violent cartels which prey on the weakness of drug 
users.  By taking the profits out of their deadly 
trade, my proposal goes a long way towards shutting 
down these powerful criminal organizations.

The question of whether drug use is a moral or 
medical problem depends on which group of drug users 
you're talking about.  Different drugs have different 
effects, and some are more addictive than others.  The 
addictiveness of a drug also often varies between 
individuals, and so we have some people who can drink 
alcohol in moderation, while others find they cannot 
resist the bottle.  Nicotine, which former Surgeon 
General C. Everett Koop declared to be as addicting as 
heroin, is a legal drug with known harmful effects, 
and while some people can stop smoking by willpower 
alone, others continue to smoke even after treatment 
for lung cancer.

For those individuals who can stop taking drugs 
on their own, we may argue that because they have 
chosen to use them, this represents a moral failure on 
their part, or an unwillingness to face the 
difficulties of life.  But for the addicts, while they 
may have chosen to use drugs the first time, by the 
time they discover their addiction it is too late.  We 
cannot hold them responsible for their disease, any 
more than we would blame someone who is drowning for 
an inability to swim.  Perhaps they should have known 
not to go near the water, or perhaps someone should 
have warned them of the danger, but in their present 
circumstances warnings will not help.  Neither does it 
help for the drug dealers on the shore to be tossing 
them weights. 


--Standard disclaimer-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320.711@compuserve.com**********************
"I find television very educating.  Every time somebody turns on the
    set, I go into the other room and read a book."--Groucho Marx

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178876
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

In article <1993Apr21.005756.1125@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>Also, in the April 14 Globe and Mail, there was a letter from the
>>director of trauma services at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto
>>responding to an article on a study comparing heart surgery in
>>California and Canada in which some Canadian doctor worried that

That study which was in the NEJM, I think, noted that the frequency
of heart surgery on patients over seventy increase with income in
California (I guess richer people have more heart disease in 
California -) ) whereas the frequency of surgery on patients over
seventy in Canada was relatively uniform across income distribution.
Heart surgery was more frequent in California, but mortality and
outcomes were essentially the same.

>>American analysts would seize on the results as proof that Canada
>>rationed vital services. The doctor (I can't recall his name) said
>>that Canada *is* rationing vital services "as any physician can
>>plainly see". He said that a system in which people are refused
>>treatment because they can't afford it is no different from a system
>>in which people are refused treatment because the government can't
>>afford it as a result of deliberate underfunding of the health
>>insurance plan. In fairness, he did say that both the US and 
>>Canadian systems are in the same situation.
>
>>(The NDP cleaning up a Tory spending mess? And just when I thought 
>>I understood Canadian politics).
>
>
>>There was one about a group of doctors in Calgary who have opened
>>Canada's first US-style MRI clinic, as an alternative to the
>>provincially owned one.
>
>It's about time!  I've ragged on my own doctor friends as to why they
>don't invest in their own private practices ... in the end, it's their
>money.  But they choose to spend it on America's Cup pipedreams, and
>that's none of my business.  As for "provincially owned" ... for sure
>it's against the law in Canada for governments to be directly involved
>in the provision of health care except in the military or native reser-
>vations.  What that term actually means is that the facility gets by
>on public grants to meet shortfall from *lack of use* ... no kidding.
>Medical practice itself is much more conservative up north.  My own
>best friend did two clerkships at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN,
>and is no stranger to high tech medicine ... but his boat comes first.
>
>>There were some people expressing concern that it was the first wedge of
>>two-tiered health care and that it might violate the Canada Health Act.
>
>No, it's probably socialist whiners who are offended that we have
>private practices ... and always have.  They can all take cash
>anyways ... so why not have a particular facility?  The Canadian
>big government mentality often imagines government where it does
>not even exist ...
>

The only potential problem I see with the private MRI facilty in Calgary is the
self-referral problem to the facility for the doctors who have a financial
interest in it, which is basically unethical...but in Canada because
of our small population, there is likely only to be a few private
facilities involving only a small number of doctors,
and thus I don't think the self-referral problem, which is an epidemic in the
US, could ever get out of hand here.

>Look, nobody stopped the clinic when they planned on the MRI ...
>nobody stopped them when they bought it.  Nobody seems to be stopping
>them from using it, either.  Much ado about nothing.  Thank goodness
>that hockey playoffs have started ...
>

It is an experiment that will be certainly be watched carefully.

>>While it seemed currently unjustified, there was one anecdote told by
>>the head of the partnership to demonstrate the MRI. He showed an
>>image of an injured knee, which happened to belong to the manager of
>>the bank who approved the loan. He said that without it, the guy
>>might have had to wait a month or more at the provincial MRI, then
>>another length of time for treatment, after which the muscles would
>>have atrophied and rehabilitation would have been that much harder 
>>If that isn't the first whiff of two tiers, I don't know what is.
>
>I'm certain there is exaggeration somewhere, because the GAO study
>of Canada cited often on USENET did not find access to MRI to be a
>problem.  I'll bet the doctor is relying on people having listened 
>to American trash talk on cable so that he can puff his chest a bit.
>There are already a few treatment regimens for knee injuries without
>relying on MRI ... unfortunately, I've had a few. )-;  And I'm not
>a banker. (-;
>

What likely happened is the sponsors of the private MRI which include
doctors anticipated that Alberta would need more MRI's, and instead
of waiting for the health planners to realize they needed another
one or two, saw a business opportunity...where they would have a
secure business from the public insurance side of things, and they
could supplement people and businesses who want to pay cash.

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178877
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt) writes:
> Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.COM) wrote:
> :    [...]     When you and the rest of the homosexual community
> : pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
> : hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
> : my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
> : to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

> Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for
> the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes
> (such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing
> to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?

   What *exactly* does the American Constitution say about "the right 
to association" ? 
   Homosexuals, whether Clayton likes it or not, are as much members
of society as he is. As such they have the right to participate and
have an equal opportunity to pursue their goals.
   No-one is saying that Clayton should be forced to associate with
queerfolk in his private life (one suspects the gays in question would
object also 8-) ), but by proclaiming the general right not to associate
with them in the *public* sphere (which includes housing, hiring, etc),
he's giving his right to non-association priority over their rights to
equal access to opportunity.
   Historically, people can associate publically with disliked groups
with very little ill-effect, however cutting a group off from normal
commerce has a severe impact on their lives.
   Clayton, why exactly should your "right" to non-association in the
public sphere take priority over homosexual's rights to equal opportunity ?

-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, 
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."--gene spafford,1992

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178878
From: jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (ch'rowl-Captain)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5t41s.8nz@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <15427@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>># #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>># #
>># #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>># #
>># #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>># #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>># #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>># #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>># #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>The politicians will have plenty to be scared of in one week be it 1% or
>90%.
>
>># 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>>#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>>#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>>
>>But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
>>other members of the leftist agenda.
>
>I'm sure there will be a few non queers, but the vast majority are
>queer.

I find it very interesting that you say there will be 2.5 million
queers in the march on Washington.  The largest figure I've seen in
the press is 1 million and we all know how liberal the press is with
their numbers. :)

For another thing, 1% of 250 million is 2.5 million not 6.  Maybe
that's where you got the 2.5 million number.  Also, the number cited
in the actual report is 1.5% so that would be about 3.75 million.

As for this march on Washington, I wonder how much the media is
going to inflate the numbers this time.  Last time, for the
pro-abortion rally, they more than doubled the actual number of
people who showed up.  That and all the stories coming out of how
the press "slants" the news really makes one wonder who's watching
the watchers.

BCNU.

+----------------------+------------------------------------------+
|  --> Jon Schell <--  |  Life is something to do when you can't  |
|      The Master      |   get to sleep.  -- Fran Lebowitz        |
|     tm@ucsd.edu      |  Anything that is good and useful is     |
|   jhschell@ucsd.edu  |   made of chocolate.  -- Fortune         |
|   jonschell@aol.com  |  "RE-boot to the head."  -- me           |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----+
| No one else would be crazy enough to claim these opinions. | 42 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+----+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178880
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr20.145735.27235@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
>In article <F3ZB3B1w165w@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz>, system@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:
>|> 
>|> Hmmm, what statistics are these? Can you offer any references. The only
>|> studies I've seen indicate a higher proportion of homosexuals in prison
>|> than in the general population, but I don't think that allows for the
>|> "default" you refer to. Prison is not a normal situation...
>|> 
>|> But I haven't seen anything that suggests that the "default" proportion is
>|> lower than in the general population (although it seems plausible).
>|> 
>|> Anyway, as I say, can you provide any references?
>|> 
>|> 
>
>Is this an arguement against or for?  Or simply a statement of agreeance/
>disagreeance.  The fact that there are more homosexuals in prison does not
>mean that homosexuals are immoral and more liable to commit crime.  And one
>must remember that prison is not necessarily a reflection of the type of
>people who are criminals.  What are the statistics for unsolved crime?

There is also the question of cause and effect.
Lock a mostly straight guy up for 10 years with only guys, ask
ten years later if he has ever had sex with a guy. Closing your
eyes and pretending its a girl sucking you still counts as sex
with a guy on the survey....
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178881
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15437@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
>> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be 
>> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners?
>> 
>> 	Just a thought.
>> 
>> 						-Matt
>
>You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
>straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.

Your starting to sound like a little child who wants ice cream. If you
kick and scream enough you think people will believe you. Sorry proof
by vigorous ascertion doesn't hold any water. I can insist that cats
are dogs all day, it doesn't make it so. 
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178882
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:
>>> where they belong.
>
>> Don't count on it, sweetheart.
>
>Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
>inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things. 

Wrong.

>Throughout
>history, nature has always asserted itself.

Quite true. And evolution made "decided" that homosexuality had a place,
otherwise it would have disappeared quite quickly. There are very few
animals which do not exhibit homosexual behavior.
It has been here before humans existed, and will be here after the
human race has gone.

>Don't be so arrogant as
>to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
>nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.

Quite true. 2000 years of religious idiocy have not changed the nature
of man. You tried to rid yourselves of us for 2000 years and failed.


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178883
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On 21 Apr 93 00:07:20 GMT, Theodore A. Kaldis observed:
: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:

: > because if she heard
: Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

Bigots aren't classified as deviants?  How sad.

: > how disparaging you are towards political minorities,
: Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

So, what's this I hear about a March on Washington...assuming
you are still considering homosexuality and bisexuality
as subsets of "sexual deviants?"

: > and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.
: I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  

I trust that many self-respecting *women* might take some sort
of offense to your use of the term "girls" in the above sentence.

--
Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

   "Always listen to experts.  They'll tell you what can't be done, and why.
               Then do it."   -- Lazarus Long (Robert Heinlein)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178884
Subject: Re: Can I get Your Meds?
From: medkeffjs@hirama.hiram.edu (Jeff Medkeff)

In article <C5pyAB.1wJ@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com 
  (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> In article 1@hirama.hiram.edu, I went and stepped in it:
>>In article <1q7sddINN5iq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, 
  wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>>> I never knew that soldiers were supposed to salute any civilians except
>>> for the Commander-in-Chief... 
>>
>>The CINC is not a civillian.
> 
> 
> Ding Ding, Planet Earth Calling....
> 
> I will Agree that CINCPac and CINCLant are NOT CIVILIANS,
> but the CINC is still the president, and unless things have
> changed a whole LOT with the Arrival of the BIllaryKlintonKlique,
> I don't recall as how the Current President Gots Himself
> Much more than CIVILIAN STATUS.....[1]

As far as a member of the Armed Forces is concerned, the
President is whatever the h*ll he wants to be. All of them
recently have rather insisted on being treated as something
other than a *mere* civilian.

> If it Moves, salute it,
> If it Don't, Pick it Up.
> If You can't pick it up, Paint it.

So if Hilary were asleep at the time......

> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> [1] Nothing personal Jeff, but I LIKE living in countries
> where the Head of State is a CIVILIAN, it sorta limits
> the habit of using the Military as the First Choice for
> solving domestic problems....

I like living in a country where the head of state is not
a military officer too. But this point about not using the
military as the first choice for solving domestic problems....

Didn't they go after these Branch Davidians with a *tank*,
after all?


-- 
Jeffrey S. Medkeff      Bitnet-    medkeffjs@hiramb
PO Box 1098             Internet-  medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Hiram, OH 44234         Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight. But
U.S.A.                  Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178885
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.
>
>
>       Or the contempt to ignore it.

Yup, that was quite contemptuous of the President to make a decision that
12% disagree with...

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178886
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <1993Apr16.174605.21907@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
# Recent studies have shown that the number of men who have
# engaged in homosexual activities in the last decade is 2.3%
# and the number of men who are exclusively homosexual is 1.1%.
# These figures are much less than those that came from earlier
# studies that showed that homosexuality among men is a lot
# higher.
# 
# So, what can we deduce from these figures?  Are there a lot
# less male homosexuals than there used to be or are men
# (perhaps women too) not as honest as they used to be about
# there sexuality?  Presumably, the people that were polled in

You mean, in the 1940s, men and women were much more open about
their homosexuality than today?  Want to try that one again?

# this survey were assured of their anonymnity so they should
# have answered the questions honestly I suppose.  However, it
# could be that gays feel so repressed and denigrated by society
# that they didn't feel that they could be forthcoming about there
# sexuality in something like a survey.  If this true then is it
# possible that there is a lot more gays out there than we are led
# to believe?
# 
# Perhaps if Americans were more open about there sexuality---I think
# most Americans aren't---then we might discover that there are really
# quite a few more people out there who are orientated toward the same
# sex---men and women included.  I'd venture a guess that there is a
# lot of people out there who have considered having a relationship
# with someone of the same sex at some point in there life.  Maybe they
# didn't take their longings seriously, but this doesn't make these
# longings any less valid.  Therefore, if Americans weren't so
# repressed about their sexuality in general---as I believe they may be
# ---then we'd see a lot more people "coming out of the closet".

You mean, ignore study after study, so that we can continue to 
accept a study (Kinsey's) that is obviously wrong?  

# As for myself, I'm a heterosexual and I've never considered having
# sex with another man.  That's just the way I am...I could have just
# as easily of been gay I suppose.  One of the big debates about
# homosexuality is whether or not it's a type of behavior that is
# learned or if one is just born that way.  IMHO, the more likely
# explanation is that it's some combination of the two.

Based on what, besides your own warm fuzzy feelings?

# Here's something to ponder upon:  have any of you gay-bashers out
# there ever considered that homosexuals probably deem their sexual
# orientation as being a state of affairs that is just as much an
# intrinsic and "natural" part of their life as heterosexuals do
# about their own sexuality?  In other words, someone who is *truly*

Alcoholics share that feeling, until they hit bottom.

# gay may not be able to live any other way.  Even if they date someone
# of the opposite sex or get married, in their *heart* they are still a
# homosexual.  Likewise, if someone who is *truly* heterosexual forms
# a relationship with someone of the same sex, then they are *still*
# a heterosexual even though outward appearances may suggest otherwise.
# 
# Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
recent works suggest.

If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their
morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children
alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But
until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of 
government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice
but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative
lifestyle," but a sickness.

# Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
#           the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
# After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
#           [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Good signature!

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178887
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.093826.5227@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
> In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>      rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
# #Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
# #because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
# #with social pressures, probably would at least try.
# 
#    Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months*
# ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show,
# up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must

Cite a survey, other than the obviously bogus Kinsey studies.

# be an even *larger* percentage of people who have had homosexual erotic
# fantasies.  But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we
# say about these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated
# gay potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or,
# more accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social
# sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.
# 
#    Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.

I can't speak for Kaldis; but "force of religion and social sanction"
played no part in my sexual preferences.  Neither had much influence on
me as a teenager.

# elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178888
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qpaujINNecq@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> In article <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
# #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
# #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago,
# 
# Right off the bat this information is flawed.  "Most throrough"?  I'm
# sorry, but Masters & Johnson put out a report within the past few
# years.  The Kinsey Institute has been quite active since it was
# founded oh-so-many years ago.  They, too, recently put out a new
# report on sexuality.

I was quoting a news story.  I have no idea why they claim this was
the most "through examination."

# #    shows about 2
# #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
# #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
# 
# I hate to be picky, but let's do the math.  If we take the cities of
# New York City and Los Angeles alone, we can find approximately 3.5
# million gay people...making about 1.75 million gay men.

WHAT?  Even in San Francisco, the Dept. of Public Health estimates
that only 11% of the male population is gay.  What you are claiming
is that of the 16 million people in the NYC and LA areas, that more
than 10% are gay.  What is the source of your numbers?  Keep in
mind that attempts by CDC to determine homosexual percentage in
American cities have given numbers <3%.

# 1% of the American male population is about 1.25 million.
# 
# So what this study says is that all gay males live in New York City or
# Los Angeles, and about half-a-million people are lying about being gay.
# 
# Something smells funny....

Yes, your 1.75 million number smells funny.

# Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178889
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be 
> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners?
> 
> 	Just a thought.
> 
> 						-Matt

You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178890
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....
> 
> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
> 
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

When you force people to associate with others against their will,
yes.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178891
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15409@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <MJCUGLEY.93Apr14110319@glenturret.maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk>, mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (Womble with Attitude) writes:
# ## Absolutely nothing, seeing as there is no table for heterosexuals.
# ## If, as you claim, the supposedly higher promescuity amongst homosexual
# ## males makes them an insurance risk, you need to be show that
# ## heterosexual males are less promiscuous than homosexual males.
# ## Without the data on heterosexual males, we cannot make a comparison
# ## between promiscuity rates of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
# ## 
# ## *             mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (world)		*
# ## *              or mjcugley@uk.ac.dund.maths-and-cs (UK)			*
# 
# Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
# if the oppertunity presented itself?
# 
# I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
# huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being

That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.

# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# Xavier


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178892
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <C5Jv9A.F1B@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15312@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr08.092954.13507@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
# ## Face it, Clayton, he was not found guilty, and so what if gays sometimes
# ## make it consensually with 16 year old boys. There ARE 16 year old gays, you
# ## know. And as I recall, the case of the state rested on the testimony of one
# ## "victim" who declined to testify, even under threat. I have had teens since
# ## I was 40, and so have a lot of people. Face it Clayton, you're just a jerk!
# ## -RSW
# ## -- 
# ## * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
# ## * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
# ## * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
# #
# #I am always amazed to see people admit to breaking the law -- and
# #putting their address in the signature.  Please tell us more about 
# #this.  Were they 13?  14?  Would you like to make a statement for
# #the district attorney?
# 
# I had sex with a 13 year old boy, it was great, we did *everything*,
# well, a hell of a lot.  It was fun anyway.  Oh, and before you turn 
# purple with rage I was 12 at the time.
# #-- 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

The Walz monster above, however, was past 40 when he molested these
kids, as he says above.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178893
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach....

In article <pdb059-160493111229@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
# Mr. Cramer, I am still waiting for your response to my requests regarding
# the information you claim to have.  I respectfully request that you either
# provide the information or withdraw the various assertions you make below.
# 
# Item number 1:  in a previous posting, you stated that you had found
# "overwhelming support for child molestation" in soc.motss:
# 
# You have (finally) responded to this one.  I have read your complete file
# of postings to soc.motss and to put it bluntly, it does not support your
# assertion.  In short, this claim is bogus.  Thank you for confirming this.

All those postings in defense of adults having sex with children, and
you just choose to claim that they don't say anything of the sort.
There's no point in discussing this any further, then.  You are clearly
a liar, without morals of any sort, prepared to justify child molestation.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178894
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr19.182341.7516@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>: >
>: 
>: So?  What does this prove?  I do not object to *property ownership*  I
>: just think property ownership should be limited to what an individual
>: person/family *needs*.  I do not *need* 200,000 acres to survive,  I
>: need about 3 acres at most and could get by on less.  I argue that
>: by having *all* property tied up and thus cutting people off form
>: the basic level of subsistance that the property owners must bribe
>: the rest of us to respect their ownership rights by providing
>: alternative means of subsistance.  When we are expected to give
>: these peoperty owners (lets call them thieves) bribes in order to
>: be able to subsists then we have a sick situation.   The property owners
>: are then parasites.  
>
>I want people to be able to live happy and prosperous lives.  Property
>owners cannot maintain a monopoly in the free enterprise system unless
>they have help from a coercive government.  When a few land owners get
>together and try to control all the land without selling, land prices
>will go up.  At some point it will be to the advantage of the land owner
>to sell some of his property.  Trying to put a group of people to
>distribute land "fairly" would give them "monopoly control" over the
>land, and would have the consequences you speak of.  Let's keep the land
>out of the grasp of a monopoly and let it exist in the free market.
-------------------------------------------
It's already in the hands of a monopoly of the rich because of capitalism
of land. Other than government land, saved for posterity and the eco-system
as well as government function, the remaining land is owned by a smaller
percentage of the people than ever before. The game of capitalism is almost
won. The game has only to be declared over and we will have to take matters
into our own hands and redistribute it again fairly, or else be enslaved in
return for a place to live. Here in central California, already, fewer than
30% own all the property and 5% of them own 90% of it. That's twice what it
was twenty years ago. Rents are so high that you pay 60% of your income for
rent. If you just have a McJob, all you can afford is one room, if that.
Some 30% of minimum wage workers are homeless. Unless you both have degrees
in technical fields and are working in them, (in the midst of 30%
unemployment in high tech jobs!), you will never own anything but a used
car if you choose to have more than one child!!! And everywhere else you
could afford there are no jobs. The only way to get there is to save and
not consume any more than you have to, clothing used, food poor. No movies,
no entertainment,, ect. for about five to seven years, and then, if you've
saved $20,000, if you can get together that much, and that's ignoring your
kids and working two jobs, then you can buy a home in Arkansas or Missouri
outright and live somewhere where they flood every other year! That's an
exaggeration if you pay close attention to the flood lines on other
people's houses and find a sturdy hill, then you can buy one up there! Also
buy a rowboat. Missouri's not so bad, if you like the sensation of sleeping
in a sweatbox in summer and your car freezing solid in winter. They really
do put those heaters into the dipstick hole to keep them warm enough to
start with ether!:) Shit, kill the rich and redistribute the livable
property. Kill all of them!
-RSW

>I want people to be able to work and gain a basic subsistance and more.
>Is there a workable system for what you suggest?  I am always looking
>for improvements on the way we can coexist in this world and will give
>people happy, meaningful lives, where each individual can reach their
>highest potential.  Are you asking for the forced redistribution of
>land?  Any system I imagine will lead to unfairnes, pollution, over
>popullation, and land mismanagement.  If you know of such a system,
>please describe it.  Please be specific, since my imagination cannot
>comprehend such a system.  Specifics that I am interested in:
>	1.  Does someone get land assigned them when they are born?
>	2.  What happens to someone's land when they die?  Can they pass
>	    it on to their children?
>	3.  Can someone sell land?
>	4.  Can someone leaase their land?
>	5.  What governmental restrictions will be put on land use?
>	6.  Who will administer such a system?
>	7.  How much will it cost to administer such a system?
>I know that this is alot to ask and will understand if you do not have
>the time to answer these questions.  I think I will be better able to
>understand what you are proposing, if you can answer these quesitons.
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
---------------------------------------------
The land is simply granted to people who live on it now. Extra is kept for
the future. You get to stay where you are without paying rent. Land that
supports others becomes property of the state. Farmers are welcome to plant
crops that people need according to demand and ability and soil quality. If
you want to grow sourgum because you always did, and you aren't doing a
good job, then we let another farmer grow sorghum, and you grow something
else. When people die the land they were entitled to use goes into the
public holdings. No one can sell land, but they can trade places with
anybody. No one can lease land. The government will locally distribute the
use of the land not used for residences. Residences that are insufficient
to the families living there can be traded to the public for a larger house
and yard according to need and availability. The local land council who vow
to live on their land till death to avoid profit ties will decide fairness
subject to review by the state and federal land councils. It will cost no
more than any fucking thing costs now with fucking assed rent going down a
deep dark hole to the owners! Anyone can submit a request for a larger
house or land to start a business on, depending on a valid business plan
and community needs. Heavy equipment is subject to seizure for the public
good or as needed. Heavy equipment operators are encouraged to keep and
maintain their own machine and to operate it at a reasonable salary in
service to the community. Companies who own many machines are to be divided
among the appropriate equipment operators and the rest to be let to valid
operators on a need basis. Cost of upkeep is charged. A guild of heavy
machine operators is recognized for safety and training's sake. Their
council is a subcouncil to the community council. Etc. Etc. Etc. It isn't
so hard to think of a better system than we have. All you have to do is
realize that the system we have now is not sacrosanct, in fact it's a
rigged game that steals you blind and is the most unfair any system could
be already!!!!!!!! The trick is to realize that the old rich have been
making the rules behind your back and that it's time to kick them off the
merry-go-round. Tax the rich to death. They are the ones that converted
your 60's school lunch program into the joke it is today. They are the ones
who always cut education. They are the ones who always raise the rent when
you get a raise. They are the ones who should be not just dislodged but
killed for their abuse. I have trouble justifying the death penalty for a
poor kid who killed and didn't know why not. I have no trouble justifying
the death penalty for the rich who steal countless human lives to feed
their greed! Have you paid rent most of your life? Then you have been
enslaved, percentage wise, most of your life. We used to be serfs. Now we
are called renters, and we are still enslaved to somebody who claims to own
land they don't use and make us pay them for it when they did nothing to
own it. Most rents in California are enough to buy the apartment house,
paynthe taxes and the insurance and have a little left over to travel with!
I have seen the books! I know what my landlord pays and to whom! I know
what I pay her. I am being forced to buy her a building and then I will be
let out at the other end with nothing, when I had as much right as her to
live on this planet! And her child will have the money to likewise
enslave my child. I hope I find out when I am going to die. I can make
things just a little happier form me to be able to destroy her life as she
destroyed mine. And maybe I can take a few other landlords with me, and
their heirs. That would be worth it. Then to be able to die before they can
do anything to me. That's a poor man's dream. Sleep tight, bastard
landlords. You don't know the trouble you are buying yourself as you sleep
on my heirs money in your mattress!
-RSW

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178895
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

From article <C5n90x.EsJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
> In article <15407@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

> #There is a big difference between running one's business
> #affairs, and actively ripping people off.

> And charging homosexuals more becuase people think that AIDS is a "gay
> disease" is actively ripping people off. 

Really?  I thought that insurance companies hired all of
their actuarial staffs to determine the risks correlated
with all groups of people, and that gays are more likely
to have AIDS than are those of other sexual orientations.
If I am wrong about this correlation, please correct me.

My auto insurance company charges me up the wazoo because
I am a young male with a very high performance car.  I
always thought that this was based on NHTSA and other
statistical data, rather than bigotry and hatred for young
men with fast cars.  Of course, with the proper government
intervention, we could force the insurance companies to
pretend that young men with fast cars are just the same
as everyone else...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178896
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:

> Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
> if the oppertunity presented itself?

> I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
> huge variety of willing partners.

If true, and if gays were the same as straights except
for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would
have much less sex than straights because the available
pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for
straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178897
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Vietnam Deja Vu


The Waco/Whacko Bar-B-Q caused me to remember an official explanation
from the Vietnam War.  The 90s, liberal version is:

    "It was necessary to incinerate the children in order to save them."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178898
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Was Kinsey a Fake and a Pervert?

In article <15446@optilink.COM>
     cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1993Apr17.093826.5227@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>     elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>>    Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months*
>> ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show,
>> up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must

>Cite a survey, other than the obviously bogus Kinsey studies.

   Granted.  Pomeroy, Bell, Weinberg, 1967.  "National Institute of
Mental Health Paper 12353, ''Patterns of Adjusment in Deviant
Populations.''"  Cited as part of the National Institute of Mental
Health Task Force on Homosexuality.

   Pomery concluded, "The Kinsey statistic of 37% is probably higher
than is realistic.  According to these estimates, 33% is a more
realistic figure."

   (I went out and bought LOTS of Bell & Weinberg this weekend... can
you tell?)

   Also, The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (Samuel S. Janus, Ph.D.
and Cynthia L. Janus, M.D., John Wiley & Sons (pub), 1992) has the
following:

Table 3.14
Have you ever had a homosexual experience?
          Men.    Women.
N=        1,335   1,384
Yes       22%      17%
No        78%      83%

Table 3.15
How often have you had homosexual contact?
                      Men   Women
N=                    294     235
a. Once                5%      6%
b. Occasionally       56%     67%
c. Frequently         13%      6%
d. Ongoing            26%     21%

Active (c. + d.)      39%     37%

39% of 22% is 9%.  This number is consistent with Kinsey, Pomery,
Gebard (1953), Bell & Weinberg (1967, 1974), and Rice (1987) in the
finding that 9% of the male population is actively homosexual, with
an further breakdown (Bell & Wienberg, 1978) of 4% exclusively so and
5% self-identifying themselves as "bisexuals."

   (pp 69, 70)

   As for debunking Kinsey, the following article is an important
lesson for everyone to read:

Was Kinsey a Fake and a Pervert?
by Philip Nobile

     Far out on the grassy knoll of sexology, there is a cult of
prochastity researchers who claim that the late Alfred Kinsey was a
secret sex criminal, a Hoosier Dr. Mengele, who bent his numbers
toward the bisexual and the bizarre in a grand conspiracy to queer the
nation and usher in an era of free sex with kids.  

     But what really riles these critics is Kinsey's towerin~ cultural
influence.  His bestselling surveys-- Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
(1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953)-- tore the
sheets off the country's erogenous zones and undermined midcentury
morals.  His charts and graphs, based on detailed histories of 12,000
men and women, demonstrated that practices generally considered rare
and/or 'abnormal'-- masturbation, extramarital relations,
homosexuality, and even barnyard bestiality, were as American as
strawberry shortcake.  

     Yet for a hard core of these heterosexual supremacists, aided and
abetted by Pat Buchanan and the religious right, the zoology professor
from Indiana University remains the evil genius behind the sex
revolution and a target for character assassination.  

     Judith Reisman, the prosecution's expert witness at the
Mapplethorpe trial in Cincinnati, is the leader of the anti- Kinsey
revisionists as well as his Inspector Javert.  In 1983, during a radio
interview with Pat Buchanan in Washington, Reisman accused Kinsey of
having been inolved in "the vicious genital torture of hundreds of
children."  She speculated that he kidnapped and drugged ghetto boys in
order to carry out clandestine orgasm tests.  

     Now, seven years later, Reisman has revived her charges in a
different book, titled Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, just released by the
small and religiously oriented Huntington House in Lafayette,
Louisiana.  Her coauthor is Ed Eichel, a Manhattan psychotherapist who
has invented a new style of intromission ("the coital alignment
technique") that supposedly triggers simultaneous orgasm with
considerable regularity and thereby increases compatibilty between the
sexes.  In the book Eichel contends that "Kinsey deliberately cooked
the gay stats because, being an oddball himself, he wanted to advance
the 'denormalization' of heterosexuality."  

     If the authors are right, then the world- famous Kinsey Reports
are, as the introduction boldly asserts, "the most egregious example
of scientific deception in this century."  And if they are wrong,
Kinsey, Sex and Fraud is a shameful smear.

     Despite the less- than- stellar credentials of Kinsey's
detractors, legends are not what they used to be.  Martin Luther King
may have committed plagiarism.  Bruno Bettelheim slapped young mental
patients around.  Father Bruce Ritter, the founder of Covenant House,
preyed on runaway boys.  Closer to Kinsey, Masters and Johnson have
been disgraced for faking it in one way or another.  

     So it should not surprise anybody that Kinsey, who filmed strange
people having sex in his attic, may have had skeletons in the closet.
The problem is that Reisman does not seem to have the intellectual
prowess to pull off the job.  

     As a thinker, the woman is no Madame Curie.  The 55-year-old
former songwriter for Captain Kangaroo has little professional
standing, no current university position, and no peer-review
publications, though her creative 1983 resume was padded with phantom
accomplishments.  For instance, it listed a book as her own-- Take Back
the Night: Women on Pornography-- that was actually written and edited
by others.  Then there is her Ph.D. in Speech Communication from
Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University.  Although Reisman has no
bachelor's degree, Case granted her a master's in 1976 and a doctorate
in 1979.  Her dissertation was on the commentaries of a local
octagenarian TV commentator.  But on the resume, Reisman gave this
piece of scholarship a fancy Hautes Etudes moniker-- to wit: "The
Application of Aristotelian and Systems Analytic Theory to Mass Media
Effects."

     When Reisman burst into prominence on Buchanan's program, it was
love at first sight for Al Regnery, the outwardly anti- 
porn head of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in Ed Meese's
Justice Department.  Regnery was a young law-and-order conservative and
amateur social philosopher who wanted to help change the sexual
climate of the United States.  

     After Reisman's sensational radio session, the sexual equivalent
of Joe McCarthy's Wheeling speech, Regnery summoned 
her to meetings to discuss mutual interests.  First he tried to shovel
her $800,000 for a quasi-Frankenstein study that was going to measure
the brain chemicals of men and boys who looked at arousing
photographs.  Guffaws on Capitol Hill killed the original proposal, but
$734,000 in govemment money went to Reisman anyway for plan B- a probe
of child images in the cartoons Playboy, Penthouse, and Hust
ler.  (Incredibly, this grant surpassed the entire budget of the
attorney general's pornography commission.) 

     When the overpriced and oversold project was completed in 1986,
it was immediately shelved by an embarrassed Justice Department.  That
spring, Regnery resigned from his post only days before the New
Republic carried this admission that he had kept porno magazines
around the house.  

     Notwithstanding the six-figure humiliation, Reisman went on to
scratch out a niche on the ioony right.  As the darling of the sex
cranks, she deplores subversive phenomena like shaved genitalia in
men's magazines and blames AIDS on gays.  Kinsey, Sex and Fraud is
Reisman's latest grasp for respectability.  Pat Buchanan, of course, is
putting his Krugerrands on Reisman's ultimate vindication.  "This book
is social dynamite," he says in a blurb an the front cover.  He
especially liked the antigay parts.  Smacking his lips in his
syndicated column, he declared, "It may just blow the sewer cap off
Kinsey's monumental reputation, reestablish homosexuality as a 1-in-50
aberration, expose the Gay Rights movement as a paper tiger, and even
put at risk the enormous sex industry built upon Dr. Kinsey's
'research.'"

     The blockbuster charge at the heart of the cluttered and
repetilive j'Accuse is that Kinsey was a sex-mad pedophile who
molested little boys in Nazi-type experiments and recorded their
orgasms in his male volume/ A similar charge was first recited at the
Fifth World Conference on Sexology in Jerusalem in 1981 to no effect
before being recycled by Reisman for Buchanan in Washington in 1983.

     Here is how Reisman and Eichel repackaged the Mengele business in
Kinsey, Sex and Fraud:

     Mengele-like 'scientific' experiments on infants and children
were the basis for Kinsey's conclusions...  on childhood sexuality.

     Somewhere and sometime in the course of the project, Kinsey
appears to have directed experimental sex research on several hundred
children aged from two months to almost 15 years.

     This, of course, would implicate Kinsey and his team in
promoting, and perhaps participating in, the criminal activity.

     In the opinion of this book's authors, that is exactly how part
of Kinsey's child sexuality research took place.


     Donning his psychohistorian's cap and citing an FBI manual on
child molesters as a guide, Eichel casually diagnoses Kinsey as a
homosexual pedophile with the perfect motive for doing exactly as
Reisman said: 
 

     [Kinsey] placed himself in professional and nonprofessional
positions where he had access to young boys, such as Y.M.C.A.  camp
counselor, boys' club leader, and Boy Scout leader-- activities he
kept up 'during his college and graduate yeaers, and even after his
marriage."
 

     As crude as his analysis seems, Eichel was more than happy to
elaborate even further in a recent phone interview.  "If you've ever
been around boy- lovers, pedophiles, they are absolutely compulsive,"
he averred.  "Everything in his life is directed at getting children.  I
didn't mention this in our book but the caption under Kinsey's high
school picture was a quote from Hamlet: 'Man delights me not, no,
[sic] nor woman neither.' What do you think they were picking up on?" 

     Before weighing what Reisman and Eichel pass off as proof of
Kinsey's sex crimes, something must be said about Kinsey's scientific
modus operandi.  He was a fiendish collector.  As a young zoologist with
a D.Sc.  from Harvard, he collected 4 million gall wasps and 1.5
million related insects.  When he switched to sex exploration after
agreeing to teach a marriage Course at Indiana University in 1938, he
was no less curious or acquisitive.  Nothing that mammals did in the
realm of reproduction was foreign to him.  He compiled masses of erotic
materials including toilet wall inscriptions from male and female
johns that highlighted differences in sexual psychology and flms of
mating in 14 species of animals that showed an amazing similarity in
oral eroticism.  

     Naturally, the sexual response of children, the genesis of eros,
fascinated him.  It was impossible to understand the sexual behaviors
of adults without examining their origins.  And so with the fervor of
his bughunting days, Kinsey collected information about kids, though
even his worst enemies-- until Reisman and Eichel-- refrained from
linking him personally to his data on preadolescent sex.  

     Kinsey said plainly in the male volume that he got information on
the sex life of young boys from people who had sex with them: "Some of
these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or
other records which have been put at our disposal."  Although he
gathered much boyhood data from the memories of his subjects and the
observations of parents and nursery school teachers, he treated the
documentary materia! of the pedophiles as pure gold.  There was nothing
like it in the literature.  

     Kinsey's main source, a 63-year-old govemment worker, was also
the most unforgettable character he had ever met.  This man, whose
history took 17 hours to log, had sex with over 600 boys and 200 girls
as well as 17 of 33 family members including his father and
grandmother.  A sexual hobbyist and passionate record-keeper, he gave
Kinsey detailed accounts of orgasms that he observed in preadolescent
boys.  Relying on the man's meticulous research, which involved
following some boys for as long as 16 years, Kinsey was able to
identify for the first time six distinct types of male orgasm-- some
of which involved violent contortions at the peak of release-- as well
as the speed and the capacity of climax.  

     What Freud had only imagined about childhood sexuality, Kinsey
had reported as fact.  Children were indeed erotic beings from the
cradle.  "These data on the sexual activities of younger male provide
an important substantiation of the Freudian view of sexuality as a
component that is present in the human animal from earliest infancy,"
he concluded without raising eyebrows in 1948.  

     Then along came Judith Reisman.  Ignorng the legitimacy of
Kinsey's inquiry, she beheld the ghost of Mengele in Bloomington.  She
was appalled by the thought of infant ecstasy and read torture in the
portrayals of prepubertal orgasm rendered by the government worker.
And she dared to say that Kinsey was a sex criminal.  

     Well, was he or wasn't he? Let's go to the text.  There is no
evidence in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud-- no witnesses, no paper, noteven a
trace of hearsay-- that implicates Kinsey in either planning or
partaking in child sex experiments.  After 12 years on the trail,
Reisman has uncovered just two sources to back up her original charge-
- amazingly enough, Kinsey himself and Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey's
coauthor on both reports, to whom Reisman has never spoken.  It turns
out that her whole case rests on a few passages in the male volume
iand in Pomeroy's 1972 biography titled Dr. Kinsey and the Institute
for Sex Research.

     After frisking every "the" and "and" in both books, Reisman came
up with what she believes are "smoking" sentences.  To establish
Kinsey's alleged role in the planning, she says that "there is a hint"
in the fifth chapter of the male volume that Kinsey "directed" the
orgasm studies on kids.  She cites his tell-tale quote from a critic of
armchair psychoanalysis demanding that "writers...test their
theories...by empirical study and statistical procedures."  Then she
combines this quote with Kinsey's statement that some of the
observations of his pedophile sources "were continued over periods of
months or years until the individuals were old enough to make it
certain that true orgasm was involved."  

     Putting two and two together-- Kinsey's empiricism and lengthy
experimentation-- she arrives at her hint.  But realizing this dog
would not hunt, she devoted but a single paragraph to Kinsey's
supposed planning before shifting to the issue of his personal
involvement.  As for the alleged participation, after poring over
Pomeroy's biography, Reisman found several hidden clues suggesting
Kinsey's likely hands-on approach to kiddie sex.  Here the chain of
reasoning is more complex.  She points out that Kinsey was interested
in clitoral measurements, collecting sperm and filming sex in his
attic.  Since Kinsey did indeed mislead Indiana University about the
purpose of his cinematography-- he said that he was filming "animal
sex"-- Reisman asserts that a "similar misrepresentation may yet apply
to Kinsey's child sex experiments."  Catch the "may"!

     Reisman was also struck by Kinsey's doubting Thomas attitude
toward the never before recorded climax of female rabbits: "Kinsey,
according to Pomeroy, was the type of person who needed to see things
for himself.  Pomeroy gave the example of orgasm in the female rabbit.
Because he had not personally witnessed this event, Kinsey had
difficulty in accepting its reality, even on the strength of testimony
from a distinguished scientist.  How then did Kinsey testify to the
actuality of orgasm in a 5-month-old infant from the mere 'history' of
a sex offender?" (But, of course, he did not: he depended on their
records.) 

     From this fantastic alchemy of conjecture mixed with clitorides,
sperm, attic cumshots, and climax-in-cottontail has Reisman defamed
the legendary Kinsey.

     Paul Gebhard succeeded Kinsey as the director of the Kinsey
Institute and now lives in retirement outside Bloomington.  Reached by
telephone, Gebhard defended the pedophile connection and denied
Reisman's nasty imputations.  "I don't understand the resistance of
people like Reisman to studying the sexuality of children," Gebhard
said more in exasperation than anger.  "That is where sex begins.  We
were happy to take data wherever we found it.  Even though pedophiles
commit criminal acts, they are usually not violent folks.  They
wouldn't be very successful if they were.  One of our best sources was
a headmaster of a boys' school who maintained a kind of alumni club
and sometimes went to the weddings of his former students.  As for
directing experiments, that's absurd.  We never told any of our
subjects what to do.  lt was against our principles.  Almost all of the
pedophile material was retrospective anyway.  Nor did we ever conduct
sex experiments with children ourselves.  That would have been highly
inappropriate."  

     I asked Gebhard if Kinsey had ever seen a child in a sexual
situation.  "I think a mother once brought in a little girl who humped
her teddy bear and Kinsey watched it."  

     As for Kinsey's sex life, it is still shrouded in
confidentiality.  He was married to the same woman for 35 years and
fathered four children.  Apparently, there are no huge sexual
revelations, although rumors of homosexuality have persisted without
confirmation through the years.  Gebhard took his boss's history back
in the '40s, but he refuses to discuss what he knows.  "We never
divulge anything about anybody's history, whether dead or alive," he
says.  

     Reisman said no to an interview for this article on the grounds
that I had once worked for Penthouse-- not to mention the fact that we
have been debating each other in various forums for the past five
years.  In keeping with our contentious history, she took a swipe at me
in her book for continuing "the Kinsey practice of euphemizing
incest."  My offense was using the biblical variant "lying with a near
relative" in a 1977 article on the subject of incest.  As a synonym for
intercourse, "lying with" appears eight times in Genesis.  

     Ed Eichel is a different story.  Though seemingly obsessed by
Kinsey like his coauthor, he was friendly in long conversations.  He
told me that he began to smell a big baised agenda in sexology when he
was a student in New York University's Human Sexuality program in the
early '80s.  "It was literally a gay studies program for heterosexuals,"
he says.

     Around 1985, Eichel came upon Reisman's critique of Kinsey and
the conspiracy theory started to sink in: the sex establishment was
ruled by a Kinseyan bisexual bund advocating the overthrow of the
heterosexual norm.  No wonder he was having such a rough time promoting
the joy of simultaneous orgasm-- anything that enhanced sexual
compatibility between men and women inevitably raised objections.

     Eventually, Eichel exchanged philosophical fluids with Reisman,
and from this union Kinsey, Sex and Fraud was born.  Eichel's main
contribution to the book is discovery and analysis of a Kinsey
conspiracy that supposedly seeks "the establishment of bisexuality as
the balanced sexual orientation for normal, uninhibited people" which,
by destroying the traditional family structure and normal sexual
behavior, "would open the way for the second and more difficult step--
the ultimate goal of cross-generational sex (sex with children)."  

     When I pressed him for specific references to back up his
outrageous contentions, he said weakly, "You don't think Kinsey is
going to come right out and say that everybody is basically bisexual
and should have sex with kids, but this is implicit in the Kinsey
reports."  

     Meanwhile, Eichel is demanding a congressional investigation of
Kinsey and his data.  Perfect.  That's just what the country needs-- a
House Un-American Sexual Activities Committee, looking under beds and
asking people if they are now or have everbeen a reader, a sympathizer
or-- God forbid-- a subject of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.


         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

   "The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure
reasoning, and inhibit clarity.  With a little pratice, writing can be
an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"  - Bill Watterson's Calvin.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178899
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Not talking to soldiers, part II

In article <1993Apr20.163253.8785@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	After going to great lenghts to describe the people inside as hostages
>of Koresh (eg, people leaving "escaped"), and stating that "generals have no
>place in law enforcement" it appears that Janet and the FBI/ATF have egg on
>their faces.
>
>	80+ "hostages" dead.
>
>	Two unsuccessful assualts.
>
>	Janet, some advice: go with the SEALs/Delta Force/Green Berets next
>time and talk nicely to the generals.

  This might be illegal without a very specific Presidential declaration
or even a change in law. In general (sic), U.S. military troops are not
permitted to be used for domestic policing operations.

>
>	BTW-does Janet think that military police are oxymorons?
>
-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178900
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15480@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes:
|> > In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> # #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical
|> # #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS.
|> # #-- 
|> # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> # #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
|> 
|> # You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about 
|> # tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything
|> 
|> What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything
|> different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality
|> spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other
|> methods of spreading it as well.
|> 
|> # about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now,
|> # you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced.
|> # 
|> # Joe Cipale
|> 
|> Typical homosexual response.
|> 
|> 


You have yet to answer any or all of my questions and challenges to your 
statements.  By this am I to assume that you are unable to do so?  Or just
plain unwilling due to your lack of proof/intelligence?  So what next?  I 
prove you wrong so you just put me in your killfile?

Your lack of reasoned response seems to be a typical Clayton response.


|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178901
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In <15480@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes:
>> In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical
># #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS.
># #-- 
># #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
># #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

># You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about 
># tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything

>What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything
>different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality
>spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other
>methods of spreading it as well.

But it IS made false by your ridiculous leap of logic from "monogamous
homosexual male sex is so rare" (which is a load of horseshit--as
proportionately many queers are monogamous as hets, and the ones who aren't
use condoms, for the most part) to "for practical purposes, homosexuality
spreads AIDS."  No.  Unprotected sex with an infected partner spreads AIDS. 
These "practical purposes" you speak of are obviously the purposes of
spreading homophobia, which leads me to an interesting truth: "Cramer
spreads hate."  Isn't that nice?

># about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now,
># you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced.
># 
># Joe Cipale

>Typical homosexual response.

You mean, "Typical homosexual response to Clayton E. Cramer."  I think any
human being would react that way to someone as contemptibly hateful as you,
actually.  I seem to hear the same sort of thing coming from your posts, you
know....

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Planning to make this a complete sentence anytime soon?

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178902
From: joe13+@pitt.edu (Joseph B Stiehm)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <16BB7A1DE.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
...
> 
>Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions
>with the result of the police trying to take the place by
>force and the result being the death of the hostages and the
>gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of
>the blame landing squarely on the police.
> 
>In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down
>from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages
>other terrorists and hostage takers.
> 
>Richard

That people are at risk and that some die during a hostage situation might
be considered an acceptable scenario in storming a compound. 

When EVERYONE dies (save for nine people), including twenty children, the 
outcome must be considered a failure.

Now was the failure due to unforseeable circumstances, incompetence, or
negligence?  From the double talk and multiple stories I've seen on the news
coming from the FBI and Reno I find "it was an honest mistake" hard to swallow

Let's hope they get their stories straight for the second round of questions.



Joseph Stiehm 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178903
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: BATF of USA

A repost from talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.jewish:

From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Date: 20 Apr 1993 19:15:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <C5rLnE.4pC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

> >We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of
> >their rights to worship and bear arms.

> Arms? Automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers? The sorts of things
> no family should be without, I guess.

All government claims.  If they were really stocking such weapons for
Armageddon, how come they never used them?

> Anyway, I've often wondered what
> business followers of Christ would have with weapons. It's hard to imagine a
> pistol-packin' Jesus, though I suppose a pump-action shotgun would have
> made clearing the temple a hell of a lot easier.

"The time is coming.  Those of you who have no sword, sell your shirt and
 buy one... And they told him, Master, we have two swords.  And he said, It 
 is enough."  (LUKE ...)

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
 but the sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
 and the daugher against her mother..."  (MATT 10 34-35)

> Well, when the nice federal officers come to my house to check out my
> extensive weapons cache, I'll just be sure not to shoot at them.
> "Tea, ladies and gentlemen?"

Just maybe you won't be home.  Then you can come home to something 
like this:

    "Well, it's been a rough month," begins Johnnie Lawmaster.  "I
 just get laid off, and my divorce became final.  But I just wasn't
 ready for what happened this particular Monday."

    That particular Monday was was December 16, the first day of the
 Bill of Rights' third century, the day when federal agents and local
 law enforcement officer broke into the house in Tulsa that always flew
 the U.S. flag.  When Lawmaster drove into the driveway that bleak
 afternoon, one of his neighbors had some news.

    "'Ohmigod, John, you are in big trouble!' my neighbor tells me.
 'Sixty police, federal agents and the bomb squad busted in you house,
 kicked down the door, cut locks off your gun safe.'  I couldn't
 believe it.  Then I walked inside.  What a nightmare."

    It was no nightmare; it was horribly real life.  Apparently acting
 on information the Lawmaster possessed an illegal firearm, some thirty
 agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) teamed up
 with state and Tulsa police authorities, search warrant in hand, to
 search for a "Colt, AR-15, .223 caliber machine gun, unknown serial
 number."  The warrant, issued by U.S. Magistrate John Leo Wagner, also
 authorized agents to seize "any tools used in the alteration or
 modification of firearms, such as files or drills; documents, papers,
 books, records, and other tangible properties which identify occupants
 or owners of the property to be searched...."

    Reports vary, but according to neighbors, the joint task force
 operation aimed at the unemployed warehouseman from a nearby hospital
 involved some 60 agents and local law enforcement personnel against
 Lawmaster.  They cordoned off the street; took station with weapons
 drawn in the back yard; used a battering ram to break through the
 front door; kicked in the back door; broke into his gun safe; threw
 personal papers around the house; spilled boxes of ammunition on the
 floor; broke into a small, locked box that contained precious coins;
 stood on a table to peer through the ceiling tiles, breaking the table
 in the process.  Then, they left.  The doors were closed but not
 latched, much less locked.  The ammo and guns were left unsecured.

    "My front and back doors were pulled shut, but they were busted
 through and couldn't latch.  Anybody could have waltzed in there and
 stolen everything I own.  A child could have taken a gun.  The guns,
 the safe -- everything was open and laying around.  I keep all my
 magazines empty, but someone had loaded them.  While I was looking
 around in amazement, the gas, electric and water companies show up to
 turn the power off.  They said they were told to shut things down.
 Then I found the note.  "Nothing Found - ATF."

    "They didn't make any attempt to notify me.  I've lived in Tulsa
 all my life and never got more than a traffic ticket.  How come they
 can't look that up, realize I've been law-abiding my whole life, then
 come to the door when I'm home?  They didn't leave someone here to
 watch over my private property.  They didn't even come by to explain
 what happened.  They just raided my home, ransaked it, left it wide
 open and left."

    Lawmaster placed a phone call to the local BATF agent.  "I asked,
 'Are you gonna' arrest me?' and he said, 'No.'  I asken him, "Who is
 going to repair and clean up my house?'  And he said, "If you're going
 to talk to me, come down to my office.'

    "'I can't come down!' I said.  'My doors are broken!'  If I had
 been on vacation and I didn't have friendly neighbors, I would have
 lost everything I own.  Here I am a competent, responsible firearms
 owner, and the government leaves them open, unlocked, with ammo strewn
 around."

    Lawmaster said the agent advised him, "If you want your door to
 lock and your gun safe to lock, you're gonna' have to pay for it
 yourself."

    "'Oh, I'll come right down, alright,' I told him.  'I'll come
 down, but I'll bring my attorney.'  And he said, 'Well, you bring
 your attorney, and we won't talk to you.'"


So if you don't want your tea party to be held in awkward silence, make
sure your lawyer isn't there, there's a good chap.


> It's very sad all those people died, especially the kids, but that's going
> to happen in a free society whenever psychologically needy people hook up
> with a charismatic nutcase.

What a repulsive outlook on society.  "Followers of unusual religions
may be killed by the government -- it simply can't be helped in a free
society."

You and I have two different concepts of "free."
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178904
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

In <4916@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

|>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993


|                       *Paranoia part deleted.*

|  Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?

I don't remember the article that you removed so I can't comment on it.
What I can comment on though is your response.

Do you really believe that what you wrote is sufficient to refute the article?
Do have any facts in addition to your opinion?
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178905
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM  sez:
[re Michael Friedman and Phil Ronzone]
>
>O.K. So far you guys have called me:
>1) An ignorant asshole
>2) Ignorant slut
>3) Dumb as a bag of hammers
>4) Dumb shit
>	Am I missing any?

Try asking Michael whether he still thinks the M-16 "is one of the
most beautiful machines around."  Or ask Phil if he still claims that
the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment
apply to the federal government.  The responses should be as
enlightening as the recent name-calling, and about as relevant.

-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178906
From: jaffray@dent.uchicago.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15454@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>> Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
>> if the oppertunity presented itself?
>
>> I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
>> huge variety of willing partners.
>
>If true, and if gays were the same as straights except
>for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would
>have much less sex than straights because the available
>pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for
>straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!

I *cannot* *believe* I am posting in this thread, but what
the hell, he asked for it.

I had sort of the same reaction myself when I was first realizing
I was bi.  "So what, >90% of everyone else is straight, I'd never
end up with a guy anyway."  As several people on soc.bi pointed
out to me, this is true only if you find partners (for relationships
or just for sex) in primarily straight circles.  Nowadays with gay
culture quite visible in major cities and such, you can easily
find yourself in an overwhelmingly queer social circle if you so
choose.  (About half my friends are bi, and that's just from
hanging out in the science fiction club and going to UCBU once a
week, it's not as if I have to go out of my way and hang out in
bars or something.)

So the available pool for dates can be the same size.  Unless of
course you're trying to date a random sample of the US population.

As for promiscuity, I've traded email with Clayton on the topic,
and he still doesn't seem to want to admit that yes, gay males
are sometimes forced to resort to anonymous sex because they're
closeted and can't afford to be seen in a permanent relationship.
Or that part of the promiscuity is because of the messed-up gender
roles in our society, and when males are dating males and they've
*all* been trained to be the aggressor in sex, there's going to
be more sex.  Or that what's "dysfunctional", what's "screwed up"
is societal attitudes, not gay sexuality, and that's what 
encourages deviant behavior in gay males.

(also note that just because someone's had 200 sex partners 
doesn't mean they're promiscuous.  yes, it sounds ridiculous,
but it's quite possible for someone to go through a heavily
closeted phase in which they have lots of anonymous sex with
strangers, and then come out, start forming real relationships,
and be monogamous or nearly so...)


--                                                                       ____
Alan Jaffray (jaffray@math.uchicago.edu)  Email, 'talk' always welcome.  \bi/
Those who dance are thought mad by those who hear not the music -- Anon   \/
B0H7f-t+w-cg+(+)k+?s-vm-h-pS6/3bgz-++o-x-v+j+N0178l--+a(+)f-vn-(++)e--+dvb+u+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178907
From: koresh@dead.davidian
Subject: Gun Control kills over 80

   Rejoice! The Streets of Amerika are much safer now that the Branch
Davidians no longer have those nasty assault weapons. Your children will
no longer lie awake at night wondering when the next Brand Davidian will
attempt to shoot them from their rural compound. 

   Men, women, and children have been murdered by our great BATF, but the
greater good has been secured for all.

   Rejoice! `Criminals' who execise the second amendment will be killed.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178908
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks by the President on Waco w/ Q&A 4.20.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
            IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS 


                           The Rose Garden


1:36 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  On February the 28th, four federal 
agents were killed in the line of duty trying to enforce the law 
against the Branch Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled 
weaponry and ammunition, and placed innocent children at risk.  
Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51-day 
standoff ensued.  
	     
	     The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every 
reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without 
bloodshed and further loss of life.  The Bureau's efforts were 
ultimately unavailing because the individual with whom they were 
dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably 
insane.      

	     He engaged in numerous activities which violated both 
federal law and common standards of decency.  He was, moreover, 
responsible for the deaths and injuries which occurred during the 
action against the compound in February.  Given his inclination 
towards violence and in an effort to protect his young hostages, no 
provocative actions were taken for more than seven weeks by federal 
agents against the compound.  
	     
	     This weekend I was briefed by Attorney General Reno on 
an operation prepared by the FBI, designed to increase pressure on 
Koresh and persuade those in the compound to surrender peacefully.  
The plan included a decision to withhold the use of ammunition, even 
in the face of fire, and instead to use tear gas that would not cause 
permanent harm to health, but would, it was hoped, force the people 
in the compound to come outside and to surrender.
	     
	     I was informed of the plan to end the siege.  I 
discussed it with Attorney General Reno.  I asked the questions I 
thought it was appropriate for me to ask.  I then told her to do what 
she thought was right, and I take full responsibility for the 
implementation of the decision.  
	     
	     Yesterday's action ended in a horrible human tragedy.  
Mr. Koresh's response to the demands for his surrender by federal 
agents was to destroy himself and murder the children who were his 
captives, as well as all the other people who were there who did not 
survive.  He killed those he controlled, and he bears ultimate 
responsibility for the carnage that ensued.
	     
	     Now we must review the past with an eye towards the 
future.  I have directed the United Stated Departments of Justice and 
Treasury to undertake a vigorous and thorough investigation to 
uncover what happened and why, and whether anything could have been 
done differently.  I have told the departments to involve independent 
professional law enforcement officials in the investigation.  I 
expect to receive analysis and answers in whatever time is required 
to complete the review.  Finally, I have directed the departments to 
cooperate fully with all congressional inquiries so that we can 
continue to be fully accountable to the American people.
	     
	     I want to express my appreciation to the Attorney 
General, to the Justice Department, and to the federal agents on the 
front lines who did the best job they could under deeply difficult 
circumstances.  
	     
	     Again, I want to say as I did yesterday, I am very sorry 
for the loss of life which occurred at the beginning and at the end 
of this tragedy in Waco.  I hope very much that others who will be 
tempted to join cults and to become involved with people like David 
Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over 
the last seven weeks.  And I hope very much that the difficult 
situations which federal agents confronted there and which they will 
be doubtless required to confront in other contexts in the future 
will be somewhat better handled and better understood because of what 
has been learned now.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, can you, first of all, tell us why, 
after 51 days, you decided --
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, can you describe for us what it is 
that Janet Reno outlined to you in your 15-minute phone conversation 
with --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I can't hear you both.  If one will go 
first and then the other.
	     
	     Q	  Sorry.  Can you describe what Janet Reno --
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'll answer both your questions, but I 
can't do it at once.
	     
	     Q	  Can you describe what she told you on Sunday about 
the nature of the operation and how much detail you knew about it?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  I was told by the Attorney General 
that the FBI strongly felt that the time had come to take another 
step in trying to dislodge the people in the compound.  And she 
described generally what the operation would be -- that they wanted 
to go in and use tear gas which had been tested not to cause 
permanent damage to adults or to children, but which would make it 
very difficult for people to stay inside the building.  And it was 
hoped that the tear gas would permit them to come outside.  
	     
	     I was further told that under no circumstances would our 
people fire any shots at them even if fired upon.  They were going to 
shoot the tear gas from armored vehicles which would protect them and 
there would be no exchange of fire.  In fact, as you know, an awful 
lot of shots were fired by the cult members at the federal officials.  
There were no shots coming back from the government side.
	     
	     I asked a number of questions.  The first question I 
asked is, why now?  We have waited seven weeks; why now?  The reasons 
I was given were the following:
	     
	     Number one, that there was a limit to how long the 
federal authorities could maintain with their limited resources the 
quality and intensity of coverage by experts there.  They might be 
needed in other parts of the country.
	     
	     Number two, that the people who had reviewed this had 
never seen a case quite like this one before, and they were convinced 
that no progress had been made recently and no progress was going to 
be made through the normal means of getting Koresh and the other cult 
members to come out.  
	     
	     Number three, that the danger of their doing something 
to themselves or to others was likely to increase, not decrease, with 
the passage of time.
	     
	     And number four, that they had reason to believe that 
the children who were still inside the compound were being abused 
significantly, as well as being forced to live in unsanitary and 
unsafe conditions.
	     
	     So for those reasons, they wanted to move at that time.  
The second question I asked the Attorney General is whether they had 
given consideration to all of the things that could go wrong and 
evaluated them against what might happen that was good.  She said 
that the FBI personnel on the scene and those working with them were 
convinced that the chances of bad things happening would only 
increase with the passage of time.
	     
	     The third question I asked was, has the military been 
consulted?  As soon as the initial tragedy came to light in Waco, 
that's the first thing I asked to be done, because it was obvious 
that this was not a typical law enforcement situation.  Military 
people were then brought in, helped to analyze the situation and some 
of the problems that were presented by it.   And so I asked if the 
military had been consulted.  The Attorney General said that they 
had, and that they were in basic agreement that there was only one 
minor tactical difference of opinion between the FBI and the military 
-- something that both sides thought was not of overwhelming 
significance.
	     
	     Having asked those questions and gotten those answers, I 
said that if she thought it was the right thing to do, that she 
should proceed and that I would support it.  And I stand by that 
today.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Wait.  Go ahead.
	     
	     Q	  Can you address the widespread perception --
reported widely, television, radio and newspapers -- that you were 
trying somehow to distance yourself from this disaster?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I'm bewildered by it.  The only 
reason I made no public statement yesterday -- let me say -- the only 
reason I made no public statement yesterday is that I had nothing to 
add to what was being said and I literally did not know until rather 
late in the day whether anybody was still alive other than those who 
had been actually seen and taken to the hospital or taken into 
custody.  It was purely and simply a question of waiting for events 
to unfold.  
	     
	     There was -- I have -- I can't account for why people 
speculated one way or the other, but I talked to the Attorney General 
on the day before the action took place.  I talked to her yesterday.  
I called her again late last night after she appeared on the Larry 
King Show, and I talked to her again this morning.  A President -- it 
is not possible for a President to distance himself from things that 
happen when the federal government is in control.
	     
	     I will say this, however.  I was, frankly, surprised 
would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the 
Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics 
murdered themselves.  (Applause.)  
	     
	     I regret what happened, but it is not possible in this 
life to control the behavior of others in every circumstance.  These 
people killed four federal officials in the line of duty.  They were 
heavily armed.  They fired on federal officials yesterday repeatedly, 
and they were never fired back on.  We did everything we could to 
avoid the loss of life.  They made the decision to immolate 
themselves.  And I regret it terribly, and I feel awful about the 
children.  
	     
	     But in the end, the last comment I had from Janet Reno, 
is when -- and I talked to her on Sunday -- I said, now, I want you 
to tell me once more why you believe -- not why they believe -- why 
you believe we should move now rather than wait some more.  And she 
said, it's because of the children.  They have evidence that those 
children are still being abused and that they're in increasingly 
unsafe conditions, and that they don't think it will get any easier 
with time -- with the passage of time.  I have to take their word for 
that.  So that is where I think things stand.
	     
	     Q	  Can we assume then that you don't think this was 
mishandled in view of the outcome, that you didn't run out of 
patience?  And if you had it to do over again, would you really 
decide that way?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No -- well, I think what you can assume 
is just exactly what I announced today.  This is a -- the FBI has 
done a lot of things right for this country over a long period of 
time.  This is the same FBI that found the people that bombed the 
World Trade Center in lickety-split, record time.  We want an inquiry 
to analyze the steps along the way.  Is there something else we 
should have known?  Is there some other question they should have 
asked?  Is there some other question I should have asked?  Can I say 
for sure that no one -- that we could have done nothing else to make 
the outcome come different?  I don't know that.  That's why I want 
the inquiry and that's why I would like to make sure that we have 
some independent law enforcement people, not political people, but 
totally non-political, outside experts who can bring to bear the best 
evidence we have.  
	     
	     There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of 
fanaticism all across the world.  And we may have to confront it 
again.  And I want to know whether there is anything we can do, 
particularly when there are children involved.  But I do think it is 
important to recognize that the wrong-doers in this case were the 
people who killed others and then killed themselves.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, were there any other options 
presented to you for resolving this situation at any point from 
February 28th until yesterday?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, yes, I got regular reports all 
along the way.  There were lots of other options pursued.  If you go 
back -- you all covered it very well.  The FBI -- you did a very good 
job of it.  I mean, the FBI and the other authorities there pursued 
any number of other options all along the way, and a lot of them 
early on seemed to be working.  Some of the children got out, some of 
the other people left.  There was a -- at one point, there seemed to 
be some lines of communication opening up between Koresh and the 
authorities.  And then he would say things and not do them and things 
just began to spin downward.  
	     
	     Whether there were other -- in terms of what happened 
yesterday, the conversation I had with the Attorney General did not 
involve other options except whether we should take more time with 
the present strategy we were pursuing -- because they said they 
wanted to do this, because they thought this was the best way to get 
people out of the compound quickly before they could kill themselves.  
That's what they thought.
	     
	     Q	  Did the government know that the children did not 
have gas masks?
	     
	     Q	     congressional hearings once the situation -- are 
you in agreement with that?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  That's up to the Congress.  They can do 
whatever they want.  But I think it's very important that the 
Treasury and Justice Departments launch this investigation and bring 
in some outside experts.  And as I said in my statement, if any 
congressional committees want to look into it, we will fully 
cooperate.  There is nothing to hide here.  This was probably the 
most well-covered operation of its kind in the history of the 
country.
	     
	     Go ahead, Sarah.
	     
	     Q	  There are two questions I want to ask you.  The 
first is, I think that they knew very well that the children did not 
have gas masks while the adults did, so the children had no chance 
because this gas was very -- she said it was not lethal, but it was 
very dangerous to the children and they could not have survived 
without gas masks.  And on February 28th -- let's go back -- didn't 
those people have a right to practice their religion?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  They were not just practicing their 
religion, they were -- the Treasury Department believed that they had 
violated federal laws, any number of them.
	     
	     Q	  What federal laws --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me go back and answer -- I can't 
answer the question about the gas masks, except to tell you that the 
whole purpose of using the tear gas was that it had been tested; they 
were convinced that it wouldn't kill either a child or an adult but 
it would force anybody that breathed it to run outside.  And one of 
the things that I've heard -- I don't want to get into the details of 
this because I don't know -- but one of the things that they were 
speculating about today was that the wind was blowing so fast that 
the windows might have been opened and some of the gas might have 
escaped and that may be why it didn't have the desired effect.  
	     
	     They also knew, Sarah, that there was an underground 
compound -- a bus buried underground where the children could be 
sent.  And they were -- I think they were hoping very much that if 
the children were not released immediately outside that the humane 
thing would be done and that the children would be sent someplace 
where they could be protected.  
	     
	     In terms of the gas masks themselves, I learned 
yesterday -- I did not ask this fact question before -- that the gas 
was supposed to stay active in the compound longer than the gas masks 
themselves were to work.  So that it was thought that even if they 
all had gas masks, that eventually the gas would force them out in a 
nonviolent, nonshooting circumstance.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Last question.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, why are you still saying that --
	     
	     Q	  Could you tell us whether or not you ever asked 
Janet Reno about the possibility of a mass suicide?  And when you 
learned about the actual fire and explosion what went through your 
mind during those horrendous moments?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  What I asked Janet Reno is if they had 
considered all the worse things that could happen.  And she said --
and, of course, the whole issue of suicide had been raised in the 
public -- he had -- that had been debated anyway.  And she said that 
the people who were most knowledgeable  about these kinds of issues 
concluded that there was no greater risk of that now than there would 
be tomorrow or the next day or the day after that or at anytime in 
the future.  That was the judgment they made.  Whether they were 
right or wrong, of course, we will never know. 
	     
	     What happened when I saw the fire, when I saw the 
building burning?  I was sick.  I felt terrible.  And my immediate 
concern was whether the children had gotten out and whether they were 
escaping or whether they were inside, trying to burn themselves up.  
That's the first thing I wanted to know.  
	     
	     Thank you.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, why are you still saying it was a 
Janet Reno decision?  Isn't it, in the end, your decision?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what I'm saying is that I didn't 
have a four- or five-hour, detailed briefing from the FBI.  I didn't 
go over every strategic part of it.  It is a decision for which I 
take responsibility.  I'm the President of the United States and I 
signed off on the general decision and giving her the authority to 
make the last call.  When I talked to her on Sunday, some time had 
elapsed.  She might have made a decision to change her mind.  I said, 
if you decide to go forward with this tomorrow, I will support you. 
And I do support her.  
	     
	     She is not ultimately responsible to the American 
people; I am.  But I think she has conducted her duties in an 
appropriate fashion and she has dealt with this situation I think as 
well as she could have.  
	     
	     Thank you.  (Applause.)

                                 END1:55 P.M. EDT

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178909
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: Quick Survey on Economic Views

I'd like to conduct a small survey relating to Americans' views on economics and on Japan.
The survey consists of just two questions.  I ask that only Americans respond; I've posted
it worldwide, however, because I think others will be interested in the results.  I'll
tabulate the results and post them with some commentary.  Please respond by email to
"borden@m5.harvard.edu".  Here are the questions:

1) As an American, would you prefer that in a given year, a) our economy grows by one
   percent, and Japan's economy also grows by one percent, or b) our economy grows by
   two percent while Japan's economy grows by three percent?

2) On what newsgroup did you read this survey?

Thank you for your participation.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178910
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Chris Cooke (cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: 
:    When you force people to associate with others against their will,
:    yes.
: 
: People are *forced* into the USA armed forces?

They were in the recent past, maybe someone knows for certain if the
usa has decided if it wants a conscript army (as they sent into south
east asia) or a volenteer one?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178911
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:
|> 
|> > I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir,
|> 
|> What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a
|> person, not a euphemism.
|> 
|> > because if she heard
|> 
|> Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

WOW!  Another Clayton wannabe.  Typical response: lack of logic.

Define 'deviant':  someone who deviates from the normal.  Ok, so far.
Define 'normal':   erm, umm.  If you define yourself as normal then it is for
you to prove that you are (within limits, which then brings in the question,
what are the limits?  For you we may have to broaden them to other's intolerance
;-) ) 'normal'.  Difficult to prove.  From what you have posted it must follow
that `normal` to you means someone without compassion and a sense of justice.
But it does look as if you went to the Clayton school of logic, doesn't it?

|> 
|> > how disparaging you are towards political minorities,
|> 
|> Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

Again an astounding lack of logic!  Wow!

You must define what you say such that everyone agrees.  Here you have used
the phrase "sexual deviant".  How in the hell do you define that?  As someone
who does something sexually that _you_ don't?  By this definition you most
probably mean the majority of the planet.  How do you know that your next
door neighbour doesn't like custard to be spread over his genetalia then
have it licked off by his wife?  Is this sexual deviancy?  How do we know
that you don't like something sexually which others may find repulsive?  Is 
having sex doggy fashion a sexual deviancy?  Please be more specific, and
where you do, back up your claims.  Or I may have to go to hospital due to
laughing too much at yours and Clayton's postings.

Secondly, if we assume for the moment that the phrase 'sexual deviant' means
such people as homosexuals, bisexuals &c. (basically everyone you don't like),
I think that your phrase "do not comprise a `political minorit[y]`" (why the
brackets?) is a non-sequiteur.  Gay groups exist which lobby their governments.
That is a fact.  Prove it false.  Hence they are a politial group.  You 
state that they are not a political minority.  Are they therefore a
political majority?  I think you boobed really big on this one.  Try thinking
about your arguments.

|> 
|> > and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.
|> 
|> I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were
|> I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the
|> door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as
|> "homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would
|> further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on
|> the way out.  Who needs such an airhead?
|>

Prove the first statement please.   Dates, phone numbers, &c.

Again your logic fails.  Again you make statements which you cannot
(and most probably will not) maintain.

You state that a person (girl, in this context) who considers equal rights
for all humans to be an airhead?  As Clayton (your best mate?) would say:
it just shows how screwed up you are.

 
|> >> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
|> >> where they belong.
|> 
|> > Don't count on it, sweetheart.
|> 
|> Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
|> inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout
|> history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as
|> to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
|> nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.
|> Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_
|> _CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend
|> otherwise.

Proof please.  Proof that homosexuality is not part of the natural order.
Proof that nature has always asserted itself.  Are you saying that nature
is a conciousness?  Are you pretending that you have the ability to see the
future?  Are you god(tm)?  In fact, by your arguement, are you waiting for 
the black people to become slaves again?  Because they were reviled as
sub-human (nb: *not* my view) at one time?  Again your arguement falls
on its ass.


|> 
|> Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".

Touchy touchy touchy!

Right.  I have shot holes in each and every one of your arguements.  You are
most probably going to put me in your kill file because you have no answers
to my questions and challenges.  Since you cannot support your arguments it
merely goes to show that what you write is based upon your personal prejudices,
and cannot be taken to be fact of any kind.

I await an intelligent response.....


|> -- 
|>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
|>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
|>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
|>   as this would hold such views??? |

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178912
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <rlglendeC5tBuF.2oC@netcom.com> rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
>Has anybody heard an explanation of why the FBI was using tear gas
>in a 35 mph wind?

    First, a tank drove through the wall into the living room.

    I can't stop thinking about the children who were inside
    the house (the room?) at the time.

    How many people got killed during the Tiannamen Square events?

>
>Doesn't seem like vry good tactics to me ...
>
>Any other explanations?
>
>Lew
>-- 
>Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
>"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178913
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association

In article <pdb059-210493135728@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:

A very well put together post. I disagree with several key points, but the
post is an excellent one with which to "engage in discourse":

    >There has been much discussion recently about the right to
    >freedom of association. Mr. Cramer and Mr. Ronzone appear to
    >take an absolutist position on this right--that it is a
    >fundamental human right, perhaps the fundamental human right,
    >and that it supersedes other rights, such as the right to an
    >equal opportunity. Others feel that a right to an equal
    >opportunity outweighs the right to freedom of association,
    >and thus we have the never-ending debate that flares up
    >repeatedly.

Freedom of Association (FOA) involves the MUTUAL and VOLUNTARY agreement of
two or more people.

Right to Equal Opportunity (lets call it REO) involves coercion in all cases
(by definition).


    >A major problem is that neither of these rights are
    >explicitly declared or protected in the Constitution or in
    >the Declaration of Independence, although both can be derived
    >from these documents. Unfortunately, this means that the
    >debate will never end, because neither side can conclu-
    >sively prove the validity of their view--it becomes solely a
    >matter of personal philosophy.

Yes, there is much debate. But no, it can end, with once and for all
recognition of these rights. (Well, not totally 100% perfect end, but end
in the same way that there is no worldwide disagreement that say, murder, is
a crime).


    >My personal opinion is that the real answer lies somewhere in
    >between. I regard both of these rights as fundamental human
    >rights which, unfortu- nately, come into direct conflict with
    >one another. Which is stronger depends on the given
    >situation.

Hmm, there is even MORE discusion about religion. Should  we take a 
"somewhere in between" approach towards the State & a State recognized
religion? The first amendment, is so, uh, so absolutist you know.

    >For example, if the owner of a "mom-and-pop" store wishes to
    >hire an employee to help out, their right to freedom of
    >association outweighs the rights of their job applicants to
    >an equal opportunity. They should be free to hire whomever
    >they choose, using whatever criteria they choose, without any
    >government intervention at all.
    >
    >Similarly, if a family wishes to rent out a bedroom in their
    >home, or a garage apartment, or something similar, then their
    >right to freedom of association outweighs the rights of their
    >prospective tenants to an equal opportunity.
    >
    >If, on the other hand, IBM, a multi-national corporation with
    >275,000 employees, publicly owned, and operated by a board of
    >directors, wishes to hire additional employees, then whose
    >freedom of association are we protecting? The board of
    >directors? The other employees? The owners of the stock? In
    >this case, the applicant's right to an equal opportunity
    >outweighs the right to freedom of association, and we, as a
    >society, can ask IBM to use only those criteria which are
    >relevant to the specific task.

Why? Says who? Why can mon & pop have FOA, but IBM be forced, and force is
the correct word here, to have REO? As purchase of IBM is voluntary, then
there are very well defined procedures on how IBM chooses to do some things
and chooses to do other things. Why not let those same procedures work for
employment policies?


    >Similarly, if a landlord owns a number of apartment buildings
    >in which he does not live, and which are managed by an
    >independent management agency, then whose freedom of
    >association are we protecting? If the owner does not live in
    >his buildings and has no contact with his tenants, then the
    >prospective tenant's right to an equal opportunity outweighs
    >the right to freedom of association, and we, as a society,
    >can ask the owner to use only those criteria which are
    >relevant to "good" tenants. (I've put "good" in quotation
    >marks because I really don't want to be drawn off into the
    >side issue of what constitutes a good tenant.)

Why does this tenant have an "option" (I won't call it a right) to destroy
the FOA of the landlord? If the landlord and the tenant can't agree, then they
both can cease from using each other's property.

Suddenly, by arm waving, by magic, a landlord does not have FOA. And on what
basis does the FOA of the landlord "disappear"?

It seems that vague terms like "no contact with tenants" suffice.

Well, I think FOA is one our most important rightts (in the top 2-3), and by
golly, if the State is going to make it suffer, I sure would like to see the
heinous crime that justifies the removal of this right.

I don't think "no contact" with the tenats is even a crime, much less something
that should cause severe interference with important rights.

    >I suspect that the majority of the people in this country
    >agree with my position on these extreme cases, particularly
    >if they are presented in this manner. I don't know if Mr.
    >Ronzone or Mr. Cramer would agree--I suspect not. In any
    >case, additional problems arise when we try to apply
    >guidelines for the middle ground. What if the company has 10
    >employees, or 100, or 1000? Where do we draw the line between
    >protecting the right to freedom of association and protecting
    >the right to an equal opportunity?

Rights are not defined by majority/mob choice. FOA is an absolute. REO
is a fancy name for thuggery, for racism, and coercion.

    >The difficulty is that any line we draw will, of necessity,
    >be artificial. And any legislation resulting will be flawed.
    >In the past, the government has usually tried to pass laws
    >which referred to the number of employees hired by the
    >company--e.g., any company with more than xxx employees was
    >affected by the law. Those with fewer were unaffected.

Of course it would be. You dimly see that the line must be artifiacial, because
FOA is the only right. Just like a State religion -- you can't jsutify that
either.

    >Generally, I believe that if we do not have any regulations
    >affecting these rights, then the right to freedom of
    >association will be stronger. On the other hand, many of the
    >regulations protect the right to an equal opportunity too
    >much, weakening the right to freedom of association.
    >
    >I don't believe there is a satisfactory solution which will
    >please everybody. A solution that I came up with is to use
    >publicly owned vs. privately owned as the dividing line. If
    >the company remains privately owned, then the owners should
    >be free to do whatever they want with their company. If the
    >company becomes publicly owned, then the public has a right
    >to ask the company to submit to additional regulation.

Why? I assume that when you say "publicly owned", you are talking about those
quasi-State companys that do NOT have shareholders.

The companies on the Fortune 500, for example, are all privately owned. They
can give you a list of all of their owners. They have no "anonymous",
unknown to them, owners.


    >By the way, the above analysis is based on the assumption
    >that the right to freedom of association and the right to an
    >equal opportunity are both fundamental human rights of equal
    >importance. Since this is entirely a matter of faith, not
    >subject to any "proof", I do not choose to even try to
    >establish this. You either accept it or you don't.
    >
    >Any comments?

FOA can be derived by any two rational people, on a basis that neither has
evil, malicious, or murderous intent towards the others.

In short, agreement is mutual, or not at all.

Your REO on the other hand, lives only by accepting coercion, the gun, into
the situation. And that is self-destructive of the whole argument, because it
is based only on might makes right. Sort of like saying, "nobody has a right
to live", whereupon I whip out a gun and shoot you dead -- end of argument.


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178914
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>> 
>>>You're not buying insurance so much as being coerced into one 
>>>insurance plan.
>> 
>>No, it is optional ... as it is optional for doctors to accept it.
>>There are isolated religeous communities in particular that ask for
>>exemptions (and one e-mail from a Christian Scientist in Edmonton
>>verified for me that it is indeed negative option).  I guess that you
>>can argue that there is a right to having a particular insurance, but
>>so far I've not come across that up north ... and I take pains to keep
>>tabs with news from home.
>
>It's optional, but what if you don't want basic coverage on the 
>government's terms? You said before that if you opt out, you're 
>basically uninsured.

There are two things at work here ... the public insurance is very
wide in what it will cover, as the amortization is also universal.
No private plan can boast of a plan that fits a Gaussian curve ...
and as our private sector has discovered, they're better off not
offering insurance coverage that their customers are going to use.
(-;

>>>And that turns the private insurers offering the frills into an
>>>effective cartel-they don't really need to compete because, as you put
>>>it, they're in a "win-win" situation and they're guaranteed to turn a
>>>profit 
>> 
>>Believe me, they probably had orgasms when they figured that out.  And
>>according to my sister the yuppie, they pat themselves on the back to
>>the point of ungraciousness at Chamber of Commerce luncheons.
>
>So, in a sense, they've stopped being truly capitalists if they don't 
>have to worry about competing anymore. You might say that the total 
>effect is one of socialized medicine-a government providing the basics 
>and a cartel providing the extras. There is no alternative to the system, 
>desirable or not.

The alternative to the system is no system at all (patients opted out,
doctors opted out, or both).  But that only for insurance ... and you
can't force a private insurance company to sell you a plan that they
will not offer.  And remember that the actual health care is delivered
by private entities who collect from the public insurance voluntarily.
Again, they can't force a private entity to spring to life to pay them.

Plus, there is the matter of culture and values ... I'm basically
anti-tax and anti-government, by Canadian standards ... yet I can't
bring myself to make the same arguments as you do, despite that I
understand where you're coming from.  Up north, you're so much more
likely to find someone protesting taxes going to defence than health
insurance premiums to only one fund for basic coverage ...

>>>(Interesting side note-have any new insurance companies started
>>>up-from scratch-since Medicare became standard in Canada?
>> 
>>I actually have doubts that any new ones have emerged since WW I ...
>>no, scratch that ... there are a few in Western Canada, and *quite* 
>>a few in Quebec as part of the post-1980 Quebec Miracle (out with the
>>nationalism, in with the French capitalism).  La Groupe des Cooper-
>>antes built a new tower by the Eaton('s) store at Les Terraces, and if
>>you were able to catch Urban Angel on CBS's Crimetime you'd see it as
>>the well-lit one with double-turrets at the top.  As for Ontario,
>>which still dominates and anchors business up north ...
>
>I meant new companies, not new buildings.

Yes, primarily in Quebec and in Alberta.  Sorry, I musta lost you in
that verbose blurb ...

>>>It's not really insurance if you don't have alternatives
>> 
>>Well, you have to realize that in our society that's like saying
>>that "it's not really national defence" because you can't hire
>>your own Rambo squad instead or even opting out as a pacifist.
>
>True, but I would be more comfortable with a system in which basic 
>care provided by the government was optional, not mandatory.

In Canada and Germany, it's not mandatory.  However, it is negative
option in that you must request the exemption.  That the private
sector will not provide private basic coverage if offered the option
(as in the Quebec case) tells me something about what they know ...

>>Either way, the transient situations are hard to deal with since the
>>changes in the private medical care resource take place at a slower
>>rate than the ability of people to fall sick esp. in the light of
>>disasters (e.g., Chernobyl) or bad luck (a sudden wave of heart
>>disease). A doctor needs 4-6 years of training, plus internship 
>>and specialty training.
>
>Another problem with the US system that should be resolved. Doesn't 
>Canada have something like ten times the proportion of GPs to specialists 
>that the US does?

Yes, but part of the reason is that our most of our markets are
too small to sustain many specialists, sometimes not even one, so
you pretty well have to be a GP to get paid.  And if you do get
the training, the doctors monopoly might block your getting of a
licence because there is already someone in the business and who
cannot fill his/her appointment book.  That we have a CMA doctors
monopoly is something that the American AMA-oriented medical lobby
NEVER tells you down here ...

>The problem is, in a specialty your skill often directly correlates
>to your pay (a good cardiologist makes more than a merely adequate
>cardiologist) more than it does in general practice. In that
>circumstance, it's hard to blame people for going into specialties.

No, I respect people who do specialties (okay, all of my MD friends
are (-;) but there's the question of our small market dynamics up
north ... if anything, that our private doctors and hospitals sell
their services to Americans to generate more business will inflate
their effective population served, and thus make some specialties
finally viable (i.e., there will be enough customers).  We just do
not have enough sick Canadians in absolute numbers otherwise.

>I personally think an approach like Germany's would be best-where the
>companies compete for batches of people. Rochester, a little east of
>us, was able to get almost all of its population covered that way.

Uh ... Germany basically uses our method, with their many sickness
funds.  The competition is fake if it exists at all, because they're
all interlinked.  Look in Der Spiegel or Stern (my girlfriend is in
our German department  and her uncle is a private practicioner in
Saarbrucken) ... no ads for health insurance.  While Canada organizes
by province, Germany organizes the paperwork around big corporations
and regional offices.   But remember that we have provinces that have
the same population as some major German corporations.  Germans have
public health insurance, just that it is brokered by smaller entities
(actually, brokerage of basic by private firms who'll sell extra
insurance to fill out their policies, sort of a voucher system,
was one of the first ideas floated in Canada, too).

Remember, the Germans don't have HMO's ... a telling sign, 'cos
Rochester does and they're also a company town.

>But there was a Washington Post article recently about that that said
>Canadian doctors often use myelograms instead of MRIs, which require
>spinal injections and can cause seizures and headaches. Mickey Kaus,
>in the New Republic, probably spoke for most Americans when he said
>"Who needs that?" I think people here generally like to believe they
>can easily get the most high-tech treatment even if they really can't
>afford it.

I'll have to let a Canadian MD jump in to verify that claim, but
I've come to learn to suspect anything in the American press about
our "system".  If much or some of it were true, you'd have to take
us for idiots for tolerating it.  And given that our insurance was
installed during a period when there were only Liberal and Tory
governments federally and provincially, and the socialists are still
chafing, they would've pressed for real socialized medicine to fix
things ... think about it.  After all, we are using the U.S. as a
metric to make comparison ... both for keeping-up-with-the-Joneses
as for confirming that we did something right.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178915
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares..


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares... Children/Elderly in Poverty

F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares... Children/Elderly in Poverty

  ================================================================== 
  Percentage of children and elderly living in poverty 1984-1987:(3) 
  ================================================================== 

================================================= 
                      CHILDREN            ELDERLY 
COUNTRY              IN POVERTY         IN POVERTY 
================================================= 
United States           20.4               10.9 
Canada                   9.3                2.2 
Australia                9.0                4.0 
United Kingdom           7.4                5.2 
France                   4.6                4.5 
Netherlands              3.8                3.4 
Germany                  2.8                2.8 
Sweden                   1.6                4.3 

Source: Timothy M. Smeeding, "U.S. Poverty and Income Security Policy in a 
Cross National Perspective, October 1991, Luxembourg, October, 1991, 
Luxembourg Income Study, working paper 70. 

******************************************************************

===================================== 
Of the 19 Western Industrial Nations: 
===================================== 

Western Industrial Countries having a National Health Insurance plan 
providing universal coverage: 

Australia      YES    Sweden             YES 
Canada         YES    United Kingdom     YES 
Denmark        YES    Austria            YES 
Finland        YES    France             YES 
Ireland        YES    Switzerland        YES 
Italy          YES    Spain              YES 
Japan          YES    Belgium            YES 
New Zealand    YES    Germany            YES 
Netherlands    YES    Norway             YES  

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Western Industrial Countries NOT having a National Health Insurance 
plan providing universal coverage. 


United States       NO 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

******************************************************************

From page 74 of: 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New      
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.     

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.     
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2    
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
[Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)] 

    ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.     
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The     
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But     
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.'' 

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations     







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178916
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of America


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of Americans un-/under- covered

F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of Americans un-/under- covered

		 =================================== 
		 Percentage of population covered by 
		  public health insurance, 1990(25) 
		 =================================== 

============================================= 
COUNTRY      PERCENT  COUNTRY         PERCENT 
============================================= 
Australia      100    Sweden            100 
Canada         100    United Kingdom    100 
Denmark        100    Austria            99 
Finland        100    France             99 
Ireland        100    Switzerland        99 
Italy          100    Spain              99 
Japan          100    Belgium            98 
New Zealand    100    Germany            92 
Netherlands    100    United States      21 
Norway         100  

Sources: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris), 
Health Data file, 1991: U.S.: National Center for Heath Statistics, Advance 
Data, No. 201, June 18, 1991. 

******************************************************************
"We're Number One in percentage of population without health insurance. 
******************************************************************

"The main reason we're Number One in  percentage of population without
health  insurance  is  that we're last  in  percentage  of  population
covered  by public health insurance. Only about one fifth of Americans
qualify for the main types of public health insurance available in the
United States: Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' benefits.(2l)

"Of those  who don't  qualify, many  have private  insurance.(22)  But
almost  one  in  seven  Americans  (34  million people--most living in
families with a working adult) have  no insurance  at  all, and one in
four (63 million) have been without insurance for a substantial period
of time during the last two years. Many more have inadequate coverage,
meaning that they could be bankrupted by a major illness.(23) In fact,
one  health  care  expert  says that because  only 1  percent  of  the
population  has   private   longterm-care  insurance,  "virtually  any
American could be  impoverished by a prolonged disabling illness."(24)
Additionally, as many as  40 percent of those  eligible for some forms
of public aid do not  receive  it. These  gaps in health  care  result
directly from  the  fact  that  the  United  States is  the only major
industrialized  nation (other than  South Africa) without  a  national
health insurance  plan providing  universal coverage while controlling
costs.

******************************************************************
From: 


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New      
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.     

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.     
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2    
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
[Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)] 

    ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.     
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The     
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But     
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.'' 

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations     







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178917
From: Steve_Martin@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <16BB7A1DE.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Richard Hoenes,
V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions
>with the result of the police trying to take the place by
>force and the result being the death of the hostages and the
>gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of
>the blame landing squarely on the police.
> 
>In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down
>from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages
>other terrorists and hostage takers.

NOT an accurate analogy. David Koresh did not take a bunch of
hostages and then call the BATF with a ransom note. You make
it sound as if the BATF showed up to save those children in the
first place. I have some interesting news for youBATF
has absolutely NO jurisdiction in child abuse cases. 

It seems to me that the BATF showed up, took the Davidians hostage. 
Then the FBI showed up, negotiated to have a few of the hostages 
released, but were unable to keep the BATF from killing the rest 
of the poor people trapped inside the compound.

        Steve Martin
        Steve_Martin@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178919
From: rrl@scotty.hco.tek.com (Richard Lynn)
Subject: Re: "Quality Time," a one-act play.


    ((fluffy bi fantasy squelched))


Dear Mr. Elf,

Please post this shit where it belongs.  I believe
you know where that is, you overweening weenie-biter.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178920
From: Peter Adams <padams@mail.trincoll.edu>
Subject: Trincoll Journal-An interactive Macintosh Magizine of Opinion

                                                              
                                                            Announcing
the Trincoll Journal

                                                      Trinity College's
Paperless Publication

The Trincoll Journal is an interactive magizine written in Hypercard. 
This publication offers a wide variety of information concerning the
"Trinity Campus", and the Greater Hartford Area. In addition the Journal
also provides a unique forum for opinion and expression.

We would like to invite the Internet community to participate in the
creation of this publication by submitting Articles, Art Work, Events
(for the Greater Hartford Area only), and anything else that you think is
interesting, to the Journal each week.

Articles may be written about anything as long as they are written well! 
We are also interested in mirroring Newsletters and other information not
easily accessible to non-intensive Macintosh Users.

The weekly deadline for submitting Materials is Wendsday 10:00pm (Eastern
Standard Time).
Please send all submissions to: Journal@mail.trincoll.edu

To receive the Journal each Week send a mail message with the words
"Subscribe Journal" as the subject line to: Journal@mail.trincoll.edu.
Please include Full name and instituion in the body of text.

Find out what everyone is thinking.....
Subscribe today.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178926
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: AP journalists arrested in Waco

In article <C5wGMt.3p8@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
-> In article <JASON.93Apr22113337@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
-> >In article <1r52hf$ah4@calvin.NYU.EDU> hargitai@acf4.nyu.edu (hargitai) writes:
-> >-> 
-> >-> For those who still doubt what is going on, this is
-> >-> from the still uncensored AP wire:
-> >-> 
-> >-> Two journalists from Houston arrested at gun-point and
-> >-> cuffed and jailed for taking pictures of the compound today.
-> >-> Later released on bail, but cameras and film were confiscated.
-> >-> 
-> >-> jh
-> >
-> >	You could work for CNN.  Take a few lines from a story and
-> >imply something with it but don't say what you really mean.  
-> >
-> >	The police always close off the area around a major crime
-> >scene to keep evidence from being disturbed
-> 
->     By taking pictures?

	They leave foot prints, they may drop some trash on the
ground, and they may pick up something that looks interesting.

-> 
-> >, and it is a misdemeanor
-> >to enter the closed off area.  One of the photographers also quickly
-> >spun around with a long lens camera while the officer was approaching,
-> >a good way to get shot.  
-> 
->     Well, that (hopefully) depends on what country one is in.

	It has nothing to do with the country.  You are coming toward
someone in an area where there has been violent confrontations, and
one guy spins around quickly with an object that looks like a gun.
Police are not trained to stand there and let someone gun them down.

-> There was also no indication in that story
-> >that they wouldn't get their cameras and film back after getting out
-> >of jail.
-> 
->     Once goverment agents have had an opportunity to check 
->     the film out.

	You're making statements that are not supported by facts.
Don't let paranoia get the best of you.  Wait to see if the reporters
don't get their film back or they get it back developed before
screaming conspiracy.

-> 
->     I think it was Barry Goldwater who once said "the goverment
->     that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to
->     take everything from you."  You life and/or freedom including.
->     Of course, that could not happen to you, could it?

	Our government is not big enough to give you everything,
despite the efforts of people like Bill Clinton.  Taking a statement
like that and thinking `everything done in the name of law enforcement
is wrong' is simple minded and ignorant of history.  A government is a
necessary evil, and we must decide what it should be allowed to do
based on facts, history, and not by baseless claims.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178928
From: rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy)
Subject: Koresh is dead. It's time to start healing.

Sorry, but I just wanted to be the first hypocrite to say it. I hope
I'm not too late. Has everyone been watching their local/national
politicians?

Rick

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Roy       Usenet: rick@howtek.MV.com       America Online: QED
Disclaimer: My employer's views are orthogonal to these.
The early bird got worms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178929
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>>>Again, they can't force a private entity to spring to life to pay them.
>>>
>>>So the government, by sheer economic force, has basically cleared the 
>>>basic-care market for itself. The only way to test this would be for 
>>>some really daring person to start up, from scratch, in Alberta and/or 
>>>Quebec, a health insurance company offering basic care.
>>>
>>>Crazy? Yes, but that's almost how MCI got started.
>> 
>>However, the concept of risks is well known by insurance actuaries
>>and no private firm can get the kind of amortization that the public
>>pools can get.  And since health insurance gets spent, that doesn't
>>sit well with the insurance CEO's ... and you get a situation like
>>in the U.S. where rates keep going up to catch up.
>
>See what I mean? It's a government monopoly.

Sure ... because it's a non-market phenomenom and the free market
can't solve it.  Even our private insurance says that ....

>>And remember ... last year Quebec proposed giving the least risky
>>parts of basic care to the private sector ... and they balked.
>
>Like you said...why should they?

.... and wants no part of it.

>>>By your own arguments, if you don't want the provincial plan,
>>>you're basically up a creek.
>> 
>>Yes ... but in our culture, arguing against it is like arguing
>>for national defence by means of warlords.
>
>True. According to polls I've read (usually in the sort of simpleminded 
>stuff you were initally responding to) something like 60% of Americans 
>would like Canadian-style health care, whereas only 3% of Canadians 
>would like it our way. I'd be interested to know why there are that 
>many (3% of Canada's population is about a million or so people). 

Canada is saturated by American media.  While pundits come on cable
and talk about how awful our health care is supposed to be, what
people experience up north ends up not differing from what they see
portrayed on American television in movies (i.e., same infrastructure,
different insurance make-up).  Yet they know not of any insurance
problems, and have no idea of what an HMO is ... but having lots of
British TV as well, they know that they don't like NHS.

>Someone must have a reason to argue against it, valid or not-what 
>kind of people are they?

The polls that you refer to, for the Canadian data, are from the
annual July 1st polls conducted for Macleans (our major English
newsmagazine) by Decima Research ... Decima president Allen Gregg is
considered one of the world's top poll researchers, and Mulroney's
Conservatives have relied on him to keep in power in the face of
impossible election situations.  The American polls are Harris polls,
and have been reposted on USENET a few times and probably will again.
I'm sorta suspicious myself, 'cos maybe Americans want universal
coverage like Canada --- I honestly doubt that most Americans realize
that we have private doctors and public and private hospitals (i.e.,
similiar health care infrastructure) and our "system" is basically
pure insurance without HMO's.

>>Given recent turnarounds by the HIAA (endorsing universal coverage)
>>and hostility to corporatist HMO's within the AMA, and the complete
>>silence vis a vis Canada-bashing by the AMA, I suspect that they're
>>keeping the "secret" about Canada up their sleeve.
>
>Exactly. Wouldn't you?

Until the idea of managed competition arose, there was no direct
threat to stand-alone private practice.  In the 1960's, the AMA
fought HMO's as corporatized socialist medicine ... part of the
reason why we have only insurance, and no HMO's in Canada 'cos
that was part of the deal cut with the CMA.

>>>I've also read that the three biggest American HMOs can be compared
>>>straight up against some of the smaller Canadian provinces (in the
>>>Maritimes) and they spend something like $300-500 less per patient.
>>>Maybe it does help.
>> 
>>The American HMO's can still "cream" and they probably cover a smaller
>>geographic area than even our smallest provinces.  Geography, again.
>
>Some of them are spread out across the whole country, I think.

But each site is probably compact, and the clientele are creamed.
And don't forget that HMO's place caps on your coverage, and often
won't tell you about additional procedures you could get otherwise
(despite that you might be willing to pay for it).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178930
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15503@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I've already posted results of a survey of homosexuals, that shows
>how profoundly promiscuous homosexual men are.

Were.

In urban areas.

Among those who had access to gay bathhouses.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178932
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach....

In article <15450@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <pdb059-160493111229@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>,
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:

$># Item number 1:  in a previous posting, you stated that you had found
$># "overwhelming support for child molestation" in soc.motss:

$># You have (finally) responded to this one.  I have read your complete file
$># of postings to soc.motss and to put it bluntly, it does not support your
$># assertion.  In short, this claim is bogus.  Thank you for confirming this.

>All those postings in defense of adults having sex with children, and
>you just choose to claim that they don't say anything of the sort.
>There's no point in discussing this any further, then.  You are clearly
>a liar, without morals of any sort, prepared to justify child molestation.

Clayton, are you really an idiot, or do you just play one on USENET?

You claimed you had postings from a dozen (i.e. 12) soc.motss posters that
"supported child molestation". (Point aside that they were really defending
abolishing or modifying the age of consent laws, or the right to be ATTRACTED
but don't act upon desires for children).

so 12 out of thousands is an "overwhelming majority".

You never cease to amaze me.

And you still haven't told me why my relationship with my partner is immoral.

Brian D. Kane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178933
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Waco Investigation Paranoia

Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely
responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will
show that Koresch is responsible' bs. In an investigation of this
size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the
investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.
And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178934
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On 23 Apr 93 00:18:59 GMT, Clayton Cramer observed:
: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
: # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
: # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
: # addressed lesbians?  Granted, I stopped reading all his posts long, long
: # ago, so perhaps I missed something. 

: Because women very, very seldom molest children.

Un-hunh.  Yeah.  Right.  Sure.

You know that list of things that are stereotypically American -- Mom,
apple pie, etc.?  You don't hear too many stories about Mom being
a child molester, because such stories would simply be unAmerican.

But that doesn't say that it doesn't happen.

--
Michael/StarOwl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178935
From: jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> >In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>> I really don't want to waste time in
>> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  
>
>  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
>not eager to make a fool of myself.


Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about
and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you
wish.

The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits
so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along
with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced
organized crime specifically; etc, etc

If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into
why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group
was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little
research.


>  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification
>if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize
>alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from



Making you look bad is too damn easy.  The vast social and historical
differences between alcohol and other drugs make this comparison
worthless.



>Vice statutes serve
>only to make it more expensive for the rich and more dangerous
>for the poor, as Tim so eloquently put it. People will, however,


And so it shall be if the government (by the people) decides that
these vices are detrimental to the society as a whole.


>  And why, pray tell, is AIDS "victim" in snear quotes? Are you of
>the revisionist sort that thinks there is no such thing as the AIDS
>plauge? Or do they just deserve it?


The overwhelmingly vast majority (get the point)
of AIDS cases are contracted thru behavioral CHOICES.  Nuff said.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178938
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>>from the fire.
>>
>>	Thoughts?
> 
> How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than
> unconscious?

	Their testimony would be a contradiction of the plaintiff's charge (and
witness) that the occupant moved after the impact, indicating he was alive and
trying to get out (and provoking all sorts of sympathetic 'gross, burned alive'
reactions).

>>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>>to the previous ruling appear.
>>
>>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
> 
> What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
> the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
> emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
> first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
> forgot to call all of your witnesses.

	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".

> If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new
> interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find
> such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser
> could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser
> becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new
> expert witnesses).

	No, I support rulings that deny new trials on those grounds.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178939
From: fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams)
Subject: Pork ( C-17 & C-5 was (Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE )

muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 
>>
>>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, ........
>
>If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
>would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the 
>program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.

I do read Av Week and don't remember this.  Could you supply the date
of the magazine?  As for C-17 vs. C-5 , the C-17 can't carry as much
but has more capability ( read : can land at smaller airfields of which
there are more of ) than the C-5.  Now is the C-17 pork?  It depends
on whether your job relies on it or not.  :)  In California right now,
I would say that it is not pork since due to peace dividend so many 
people are out of work. 

>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>a pork happy Congress.
>
>-- Marc Mueller

Huh?  Shouldn't that read "The question is whether a social-pork happy
Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a jobs-pork happy
Congress."

fpa


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178940
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative 


	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
	for our computer networks and telephone systems.

	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
	bill.

	I strongly urge you to begin considering your future.

	I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport
	in the mail soon.

	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
	you are still able.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178941
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1993Apr16.131041.8660@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
>> the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
>> emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
>> first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
>> forgot to call all of your witnesses.
>
>	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
>trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
>beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".

The test isn't whether GM knew--otherwise that would reward GM for its
stupidity.  The test is whether GM reasonably should have known of their
existence.  It works both ways--if GM had won the trial, and the plaintiff
turned up two witnesses who came forward after the first trial who should
have been located beforehand, too bad, so sad--no new trial.

Like Tim said, you don't get a new civil trial because you screwed up 
the first time around.  Unlike the criminal justice system, repose is
much more important in the civil justice system.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178942
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test


In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com>, steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
> >In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
> >tes:
> >
> >>
> >>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
> >>
> >
> >A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
> >is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
> >me how, I just have seen the results.
> >
> >Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
> >the head.
> >
> 
> I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm:
> 
> 	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
> 	being screwed up in the head, given that example!
> 
> (Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
> get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
> drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
> not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
> immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
> THIS to THAT!).

And not only that, but if the drugs were legal we could have pharmacists instead
of pushers selling them, and the pharmacists could be obligated to not only
inform the purchasers of the dangers of drug use, but also show them how to use
the drugs in relatively safe ways.  And the dangers of impurities (responsible
for much of the suffering that drugs cause) would be all but eliminated.


  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178943
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
|>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
|>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.

|I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
|convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
|sufficient.

What evidence are you aware of. What was reported in the media, or all of
the evidence that was presented at the trial.

This sounds to me a lot like the first Rodney King 5 trial. A bunch of people
who saw 10 to 15 seconds out of a several minute long video, decided that
they knew more than people who had sat through a two week trial.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178944
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As
|> I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of 
|> eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers,
|> barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian
|> agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of
|> allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without
|> regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be 
|> free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.  
|> (As some/many libertarians would argue.)  
|> 
|> On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
|> is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
|> for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
|> kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of 
|> difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic, 
|> to say the least.
|> 
|> I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education, 
|> national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
|> a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
|> than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
|> exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile 
|> analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.  

Excellently put!

Even as a libertarian, I have to admit government does do some things I
like.  There is a beautiful performing arts complex in Ft.  Lauderdale
that was partially built with tax dollars (I don't know how much was
private and how much was stolen, I mean public) but it is beautiful and
I enjoy it.  (Keep in mind, though, most of the people in the city will
never attend a single performance there, so they might feel differently
about having to help pay for it.)

However, I have to disagree about it being desireable or efficient to
give government intervention-power on a case-by-case basis.  In fact,
we have a lot better luck maintaining our freedom of speech precisely
because it is not decided on a case-by-case basis as much as other
issues.  Judges decide whether political speech is allowed on the
sidewalk in front of the post office.  They do not try to decide just
whether pro-nazi, pro-choice, pro-life, or pro-tax political speech
should be allowed on the sidewalk in front of the post office.  You can
imagine the result if right to free speech was decided by the majority
on a case-by-case basis.

Not so with economic issues.  Government does tell taxi-drivers exactly
what they can charge, but not the bus lines or the lawyers.

Just as it is not desireable to decide rights of free speech on a
case-by-case basis, we should not decide rights to free enterprise on a
case-by-case basis.

There is hope that a government can be restricted from interferring with
free enterprise.  But there is no hope, in my opinion, of having a
government that interferes with free enterprise in an "efficient"
manner; I call it political market failure.

Thus, if you value freedom and the abundance it produces, you have to
swallow the "whole libertarian agenda."

Roger Collins

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178945
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <16BB1B92B.DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu.Ext> DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu writes:
>You think that you all have it bad....here at good ol' Southwest Missouri
>State U., we have 2 parties running for student body president.  There's the
>token sorority/fraternity faces, and then there's the president and vice
>president of NORML.  They campaigned by handing out condoms and listing
>their qualifications as,"I listen really well."  It makes me sick to have
>a party established on many of the things that are ruining this country like
>they are.  I think I'll run next year.:(

Well, a student body president can't exactly campaign on the stand
that he's "tough on crime".  Their job is to listen to what people want
and fund things that make sense.

Condoms and marijuana aren't exactly the worst things to have available
either...

   don

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178946
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
>me how, I just have seen the results.

Gee, the War on Drugs has been going on for all these years and they're
still getting drugs!  Imagine that...

My friends who like grass (I don;t agree but it's pretty harmless) are
unable to get it, yet I know a number of places where someone stupid
enough could get crack cocaine within a half hour of leaving my office.

The War on Drugs has been completely unsuccessful, yet it's lead to really
horrible abuses of peoples' COnstitutional rights.  I don't see how a
thinking person could justify it.

   don


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178947
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

Kaldis writes:
#The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
#presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
#apparently found this compelling.

Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
they are not prostitutes.

#Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the
#Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?

Gee, Both Clayton and Kaldis engaging in ad hominem arguments.

I presented evidence that what you said is *NOT* what the judge ruled.
Provide your evidence. Repeating a false claim is not evidence.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178948
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <1993Apr16.170521.21129@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
>
>SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It 
>was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax
>was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of 
>quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final 
>stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the
>large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers."
>In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the
>tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer
>paying the full load.
>
>These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.

      One of the commentators on one of the Big Three news programs 
described the VAT (which ain't a sales tax) as a tax "government's love."
I was even surprised he got the reason right:  it effectively hides the
majority of the tax the consumer has to pay *from* the consumer.  It's
kind of like they do with cars.  You pay far more for automobile taxes than
most people realize because it's contained in two dozen different taxes,
everything from your license to your tires to your gasoline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178949
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage


In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
> 
>     Male sex survey: Gay activity low
> 
>     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>     examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed
*said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they 
considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

The point being that what people say and what they acutally do
may be different.

It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not
mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-)

>     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178951
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Capital Gains tax increase "loses" money

In article <C5J8wI.IGK@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>>In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>>
>>>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large
>>>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a)
>>>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by
>>>accumlated gains.
>>
>>To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains
>>taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there
>>to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised.
>>   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that
>>more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort
>>"trends".
> 
> Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they
> clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86
> blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:

	You misunderstand.  I'm not trying to prove a *cause* for anything. 
Merely pointing out that Ted's assertion that the "blip" in revenues was
"caused" by selling to avoid the tax can't be proven.

> 1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find
> oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term
> that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a
> few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with
> preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.

	Not disputed.

> 2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of
> what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects
> beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to
> unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on
> taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar
> advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice
> was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986),
> but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates
> (without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).

	It works for any situation.  If you believe the market is going up,
don't sell.

	If believe it's not, sell.  But then you'd be selling anyways, wouldn't
you?

	So where is the evidence that a large number of people suddenly decided
that the higher taxes meant they should sell before the year was out?

	There isn't any.

	Ted's saying that the increase over the previous year is "proof" of
that proposition, but I'm saying you can't know that the trend of increasing
capital gains revenues wouldn't account for a lot of that increase.
	1986 was the height of the housing boom, remember.  People were
"trading up" like mad.

> It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal
> economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless
> pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe
> accurately what happens in the real world.

	Indeed.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178952
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Clinton caves in: reduces jobs bill

	Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill.

	Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for
creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money).

	Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178953
From: ries@hqrim.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries)
Subject: Re: " Only $17 / Month! "


  A Alan Brock 4/14/93 Orange County Register Editorial titled "A case for
  repealing the income tax" got my attention.

  Some quotes:

   "... a tax on income, because of the flexible definition of that
   concept, invites the government to snoop into every nook and
   cranny of our lives. Encouraging people to snoop on one another
   and report transgressions against the almighty state, which most
   Americans deplored in Nazi or communist regimes..." 

   "... Although most Americans paid no income tax at all 50 years ago
   -- withholding began only during World War II, as a "temporary"
   exigency, and in 1948 the median family federal income tax was $9..."

   "Last year the federal government got only 37 percent of its income
    from income taxes... How long ago was it that the federal government
    somehow managed to stagger along on 63 percent of its 1992 revenue?
    ... Would you believe five?..."

   "... The income tax has converted a free people into a society of
    the fearful and the snitches..."



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178954
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
>
>>      own CNN news LOGO!
>>
>>      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
>>
>>      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this 
>>      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching 
>>      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by 
>>      now.
>>      
>>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
>>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
>>
>
>Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue
>persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.
>
>However....
>
>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
>have in Europe)
>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, 

       The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase.
There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase
incrementally.

       (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of
Europe's that makes it "visible?")

>and
>force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax
>rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could
>be increased only via a national referendum.

       This would require a constitutional amendment, and Congress
enjoys raising taxes too much to restrict themselves like that.
(Besides, with the 2/3 majority necessary to pull that off you'd 
have a difficult time "forcing" anything like that.)

>Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile...
>shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get
>health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate
>all in one fell swoop.

       Primarily because it's a practical impossibility to "freeze"
tax rates.

       However, this is something that bothers me.  We're always talking
about "consumer confidence" and "consumer spending" as gauges for the
economy.  If they really are important, wouldn't shifting taxes to
consumption provide a disincentive to spend money?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178955
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Just what is in the Jobs/Pork bill?

This was in Wed. WSJ.

[start]
The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded
news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that
certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't
passed.

None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are
part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in
Community Development Block Grants.

...

[end]

I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving
about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this
wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that
same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to
do the honarable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178956
From: dunnjj@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (DUNN  JONATHAN JAMES)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:

>Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would
>be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.

As a libertarian (with a small l) who voted for Clinton, I think that he
should abolish the Selective Service and the draft.  If his conscience
forbade him to go to war in Vietnam, it should forbid him to perpetuate
this system of government-sanctioned slavery.

>Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf.
>The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there
>is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing
>the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail
>getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.
>Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get
>Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.

If our government would pay attention to SERIOUS domestic issues (the ECONOMY)
and choose to stay out of other people's wars (Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia),
we would not be in this fix.  An anyway, couldn't the jobs be replaced by
improving our domestic situation?  (I'm not for continued deficit spending,
but if Clinton and Congress want to spend, I'd rather they improve the 
infrastructure than fight other people's wars.)

>In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station
>and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being 
>required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.
>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>a pork happy Congress.

A novel idea:  Getting away from naval bases, what about refurbishing
decommissioned Air Force bases as airports?  This would be SO much cheaper
than building them from the ground up (Denver's new airport is one of the 
most appalling examples of pork-barreling and cronyism I have seen in
my lifetime).  Even if no more airports are needed, I'm sure Bill Gates
or Ross Perot would LOVE to have their own private airfields, and the
money from their purchases could be applied to the public debt.

>Jon Dunn<

* All E-mail flames will be deleted without reading *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178957
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: Pork ( C-17 & C-5 was (Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE )

In article <1993Apr16.174304.26360@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>>fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 
>>>
>>>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, ........
>>
>>If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
>>would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the 
>>program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.
>
>I do read Av Week and don't remember this.  Could you supply the date
>of the magazine? 

Aviation Week March 15 1993 p.48

"the CBO estimates that matching the capability of 100 C-17s would
require 70 C-5s at a total cost of $14.4 billion. This option is still
more than $10 billion cheaper than completing the C-17 program, which
the CBO estimates will cost $24.7 billion."

Sorry, I was nine billion off. The C-5s would be ten billion cheaper.
>  As for C-17 vs. C-5 , the C-17 can't carry as much
>but has more capability ( read : can land at smaller airfields of which
>there are more of ) than the C-5.  Now is the C-17 pork?  It depends
>on whether your job relies on it or not.  :)  In California right now,
>I would say that it is not pork since due to peace dividend so many 
>people are out of work. 
>
Well, California voted overwhelmingly for change, right?
The argument to continue military programs just to support jobs is
a poor one. It's kept quite a few bases open that should have been closed
years ago, wasting billions of taxes.

>>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>>a pork happy Congress.
>>
>>-- Marc Mueller
>
>Huh?  Shouldn't that read "The question is whether a social-pork happy
>Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a jobs-pork happy
>Congress."
>
>fpa
>

-- Marc Mueller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178958
From: jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
>	being screwed up in the head, given that example!
>
>(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
>get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
>drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
>not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
>immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
>THIS to THAT!).

Hello, is there anybody in there?  You think you have to pay for this idiot's
problem now, who's going to pay for the ballooning number of addicts and 
all of the associated problems with them.  I don't even want to think about
it with Hillary in the White House and an administration that "feels our
pain".

No harm but to himself?  What about when he drives his school bus full
of kids into a train.  When he gets stoned and drives up on a sidewalk
and kills 5 people.  When he lives off me on Welfare for the rest of his
life.

The problem with the WOD is that it has no bite.  Sending the slimy 
bastards to the chair for selling drugs to kids, now there's some bit.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178959
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

In article <15389@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > > You mean, since your philosophy took over, the economy has almost
> > > collapsed.
  
> > Excuse me, *my* philosophy?  You don't have any idea what *my* philosophy
> > is.  The American economy has had its ups and downs through a number of
> > prevailing economic philosophies.  But then, economics is hardly a science.

> In my lifetime, your philosophy -- socialism masquerading as a liberal
> welfare state -- has been in ascendancy.

Yo--earth to Clayton--*my* philosophy?  I have never discussed this with you.
I know it's a minor point, but, gee, dude, you have no idea what economic
and political principles I adhere to.  But don't let that stop you--you're on a
roll.  Just ascribe to me whatever you want--I know you'll choose wisely.
After all, I *do* believe in personal responsibility.

> > No, I mean exactly what I wrote--the welfare system of the New Deal is
> > wholly inadequate to cope with the current state of affairs.

> Absolutely.  So the response of socialists is take us even further
> into socialism.

Duh.  What else would you *expect* a socialist to do?

> > > Flash-in-the-pan?  No, your subculture has utterly dominated the
> > > TV and movie industries for two decades now.

> > *My* subculture?  My, we're getting personal.  The only subculture I see
> > dominating the TV and movie industries is *money*.  If you'll buy it,
> > they'll sell it.  And as recent movements to boycott TV advertisers have
> > shown, they're *very* sensitive about what sells.  Whatever happened to
> > personal responsibility, anyway?  Or am I personally responsible for
> > the decline in that, too?

> To the extent that people have been encouraged to NOT be responsible
> for themselves, yes.

(a) Just when and where have I encouraged people not to be responsible
for themselves?  Be specific--but do make up random dates and heinous
acts as you see fit.

(b) You and I have encouraged many people to do many things.  How does that
in any way make our audiences less responsible for their actions?  Is there
a finite amount of responsibility, so (cf. conservation of energy) as
I become more responsible for an occurrence by encouraging it the actual
perpetrator becomes correspondingly less so?  At what point does the
perpetrator become completely innocent altogether?  You know, this lends
a whole new meaning to the term "the moral high ground".

> > > Oddly enough, all the unskilled or semiskilled people I know manage
> > > to find employment almost immediately.  Maybe she needs to move to a
> > > cheaper part of the country, where jobs are plentiful, and the cost
> > > of living is lower.

> > The west side of Chicago is about as cheap as it gets--squalor city.
> > Tell me about all these places where it's cheap to live and jobs are
> > abundant--I'll pass them on.

> Sonoma County.

I will pass the info on.  Out of curiosity, what kind of jobs would these
be?  What's the demographic mix wrt race, age, culture?

> > lots of employment, and utterly surrounded by socialists.  Well, I suppose
> > that's the sort of environment that would attract socialists, or at least
> > not dissuade them.

> No, it's that areas with a lot of wealthy breed socialists -- all the
> spoiled rich kids, feeling guilty about their wealth.  But not guilty
> enough to give it away -- they just look for politicians to take MY
> more limited wealth away.

Life's a bitch, ain't it?  Man, you've got to get out of Fornicalia--have
you considered someplace perhaps geographically distant but politically
more friendly to you, like, say, Indiana?  Or maybe Utah?

> > Well, I doubt that much of this goes to drugs--there isn't much left after
> > buying food, and there is very little in the first place.  Sure, you read
> > about such cases now and then, but that's what makes them news.  Show me
> > your statistics about AFDC abuse.

> I can tell you that relatives I have known, the drugs came first, the
> food was secondary.

I don't doubt it, but unless you can show me statistics to the contrary
I will persist in my apparently dogmatic socialist belief (hey, if *you* say
so) that most AFDC money really does--for better or worse in the long
term--feed FDCs.  

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
16 Apr 93   ****** ******   27 Germinal An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178962
From: asper@calvin.uucp (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans

In article <mwalker-160493090617@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
>
>> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
>
>This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists
>in your .sigs, folks!

Oh, darn.
Okay, okay, let's stop slamming Ipser, and get on with making fun of other
people.

Alan


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178963
From: rolandi@hssc.scarolina.edu (Walter Rolandi)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?

hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen) writes:


>A good two-party system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.

yeah, just like we have here in the US.


--

  WALTER G. ROLANDI
  USENET: rolandi@andy.hssc.scarolina.edu
INTERNET: rolandi@hsscls.hssc.scarolina.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178966
From: nils@monroe.dartmouth.edu (Nils Nieuwejaar)
Subject: Re: We're winning the war on drugs. Not!

kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:

>The chart that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
>issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eigth-graders" by Mike
>Snider, p. 6D).

>    Adolescents' choices

>    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
>                      Estimated, per 100 students
>                             1991     1992   Pct. chg.
>    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
>    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
>    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16% 
>    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
>    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
>    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
>    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%

>    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
>    1993 report

>We are not winning the "war on drugs".  I think you can see that one
>of the tactics that the DEA employs to give people the impression that
>the "war on drugs" is being won is to selectively quote statistics---
>only statistics that support their contention that drug use has gone
>down.  The excerpt from Time magazine that I included in this post is
>an excellent example of how organizations like the DEA attempt to
>deceive the public.

Unfortunately, there's not much we can learn from the statistics presented
here either.  Due to rounding, the 1991 est. for LSD could be anywhere
from .550 to .649 and the 1992 est. could be anywhere from .850 to .949.
This means that the actual change (if you believe these statistics in the
first place) was anywhere from 31% to 73%.  Similarly the increase in
cocaine use could be anywhere from 18% to 66% and the increase of
crack use could be anywhere from 29% to 120%.  This doesn't even
take into account the margin of error which isn't provided here.

This does not mean that the rest of the argument you present is unfounded,
but it does mean that USA Today has (not surprisingly) provided us
with virtually no information.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178967
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Clayton Cramer writes:
#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
#male population.  

Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
promiscious)? 

I didn't think that you did.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178969
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative

In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
                     ^^^^^^^^^
>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>
>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	bill.

What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be
so kind as to explain how this is "Clinton's" initiative, when it
has been before Congress for "at least the past 6 months"?

Jeez, the next thing you know, they'll be blaming the weather on the
poor guy. They'll be blaming World War II on him. They'll be blaming
the Civil War on him. Maybe the Thirty Years War?




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178970
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993


                       *Paranoia part deleted.*

  Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178971
From: cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Riyadh Al-hajmoosa)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
> (discrediting Kinsey) says so.
> -- 
>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>   as this would hold such views??? |

	My understanding from my psycology classes is that the percentage is 
	more like 10-12% world wide.  I would really like to know your source
	for the 1-2% figure.

						Riyadh Moosa.
						SDSU-Chemistry.
						cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178973
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

In article <1993Apr16.083029.12516@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) w
rites:
>In article <1993Apr16.031616.23130@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>
>>This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
>>1980 election.
>>
>>This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame
,
>>pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.
>>
>>Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more tha
n
>>the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples'
>>books.  What a joke.
>
>Drive down to Cincinnati and take a look.  Not pretty, is it?

But drive UP to Cleveland and it is about 10,000 times better.  I from Toledo 
originally (but that place always as sucked as long as I've been on the planet.

>Things were much better there in 1980.  All that growth went into
>the hands of Ron and Georgie's pals, and I DIDN'T GET A SINGLE
>DIME OF IT, DAMMIT.  And, now, I'm gonna be bled to death by tax
>leeches to pay for the damage.  F***ing great.

Republicans have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment for the last 
ten years.

>
>Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in
>Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm.

Because for a while, the American companies couln't even compete in THEIR OWN 
COUNTRY, where free trade isn't even an issue.  However, even the automobile
pendelum has swung back to the Big 3.

>I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in
>Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)

Oh, I don't know.  It's probably in the tens of thousands.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178975
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Clinton caves in: reduces jobs bill

In article <1993Apr16.131615.8661@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 	Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill.
> 
> 	Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for
> creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money).
> 
> 	Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.

	It seems radio reports were overly optimistic.  All Clinton wants to
cut is $2.5 Billion for community block grants, keeping in summer jobs.

	Hmmm, well, looks like we need to keep up the pressure on our
congresspersons.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178976
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (La
wrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>
>>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>
>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>
>>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>>
>>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>
>1) So what?

So there are less gays, then the gays claim.
>
>2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>   us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>

Dream on.  Abortion and African-American Civil rights rallies don't even bring
in half of that.

>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>
>Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>

I was wondering why I wasn't getting laid.

>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.
>
>And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
>who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
>you....
>

If it's more, then who cares?

>>It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>
>Fuck off
>

Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
with social pressures, probably would at least try.

>--
>------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
> \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>

Did you know that is is a fact that homosexuality was comparatively high in 
Hitler's storm troopers (SA) before he came to power.  I wonder if they got to 
put the triangles on themselves......

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178977
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>>--
>
>Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality
>uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all
>homosexual and bisexual men.

Only the most comprehensive survey on sexuality in 50 years.

>  It would seem more logical to say that since
>the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity
>larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.
>

Chance and size have nothing in common on the multimillion number scale we are 
talking about.


>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three
>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.
>
>So... whose promiscuous?
>

Nobody said that you were.  Chill.

>Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because
>someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....

Well said.

>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...
>

Actually, the Kinsley Report in 1947(or 48?) used a high percentage of 
prisoners so...........


Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178978
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Just what is in the Jobs/Pork bill?

In article <C5L5uM.IsF@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>This was in Wed. WSJ.
>
>[start]
>The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded
>news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that
>certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't
>passed.
>
>None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are
>part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in
>Community Development Block Grants.
>
>...
>
>[end]
>
>I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving
>about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this
>wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that
>same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to
>do the honorable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.

As one of the "Clintonites" cited above, I'll try to clarify since this
is not a case of Clinton's "dishonesty." (I won't necessarily defend him
on other issues.)  

There were NEVER any specific projects included in the Community
Development Block Grant portion of the President's proposal.  Congressional
Republicans, in an effort to discredit the stimulus package, selected what
they felt were silly sounding projects from a wish-list of POTENTIAL 
projects prepared by the US Mayors' Conference before the stimulus package
was ever proposed.  (The document in question was designed to pressure the
White House to increase the size of the block grant proposal submitted
to Congress.  It didn't work.)

The $2.56(?) billion proposed in the stimulus package came nowhere close
to covering the total estimated cost of the original wish-list.  If it
were passed, communities would have to select which projects to fund and
at what level.

In the case of Spokane, Wa., Tom Foley's home district, no one ever
expected to be able to refurbish a local swimming pool (one of the 
Republicans' examples) FROM THE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE STIMULUS
PACKAGE since the estimated cost of doing so exceeded the total 
amount of block grant funds the city would receive from the stimulus 
package for ALL projects.  

The plan, instead, was to use the money on public housing construction
and remodeling to cope with a severe housing shortage.  (Yup, there are
places where that is true.)  The swimming pool improvements were near the
bottom of a long list of priorities prepared by the city.  The $3 million
or so to be received would cover only a few of the most pressing
priorities.

If the block grants are cut from the stimulus package, it is these projects
that will be affected by the lack of funds.  And that is why the Clinton
administration has been publicizing the issue.

A final point.  One may or may not like community block grants.  It is
worth noting, however, that Congressional Republicans' opposition to them
is new.  Since the Nixon administration, Republicans have generally 
supported such grants as an alternative to targeted federal spending,
arguing that local governments are far better able to determine spending
priorities than "Washington bureaucrats."  

Is it clear now?  Or is this all too complicated to understand?

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178979
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <1qmtl1$71r@gondor.sdsu.edu> cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Riyadh Al-ha
jmoosa) writes:
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>> (discrediting Kinsey) says so.
>> --
>>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>>   as this would hold such views??? |
>
>    My understanding from my psycology classes is that the percentage is
>    more like 10-12% world wide.  I would really like to know your source
>    for the 1-2% figure.
>
>                             Riyadh Moosa.
>                             SDSU-Chemistry.
>                             cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu

Some survey conducted by the U.S. government and some group (I don't know 
which) did what they were calling on all the news shows this morning, "The most
comprehensive survey of sexuality in the past 50 years".  Not an exact quote, 
but you get the idea.

This low percentage is merely one more in a ton of evidence disproving the 10% 
theory.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178980
From: onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

In article <1993Apr19.071021.14349@spdcc.com> urso@spdcc.com (Stephen Chappell) writes:
>In article <C5Kt0y.3M3@world.std.com> bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes:
>>I believe the MOW plans and handing out some sort of wristband thingy, and 
>>basing their count on those.  I see two problems with this.  One, can they 
>>get *everybody* to take one (and only one)?  Two, they couldn't possibly have
>>been able to choose a color/design that won't clash with *somebody's* outfit!
>>
>...and Three.  The ads I've seen for the wristbands indicate they're
>charging $5 a wristband.  As I've seen them, the wristbands look like
>clear plastic with multi-coloured "rainbow" threads in them labeled
>"1993 March on Washington    999999" (the "999999" being your particular
>wristband number).
> 
>Certainly not *everyone* at the March on Washington will be willing to
>shell out five bucks for a piece of plastic.


I bought mine at the MOW storefront.
Its not plastic, its woven material.

but I think you miss the point.
its not about the five bucks in your pocket, its about supporting the
march and helping to pay for all the printed materail and scehdulkes and
organisation and...

all leading up to the literal *birth* of Queer visibility in this country.

up to this point all our news coverage has been driven by events thatb
happen to us. 
this event is happening by our direct action.
of course the last MOW was the same thing but they ignored us.
I guess that was just labor pains.
perhaps they will ignore us again, in which case we will come in
even largeer numbers next time.

Lst night in DC there were so many queers out and about you could hardly get
in any place.
I suspect thatb over the next two days that will become exponentially
larger.

To my mind this is a physical bsuting down of the collective closet of
queer invisibility.

the five bucks is insignificant.

LUX ./. owen



-- 
D. Owen Rowley onr@netcom.com ( also owen@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178981
Subject: Re: "I couldn't care less"
From: petra@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1993Apr22.095731.20865@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.160722.6920@msuvx2.memst.edu> mech24135045@msuvx2.memst.edu writes:
>>In article <93111.14430834AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>> Above quote from Rush's radio show yesterday, when he referred to recent events
>>> near Waco, Texas.
>>> 
>>
>>Me either. Yes, it's regrettable that eighty-some-odd people died, but
>>they could have walked out the door with the simple turn of a knob. It's
>>just plain stupid to lay the blame for this at anyones feet but ol' Vernon's.
>>If the FBI/BATF started the fire, why did it take six or so hours to catch?
>>Timed incendiary devices, you say? Could those idiots not have picked them 
>>up and tossed them out the window? And what of this argument about whether
>>a wood burning stove was being used? It's a known fact that when a city is
>>under seige, the citzens thereof eat what they can, how they can. Hell,
>>the BD's could've had MRE type grub for all any of us know.
>>My conscience is clear.
> 
> Does the word smolder mean anything to you?  Several minutes can go by
> before a smoldering cigarette butt in a couch sets the couch on fire.
> Here's a possible (maybe very possible) scenario:  one of the CS gas
> grenades that the FBI threw in earlier caused some material like the
> drapes or carpet to smolder for an extended period of time.  Later
> on when a tank punched a hole in the wall, knocking over one of the
> BDs kerosene lanterns, kerosene spilled onto this smoldering material,
> resulting in a fire that killed 86 people inside.  Another possibility

And this results in a fire that starts in one room and torches the entire place
before anyone in the adjacent rooms can escape?  I don't think so.  So much for
the smolder theory.

-Donavan
Sorry, no catchy quotes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178982
From: onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT



Oh..
just a note, my usually poor typing is made even more dificult by the 
small keyboard and mutiple connections I am piped through in order
to access news while here in DC.

I'm really not trying to irritate the spelling mavens :-)

LUX ./. owen


-- 
D. Owen Rowley onr@netcom.com ( also owen@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178983
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

>>>>> On 22 Apr 1993 16:59:28 -0700, turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley) said:
Tim> NNTP-Posting-Host: nwfocus.wa.com
Tim> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>In article <16BB87EF1.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
>> 
>>Yes we've heard that the survivors are now saying that. We've also
>>seen the videotape which shows that the fire started in two or
>>three different places which weren't near the tank.

>    I have not seen the tape on CNN.  Which network did you see it on?

Tim> I saw the film on CNN *as* it happend. It was clear from that
Tim> tape that the fire started in ONE location. Right where the
Tim> tank was attacking, and then had pulled back. There were not
Tim> several spots where the fire started, it started in one
Tim> location and was spread in the direction of the heavy wind.
Tim> The FBI claims to have seen or filmed several starting
Tim> points. Yet they keep this hidden. They have spread so much
Tim> lies. Well I guess if I was responsible for the mass murder
Tim> of 80 people who were exercising constitutional rights, I
Tim> would lie about it too...

Gosh, Tim, you must have seen a different live broadcast than I did. While
the smoke did emerge from one place initially, it was a considerable
distance from the tank, and in a very short time, fire appeared at several
places a good distance apart from there.

Then there's that nagging question about why, out of all those people,
only a few made any attempts to escape or save the children. If it were
me, with my child, [and I wasn't committing suicide,] I believe I would have
made SOME attempt to at least save the child. As it was, at least one of
the survivors was attempting to GO BACK INTO THE FIRE when they were
physically removed. No one lifted a finger to bring out a child, apparently.

How do you explain that? And the two survivors who claimed to have doused
the place with lantern oil and SET the fire (no doubt on David's orders). 
[At least until the lawyers talked to them.] 

Tim> And also, why have they not yet released the search warrant????  

That *is* a good question. Maybe because it would be a further
embarrassment, seeing as how the ATF went in there in Dirty Harry mode
initially. 

As stupidly as it all was handled, I find it difficult to believe that the
entire FBI has completely gone corrupt under a new administration less
than 100 days old. Stupidity and bad decisions and plans have always been
with us. They just had an alignment at Waco.

Tim> Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   FUCK THE POLICE!!!!

See? Freedom of speech abounds.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178984
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: AP journalists arrested in Waco

In article <JASON.93Apr22113337@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
...
> a good way to get shot.  There was also no indication in that story
> that they wouldn't get their cameras and film back after getting out
> of jail.

	Oh they'll get it back, with exposed film. :(

	Shortly after the Rodney King episode, a woman here in Dayton used a
camcorder to tape the police arresting several youths.

	Upon noticing her, the police arrested her (for jaywalking!) and
"accidently" erased the tape while they had it.

	Yep, they'll get their film back allright....

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178986
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Motor-Voter

In article <1r7tjnINNgcu@bigbird.williams.edu> 96csw@williams.edu (Walter "Gib" Gibson) writes:
[Motor-Voter stuff]
>
>	My friend, after the election, brought up the point that it
>would enable more people to vote, however, since it makes it easier to
>get to the place of registration.  He brought up the analogy that if
>there were only ONE place to vote, say, in Alaska- would it be
>excessive and wasteful to petition to have more places to vote?  This
>is a similar idea- a way to encourage more people to vote by making it
>more easily accessible.  I, not knowing where I stood, played devil's
>advocate and said - well, would you have the taxpayer's money go to
>busing for those people that have trouble making it to DMV, then?
>Where does the right to vote merge with the right to vote easily?
>Where should we draw the lines?  

       Well, there does have to be a line.  And to be honest, extending
voter registration to DMVs is hardly analogous to having only one
place for registration in Alaska and opening a new one in Atlanta.  More is 
not always better once you've passed a certain point.

>	My friend said that that is obviously an extreme and that
>actually the motor-voter bill would SAVE money because no longer would
>the city have to pay someone to sit in the town hall and spend all
>his/her time filing those things- they'd just be at the push of a
>button or the filling out of an X at DMV.  So I (actually someone
>else, but there's no need to confuse this anymore) countered again
>saying that wouldn't congress, *as always*, get exorbitent budgets and
>fund committees to orchestrate and oversee the implementation.... the
>argument went back and forth forever- ranging from whether or not it's
>BETTER to have more people voting, whether that is even relevant,
>etc....
>
>	just looking for some more opinions.  Anybody got 'em???

       I thought the Motor Voter bill passed.

       In any case, my experiance with Tennessee's voter registration
system (which you can register with by mail, by the way) is that nobody
who is interested in voting is being denied access to registration.
All it requires is just the tiniest bit of interest on the registrant's
part and thinking about the election once in the eleven months prior to
it.  (Once you register it's good unless you miss for years worth of
elections of move.)

       It's easy to register now.  I simply don't see the value in going
out and trying to get people registered who don't have enough gumption to
even write and have the proper forms sent to them.   How can we expect
responsible decisions out of these people?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178987
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <1993Apr22.085907.19272@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>>Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
>>>to defend the burning of the children.
>>
>>
>>    Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis.
>
>Cigarette cops = Nazis.  Who said Nazism is dead?  We got a bunch of
>them right here in the good 'ol US of A.

No we don't.  They might be zealous, and maybe the bureau shouldn't
exist by some people, but they ARE NOT NAZIS.

Why do people toss around the Nazi label so easily?


-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178988
From: Roland Siebelink <rcsiebel@vnet3.vub.ac.be>
Subject: Voting system/regulations for the European Parliament


Since 1979, the members of the European Parliament (the parliamentary assemby
of the European Community) have been elected directly by the citizens of the
Member States. Before, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were just
Members of National Parliaments (MNPs) elected by and from among their peers.

In the European Parliament, every Member State has a fixed number of seats,
which increases less than proportionally with the population. Once in five
years, a general European election is being held, in which the citizens of all
Member States choose their representatives to the European Parliament. Next
elections are due in 1994.

Now the voting system for these European elections still differs from one
country to another. Although the European Treaty enabling the direct election
of the MEPs requires a uniform voting system, up to now every country has just
used its own system, more or less the same one used for national elections.
British MEPs are elected in a first-past-the-post system with one MEP per
district; nearly all other States have chosen a system with proportional
representation. But then in some countries (France, Italy) MEPs are allowed to
be a MNP as well, whilst in others they are not (Belgium, Netherlands).

The European Parliament is now working on a uniform election system for its
own members, so that every candidate should have the same regulations to
comply with, regardless of the Member State (s)he wants to be elected for. I
would like to know what you people out there think of the following questions:

1. Do you think it is necessary to have uniform regulations or should every
Member State continue to use its own regulations (for European elections that
is)?

2. Do you think a system of majority voting should be implemented, with one or
more MEPs per district, or would you prefer a system with proportional
representation (for the whole of the Community or per state, per region, per
district?).

3. Do you think the European Commission (or just its president) should be
directly elected too, or should it be appointed by the European Parliament, or
by the joint Member State governments as it is now?

4. The Maastricht Treaty allows subjects of Member States to stand for
election in another Member State they are residing in. Do you think you would
or could vote for a foreigner if his/her ideas appeal to you?

5. Do you think MEPs should be allowed to be a member of a national parliament
or a regional parliament too? Or a member of a national or regional government
body?

6. The European Parliament now has meetings in both Strasbourg and Brussels.
MEPs themselves are for a complete move to Brussels in great majority, but
political compromises between the governments of the Member States stick to
the status quo. Do you approve of this or do you think the European Parliament
should meet in one city only, and if yes, which?

Please post your answers to eunet.politics, to which all followups are
automatically directed. If you do not have access to that group, please mail
your answer directly to me and I will post it for you.

I hope many of you will take the time to post their views on this matter.
--
Roland Siebelink - Lokaal B.034          Centrum voor de Studie van Nieuwe
Vrije Universiteit Brussel SCOM/NMIT     Media, Informatie en Telecommunicatie
Pleinlaan 2 - 1050 Brussel - Belgium     Tel. direkt:  +32.2.641 24 15
E-mail <rcsiebel@vnet3.vub.ac.be>        Tel. centrum: +32.2.641 24 12
Talk <rcsiebel@is2.vub.ac.be>            Fax centrum:  +32.2.641 28 61

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178989
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Cults, Waco & Insanity


In article <C5wA2G.1CC@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <C5w51C.H39@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes:
> >
> >I ask this question because there is a tradition, and one that
> >is highly regarded by many people, that several hundred Jews
> >elected to throw themselves off a cliff at Masada rather than
> >submit to Roman rule. The circumstances at Masada and those at
> >Waco would seem in general terms quite similar, and yet so far
> >as I'm aware nobody has seriously suggested that the Jews were
> >insane.
> 
>   As has already been pointed out, the Jews faced a totally
>   different fate at the hand of the Romans than did Koresh 
>   at the hand of the feds.  The Jewish men would most likely
>   have been crucified, the the women and children sold into
>   slavery.   One can well argue that Koresh may have *thought*
>   that a similar fate awaited him, but there was scant rational 
>   basis for that fear, so "insane" seems to describe any such
>   belief.

What is the penalty if convicted of murdering 4 Federal agents
in Texas?  The death penalty.

>   None of which excuses the reckless action of the feds, who
>   allegedly believing they were dealing with a nut, should 
>   have exercise much more restraint.  Indeed, given their 
>   *stated* goals of saving the children, one might also apply
>   the moniker "insane" to the feds' actions.

Yup.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178990
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: WACO burning


In article <1993Apr22.182545.29072@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <1r51iiINN8p9@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> :In article <C5u9Ev.4tA@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> :>
> :>B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London,
> :>reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
> :>making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
> :>lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
> :>people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.
> :
> :We're hearing it.  It sure rings true-- it's consistent in a way that
> :mass suicide by fire is not.  This survivor is also saying that they
>  
> It rings true????
> 
> There was a separate report that an overhead helicopter which was recording
> the entire incident on video tape has a visual record of SEVERAL files
> (I think the number 3 was mentioned) starting at different parts of the
> compound.

Has this video been made public?  The FBI spokesman also said they 
first knew of the fire when black smoke started pouring out, but
later said that *three* different FBI agents saw B-D members starting
the fires.

Also the FBI claims to have listening devices (bugs) in the compound.  
Will they make public the tapes of what the B-D said?

> To me, this attempt to blame the FBI for starting the fire simply looks
> like an attempt by a survivor to shift blame away from the B-D's.
> 
> I think it is a crock.

Well sealing the initial search warrent, keeping the media miles away,
not letting the B-D talk to the public, making contradictory statements,
not releasing the vidio & tapes are not steps to ensure public confidence 
in their actions.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178991
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of America

In article <1993Apr22.120854.8871@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
(Not a Boomer) says:
>
>In article <16BB713D1E.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU>, PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU
>(David
>Veal) writes:
>...
>>        Here's a question for those of you far more informed about
>> health care than I am.  My Almanac, quoting OECD Health Data
>> lists U.S. Public Health Expenditures for 1990 as being 5.2% of
>> GDP, or 42.4% of total health expenditures.
>>
>>        Are we *really* paying 42.4% of our expenditures to insure
>> 21% of our population?
>
>        Heh, no doubt more "evidence" that the government is more efficient
>than 'evil' for profit health care.

Proving once again that Brett has a major thinking problem...

Two groups that the government insure are the elderly and the "medically an
needy" (those who have impoverished themselves through spending for medical
care).  The typical elderly person spends 3.5 times what a person under age
65.  The typical medically needy person spends about 10 times what the
average person does.

You've got to adjust those data, Brett.

These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178992
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: The real source of trouble in the US health care system

	Cancel private health insurance?

	When government care that only covers 20% of the population consumes
42% of the spending for health care?

	NOT!

	National Health Expenditures: 1960 to 1990
(Includes Puerto Rico and outlying areas.)

Year	Health Services and Supplies ($billions)
	Private		Public
====================================
1960	$19.8		$5.7	(22% of total)
1970	$44.1		$24.9	(56% of total)
1980	$140.7		$98.1	(41% of total)
1990	$374.8		$268.6	(42% of total)

[Source: American Almanac, Page 97.  1992-3 Edition]

	Now you understand where most of that 12.2% of GNP is going--to waste.

	By these figures, private insurance is spending 58% of the money to
cover 4 times as many people.

	Go figure.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178994
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Deja Vu

In article <15457@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>The Waco/Whacko Bar-B-Q caused me to remember an official explanation
>from the Vietnam War.  The 90s, liberal version is:

>    "It was necessary to incinerate the children in order to save them."

And yet this callous incident of disregard for life you call a "Bar-B-Q".

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 178998
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <pdb059-220493100923@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes to Clayton Cramer:

>When are you going to stop lying and admit
>that the whole crusade is based on your own personal hatred, fear, and
>obsession?  You need help, Mr. Cramer.

The saddest thing is that most people, like Cramer's wife, learn dislike
for homosexuality early in childhood.

Clayton, however, is so impressionable, that he let his wife sucker him
on this issue, as a full-grown adult.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179000
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The real source of trouble in the US health care system

In article <1993Apr23.121140.8913@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	Cancel private health insurance?
>
>	When government care that only covers 20% of the population consumes
>42% of the spending for health care?
>
>	NOT!
>
>	National Health Expenditures: 1960 to 1990
>(Includes Puerto Rico and outlying areas.)
>
>Year	Health Services and Supplies ($billions)
>	Private		Public
>====================================
>1960	$19.8		$5.7	(22% of total)
>1970	$44.1		$24.9	(56% of total)
>1980	$140.7		$98.1	(41% of total)
>1990	$374.8		$268.6	(42% of total)
>
>[Source: American Almanac, Page 97.  1992-3 Edition]
>
>	Now you understand where most of that 12.2% of GNP is going--to waste.
>
>	By these figures, private insurance is spending 58% of the money to
>cover 4 times as many people.
>
>	Go figure.
>

The private insurance industry skims the cream off the milk...simple.

Gerald


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179001
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: question about representation


In a debate about the student government here at our university, a
question was raised by one student senator:  

"Why should I represent people who didn't vote?"

and by implication, this raises a different question:

"Why should I represent people who didn't vote for me?"

I feel that there are many good reasons that anyone elected to public
office (in student government or any other government) should strive
to represent ALL the people in their constituency (class of '95 or a
geographical area, or whatever).  

I would like some help from others in phrasing a reasonable argument
on this topic.  Thanks.

Followups are directed to talk.politics.misc, but email is preferred.
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, RPI, Troy, NY 12180 USA  aultj@rpi.edu  <><

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179003
From: pochanay@cae.wisc.edu (Adisak Pochanayon)
Subject: Re: Clayton is an asshole (but we all already know that)

In article <rogerdC5x5DF.JHz@netcom.com> rogerd@netcom.com (Roger D.) writes:
>Adisak Pochanayon (pochanay@cae.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: >>In article <15501@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>: >>|> Homosexuals are vicious, screwed-up, often
>: >>|> really evil people.
>: >>|> I've learned quite a bit in the last two years.  Evil, vicious,
>: >>|> dishonest, lying scum is the only way to describe homosexuals.
>: >>|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>:       I believe that Clayton is full of shit.  Who could believe anyone so biased
>: and so obviously misaligned?  If he were the slightest bit open-minded, he wouldn't
>: write such slanted smears.  Especially to generalize an entire group of people. 
>
>I would say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
>
>
     Really now.  Why is this the pot calling the kettle black?  I am stating
that a person who shows a continually biased opinion is close-minded and that
his opinion should be ignored.  Clayton is stating that a group of at least
two million (1%) American citizens are evil vicious malicious child-molesters.

     Here's a hypothetical question...  If Clayton said something like "all
those niggers are really stupid."  (Please don't be offended, I'm not racist
but merely using an example of Clayton's malign logic).  And then said he
read a report that a lot of blacks in inner cities dropped out of school, I
bet he wouldn't have your support.  Yet he can claim that all homosexuals are
dishonest, evil, lying child molesters without *PERSONALLY* having a single
homosexual friend or acquaintance and you'll sit there and support him.

     God created a place for bigots.  It's called Hell and Clayton is going
to burn there for a long time.  I pray for him to find in his heart the
Christian values he espouses so that he can learn to love his gay brothers
and sisters, because anyone with so much hatred in his soul coulld never
be righteous.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179005
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Waco Investigation Paranoia


In article <16BB98B5A.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>, V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
> Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely
> responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will
> show that Koresch is responsible' bs.

Well they could unseal the original warrent (Why was i sealed in the
first place?), release their video & tapes (from their listening devices
inside the compound) and quit makeing contradictory statements.

Do you believe their statement that the children were killed by
lethal injection?  They later stated that the childrens bodies
were burned to the point the would be hard to identify.  So
how did they come up with the lethal injection theory?

>                                        In an investigation of this
> size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the
> investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.

Unless the evidence was destroyed or other evidence planted.

> And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
> this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.

You mean "Magic bullet" Spector?

I know, a lone gunman killed all the Branch Davidians.   :-) || :-(

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179006
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...
>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...

>>>We're hearing it.  It sure rings true-- it's consistent in a way that
>>>mass suicide by fire is not.  This survivor is also saying that they
>>>were trapped inside by the damage done by the tanks.

>>	Why is an accidental fire more plausible than a mass suicide, 
>>	considering that the Davidians were an apocalyptic cult with
>>	a history of armed violence? If the FBI has reason to lie 
>>	about the cause of the fire, if it resulted from their own
>>	negligence, then the BD survivors also have reason to lie if
>>	they started the blaze. 

>The FBI claims the fire was set simultaneously in three places.  They
>claim the building was filled with tear gas.  Electricity was cut off,
>tanks were rolling all around.  How did the BDs co-ordinate the
>setting of the fire? 

	It's fairly simple. It was decided to burn the place down,
	and more than one agent was dispatched to set the fires in
	separate parts of the compound. I doubt that "simultaneously"
	means "at the exact same time" in this case. It likely means
	"close enough together to preclude them from being part of
	the same fire."


>The FBI claims that men with torches set the fires-- but haven't released
>any evidence of this, though it seems inconcievable that they don't have
>any if it was true.

	They might be waiting until the evidence comes in from the
	site, and the investigation is at least well underway. 


>All of the BDs
>previous actions were aimed towards their survival, not their death.

	The same could be said of Jonestown.

>The idea that kerosene lamps would be all over the place (with
>electricity cut off) makes sense.  The idea that ramming tanks into
>the building would spill them and cause a fire makes sense.    The
>possibility that the FBI wouldn't know this is nil.  It wasn't simple
>negligence.

	Maybe. Then again, I've been suprised at what folks have missed
	in the past in similar situations. Don't jump t oconclusions.

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179007
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <1r72jjINNnmm@ctron-news.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com writes...
>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>	Why is an accidental fire more plausible than a mass suicide, 
>>	considering that the Davidians were an apocalyptic cult with
>>	a history of armed violence?

>Because the place was a tinder box with straw bales for insulation, and they
>wouldn't have time to die from smoke inhalation before the fire reached them.
>Those people burned to death, a truly horrible and agonizingly painful way to
>die, which I don't think even a fanatic would willingly inflict on himself, let
>alone his family. 

	You don't know much about the fall of Diem's government in Vietnam.
	Or the traditional Indian practice of Suttee. People have been
	burning themselves to death (or willing to go through such and end)
	for political and religious reasons since the beginning of time.
	Also, death from smoke inhalation is little better than dying from
	the flames themselves. Think about breatning in searing toxic
	gasses. It's not pleasant.
	

>To anyone who remembered Jim Jones and who thought that mass
>suicide was a real possibility, self-immolation would simply not be the method
>of choice.

	Then again, to a Buddhist monk, it might be. To each his own.

>Far more likely to be bombs, bullets, or poisoned kool-aid.  That's
>not to say they definitely didn't do it - I don't make claims either way - but
>I find the idea implausible enough to want to see the gov't thoroughly inves-
>tigated to determine if _they_ started the fire by accident. 

	I'm waiting to see what the government has, too. 


                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179008
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: The "Big Secret"

In article <1993Apr22.114736.8864@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.181131.1751@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr20.124746.8765@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>...
>>>	Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.
>>>
>>>	Oops.
>> 
>> Oops?  Blue Cross may well be the insurer for government workers in
>> Massachusetts as it is for a number of state and local governments, I
>> don't know.  But Blue Cross is certainly NOT a government agency.  
>> It is a private insurer.
>
>	Yes it is a private insurer that has to deal with government
>regulations concerning how it's employees are to be covered processed, etc. 
>There are a mountain of forms that gov. employees have to go through.

Sorry, but this is a red herring.

Are you contending that the "mountain of forms" are processed by Blue
Cross?  Having had Blue Cross insurance both as a government employee
and as an employee of a private corporation, I saw no difference between
the two sets of forms.  

Moreover, the administrative costs associated with Medicare/Medicaid,
the two primary forms of "government" insurance are considerably lower than
the average for private insurance companies.   (5% versus 14%-16%).

If you have any evidence that Blue Cross bears a heavier burden in insuring
government employees than private employees, post it.  Otherwise, try
to stick to factual assertions.

>
>> And as the original post implied, it is private insurers in the US 
>> whose administrative costs are significantly higher than the administrative
>> costs of tax-supported health care systems in Canada and elsewhere.
>
>	Only those that remain paper-bound and refuse to standardize.

Well now, that's an interesting defense of the "free enterprise" system.
Are you contending that it is government intervention that prevents 
private insurance companies from "standardizing?"

In fact, it is true that some of the red-tape burden stems from the 
lack of standardization among the 1500 or so private insurers in the US,
but it's a little difficult to understand how this is anything other than
"free enterprise" at work.  

By the way, Barron's, the bible of Wall Street, this week admitted that
administrative costs were significantly lower in Canada because "....a
single-payer system is always cheaper...".  Guess even the "free enterprise
advocates" are beginning to see the light.
>
>> Try again.
>
>	Why?  My HMO provides good service at a low cost.  And I don't have the
>government telling my doctors what they can and can not say about medical
>procedures.

Sorry, but you seem to be confusing proposals with health care
reform with the Bush administration's gag order on federally funded family
planning clinics.  There are no proposals that would control what your
"doctor...can and cannot say about medical procedures."

Try again.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179009
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes & some scientists do not believe ...
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <C5uDn9.Gr@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:

>|>Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global 
>|>warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 
>
>|Educated and open minded environmentalists do not.
>
>One of the most effective come backs I have seen in a long time.
>
>Everybody who disagrees with me is stupid and closed minded.

No, what it means is that I, like a majority of environmental scientists/researchers,
agree that El Nino/La Nina and the Southern Oscillations are the systems
involoved in that climatic phenomena categorized by humans as a drought(1988).

Furthermore, in response to an earlier message, the 1992 U.S. est. output of
sulfur dioxide (20 mill. tons) was equivalent to the entire output by the recent
eruption of Mt. Pinautubo(Sp.).  Currently world carbon dioxide levels set at approx.
360 ppm, in the past 120,000 years it has never gone above 280 (this info
was found using ice core samples from the joint French/Russian/U.S. Vostok
project).  Furthermore,  the background emmisions of chlorine compounds into
the atmoshpere is about 0.6 ppb annually, it now sits at 3.5.  This OVERWHELMING
data/info is found in the World Resources doc. published by Oxford University.

The ozone hole in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres keeps getting bigger
and stickin' around longer whilst skeptics ponder how wrong or corrupt all this
data from government and international scientific institutions is.  It is a pity, that,
if the skeptics are wrong and we base our complacency on their Limbaugh
psycho babble, then we will find ourselves strapped by limited options with
which to rectify the primal engineering of our industrial age.

<My employer doesn't subscribe to my opinions, just the data. - DISCLAIMER>  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179011
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Subject: Re: MAJOR BURGER CHAIN OFFERS...

In talk.politics.misc, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>
>        Janet, how do you like your hostages?
>
>        A1) Quick-fried to a crackly crunch.
>
>        A2) Baked to a delicate crunch.
>
   Would you like fries with that, sir?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179013
From: kmunn@tudorct.com (Kristofer  Munn)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In an article rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy) writes:
>
> [This is called NotQuotingTheEntireArticle (tm).  Try it...]
>
>which you refer, please note that many religious beliefs evolved from
>basic, pragmatic principles of day-to-day living. If we had lived

Certainly many religious beliefs seem to be positive principles for
everyday living.  Indeed, I believe it is the Islamic religion which
avoids alcohol (I apologize if I name the wrong religion) and that
is certainly a physical positive in many respects.  However, this
proves nothing.  Just because something is a "basic, pragmatic
principle of day-to-day living" TODAY doesn't mean it evolved from
the same.  Especially those beliefs and (mostly) positions held based
on interpretations of the religion.

Religious beliefs come from many places but most will be backed up
(after many levels of arguments) to "Because that's how it is written."
or "God says..."  Now I'm not faulting that but that is not a basic,
pragmatic principle as you mean it in this context.  It is a belief
based on faith, which by definition is not necessarily backed up by
logic.  Faith is a given.  God is a absolute truth when arguing from
religion.  Also, many religions would reject your thesis that their
beliefs simply come from these day-to-day principles.

In summation, if you wish to use religious arguments be prepared to
back them up with "It says in the [fill in religious document here],"
because most religions (things which at least I denote as religions)
are based on the writings of or teachings of [fill in religious
figure here].

NOTE: Religion is a charged topic and if I offended anyone regarding
	  my references to God, I apologize.  Please insert your own
	  sensible references, the argument should apply to nearly all
	  religions.
-- 
==============================================================================
Kristofer (kmunn@tudor.com) - The opinions expressed within are solely those
---------------------------   of the author and are subject to change when
confronted with new information and logical, coherent arguments.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179015
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes & some scientists do not believe ...

rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:

]Furthermore, in response to an earlier message, the 1992 U.S. est. output of
]sulfur dioxide (20 mill. tons) was equivalent to the entire output by the recent
]eruption of Mt. Pinautubo(Sp.).  Currently world carbon dioxide levels set at approx.
]360 ppm, in the past 120,000 years it has never gone above 280 (this info
]was found using ice core samples from the joint French/Russian/U.S. Vostok
]project).  Furthermore,  the background emmisions of chlorine compounds into
]the atmoshpere is about 0.6 ppb annually, it now sits at 3.5.  This OVERWHELMING
]data/info is found in the World Resources doc. published by Oxford University.

Good evidence.

]The ozone hole in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres keeps getting bigger
]and stickin' around longer whilst skeptics ponder how wrong or corrupt all this
]data from government and international scientific institutions is.  It is a pity, that,
]if the skeptics are wrong and we base our complacency on their Limbaugh
]psycho babble, then we will find ourselves strapped by limited options with
]which to rectify the primal engineering of our industrial age.

What ozone hole in the northern hemisphere?

What exactly will happen if we get an ozone hole in the upper atmosphere?
According to the senior chicken-little at NASA, as much more UV radiation
as if one moved 100 miles south.  Certainly not the calamity that is being
imagined by eco-lunatics.  

CO2 is going up.  So what.  There's no evidence that the increase is
due to burning fossil fuels, no evidence that increasing CO2 will increase
temperatures, and no evidience that raising temperatures will do anything
but good--ie make millions of acres of tundra into productive life-bearing
land.

Chris Burian---


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179016
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Waco Investigation Paranoia

V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
>And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
>this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.

It will be ironic in the extreme if Spector manages to uncover a
government conspiracy and cover-up in this case. Maybe he'll posit a
Magic Grenade that lit fires in three wings of the building at once.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179018
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.121720.13017@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (
Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>
>>     Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>
>>     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>     examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed
>*said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they
>considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>

Yes, and of course the Kinsey Report taken 50 years ago in much more liberal 
times regarding homosexuality.........

>The point being that what people say and what they acutally do
>may be different.
>
>It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not
>mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-)
>

Or smart enough to realize that that argument would have to apply to every 
survey regarding homosexuality.  Therefore, they would look stupid. (Actually, 
Idid see Bryant Gumble bring that point up.  Hee, hee).



>     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179020
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: A Rational Viewpoint ---> was Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:
>
>Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
>homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
>of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
>to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
>put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
>community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays 
>are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
>just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?" 
>
>Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)
>
>Dan

This is a very good point.  One that I have held for sometime.  We do not
allow people to develop on the paths that they choose or desire.  Even with
heterosexuals we tend to leave some hanging in the sense of knowledge and
information about sexuality and relationships.

It is very difficult for a young person to develop and build a positive
view of themself when they are constantly being told implicitly and explicitly
that they are wrong and immoral. 

The concepts about personal relationships are deeply embedded in emotionalism
and fear- these fears cover a wide range, but mostly jealousy and lack of trust
seem to be cornerstones of modern day American relationships.  We also set on
top of this the concepts of Madison Avenue attractiveness and standards and put
the pressure on to measure up.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179021
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Pat Robertson says ...


[In response to a report by CBN News correspondent Ken Lormond about a
meeting between Slick Willie and homosexual activists:]

Lormond: "But Clinton will not be attending a rally by homosexuals in
Washington later this month.  He will instead be out of town, on a
retreat with Senate Democrats."

Robertson: "Yeah, he'd better retreat."  [Laughter, followed by
sustained applause]

[Later, in a report by correspondent Deborah Whitsen on the fizzling
boycott instigated by homosexuals against Colorado:]

Whitsen: "Colorado ski resorts have seen record crowds this year
despite a call by homosexual activists for boycott of the state ...
There have been record snowfalls in the mountains this year, and the
skiers have been coming in droves ..."

Robertson: "And God said, let it snow ..."  [More sustained applause]
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179022
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: New 'GUESS' Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Clayton Cramer writes:
>#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>#male population.  
>
>Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
>to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
>willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
>promiscious)? 
>
>I didn't think that you did.
>
>--
>-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

It is obvious that Mr. Cramer has the 'ability' to take the 'leap of faith'.
I have listened to several of the men involved in this study, and even they
claim that the men involved will not 'tell the whole truth'.

I put little value in extrapolating from these types of 'studies' or 'surveys',
they have limited subsets of individuals, and there is alot of skewing due
to improper selection methods, and the bias of the people involved in the
studies on both sides- subject and researcher.

Would you admit to be part of a group that was not very well liked?  Would 
you admit to having had sex with other people at some considered abnormal
rate (this applies to heterosexual men).  In fact, as one gay man and one
straight man put it, "men lie about the number of partners, because that's
the thing to do"- our culture for the male almost requires this type of
response.  It may seem harmless and silly, but carries a large emotional
and mental price tag.

I hear college male students everyday talking about their 'supposed' 
conquest.  They just have to look good to one another, at least in their
eyes.  But also know that alot of this does go on, there are many college
males (hetero) having a lot of sex with different partners.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179024
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU
(Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Clayton Cramer writes:
>#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>#male population.
>
>Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
>to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
>willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
>promiscious)?
>

Oh yeah, and men just haaaaate to brag about "how many woman they've had."

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179025
From: lazlo@carina.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

> The idea that kerosene lamps would be all over the place (with
> electricity cut off) makes sense.  The idea that ramming tanks into the
> building would spill them and cause a fire makes sense.

As does the idea that a CS gas canister can get hot enough to ignite dry
baled hay.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179026
From: syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Tom Gillman)
Subject: Re: some scientists do not believe in the green house effect

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

>In <1993Apr21.094001.6254@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:

>|In article <26VB3B9w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>|The word some sums it up, alot of scientist have concluded that without a
>|doubt Global Climate will/is occur(ring) and should be dealt with by source

>Without a doubt some warming will occur. However there is mucho disagreement
>on how much warming will occur.
>The original doomsdayers were claiming 10 to 15 degrees Farhenheit. Lately
>they have been saying 3-5 degrees. Newer studies hint that it might be less
>than a degree.

Of course, then there's the other side. An article in yesterday's Atlanta
Journal stated that there are many scientists who have misgivings that the 
data being used to determine whether or not global warming is occuring is
faulty. The point that the article made is that all long term temperature
dataa collected has been in urban areas, and that any heat rise can be
attributed to the growth and urbanization of the area. They called it
the "asphalt temperature trend". We have no real long term data on remote
areas, such as the middle of the Amazon rain forest, or the top of Mt. Everest
or the Gobi desert, for that matter. An accompanying article mentioned that
a group of scientists at NASA had developed a method for using a satellite
to collect temperature data globally, and that preliminary results showed
a slight downward trend attributed to the Mt Pinatubo eruption. It went
on to say that even with the current downward trend, there appeared to be
*NO* change in global temperatures using trend prediction methods for at
least the next 50 years.

I can quote the article verbatim if you like..
-- 
 Tom Gillman, Systems Programmer       | "AAAAAGGGGHHHH" 
 Wells Computer Center-Ga. State Univ. |    -- Any "Classic" Star Trek Security
 (404) 651-4503 syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu |       officer sometime during the show
 GSU doesn't care what I say on the Internet, why should you?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179027
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr20.215127.29919@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes...
>In article <1993Apr19.213012.23123@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>In article <1993Apr17.043704.23702@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes...
>>>In article <1993Apr17.023211.23547@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>>>In article <philC5Lru6.LxA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes...
>>>>>In article <1993Apr15.195139.29457@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>>>Why
>>>>did Ford go to the trouble of pardoning him if he did nothing wrong? 
> 
>>>Duh....  Garrett, you ignorant slut, read up on Watergate.
>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	So, are all you guys so unarticulate that you ALL must 
>>must call names? Are none of you above grade-school levels in intelligence?
> 
>Jesus, Garret, haven't you ever watched Saturday Night Live?  Not only
>are you a historical ignoramus, but you are also a cultural ignoramus.

What does Saturday Night Live have to do with anything? When they make fun
of someone they do it with a little bit of creativity and talent. You, on the
other hand, have a complete lack of creativity, talent, and verbal mechanics.
And if you think that SNL is culture, then it just shows where your intellectual
level is.

>>>What is generally
>>>accepted is that Nixon attempted to cover up the break in after it
>>>occurred.  It was actions in pursuit of that end that he was pardoned
>>>for.  You, of course, are so ignorant of history that you think that
>>>he was involved in the break in.
> 
>>I guess that makes you even dumber than me then because he was officially
>>accused of alot more than that. Let me list it for you:
> 
>>1) Obstructing justice.
> 
>As part of the coverup

Granted.
> 
>>2) Abusing his presidential powers
> 
>To do the coverup

Only in part. Let's not forget that Nixon personally authorized the
break-in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist.
> 
>>3) Subverting the constitutional rights of citizens
> 
>I challenge you to provided any evidence that Nicon was officially
>accused of thi.  If nothing else, it's meaningless.  How can you
>subvert someone's constitutional rights?  The verb doesn't go with the
>noun.  

Tell that to the House. That WAS the charge. Or are you going to challenge
me on that as well? Subverting the constitutional rights of citizens has
nothing to do with covering-up for Watergate. You have been proved wrong,
again. But I don't expect you to believe this since your arrogance has
replaced your reason.
> 
>>4) and willfully disobeying lawful subpoenas for White House records and
>>    tapes.
> 
>Part of the coverup.

Granted.
> 
>Garrett, please note that every charge you mention, except for the one
>that has no English meaning, was part of the coverup.
> 
Wrong again. You forgot about Ellsberg.

>>	BTW, why od you think he tried to cover it up? 
> 
>Loyalty to people who worked for him.

This would be funny, if it weren't so sad that you actually believe this.
In his "loyalty" he allowed the people who worked for him to take the 
rap, while he idly sat by and let it happen. If he REALLY was loyal to
the people who worked for them, he would have pardoned them before he 
resigned. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Death to all modifiers, he declared one day, and out of       Garrett Johnson
 every letter that passed through his hands went every      Garrett@Ingres.com
 adverb and adjective. The next day he made war on articles.
 The following day he blacked out everything in the letters
 but "a", "an", and "the".  - Joseph Heller's Catch-22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179028
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr20.215539.346@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes...
>In article <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>In article <philC5n67A.MBF@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes...
>>>In article <1993Apr17.013559.17391@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>Well it really doesn't matter anyway because I really don't care what liars
>>think of me anyway. What? Did I call you liars? You want proof? I'd be
>>glad to provide it. I'm really sure which ones of you said these things 
>>since you all sound the same anyway. 
> 
>>	One of you said "Nixon didn't start ANY secret wars."
> 
>>This is a lie. Nixon had full knowledge of the invasions of Laos and
>>Cambodia, and then lied to the American public about it.
> 
>Note, however, that these were military actions but not wars.

What a JOKE! You can't actually believe what you just said. Can you? We 
bombed and invaded these countries.

Notice the definition of war (from the American Heritage Dictionary):
	1) A state or period of armed conflict between nations or states.
This qualifies the invasions of Cambodia and Laos as wars.
> 
>>	One of you said "Nixon didn't use the office of the presidency
>>  for personal gain."
> 
>>This is a lie. The Senate committee issued an indictment that listed
>>Nixon's crimes. The relevant ones were: 
>>1) Violating his oath of office.
>>2) ABUSING HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS
> 
>Excuse me, but neither of these refer to personal gain.

Then let me explain this to you REALLY slowly. Why did he abuse the 
powers of his position? Could it have been to gain personal political 
power? Naw, that would be too obvious.
> 
>>	So now, you're BIG thing that you have been flogging me with
>>is that I mistook PRC for People's Republic of Cambodia. Since I knew
>>that Cambodia was socialist at the time, and since your comment was
>>right in middle of a conversation about Cambodia, I made the wrong
>>assumption that we were talking about the same thing.
> 
>Ah, but Garrett, anyone who has to make assumptions about the meaning
>of the initials PRC in a discussion about Asia is breathtakingly
>ignorant.  

And anyone who can only call names because his position is defensless is
breathtakingly ignorant and desperate. I noticed that you edited out the
other points were I proved you and Phil to be completely wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Death to all modifiers, he declared one day, and out of       Garrett Johnson
 every letter that passed through his hands went every      Garrett@Ingres.com
 adverb and adjective. The next day he made war on articles.
 The following day he blacked out everything in the letters
 but "a", "an", and "the".  - Joseph Heller's Catch-22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179029
From: mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble)
Subject: Re: Waco *is* Gov't fault (Was Re: Libertarian Party on CIA/FBI/ATF)

In article <C5wKyG.3Fy@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
> 
>In article <1993Apr21.104744.1@happy.uccs.edu>, etbeteille@happy.uccs.edu writes:
> 
>|>Here are *several* shreds of evidence that prove the Waco disaster
>|>is the government's fault:
>|>
>|>1)  They raided an American's property because of *rumors* about
>|>    Koresh's intentions with some converted, yet still 2nd-amendment
>|>    protected, firearms (a judge-approved warrant justifies nothing)
> 
>In a democracy under the rule of law a search warrant justifies a 
>search.
> 
>The US constitution does not justify murder of those attempting to 
>mount a search for illegally held weapons.

A search for illegally held weapons (IF there were any, no evidence yet
produced to this effect) does not justify firing into a house with
women and children, either. It also does not justify shooting first
without identifying oneself (the ATF and FBI have done this before, so
don't say they haven't, please) or producing a warrant.

Guess it depends on whose story one believes, huh?

> 
>|>2)  It took them *51 days* to think of a basic terrorist tactic, i.e.
>|>    tear gas (and this could only be justified in support of rescuing
>|>    any supposed `hostages' inside)
> 
>The Govt has a right to use lethal force in certain cases. Attempts to 
>capture dangerous criminals who are armed and threatening the lives of others

Which "others" are we talking about here?

>is one. In this case they used sub lethal force. 

"Sub lethal"? Excuse me, but those people are dead!!!

>|>3)  The gov't immediately imprisoned these so-called `hostages'
> 
>The children were held hostage. 

Evidence? So far the FBI has produced none. Don't hold your breath.

>The adults were wanted variously for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Only a few of those being held in chains and s(hackles are wanted . 
The rest are being held for the crime of being "material witnesses".

>|>4)  It took hundreds of gov't agents with tax-funded cellular phones
>|>    *ten minutes* to dial 9-1-1 for the fire department
> 
>They should not have called the fire dept at all. There was no role
>for them to play in a situation where those that might be rescued might
>well shoot at them.

It was not the Feds decision to make, but the firefighters.

>Calling the fire dept meant that WACO was deprived
>of a resource that might have been needed elsewhere should a situation 
>where it could have been used arisen.

This is true of ANY answer to a call for help from a fire department by
ANY citizen. Since fire departments do answer calls that "deprive 
resources that might be needed elsewhere" it is not a valid reason for
not calling them.

Further, since the Davidians had not been found guilty of any crime in
a court of law, they are subject to the same protection as any other
citizen. And las far as I know, even criminals in prison are not left to 
burn to death in a fire.

>|>5)  By cutting off the water supply in the surrounding area, the gov't
>|>    guaranteed that any fire at the compound would be fatal
> 
>Any fire started deliberately uising lamp oil is likely to be fatal.

I guess this is a matter of religious faith with you? The government
says it, so it must be so? Or haven't you been reading this thread well 
enough to notice that some of us here don't beleive their story?

>|>6)  No one had the foresight to station rescue vehicles nearby in the
>|>    first place
> 
>They are a scarce resource. A bunch of psychos cannot deprive the neighbourhood
>of a resource that might be required in a genuine case.

Patients in psychiatric hospitals are not left to die in fires, either.
Besides, as I explained, some of us here believe their distress might
have been genuine. Are you SO certain it wasn't?

>|>7)  The gov't conveniently forgot all that `freedom of religion' stuff
> 
>Freedom of religion does not include human sacrifice. Nor does it
>include other forms of murder.

There is no evidence that the Davidians committed human sacrifice 
either before of after the initial raid. And self-defense is not
murder.

>|>8)  The gov't arguably started (or at least fanned) the fire themselves 
> 
>The govt arguably is run by communists or the trilateral commission.

He did not say it was deliberate. Accidents do not require conspiracy
theories, only wanton disregard for human life. The initial raid alone
(agents firing blind into walls against all standards of law enforce-
ment procedure) proves they did not mind killing people.

>|>10) Finally, and this may be a stretch for some of you statists out there,
>|>    but Koresh's original reasons for holing up in such a compound may
>|>    have *something* to do with the continual interference from the gov't
>|>    -- new taxes, new regulations and increasing involvement in every
>|>    aspect of our personal and economic lives -- Life on a compound might
>|>    become the way of the future ... it might have to be
> 
>Let us hope that those who support Koresh are not allowed to enforce this upon
>the rest of us. 

No one here is "supporting Koresh". We are opposing the illegal use of
excessive violence by our government against our citizens. That is all.

>Their reasons for supporting the ownership of high power
>weaponry are clear enough they hope that this will be the catylist for
>the destruction of the fabric of society and allow them to enforce their
>nightmare vision of the future.

A society that believes it is OK to terrorize people for their religious
views will destroy itself in due time. It is the feds who disrupted the
"fabric of society" in Waco, not Koresh. It is the feds who forced a
nightmare onto the people of Mount Carmel.

>It would be a good thing for people to study history. 

On what basis do you assume we haven't? Don't you really mean
"It would be a good thing if people drew the same conclusions from
history that I do?" :-)

>In particular a group of militant...

"Militant" implies acts of aggression against one's neighbors. The
Davidians left their neighbors alone.

.religious heretics who left to set up such a community
>some time ago. A few years latter they had captured Medina and destroyed
>the idols in the Kabba. Within ten years the whole of Arabia was under
>Islam.

So what? The Mormons were considered a "cult" for years, and were chased
out of one place after another on much the same thinking as you are
advocating. When they finally got to "set up a community" they left
people alone. So far Americans haven't been put to the sword by Mormon
hordes crying to avenge Joseph Smith. :-)

>Just because a group of people start by saying that all they want is to be 
>left alone does not mean that that is how they will stay. 

It doesn't mean they won't either. Anyway, the whole purpose of a 
system of laws is to punish people for what they DO, not what they
MIGHT do. 

>The Pat Robertsons,
>Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggarts of this world are quite telling other
>people how to run their lives.

"Telling" is not the same as "forcing". When the police knock at my
door, I cannot make them go away by changing the channeI. As for Pat
and friends, I don't even WATCH their channel, since I am an atheist.
So far, not watching them tell me what to do hasn't gotten me killed :-)

> If you allow such people to get guns and
>point them in your face you are likely to find that they are running your
>life.

Right now, the only people sticking guns in anyone's faces is the 
government. And they are trying very hard to run my life. Or 
haven't you noticed?

>Phill Hallam-Baker

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble      | College Libertarians of Texas - UH Chapter |
| MECE3D@JETSON.UH.EDU   | Box 113, 4800 Calhoun, Houston, TX 77004   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    The true civilization is where every man gives to every other    |
|    every right that he claims for himself  --  Robert Ingersoll     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179030
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: Cults, Waco & Insanity

In article <C5w51C.H39@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>
patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes:
 
>
>Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Branch Davidian
>people immolated themselves in the manner described by the
>Federal authorities, why does the general consensus appear to
>be that they -- the BD -- were insane? Is it the manner of their
>behaviour before they died, or the fact they chose to kill
>themselves rather than submit to the Government?
>
>I ask this question because there is a tradition, and one that
>is highly regarded by many people, that several hundred Jews
>elected to throw themselves off a cliff at Masada rather than
>submit to Roman rule. The circumstances at Masada and those at
>Waco would seem in general terms quite similar, and yet so far
>as I'm aware nobody has seriously suggested that the Jews were
>insane.
>
>The point of this comparison is to question the use of the word
>'cult' in discussing the events at Waco. Why were the Davidians
>a cult, and not the Jews at Masada? What constitutes a cult? Is
>it the size of the membership, or a matter of respectability, or
>perhaps the length of time it's been in existence? Are the
>Catholics a cult? How about the Mormons or the Calvinists? Is
>a sect a respectible cult?
>
>Dictionary definitions aside, since popular usage seems to carry
>more weight, I suspect that the word 'cult' is used in a perjorive
>sense when speaking of groups like the Davidians. It is rather
>like the word 'boss' when used to describe someone unpopular --
>or someone the government wishes to *make* unpopular -- like, say,
>Castro: "the Communist boss of Cuba." One doesn't hear Clinton
>described as "America's Democratic [or Capitalist] boss."
>
>--
>
Well, for one thing most, if not all the Dividians (depending on whether
they could show they acted in self-defense and there were no illegal
weapons), could have gone on with their life as they were living it.
No one was forcing them to give up their religion or even their
legal weapons. The Dividians had survived a change in leadership
before so even if Koresch himself would have been convicted and
sent to jail, they still could have carried on.
 
I don't think the Dividians were insane, but I don't see a reason
for mass suicide (if the fire was intentional set by some of the
Dividians.) We also don't know that, if the fire was intentionally
set from inside, was it a generally know plan or was this something
only an inner circle knew about, or was it something two or three
felt they had to do with or without Koresch's knowledge/blessing, etc.?
I don't know much about Masada. Were some people throwing others over?
Did mothers jump over with their babies in their arms?
 
Richard
 
 
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179031
From: kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu
Subject: Re: Drugs And Crime: A New Approach

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes,
(missing the entire point of my post):

> kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu wrote:
>
> |Given that:
>
> |1. The trade in illegal drugs is responsible for
> |much of the crime which afflicts our nation.
>
> There is much evidence that it is the fact that the drugs are illegal, not
> the drugs themselves that have caused the violence. Witness prohibition
> and the violence that surrounded the trade in alcohol.

No joke.

> |2. People who want drugs (particularly people who
> |are predisposed to addiction) will find a way to get
> |them, whether or not they are legally available.
>
> This is suppossed to be an argument for keeping drugs illegal?

No,_you_jumped to_that_conclusion.  It's actually an argument as
to how to accomplish the societal good of discouraging drug use
without violating individual rights.

> |3. Despite current law enforcement efforts, drugs
> |are readily available to those who want them.
>
> This is suppossed to be an argument for keeping drugs illegal?

No. _You_missed the point.  The point is, the "War On Drugs"
is a failure, and is counterproductive.

> |4. Addiction to drugs, boh legal and illegal, is
> |responsible for a significant drain on the productive
> |resources of our country, and this occurs in a variety
> |of ways, from the cocaine-addicted babies who are
> |unable to learn, to the spread of disease among
> |addicts, to the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse
> |and tobacco smoking.
>
> The crack baby scenario has been thouroughly discredited. It
> just so happens that the symptoms seen in the crack babies are
> identical to fetal alcohol syndrome. And the mothers who admitted
> to taking crack also admitted to drinking heavily during pregnancy.
>
> In this country people are free to be stupid if they want to.

But, they are not free to be stupid and injure other people.
Admittedly, the fetal right-to-life is outside the scope of
this discussion.  However, it's ridiculous to assert, as you
apparently do, that cocaine has_no effect_on the developing
fetal nervous system.  Caffiene and nicotine have fetal effects
too, why should cocaine be any exception?

> |5. A general economic principle of government is
> |that whatever is subsidized you get more of, and
> |whatever is taxed you get less of.  To be most
> |effective in confronting the nation's drug problem,
> |some way must be found to utilize these additional
> |powers of government to make drug dealing and drug use
> |less attractive.
>
> So make the drugs legal, tax them and use the tax money to fund a program
> to tell people how studid drugs are. It has worked for the legal drugs.

If you had read my article before writing your knee-jerk response
you would have seen that this is exactly what I advocated.

> |While this country's current efforts to combat
> |legal drugs have succeeded in some respects, (there is
> |a greater awareness of the health consequences of
> |smoking, and designated-driver programs have helped
> |reduce drunk driving, for example), the same cannot be
> |said for the "war" on illegal drugs.  There remains a
> |core group of illegal drug users which support
> |international networks of smugglers, pushers, growers,
> |processors, kingpins, and gangsters.  These networks
> |and their "marketing activities," which include drive-
> |by shootings, corrupting law enforcement authorities,
> |and smuggling weapons, are directly or indirectly
> |responsible for a large proportion of the crimes
> |committed in our country every day.
>
> Each and every one of these problems is a direct result of the
> drug trade being illegal.

No shit, Sherlock.

[...]
> |Clearly, illegal drugs and rising crime are
> |linked.  It takes only a moment's reflection to
> |recognize how they are linked.  The link is money.  As
> |with this country's failed effort to prohibit alcohol
> |consumption, a black market has been created, in which
> |greedy local monopolies, like the gangsters of a
> |bygone era, have profited enormously from their
> |illegal trade.  The victims of this trade include not
> |only the innocent people unfortunate enough to be
> |caught in the crossfire, but, I would argue, the drug
> |users themselves.
>
> A great argument for making drugs legal.

Thank you.  How could you have missed the point so utterly?
What_have_you been smoking?

> |Here then is my proposal:
>
> |1. Possession and use of all presently illegal
> |drugs is decriminalized, but buying and selling them
> |remains illegal.  'Potheads' can grow their own
> |marijuana (as many already do today), other drug users
> |can legally import their poison of choice as long as
> |they pay the tariffs, and a barter economy of drug
> |experimenters develops.
>
> Your solution has done nothing to eliminate the violence in
> the drug trade.  BTW, how is someone going to import a drug
> if buying it is illegal.  I think you need to think your solution
> through a little more thouroughly.

Obviously, importers will not be buying drugs in the U.S., under
U.S. jurisdiction.  Use your remaining brain cells.

> |2. Because of the barter economy which supplies
> |the drug users, the black market profits that have so
> |enriched the drug lords dwindle.  If these drugs can
> |be obtained for 'free' or next to nothing, why buy
> |them?  Nevertheless, there will be those who will seek
> |to sell these "noncommercial" drugs even at relatively
> |low prices.  Therefore,
>
> You have failed to indicate how these drugs can be obtained for
> free or next to nothing. You have stated that the sale of them
> is illegal.

O.K., I'll spell it out for you.  "Barter economy" means that
drug users will be permitted to grow or synthesize chemically
anything they choose, or to buy it outside the U.S. and bring
it in, if it won't grow here.  They will also be permitted to
trade with other drug users for drugs other than the ones they
themselves grow or manufacture.  They will not, however be able
to legally sell their drugs for money.  Both manufacture and
importation of noncommercial drugs will be taxed, to discourage
their use. "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"

> |3. Law enforcement activity is concentrated on
> |those individuals who continue to buy and sell, and
> |also on the crimes committed by drug users too poor to
> |afford even low prices.  But here is where the
> |strategy begins to differentiate between the drug
> |dealers, the victimizers, and the drug users, their
> |victims.
>
> In most cities, this is already the strategy. It has already
> failed and is dragging the rest of us down with it.

Pardon me, but possession/use of these drugs is still a crime!
You cannot analogize the rates at which drug users would seek
treatment, and the comparative ease with which it could be
made available today, when these drugs are illegal to possess/use,
with what it would be were they_not_illegal to possess/use.
Decriminalizing possession and use makes treatment_much_easier.
Drug dealers are exploiting the weaknesses of those persons who
are prone to addiction, and as such, the drug users should be
left alone, not thrown in prison along with their victimizers.
Drug_dealers_are the criminals, and should be treated as such.
Drug addiction does not absolve you of responsiblity for your
criminal actions, however.

> |4. Upon arrest for_any_crime,_suspects are
> |permitted to choose whether or not they will undergo a
> |drug test.  Those who choose to cooperate are informed
> |that upon conviction for the crime they are accused
> |of, if they are found to be a drug user, they will be
> |institutionalized until they are clean, and only then
> |will they begin to serve their sentence.  If they
> |choose to cooperate and are already drug-free, they
> |can begin to serve their sentence right away.  Those
> |who choose not to undergo the drug test and are
> |convicted face stiffer fines and serve longer
> |sentences.
>
> This sounds a hell of a lot like self incrimination. Which is
> unconstitutional.  If drug use is legal in your scheme, why should
> the presence of drugs in anyones system influence the penalty they
> receive? Much too big brotherish for my tastes.

The drug test of an arrested suspect is voluntary, not coerced,
and does not therefore constitute violation of Amendment V.
Those convicted who are drug users, as evidenced by the test,
are in need of treatment for their problem.  Institutionalization
of these adddicted criminals is, I would argue, the best way to
help them straighten out.  If they refuse the test and are convicted,
their sentence can be appropriately harsher, since they, unlike the
addict, have no "excuse" for their crimes.

> |5. Institutionalization of drug using criminals
> |serves several purposes:
>
> |Drug using criminals (and this includes drunk
> |and/or 'stoned' drivers) are separated from their
> |sources of supply, thus reducing the total number of
> |drug users in society at large, and consequently
> |decreasing the demand for drugs on the street, putting
> |more of the remaining drug dealers out of business.
>
> Why should drug using criminals be treated any different from
> other criminals, you have already stated that drug use is legal.
>
> Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Why not?  My objective is to discourage drug use_and_criminal
behavior.  If fewer criminals do drugs out of fear of getting a
harsher sentence if they are convicted, why is that not a good
thing?  If fewer drug dealers (who are still criminals, BTW)
can find victims, why is that not a good thing?  If fewer drug
users, such as drunks, 'potheads,' etc., commit crimes out of
fear of being cut off from their sources of supply, why is that
not a good thing?

I'm certainly willing to debate my position.
You have to read it carefully though.

--Standard disclaimer-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320.711@compuserve.com**********************
 "I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the
    set, I go into the other room and read a book."--Groucho Marx

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179033
From: jwalbea@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you

In article <1993Apr18.192508.12442@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
|> >In article <1993Mar24.235606.15959@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:

|> >|> >> Steve proposes a system of checking what other nations are in to
|> >|> >> as criteria for what our government should try.

|> >|> > I counter that the limits of the constitution might be a better
|> >|> > place to check.
|> 
|> >|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to...
|> >|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
|> >|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I
|> >|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.
|> >
|> >You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your
|> >own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted
|> >but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not
|> >a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That 
|> >poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages 
|> >in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who
|> >think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you
|> >really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting
|> >the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?
|> 
|> Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general
|> welfare" in another portion of the constitution.
|> 
|> Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
|> taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL
|> WELFARE of the United States..."
|> 
|> I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they
|> said in the preamble.
|> 
|> >Just to make sure you've got the point, let's do a little experiment.  What
|> >if the constitution read as follows?
|> >Preamble: We the people, to promote the general Welfare, do ordain
|> >          and establish this Constitution for the United States of
|> >          America.
|> >Constitution:  The Federal Government shall have one function and one
|> >               function only - to provide for the defense of the nation.
|> >The government would not then have two functions: defense and Welfare.  
|> 
|> But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense
|> in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional
|> functions.  Right?

Steve I'm glad to see that you abandoned the preamble thing.  What; did
you do a word search to find Welfare somewhere else in the constitution?

[my comments and paraphrases in brackets]

Article I Section 8:  [in some ways the guts of the constitution]

The Congress shall have the Power:

1. To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 
       to pay the Debts [indebtedness as defined in the document]
       and provide for the common Defence [Defence as precisely defined]
       and general Welfare [as defined through the document, mostly in ways
                           [that limit the government.]
         of the United States; [but the above taxes shall be uniform through-
                               [out the U.S.]

    [so far the congress has been given the power to collect taxes uniformly]

    [ then ... ]

2.  To borrow Money [...]
3.  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, [interstate and Indian tribes]
4.  To [do uniform Naturalization and Bankruptcies]
5.  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and [etc.]
6.  To [punish counterfeiters]
7.  To establish Post Offices and post Roads
8.  To [provide patents and copyrights]
9.  To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10. To define and punish Piracies and [etc.]
11. To declare War, [and etc.]
12. To raise and support Armies,[but for no longer than two years at a stretch]
13. To provide and maintain a Navy, [notice no time limit on this one]
14. To [make the rules for the army and navy]
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws [etc.]
16. To provide for [training of the army except for some state stuff]
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation [in D.C]
18. To make all Laws [necessary to execute the foregoing "Powers"].

Your original instinct was right.  Looking to other nations for precedents
that support an expansive liberal agenda is much easier than looking to the
slim pickins found in the constitution.

-- 
Jim Albea                     jwalbea@jima.b17d.ingr.com



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179034
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: AM Press Briefing by Dee Dee Myers 4.20.93



	     

                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 20, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY DEE DEE MYERS

                          The Briefing Room


9:47 A.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Okay, today's schedule.  As you know, the 
President jogged this morning with Senator Wofford.  
	     
	     At 1:15 p.m., he will have a photo opportunity in the 
Rose Garden to present the Teacher of the Year Award.  At 1:30 p.m., 
he will meet with his principal advisors on Bosnia.  And at 5:00 
p.m., he'll meet with President Vaclav Havel.  There will be a photo 
op at the top of that meeting; no formal press conference afterwards.
	     
	     Any questions?
	     
	     Q	  Is he moving towards some major decision this week 
on Bosnia?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  As we've said, he's continuing to discuss 
his options.  He's been talking extensively with his foreign policy 
advisors, his Bosnia advisors, as well as with other world leaders.  
He'll try to contact President Mitterrand again today, and he'll 
continue to discuss it.  We don't have any specific timetable, but 
obviously the situation there is very serious.
	     
	     Q	  Has he called Janet Reno today or yesterday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe he's spoken to her today.
	     
	     Q	  Why does he have nothing to say about this publicly 
except on the piece of paper that was put out last night at 6:40 
p.m.?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He did.  He answered a question about it 
yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Before anything had happened.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Before anything happened.  He put out --
	     
	     Q	  Since something has happened he's had nothing to 
say.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's put out a statement on it last night.  
And we'll have more to say about it later today.
	     
	     Q	  In what forum is that going to be?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It will be at the photo in the Rose Garden.
	     
	     Q	  He will talk about Waco at that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, he'll have something to say.
	     
	     Q	  Is that something we can take live?
	     

	     MS. MYERS:  I think it will be brief.  We can talk a 
little later about the exact structure as we work it out.  But I 
don't know if it's something you'd want to take live.
	     
	     Q	  Will he take questions on Waco at that time as 
well?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll probably take a few.
	     
	     Q	  Is there any reason why he hasn't talked to the 
Attorney General?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'll have to double-check.  I don't know 
that he hasn't talked to her this morning.
	     
	     Q	  And she didn't come here this morning to see him or 
anyone else?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  And he didn't talk yesterday?
	     
	     Q	  What's the reaction to her resignation statement 
that she made last night?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  She was asked a question about it, and she 
answered the question.  The President has absolutely no intention of 
asking for the Attorney General's resignation.  He stands behind her 
100 percent.  As you know, he was informed about the decision.  He 
takes full responsibility for that, and stands 100 percent behind 
Attorney General Reno.
	     
	     Q	  The question now arises -- yesterday we were told 
that he was briefed on this, but we never got a firm idea of how much 
he knew of what the plan was and the justification for the plan and 
the justification of the timing.  Was he fully informed on all of 
that, all of this about the increasing levels of violence inside the 
compound that made them want to go now, the feeling that nothing else 
was going to succeed, et cetera?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He talked with the Attorney General about 
the decision, about -- she talked to him about the factors that led 
to her decision.  He raised no objections.  He supports her decision 
to go forward with it.  He was fully briefed.
	     
	     Q	  Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but looking back 
now, does the President, does the White House feel that the decision 
he signed off on proved to be the right way to go when you look at 
what actually happened?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think everybody feels bad when life is 
lost.  But I don't think that that is reason to second-guess the 
decision.  He stands behind the decision that was made.  He was 
informed about it.  He was fully briefed about it and he stands 100 
percent behind the Attorney General, the Justice Department and the 
FBI.  It's a difficult operation and there's -- it had already gone 
on for more than seven weeks.  Four federal agents had lost their 
lives in the line of duty -- let's not forget that.  
	     
	     This was a very difficult situation and all the 
decisions involved were very difficult.  But all the agents on the 
ground, the FBI, the Justice Department all recommended moving 
forward with this.  They thought, given the circumstances, it was the 
best possible course of action.  There's just no point in second-
guessing those decisions.  Now, I think that there's a reason --
	     
	     Q	  Why not?  They have to --
	     

	     MS. MYERS:  No, not to second-guess the decisions.  I 
think it's important to take a look at it, to have an investigation.  
I think the President will talk some about that later today.  But at 
this -- from this vantage point, to second-guess those decisions, 
it's not useful.
	     
	     Q	  You sound like he's going to order an investigation 
of what happened and whether --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think he'll have more to say about that 
later, yes.
	     
	     Q	  He will order an investigation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll have more -- yes -- he'll have more to 
say about an investigation.
	     
	     Q	  What kind of investigation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll have more to say about it later.
	     
	     Q	  But in the Monday morning quarterbacking, surely 
there is some soul-searching now as to whether it was the right 
decision.  You can't say that we did the best we could when it turned 
out to be a rather -- a debacle.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:   I think we'll -- obviously, we'll review 
the situation and all the factors that lead to a very tragic outcome.  
I don't think anybody disputes that the outcome was tragic.  But, 
again, the President stands behind the decisions that were made and 
we'll take a look at the factors that contributed to that.
	     
	     Q	  What was the FBI Director's role in this?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, he was obviously involved in setting 
up the operation.  He signed off on it, as did the agents that were 
on the ground that were working with him.  I don't believe he spoke 
to the President, but I'll double-check that.
	     
	     Q	  But he was very closely involved in every aspect of 
planning and so forth?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I would refer you to the FBI on exactly what 
aspects he was involved with.
	     
	     Q	  Will Janet Reno be coming over to the White House 
today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's no planned meeting.  I don't believe 
that she'll be here.
	     
	     Q	  She won't be at this event at 1:15 p.m.?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, no plans to be.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think that there's going to be a jumping on 
on the part of political opposition to make something out of this in 
terms of -- to the President's detriment politically?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I would certainly hope that people 
wouldn't try to use this tragedy for political reasons.  Obviously, I 
think, again, that it's useful to look at the facts, to reevaluate 
the facts, and I think the President will move forward with that.  
But I think people understand that this was a difficult series of 
decisions; that it was a very difficult situation; that it was caused 
by a man who was a cult leader who was involved in the death of four 
federal agents.   And I think it's most tragic that a lot of innocent 

children lost their lives in this.  I don't think anybody disputes 
the tragedy of the outcome.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what was the White House role in handling 
the, I guess, public relations aspect  in the aftermath?  Who was 
talking -- who here at the White House was talking with people at 
Justice to set up Reno's news conference, to do all that sort of 
thing?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the Attorney General handled her end 
of the situation herself and made the decision to go ahead with the 
news conference once there was a point at which there was enough 
information, I think, to talk with some accuracy about what had 
transpired during the day.  Obviously, people here at a number of 
levels were keeping in touch with people at the Justice Department 
and at the FBI to try to keep informed about what was happening 
there.
	     
	     Q	  But Reno said that she didn't talk to the 
President, and there seemed to be an indication she hadn't talked to 
anybody at the White House.  So who --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There were people talking on a staff-to-
staff level.
	     
	     Q	  I understand.  But who at the Justice Department 
was handling that for Reno?  Who was talking to the White House?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There were a number of people.  As you know, 
Webb Hubbell is the liaison to the White House, and I know he talked 
to a number of people here.  There were a number of people at a 
number of different levels involved.  I don't want to get into 
exactly who had what conversations with whom, but there were a number 
of conversations.  Obviously, the Justice Department was working to 
keep the White House informed, the press informed to the best of its 
ability as events unfolded throughout the day.
	     
	     Q	  Did Webb Hubbell talk to the President?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.  I don't know if he 
talked -- he may have at one point.
	     
	     Q	  And was the White House role just to seek 
information about what happened, or was it to direct the public 
information campaign that followed?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It was both to keep abreast of the situation 
so the President could be on top of it, but I think the Justice 
Department managed its press relations on it.  We were obviously very 
interested in what was happening there throughout the day, and the 
President was following it very closely throughout the day.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, on that, though, if the President was 
following it so closely and he had talked the night before with Janet 
Reno, why wouldn't he talk to her at all since then?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I don't know if he's talked to her 
this morning.  Again, he's kept fully aware of what has been going on 
throughout the day.  He stands 100 percent behind her decisions.  
He's been fully supportive of her, as he said yesterday morning 
before events transpired and yesterday afternoon in a written 
statement.
	     
	     Q	  But wouldn't he want to convey those thoughts to 
her personally yesterday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  One more time, I don't know if they've 
spoken this morning.

	     
	     Q	  No, yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Clearly there's a perception that she was left hung 
out to dry all day yesterday.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That's just not true.  I think we said 
throughout the day that the President takes full responsibility, that 
he stands -- I don't know how much clearer we can be.  The President 
stands foursquare behind the Attorney General on this.  He accepts 
full responsibility for the events that transpired.  He believes that 
Janet Reno, the Justice Department, and the FBI acted as best they 
could, given the circumstances and the facts that were evident at the 
time.  I don't know what else he can say to show that he supports her 
1,000 percent.
	     
	     Q	  One of the best indications of that is to pick up 
the phone and tell her.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I don't know whether they've spoken 
this morning.
	     
	     Q	  Why can't we find out?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, we can.  I can't do it standing here 
right now.
	     
	     Q	  You've got six people here.  All they've got to do 
is pick up the phone.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Helen, we'll get back to you.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, when the President spoke with the Attorney 
General on Sunday, is it safe to assume that either she volunteered 
or he inquired about whether there was a possible downside to 
increasing pressure on the Davidians?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that they discussed the situation.  
Again, I'm not going to get into the specific details of what exactly 
she told him, but I think that he was aware of the risks involved.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the President yesterday morning said it 
was entirely her decision.  She then said that she told him what was 
happening and he said, okay.  Does the President regard it that he 
gave the go-ahead or that she gave the go-ahead?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think what they both said yesterday was 
that she made a decision based on all the available facts.  She 
informed him about that and he raised no objections.  Again, I don't 
know how much clearer we can be about that.
	     
	     Q	  And he said, okay.  The issue is over the 
responsibility.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He said, okay.
	     
	     Q	   Does okay mean --

	     MS. MYERS:  The President accepts ultimate 
responsibility.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the President's investigation that he's 
going to announce -- would that be conducted by someone outside the 
administration?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     

	     Q	  It would be internal -- is it meant to preclude any 
congressional investigation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, it's meant simply to follow up on the 
incidents that occurred yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  And you would, I assume, therefore, cooperate fully 
with any congressional hearings that would be held?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  To the best of our ability.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, there are two reports out this morning.  
One that the Justice Department, or FBI, or whomever, apparently had 
a bug planted inside the complex.  And the other is that the children 
may have been injected with some kind of poison that may have either 
left them unconscious or maybe even killed them before the fire.  
What do you know about those two --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing more than I've seen in news accounts 
this morning.  We may get more on it later, but at this point, I know 
-- I'm not sure anybody knows any more than what was reported by 
people who came out of the compound.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President received any report today in 
terms of fatalities and actually what was going on -- what they've 
been able to find out on in the compound now?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's been briefed.  I don't think that 
they've gotten into the compound yet.  They were still waiting for it 
to cool off.  I don't think there's much beyond what's been reported 
in the news accounts.  But he has been kept up-to-date on it.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the President stands behind Attorney 
General Reno, but does he feel that she perhaps got bad advice from 
the so-called experts?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He believes that she made -- he stands 
behind the decision that she made.  It was the unanimous decision of 
her advisors, of the FBI, of the agents on the ground, and he 
supports that.
	     
	     Q	  What about the validity of the decisions made on 
the ground?  Does he back those --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's not going to second-guess decisions 
made.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, you just said, he stands behind the 
decision which she made.  Normally, in a situation like this, the 
President says, I  made the decision.  But you're saying she made the 
decision?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm saying that the President was briefed 
about the decision.  He okayed it and he accepts full responsibility 
for it.
	     
	     Q	  But then why do you keep using the terminology, the 
decision that she made, rather than the decision that he made --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Because, as he said yesterday, she evaluated 
the facts based on evidence presented to her by Justice Department 
and FBI, which is part of the Justice Department, and made a decision 
and then briefed the President on that decision.  That is how the 
chain of command works.  She briefed him.  He signed off on it.  The 
operation went forward, and the President accepts full 
responsibility.
	     

	     Q	  In that chain of command analogy there, I want to 
go back to Sessions a moment.  Do you know if this was a plan that 
came through him to Reno, or was it presented to her around him or 
with his involvement?  What was his involvement?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, you'd have to go to the Justice 
Department for the specific interaction between the Attorney General 
and the Director.
	     
	     Q	  Does the President stand behind Director Sessions?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He supports -- again, I don't know how many 
different ways I can say this -- he supports the decisions made by 
the Justice Department and the FBI.  He fully supports the Attorney 
General in this.  I'm not stepping away from the Director of the FBI, 
I want to -- but Janet Reno is the one who briefed him, the one who 
made the decisions as the head of the Justice Department.  As you 
know, the Director of the FBI reports to the Attorney General.  The 
Attorney General made the decision.  She informed the President about 
those decisions.  He okayed it.  He didn't raise any objections to 
it, and he accepts full responsibility.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have, based on what you know here at the 
White House, any concerns about William Sessions' performance during 
this --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing to suggest that, no.
	     
	     Q	  Along those same lines, just in your initial review 
of the situation, how much do you think the problems might have come 
from not having a Justice Department that's fully staffed and having 
an FBI Director who is still quite uncertain about his status?    
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I just don't think that had anything to do 
with it.  I think the agents on the ground -- the operation went 
forward.  I'm not going to speculate on that.
	     
	     Q	  Did the White House express any alarm that Janet 
Reno chose to speak to the live network media before she chose to 
speak to Clinton?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:   No.  She was carrying forward her 
responsibility to inform the public about the events of yesterday.  I 
think she did a very admirable job.  The President agrees with that.
	     
	     Q	  Before Sunday, how often was the President briefed 
on the situation in Waco?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He was kept updated on a regular basis, on a 
daily basis.
	     
	     Q	  Who briefed the President?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I'm not going to get into exactly who, 
what conversations he had with whom, but he was kept up-to-date on 
the events in Waco.  He has daily briefings on a number of issues.
	     
	     Q	  No, no, was this a regular briefing conducted by a 
White House staff person, or was it by a Justice Department person?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's briefed regularly by a White House 
staff on a number of issues.  Again, I'm not going to get into 
exactly who briefs him on what subjects.
	     
	     Q	  Another subject?
	     
	     Q	  On another subject.
	     

	     
	     Q	  Now we're going to do gays in the military.  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I welcome it.
	     
	     Q	  How close are you to signing the biodiversity 
treaty?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  As you know, the President's giving a speech 
on Earth Day tomorrow.  We'll have more to say about it then.
	     
	     Q	  Any details on where or when that speech is yet?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's at 11:30 a.m. and I don't know where 
yet.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, is this a major policy address?  How would 
you characterize the speech tomorrow?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I would characterize it as a Earth Day 
speech.  I wouldn't look for any major departures from his past 
positions on these things.  But, again, I don't want to get too much 
into what he's going to talk about tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  On or off campus?
	     
	     Q	  Is this at a location outside the White House?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It will be somewhere in Washington.  We 
don't know exactly where yet.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what foreign leaders has the President 
talked to since Friday on the situation in Bosnia? 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Only Prime Minister Major.  And again, he'll 
try to reach President Mitterrand again this morning.
	     
	     Q	  David Owen said yesterday and Joe Biden said today 
-- both of them agree that the peace process is not going to work, 
that the Serbs are not going to sign on.  Does the administration 
still believe that it can work and that they will sign on?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Obviously, the ultimate goal is some sort of 
peaceful resolution to the conflict in Bosnia.  As you know, the 
administration is considering a wide variety of options at this 
point.  The situation there in and around Srebrenica and the rest of 
Eastern Bosnia is quite serious.  And the President will meet with 
his Bosnian advisors today and continue to press forward on this.
	     
	     Q	  Is that a question they're going to try to be 
deciding whether or not the peace plan remains viable?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, they'll be reviewing a number of 
options, including the peace plan.
	     
	     Q	  Does the group that he's meeting with today include 
Reg Bartholomew?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe he's here.  But it will be 
among the usual -- Secretary Christopher, Secretary Aspin, General 
Powell.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, do you have anything on the apparent 
encounter by U.S. F-15s over Bosnia today -- some aircraft violating 
the no-fly zone?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I don't.  I'll get back to you on that.

	     
	     Q	  Will the President be meeting with every one of the 
leaders coming to town for the Holocaust Museum?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He will.  He'll be meeting, as you know, 
with Vaclav Havel today and with Lech Walesa tomorrow, and then with 
the rest of the group tomorrow afternoon.
	     
	     Q	  As a group, or one by one?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe it's as a group.  Now, Havel and 
Walesa asked for meetings early and these have been on the agenda for 
quite some time.  But he will meet with all of the foreign heads of 
state that are here.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, has the President decided whether he 
supports the gay and lesbian civil rights act?  And has anything been 
worked out for him to address the march on Sunday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think he'll probably have a letter or some 
kind of a statement to the march.  We haven't worked out the exact 
details of that.
	     
	     Q	  Not a live phone hook-up?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Probably not, given the logistics of getting 
to Boston.  The speech, as you know, is at 4:00 p.m.  The answer to 
the other part of your question is, no, he hasn't taken a position on 
it.
	     
	     Q	  You said that speech in Boston was at 4:00 p.m.?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe so, yes.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know what it's on?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll still working out --
	     
	     Q	  General Vessey's coming back tonight from Vietnam.  
When will he be meeting with the President?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No specific meeting is scheduled.  We'll 
talk to him at some point and see.  We look forward to his report, 
but exactly how he'll make that report is unclear.
	     
	     Q	  So he's not going to come immediately to the White 
House?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  The AIDS czar -- how close are you?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Still working on it.
	     
	     Q	  Drug czar?
	     
	     Q	  Do you expect it before the march?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't have a time line on it.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President ask Senator Mitchell to try the 
Lloyd Cutler ploy to break the filibuster?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.
	     
	     Q	  Why not?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's just not going to.

	     
	     Q	  Are Senate Democrats here at this hour?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, that's tomorrow -- tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
	     
	     Q	  Update on the stimulus, possible scaling down --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  As you know, the Senate will vote on 
amendments today.  We'll continue to talk.  The President is 
committed to some kind of a jobs package; we'd like to see it passed.  
And we'll continue in conversations throughout the day and see where 
we end up.
	     
	     Q	  When this briefing is over can you give us word 
through the speaker or whatever whether the President's talked to 
Janet Reno?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll be happy to.
	     
	     Q	  It's become a pressing question for the last 
several hours.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, just this minute that I've been here, 
and I haven't had a chance to follow up on it, Helen.
	     
	     Q	  Does he have an opinion on Hatfield?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I mean, obviously, he prefers -- he offered 
a compromise package of $12.2 billion.  He believes that that's the 
best alternative, believes that he's obviously willing to take a 
second look at the package.  And I think the Senate will vote on that 
today, and we're hopeful that the President's bill, which will be the 
Mitchell amendment, will be the one that will be approved.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, is there any White House official that 
will be at the march on Sunday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Somebody will be there representing the 
President.  I don't know who yet.
	     
	     Q	  Well, has it been decided how he's going to 
address?  Is it going to be a videotape or a phone call?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think it will probably be a letter, but 
there hasn't been a final decision on that yet.
	     
	     Q	  The official will read the letter, is that what it 
sounds like?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	  Lloyd Bentsen came in here this morning.  Do you 
know what was that about?  Was that about this Waco thing?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, actually it wasn't.  It may have come 
up, but it was about economic issues.
	     
	     Q	  On health care -- is the 17th of May still the 
target?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That's still the target.
	     
	     Q	  And there's talk about a Joint Session of Congress 
speech at the end of May --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We haven't resolved exactly how the 
President will present the health care plan to the people.  I 
wouldn't rule that out as an option, but no decisions have been made.

                                 END10:08 A.M. EDT


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179035
From: Gordon O. Perkins <gperkins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Does Perot Pay 7% In Income Taxes?


I am seeking any press references to how much tax Perot pays in income taxes. 
I've heard the figure of 7 percent, since he gets most of his 
his income from federal and municipal bond interest. Anybody read a reliable
report somewhere? Thanks!


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179036
From: jburton@acenet.auburn.edu (John E. Burton Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dangerous Ideological position there

In <C5q6Kx.C9H@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>In article 26032@cbnews.cb.att.com, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>	"LESSONS FROM TIANANMEN SQUARE" by Neal Knox reprinted from
>>	Guns & Ammo, September 1989
>>
>>	Why the Second Amendment is so important, even in todays more
>>	"progressive" era.  Included is a description of the 1932
>>	Bonus March in Washington, DC in which Gen. Douglas MacArthur
>>	opposed with military force unemployed WWI veterans lobbying for
>>	the government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.


>Larry,

>Now you can't SERIOUSLY suggest that the US Government
>would be affraid of a bunch of Vets, and would UP and
>call out the Military to PROTECT them just because the
>US Government UP and decided to forget a generation of
>veterans.........

>Now what was that some liberal was saying about the
>advantages of a conscripted armed forces which we need
>not actually pay for services render.......



You should be aware that the US Army was called to "fight"
(and did) WW I veterans (bonus marchers) who marched on
DC demanding bonuses they were promised for service.
Becaues of the depression, they wanted them early.

John Burton    jburton@acenet.auburn.edu
MY OPINIONS, NOT MY EMPLOYER'S





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179037
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Alan Morgan (alanm@efi.com) wrote:
: In article <15437@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: 
: >You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
: >straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
: 
: Okay Claytoon, let us say that hypothetically I agree with you that
: gay men are much more promiscuous than straight men.  Why does
: this indicate they are screwed up people?
: 
: BTW - It occurs to me that since, in my experience, men are much more
:       interested in sex than women and want to have sex much earlier
:       in a relationship than women do, that homosexuals would have 
:       sex more often simply becuase their partner is of a like mind.
:       i.e. heterosexual men would be more promiscuous if they could.

It's my observation that women are more likely to me more strongly
indoctronated into now wanting sex that are men.
Also there are definite double standards for men and women who are
promiscuous.

Could there also be a factor of communication being more direct in 
homosexual relationships and culture.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179038
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr20.202749.9007@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>
>Wow, I hadn't realized how VENOMOUS this was getting!  Be careful here...the
>problem isn't the rich but the values and the systems that make the rich
>rich.

  But the "values and systems that make the rich rich" all basically
  amount to freedom of choice. 

  In New England in 1800 the entire economy was based on the small family
  farm.   Farm economy households were economically diversified, producing
  not only agricultural goods but also "manufactured" goods, especially 
  cloth.  Many farm women carded, spun, and/or wove, producing not only
  cloth for their own family but also to sell, generating extra income.

  But about this time the Industrial Revolution was underway in England
  and by the 1820's it had moved to the US, in both cases in the form 
  of textile mills.  These mills could produce cloth far more efficiently
  and cheaply than people at home.  

  The result was that an important source of home income was wiped out
  and many of these women were compelled by economic circumstance to 
  go to work in these same mills in Lowell, Mass, or Nashua, NH, where
  they worked 73 hour weeks in deafening, dangerous conditions, living 
  regimented lives and being exposed to cotton-dust and infectious dis-
  eases due to the work.

  Now people didn't *HAVE* to buy the cheaper factory-made cloth. 
  They were free to keep buying the home-made variety and support
  their local economy . . . 

> Things are designed in such a way that in order to go with the system
>and make money, everything ELSE we care about goes to shit.

  . . . but (sorry for the cliche), "it takes two to tango".   The big
  rich corporations achieved that wealth because we buy their stuff.
  It used to be the case that the business center of a town was also 
  its social center.  You KNEW the merchants you did business with 
  or even local kids working behind the counter.   You would see
  people on the street whom you knew and you could stop for a chat.

  Nowadays local merchants are going out of business and people shop 
  at huge anonymous malls serving regional populations of hundreds of
  thousands or millions.  You have no particular relationship with the
  companies you do business with, and feel no particular commitment
  to them, nor they to you.   Major components of what defines a "com-
  munity" have been destroyed.   On the other hand the products we buy
  at these malls are a lot cheaper due to economies of scale and foreign
  manufacture, and they are probably of better, or at least more consistent,
  quality.


>                                                           I have to
>constantly remind myself that the goal of human society is not to make
>money.  Money doesn't make us happy; it just prevents certain things making
>us more unhappy.
>
>Therefore, don't shoot the rich.  Shoot the conservatives!

  Don't blame the conservatives for this.  Everyone makes their own
  individual choice and the liberals and the fence-sitters are just
  as guilty of pretending there are no social and cultural consequences
  to economic choices.


---peter


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179039
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

In <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

|In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...

|>	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
|>is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
|>will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
|>these people were.

|	Just look at the history of Koresh and his folowers. They captured
|	the Mount Carmel complex a few yearss ago in a gun battle with a
|	rival BD sect, leaving more than one person dead. They weren't 
|	exactly the most peace loving bunch.

I wonder where you have been getting your mis-information from. Straight
from the BATF itself?

Koresh and his followers did not -capture- the compound a few years ago, it
has always been theirs. A few years ago their was an argument over who should
lead the group, a gunfight erupted *one* person died. Koresh was charged
with the murder. When the sheriff came to arrest him, the sheriff knocked
on the dorr and showed Koresh the warrant (a tactic that the BATF might try
learning). Koresh and the others charged peacibly surrendered to the sherrif.
A trial ensued, the others were found innocent, and the jury hung on Koresh's
charge.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179041
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
: 
: >It's quite possible that a buyer and seller will both
: >trust some third party more than either trust the other, and
: >will desire the moderation of that third party.  But if a random
: >third party assumes the right to interfere in a transaction contarary
: >to the wishes of the primary participants, odds are pretty good the
: >results will be detrimental.
: 
: So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce
: third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples
: where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two
: primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help?
: 
A third party should be able to use persuasion to sway the transaction.
If, on the other hand, we condone the use of force or threat of violence 
by the third party, then we are in trouble.  A fourth party could say 
that it knows better than parties 1, 2, and 3.  And a fifth party... and 
so on.  Who wins?  The one that can use the force or threat of force the
best.  In other words "Might makes right."  Let's abandon such
aggressive tactics and work from voluntary cooperation and respect from 
others.  That is what libertarians want.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179042
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks in Photo Op with Vaclav Havel




	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH VACLAV HAVEL
	     
	     
                           The Oval Office 
	     

5:00 P.M. EDT


	     Q	  Mr. President, President Havel is here for the 
Holocaust Museum opening, and you toured the museum last night.  All 
this focus on the Holocaust, how does that weigh on your decision-
making process as far as Bosnia is concerned?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think the Holocaust is the most 
extreme example the world has ever known of ethnic cleansing.  And I 
think that even in its more limited manifestations, it's an idea that 
should be opposed.  You couldn't help thinking about that.  That's 
not to compare the two examples.  They're not identical; everyone 
knows that.  But I think that the United States should always seek an 
opportunity to stand up against -- at least to speak out against 
inhumanity.
	     
	     Q	  Sir, how close are you to a decision on more 
sanctions on Bosnia?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, of course, we've got the U.N. 
vote.  Ambassador Albright was instrumental in the U.N. vote to 
strengthen the sanctions and they are quite tough.  And we now are 
putting our heads at the business of implementing them and looking at 
what other options we ought to consider.  And I don't have anything 
else to say, except to tell you that I spent quite a bit of time on 
it and will continue to over the next several days.
	     
	     Q	  Following your meeting today, sir, are you any 
closer to some sort of U.S. military presence there?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I have not made any decisions.
	     
                                 * * *                               
	     
	     
	     Q	  President Clinton, why have you decided to meet 
with Mr. Havel?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I'm just honored that he would 
come and see me.  I'm glad he's here in the United States for the 
dedication of the Holocaust Museum.  He is a figure widely admired in 
our country and around the world, and a very important person in 
Europe, and a very important person to the United States.  So I'm 
hoping that we'll have a chance to talk about the new Czech republic 
and what kinds of things we can do together to support the causes we 
believe in.

                                 END5:05 P.M. EDT


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179043
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) says:

>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>>>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>>>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.
>>
>>
>>       Or the contempt to ignore it.
>
>Yup, that was quite contemptuous of the President to make a decision that
>12% disagree with...

       Your ignorance is showing.  The BATF warrant was unsealed.

       The entire operation was illegal from day ONE.

       And Clinton and Reno supported it.  86 people are dead.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179044
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


In a previous article, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:

>In <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>|In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...
>
>|>	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
>|>is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
>|>will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
>|>these people were.



         The BATF warrant was unsealed yesterday.

         The entire operation was illegal from day ONE.


       No authority for a "no-knock" raid.
       No authority to use the Texas helicopters.
       No authority to search for a "drug lab".  More ATF lies.


       Clinton and Reno are lying fucks.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179046
From: ddn@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.d.nason)
Subject: Waco


I don't want to attack anyone's personal opinions and thus have not
included any articles - but it seems to me incredibly ridiculous
and pompous for someone to sit back with the benefit of hindsight
and point fingers at Clinton, Reno, the FBI, or whomever.

First of all, it is a knee-jerk judgement.  The facts are quite
muddled at this point and will likely be for quite a while.

Secondly, things do not improve by pointing blame and accusatory
fingers.  Pointing fingers is a destructive action.  If everyone
sat around pointing fingers all the time, nothing would get done
and nothing would ever get any better.  And despite the tragedy,
we can learn something from this - if it is approached in a 
constructive manner.  Doesn't it seem that working together is
more productive than working against one another?

Thirdly, it seems incredibly hypocritical to place blame given
the benefit of hindsight - something that those who made the
decisions did not have the benefit of.  Why not give them the courtesy
of acknowledging that they did the best they could with the
data they had - in a very, very difficult situation.  Some
responses have gone so far to suggest that the actions were done
without regard for the lives of the people in the compound - give
me a break.

Be part of the solution - not the problem.

And that's MY opinion -

david


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179047
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Healthcare Professionals to Review Healthcare Reform Options

In article <1r7cftINNrbt@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes:
>
>
>THE WHITE HOUSE
>
>
>
>Office of Communications
>_________________________________________________________________
>For Immediate Release	      	   	Contact: Bob Boorstin
>Thursday, April 22, 1993      	   	Phone: 202-456-7151
>                                 
>
>         HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO REVIEW CLINTON PROPOSAL
>                          AS IT DEVELOPS


  Too many MDs on the list and not enough RNs in my opinion.

  Doug

-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179048
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r7prg$hpq@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.031648.2886@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
[...]

>
>You are speculating that the FBI purposely started the fire?!?!?  Please,
>if you've got such a ridiculously extraordinary claim, and have no evidence
>whatsoever, at least give us a speculatory reason why the FBI would want to
>do such a thing.
>
>The possibility that the fire was started accidentally is much more reasonable,
>but we don't have anything but contradictory anecdotal evidence right now.
>-- 
>*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___


Mr. Kuo: I don't recall seeing your byline around much before (at least
on t.p.m). Let me clue you in on this newsgroup. t.p.m is populated
largely by people whose hatred for the U.S. government, especially
the government of Mr. Clinton, is literally boundless. To these
people, the suggestion that agents of the U.S. government would carry
out a spectacular massacre of its own citizens, in full view of TV
cameras, is not an 'extraordinary claim'. It's just another day in
the life of these United States.

They don't have to suggest any reason why the FBI would want to
publicly massacre citizens. Have you seen 'The Crying Game'? 

	"It's in their nature".


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179049
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:

>> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:

>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low

> Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.

Vocabulary test: Please define the following words:

   a) contradictory
   b) ambiguous
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179050
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15446@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> Elf Sternberg:

>> But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we say about
>> these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated gay
>> potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or, more
>> accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social
>> sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.

>> Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.

> I can't speak for Kaldis; but "force of religion and social sanction"
> played no part in my sexual preferences.  Neither had much influence on
> me as a teenager.

You might as well have.  You certainly would not have been in error if
you would have.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179051
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr19.201836.12436@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .

>> The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

> You smack of idiocy, T*d. I don't suppose you've heard of Pythagoras
> before?

I have indeed heard of Pythagoras, but I don't know that he was ever
disparaged as a "bean eater".  In the American Southwest and West
(e.g., Texas, California, Colorado), the term "bean eater" is
sometimes used as a slur against those of Hispanic heritage (generally
Mexicans, in those parts) -- much like how the Irish in the Northeast
are perceived (by some) as voracious beer guzzlers.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179053
From: munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tomas o munoz)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

|> The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with 
|> a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person.
|> In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes 
|> him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the
|> hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically
|> threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would
|> release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would
|> pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.

Just out of curiosity, what else was there to do in this situation?
Wait another 51 days/weeks/months/years???

Was there anything indicating that these children and the other
people were going to get out alive?

-- 
Tom Munoz 
==================================================================
Thought for the day: "One million microfiche = one fish"
 ___________      ___     ____    ____  
/_________ /|   /___/ \  /__ /\  /___/|  
|___   ___|/  /  _  \ /| |   \ \/   | | 
    |  | |   |  | |  | | |    \/    | | 
    |  | |   |  | |  | | |  |\  /|  | |  
    |  | |   |  |_|  |/  |  | \/ |  | |  
    |__|/     \_____/    |__|/   |__|/ munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov 
==================================================================


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179054
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: AM Press Briefing by Dee Dee Myers 4.23.93


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 23, 1993



                            PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY DEE DEE MYERS


                          The Briefing Room


10:35 A.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  At 1:00 p.m., we're having a press 
conference, Bill, in the East Room.  And then Saturday the President 
will leave here at roughly 8:00 a.m. and fly down to Jamestown.  He 
will spend the day there, overnight at Camp David. 
	     
	     On Sunday, it's unclear exactly what time he'll leave 
Camp David and fly to Boston.  He'll leave from Hagerstown. The press 
plane will leave from Washington. 
	     
	     He will meet with some --
	     
	     Q	  What kind of a plane is that he's taking?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That he's taking?  He'll probably take a C-
20.
	     
	     Q	  From Hagerstown?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  From Hagerstown.  Air Force One doesn't fly 
out of Hagerstown, apparently.
	     
	     Q	  How will the pool travel?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The pool will have to meet him ahead of 
time.  So I guess the pool will travel with the press plane and wait 
for him at the airport.  There is currently no provision -- and I'll 
double-check, because there's currently no provision -- I think 
that's standard operating practice.
	     
	     Q	  The pool is not going to meet him and watch him get 
on the plane at Hagerstown?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.
	     
	     Q	  What time does he have to be in Boston?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's going to meet there with a group of 
citizens, mostly people who supported us during the campaign, at 
around 1:30 p.m.  We're still working out the final times.
	     
	     Q	  At the airport?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, it will be at the Boston Harbor Hotel.  
	     And then he will also meet with some -- a youth group 
that authored something called Project 21.  The speech to the 
publishers is actually at 3:15 p.m.  It will be followed by Q&A.  And 
then after the speech and Q&A, he'll attend a reception with the 
publishers, and then return to Washington from Boston.  And that's it 
for the weekend.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President seen the report from -- or the 
letter, communication from the foreign service officers; also, 
obviously, the communication from Madeleine Albright?  And what is 
his reaction to their call on him?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, obviously, the letter was written to 
Secretary Christopher.  I believe Secretary Christopher received the 
letter on Saturday.  He reviewed it and met with the authors on 
Monday to discuss their views.  He believes it's an important part of 
the policy-making process and is taking their views into account as 
we go forward in the development of the Bosnia policy.
	     
	     Q	  What is the President's reaction?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The President hasn't seen the letter.  It 
was something that was directed towards Secretary Christopher.  In 
terms of -- he hasn't seen specifically the letter, but in terms of 
their concerns generally, what the President has said is that there 
are a lot of options on the table now, including ones that weren't 
there before.  And I think he's, as is everybody, gravely concerned 
about the situation in Bosnia.
	     
	     Q	  Is he influenced by that?  I mean, how does he feel 
about the fact that all of the specialists in that area -- those desk 
officers --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Many of the specialists in that area -- I 
think that that is clearly part of the process.  It's something -- 
their views will clearly be considered.  I think Secretary 
Christopher met with the group immediately to discuss their views.  I 
think he believes that there ought to be room for opinions and that 
those opinions ought to be considered, particularly from people who 
work closely on the issues.
	     
	     Q	  What do you mean, there are options on the table 
that weren't there before?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the President said last week that 
there were options, such as lifting the arms embargo to the Bosnian 
Muslims, that had been previously off the table that are now being 
considered.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, in terms of those options, Madeleine 
Albright is saying that potentially there could be unilateral action 
by the U.S. if the Europeans did not go along.  Is that on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I can't discuss anything that would -- 
any conversations that would have happened between Ambassador 
Albright and the President.  But I think the President has said he 
would certainly -- is working with our European allies.  He's had a 
number of conversations with European leaders and is trying to build 
some consensus there.  
	     
	     Q	  Will he reach a decision -- will he have anything 
specific to say today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.  I mean, in term of there will be no new 
announcement of policy today.
	     
	     Q	  Does your statement mean he has ruled out 
unilateral action?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's continuing to consult with our allies 
at this point.  He has said -- I think he's been fairly clear about 
it, that the he believes that the U.S. needs to act in concert with 
its allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  On that point, does he believe that the U.S., 
though, does have built-in authority from the United Nations already 
to take unilateral action?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think the U.N. Resolution 770 makes 
it clear that you can act unilaterally in support of any humanitarian 
relief effort.  I think the broader point is that anything we do, any 
options that we decide to pursue we will make sure that it is 
consistent with U.N. authority, and if it's not, we'll work with our 
allies to make sure that we get it.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, then how does the White House someone as 
distinguished as Elie Wiesel, who says that not enough is being done 
to stop the atrocities going on in Bosnia?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that that's why we're considering 
additional options.  I think that Mr. Wiesel's comments yesterday 
were quite compelling.  The situation in Bosnia is tragic.  The 
President is very concerned about it.  He has -- I think President 
Clinton has worked very hard  to take further actions to continue to 
isolate Serbia in the world community.  Clearly, we're considering 
other options because the President is concerned that perhaps it's 
not enough.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of what you were just talking about, it 
sounds like Resolution 770 justifies unilateral action by the U.S. to 
protect humanitarian --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think it -- I wouldn't use the word 
justify.  It permits unilateral action by any country in protecting 
the delivery of humanitarian relief.  But I think that's just an 
explanation of the resolution.  I think any action that we take will 
be consistent with U.N. resolutions or we'll work with our allies to 
make sure that it is permissible or we'll get further action.
	     
	     Q	  The President and other officials have ruled out 
unilateral U.S. action in Bosnia in the past.  You're declining to do 
that this morning.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I said the President has said repeatedly 
that he wants to act in concert with our allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  That doesn't mean that he won't act alone, which 
has been said before explicitly.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't mean to imply a change in policy.  
The President has said all along that he wants to act in concert with 
our allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  One other little question.  Did he know about this 
letter from the foreign service officers before it hit the papers?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.  Secretary Christopher 
-- they may have had a private conversation about it.  The President 
has not seen it.
	     
	     Q	  They met on Monday, right?  Christopher met --
surely, he must have brought that up --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, they may have talked privately about 
it, but --
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what you're saying is that the Albright 
recommendation has been rejected, is that correct?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I didn't say that at all.  I said I 
won't -- I said I wouldn't comment on any conversations or 
communications.
	     
	     Q	  She's advocating unilateral action and you're 
saying, in effect, that we will not take unilateral action.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I am not confirming anything that Madeleine 
Albright may or may not have recommended.
	     
	     Q	  Given the sometimes delicate, complicated and 
frustrating nature of negotiations with the allies on this issue, 
does the President find this kind of letter from 12 foreign service 
officers of the State Department helpful to that process, hurtful to 
that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that their views are obviously being 
considered.  The Secretary received that memo on Saturday and two 
days later he met with them in order to have a more thorough airing 
of their views, of the basis for their views, to discuss in greater 
detail the options that they had presented in the letter.
	     
	     Q	  Doesn't it put some kind of pressure on --
additional pressure on him now from within his own administration to 
act regardless of what the allies may or may not do?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think clearly there's a broad policy 
review underway now.  And the President and his advisors are 
considering a number of options, including some of those outlined in 
the letter from the folks over at the State Department.  Now, no 
decisions have been made on that yet, but I think that there is a 
through review underway, and that their opinions are being very 
seriously considered.
	     
	     Q	  If I can just follow up, I guess what I'm looking 
for is what was his reaction to this letter?  Did he say, good, this 
bolsters my position?  Or did he say, damn, this is just what I don't 
need right now?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think he said this helps contribute 
substantively to the debate.  It's important that all views be 
considered and aired thoroughly, that before he makes a decision he 
wants to have the best possible advice and information possible, and 
this, I think in many ways, furthers that goal.
	     
	     Q	  So internal advice to a Cabinet official or the 
President -- it's all open now, and you wouldn't take any umbrage or 
say that they were out of line?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that the fact that Secretary 
Christopher met with them to discuss their views and make sure they 
had an opportunity to have a more complete conversation about it is 
conclusive evidence that their views are welcome.
	     
	     Q	  Does the policy review include what Madeleine 
Albright has suggested, and what Joe Biden and others have suggested, 
which is that the previous U.N. resolutions authorize unilateral 
action -- military action -- for the delivery of humanitarian --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think all options are on the table.
	     
	     Q	  The unilateral option is on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think all options are on the table.
	     
	     Q	  We've had two different --
	     
	     Q	  Isn't that a change, Dee Dee?
	     
	     Q	  That would be a change of policy.
	     
	     Q	  Particularly if it includes ground troops, which 
has been specifically ruled out.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the President has been -- well, no.  
I don't -- that is not --
	     
	     Q	  Are you talking about all options?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  All options -- I think the President has 
been fairly clear about that.  So let me just review again what he 
has said.  He has said that -- the President has said all options are 
on the table, with the exception of the introduction of ground 
troops, which he has never suggested.  He has ruled that out from the 
beginning.
	     
	     Q	  Hasn't he ruled out unilateral action of any sort?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He has said that he doesn't believe the U.S. 
can solve the problems in the former Yugoslavia by itself.  I think 
that there are a number of very complicated options on the table 
right now.  I don't think that -- again, I don't want to comment on 
specific options that are being considered other than in the broad 
categories that we've already said -- things like lifting the arms 
embargo against the Bosnian Muslims, things that I think we've talked 
about in broad terms.  This is a very complicated situation.  The 
options being presented and considered are very complicated.
	     
	     Q	  Air strikes on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I think that's been fairly clearly 
pointed out that that's something that's being discussed.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, are ground troops on the -- 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, ground troops are not being considered.
	     
	     Q	  You said there was not going to be -- you said you 
were not announcing a change of policy.  Then you said everything is 
on the table.  We're confused.  Are unilateral actions on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  All I can tell you is what the President has 
said -- that he doesn't believe -- that he wants to act in concert 
with the allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  Wants to, but he's willing to -- I mean, if they 
don't go along --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's continuing to consult with our allies 
on this.  He's continuing to have discussions.  He's continuing to 
press them for further action.  And I think that's clear.  The 
conversation is ongoing.  We're going to continue to work with them 
to find the best possible solution and next step on this.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the allies have taken the position that to 
conduct any kind of air strikes in Bosnia would have the opposite 
effect of ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid; that they feel 
that their troops on the ground monitoring the delivery of that aid 
would become vulnerable and the Bosnians --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not sure that's the consistent -- I 
mean, I'm not sure who you're referring to.
	     
	     Q	  The British and the French.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, the British and French.  They've taken the 
position that the delivery of humanitarian aid would be jeopardized 
by any kind of air strikes against the Bosnian military.  Does the 
U.S. believe differently from that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The President has had conversations with 
both Mitterrand and Major, as you know.  I think that there is a 
thorough review of policy going on in those countries as well.  And I 
don't want to comment on the nature of the President's discussions 
other than to say that he's continuing to consult with our allies as 
we move forward and he's continuing to press them for further action.  
And I think that process is ongoing.
	     
	     Q	     the other day voted against any military 
intervention yesterday.  Does the President regard that as the end of 
the line or does he does still hold out some possibility of 
unilateral action?  The allies have been very, very plain that they 
do not want to do anything.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The consultations are ongoing.  That's all I 
can tell you at this point.
	     
	     Q	  Are you saying that there won't be any announcement 
on Bosnia today in the press conference?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, that is not the intention of the press 
conference.
	     
	     Q	  What is the intention?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's an opportunity to take questions.  He 
may have a brief -- I'm sure he'll have a brief opening statement, 
but it is not an opportunity to outline a new policy on Bosnia.  That 
will not happen.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us what the subject of the opening 
statement is?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's sort of a general statement of where we 
are.
	     
	     Q	  After the first hundred days, you mean?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's not a long statement.  I mean, this is 
just generally.  Don't look for any major policy pronouncements.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know what the opening statement is?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  But it's -- perhaps later today I'll be able 
to tell you with more certainty -- I think that's still under review.  
But the overriding purpose of this -- it's not a mystery; it's not 
meant to be.  It's just to take questions.
	     
	     Q	  It would be helpful to know whether -- what the 
opening statement is on.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Since the major purpose here is just to take 
questions, it's not completely resolved yet.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, one policy that was expected last week and 
that the White House, you and George seemed to indicate we might get, 
would be an AIDS czar.  Will he announce that today?  And what's the 
delay on that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think we meant to imply -- I think 
we said it would happen soon.  I don't think we meant to imply with 
any certainty that it would be this week.  It is coming soon.  I 
don't anticipate that happening today.
	     
	     Q	  What's the delay?  Isn't this the perfect time to 
announce an AIDS czar?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know that it's a delay.  I think the 
process is ongoing to find the best possible person and to go through 
the necessary background checks, and to make sure that we've crossed 
the t's and dotted the i's before we make an announcement.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what are Zoe Baird's qualifications for 
the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board?  And why wasn't her 
appointment announced here?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The qualifications -- I don't know if 
there's a specific list; I'll have to check and see.  I think there 
are a number of people there on the board with different backgrounds.  
Many of them have long histories in intelligence or other government 
service.  I think there's a broad variety of views across political 
spectrum and across backgrounds that are represented there.  We never 
made a formal announcement other than the Chairman of the Board, 
which is Admiral William Crowe.
	     
	     Q	  Why would he appoint her, though, if the American 
people and many in the Senate rejected her for another government 
job?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe that the American people 
ever had -- voted on her.  And I certainly -- she was never rejected 
in the Senate.  She never went up there for a hearing.  But the 
President believes she's a very competent person.  He's said that -- 
Zoe Baird -- do you understand what the question is?  Zoe Baird is on 
the President's Foreign Intelligence --
	     
	     Q	  You said she never went up there for a hearing?
	     
	     Q	  Her nomination was withdrawn after public outrage 
over violating federal laws?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Right, she never -- she was never -- but you 
said she was rejected by the Senate.  I was just simply trying to 
point out that she was never voted on by the Senate.
	     
	     Q	  So you don't think that is any problem?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think there's any problem.
	     
	     Q	  She has been appointed to this board, is that a 
fact?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Does she need confirmation for this?  Does she need 
confirmation to be a member of the --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.  It's a presidential appointment.
	     
	     Q	  Usually, announcements are made here at the White 
House.  Was there a decision not to announce her publicly?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We didn't make an announcement.  People who 
asked were told who  the members of the board were.  We didn't make 
an official announcement.  If anybody's interested in that we can 
certainly put out the list of names.
	     
	     Q	  I'd like to know.
	     
	     Q	  Don't such board members -- don't you normally as a  
matter of -- routinely put out releases on all these boards and 
presidential appointment regardless of their dimension?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not always.  But, again, I'm happy to put 
this out.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't that the standard practice?
	     
	     Q	  That was past practice.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I'm happy to put it out.  We'll put 
out a list of the members of the board today.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, I don't want to try to fail to let you get 
out of this swamp but -- (laughter) -- all I really want to know is 
hasn't it been the practice in this administration for such 
announcements to be made routinely?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think generally but not always.  And we're 
happy to put that out today.
	     
	     Q	  What is the board, what is her title, what is the 
size of the board?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There is roughly a dozen members on the 
board.  It is a civilian board, although their are some, obviously, 
retired military personnel on the board that provide input into 
intelligence policy for the President.  Again, the chairman of that 
board is Admiral William Crowe.
	     
	     Q	  And did he recommend Baird?
	     
	     Q	  What's the name of the board?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's the President's Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board, PFIAB.
	     
	     Q	  What's her qualification -- that she had employed 
an illegal alien?  Is that -- (laughter) -- 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Do you want an answer to the question or you 
just want to make a joke?
	     
	     Q	  Let me phrase it another way.  Why shouldn't this 
appointment be viewed as a pay-back for the difficulty she had a 
couple of months ago?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Because it's not.  
	     
	     Q	  What's her experience in foreign intelligence?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  She's an experienced attorney, someone who 
the President believes is very competent and qualified.  And I think 
part of the mission of this board is to provide civilian input.  Not 
everybody on the board is supposed to be an intelligence expert; that 
is not the board's mission.  It is to provide civilian input for the 
President as he makes decisions regarding intelligence matters.  He 
believes she's very qualified, very competent person, enormously 
talented and has said that throughout.
	     
	     Q	  Is this just a figment of my overactive 
imagination, or was there discussion early on about abolishing the 
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think so.  On December 24th, when he 
announced all of his foreign policy advisors he announced that he 
would -- had appointed Admiral Crowe as the head of the board.  So I 
don't believe there's ever been any --
	     
	     Q	  Earlier than that, during the transition.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I don't believe so.  It was announced, 
again, on December 24th.  Admiral Crowe couldn't be there, but it was 
announced. 
	     
	     Q	  Are members paid?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so, but I'll double-check.
	     
	     Q	  On another subject, on Waco, how do you explain the 
discrepancy between the federal reports of the autopsies of the 
bodies that are coming out of Waco and the state?  I guess it's the 
Texas Ranger reports.  
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Most of the information is coming -- the 
federal information is coming from the site.  Clearly, there's been 
some discrepancies and the Justice Department is looking into it.  
Officials in the Justice Department were told, I believe the day 
before yesterday, that there were several bodies found with bullet 
holes.  I think there's some discrepancy about that, and the Justice 
Department is looking into it.
	     
	     Q	  Is the President going to get involved in trying to 
sort out what seems to be becoming a jurisdictional morass down 
there, with some people withdrawing, others saying they're in charge, 
but others -- Justice, FBI, Texas Rangers -- all grabbing a piece of 
this?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know that he's going to try to 
mediate the dispute.  I mean, I'll let you know if there's anything 
he intends to do about it.  But as you know, there are several levels 
of investigation ongoing, and we're hopeful that they can work 
together. 
	     
	     Q	  Is there any one agency or official down there in 
charge of everything?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  I'll have to get back to you 
on that.
	     
	     Q	  What is the subject matter of Sunday's speech?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's going to be fairly general.  I don't 
think it's going to be any specific announcements.  I think it's 
going to be sort of a --
	     
	     Q	  Does he have a topic that he's going to talk about?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're still working on it.  But I wouldn't 
look for any announcements of, like, the drug czar or something like 
that.
	     
	     Q	  Is it sort of a 100 days speech, sort of "my 
excellent adventure for 100 days"?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not exactly, but I think he'll take a little 
bit broader look about what's happened in the last --
	     
	     Q	  Foreign, domestic?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  A little bit of both, but I think a lot of 
domestic.
	     
	     Q	  And overview. 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, more of an overview than a specific 
policy announcement.  
	     	  
	     Q	  Has there been an agreement yet on a forum by which 
the President will address the gay rights march on Sunday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It will be a letter read to the crowd by 
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
	     
	     Q	  Is that available?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not yet, but it will be.  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Are you going to put it out here or --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll probably put it out here on Sunday.
	     
	     Q	  Travel next week?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Unclear.
	     
	     Q	  What was the question?
	     
	     Q	  Likely?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't --
	     
	     Q	  Likely?  Possible?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Possible.
	     
	     Q	  What's possible?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Travel.
	     
	     Q	  George mentioned yesterday campaign finance reform 
and national service legislative proposals next week.  Do you have 
days yet for them?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not yet.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us which order?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Campaign finance reform first; national 
service later in the week.
	     
	     Q	  Is there any coverage tomorrow in Williamsburg?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  And any report in the aftermath of the day?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Any readout from the day?
	     
	     Q	  Readout.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's possible.  Jeff Eller will be down 
there.  I think he can go through what the President did during the 
day.  We don't expect any photo op or anything, other than departure 
here in the morning.
	     
	     Q	   Dee Dee, the President has not made a regular 
practice, as some of his predecessors have, of going to Camp David.  
In fact, he's been there -- what -- once or twice?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Twice.
	     
	     Q	  Why this weekend?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He went two weekends ago, as you know, on 
the way home from his father-in-law's funeral.  I think that they 
found it to be a good experience and a nice way for them to spend 
some time together as a family.  And this is just an opportunity to 
do the same.
	     
	     Q	  There's no march there.
	     
	     Q	  It has nothing to do with the march here?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Since he's going to be in town Sunday morning now 
instead of in Jamestown, have you thought about him making a quick 
pass-by, fly-over -- (laughter) --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll fly straight to Boston.
	     
	     Q	  Flying straight did you say?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  George took a question yesterday on Waco.  The 
President had said on Tuesday in the Rose Garden that there was a 
minor disagreement on tactics between the military advisors and the 
FBI.  And the question was whether you knew exactly what that was and 
whether it related to the use of the particular kind of tear gas.  Do 
you have an answer on that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't.  I'll check.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END10:59 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179055
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Waco Investigation

Do we know yet who will be holding the hearings? And, if so, do
we know who is on the committee of question askers? I'm sure
many of us have potential questions we'd like to send to them.
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179056
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.

1. You haven't shown any disproportionate involvement.

2. The Janus Report, which came out recently, gives 9% as the percentage
of exclusively or predominantly gay men.

3. No one is presumably going to say they're gay if they're not. But
some no doubt are going to hide their homosexuality in surveys. Thus
the 1-2% is a lower limit.

I still say that weighing all the evidence gives a most likely percentage
between 5 and 7%.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179058
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Press Conference 4.23.93



	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 23, 1993     

	     
                  PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
	     
	     
                            The East Room 


1:00 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Terry, do you have a question?
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, there's a growing feeling that the 
Western response to bloodshed in Bosnia has been woefully inadequate.  
Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel asked you yesterday to do something, 
anything to stop the fighting.  Is the United States considering 
taking unilateral action such as air strikes against Serb artillery 
sites?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first let me say, as you know, for 
more than a week now we have been seriously reviewing our options for 
further action.  And I want to say, too, let's look at the last three 
months.  Since I became President I have worked with our allies and 
we have tried to move forward, first on the no-fly zone, on 
enforcement of it, on the humanitarian airdrops, on the war crimes 
investigation, on getting the Bosnian Muslims involved in the peace 
process.  We have made some progress.  And now we have a very much 
tougher sanctions resolution.  And Leon Fuerth, who is the National 
Security Advisor to the Vice President, is in Europe now working on 
implementing that.  That is going to make a big difference to Serbia.
	     
	     And we are reviewing other options.  I think we should 
act.  We should lead -- the United States should lead.  We have led 
for the last three months.  We have moved the coalition.  And to be 
fair, our allies in Europe have been willing to do their part.  And 
they have troops on the ground there.
	     
	     But I do not think we should act alone, unilaterally, 
nor do I think we will have to.  And in the next several days I think 
we will finalize the extensive review which has been going on and 
which has taken a lot of my time, as well as the time of the 
administration, as it should have, over the last 10 days or so.  I 
think we'll finish that in the near future and then we'll have a 
policy and we'll announce it and everybody can evaluate it.
	     
	     Q	  Can I follow up?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Do you see any parallel between the ethnic 
cleansing in Bosnia and the Holocaust?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think the Holocaust is on a whole 
different level.  I think it is without precedent or peer in human 
history.  On the other hand, ethnic cleansing is the kind of 
inhumanity that the Holocaust took to the nth degree.  The idea of 
moving people around and abusing them and often killing them solely 
because of their ethnicity is an abhorrent thing.  And it is 
especially troublesome in that area where people of different ethnic 
groups live side by side for so long together.  And I think you have 
to stand up against it.  I think it's wrong.
	     
	     We were talking today about all of the other troubles in 
that region.  I was happy to see the violence between the Croats and 
the Muslims in Bosnia subside this morning, and I think we're making 
progress on that front.  But what's going on with the Serbians and 
the ethnic cleansing is qualitatively different than the other 
conflicts, both within the former Yugoslavia and in other parts of 
the region.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, by any count, you have not had a 
good week in your presidency.  The tragedy in Waco, the defeat of 
your stimulus bill, the standoff in Bosnia.  What did you do wrong 
and what are you going to do differently?  How do you look at things?  
Are you reassessing?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't really believe that the 
situation in Bosnia -- it's not been a good week for the world, but I 
don't know that the administration could have made it different.
	     
	     On the stimulus package, I'd like to put it into the 
larger context and remind you that in this 100 days we have already 
fundamentally changed the direction of an American government.  We 
have abandoned trickle-down economics.  We've abandoned the policies 
that brought the debt of this country from $1 trillion to $4 trillion 
in only a decade.  
	     
	     The budget plan, which passed the Congress, which will 
reduce the deficit and increase investment, has led to a 20-year low 
in mortgage rates, dramatically lower interest rates.  There are 
probably people in this room who have refinanced their home mortgages 
in the last three months, or who have had access to cheaper credit.  
That's going to put tens of billion dollars coursing throughout this 
economy in ways that are very, very good for the country.  And so we 
are moving in the right direction economically.
	     
	     I regret that the stimulus did not pass, and I have 
begun to ask -- and will continue to ask not only people in the 
administration, but people in the Congress whether there is something 
I could have done differently to pass that.  Part of the reason it 
didn't pass was politics; part of it was a difference in ideas.  
There are really people still who believe that it's not needed.  I 
just disagree with that.  
	     
	     I think the recovery -- the economists say it's been 
underway for about two years, and we've still had 16 months of seven-
percent unemployment, and all the wealthy countries are having 
trouble creating jobs.  So I think there was an idea base -- an 
argument there, that while we're waiting for the lower interest rates 
and the deficit reduction and the investments of the next four years 
to take effect, this sort of supplemental appropriation should go 
forward.
	     
	     Now, I have to tell you, I did misgauge that because a 
majority of the Republican senators now sitting in the Senate voted 
for a similar stimulus when Ronald Reagan was President in 1983, and 
voted 28 times for regular supplemental appropriations like this.  I 
just misgauged it.  And I hope that I can learn something.  I've just 
been here 90 days.  And, you know, I was a Governor working with a 
contentious legislature for 12 years, and it took me a decade to get 
political reform there.  So it takes time  to change things.  But I 
basically feel very good about what's happened in the first 100 days 
with regard to the Congress.
	     
	     Q	  Waco --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, with regard to Waco I don't have 
much to add to what I've already said.  I think it is a -- I want the 
situation looked into.  I want us to bring in people who have any 
insights to bear on that.  I think it's very important that the whole 
thing be thoroughly gone over.  But I still maintain what I said from 
the beginning, that the offender there was David Koresh.  And I do 
not think the United States government is responsible for the fact 
that a bunch of fanatics decided to kill themselves.  And I'm sorry 
that they killed their children.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, to follow up partly on Helen on your 
stimulus package and on your political approach to Capitol Hill, Ross 
Perot said today that you're playing games with the American people 
in your tax policy.  He was strongly critical of your stimulus 
package.  He said he's going to launch an advertising campaign 
against the North American Free Trade Agreement.  How are you going 
to handle his political criticism?  Will it complicate your efforts 
on the Hill with your economic plan?  And do you plan to repackage 
some of the things that have been in your stimulus program and try to 
resubmit them to the Hill?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me answer that question first.  
We're going to revisit all of that over the next few days.  I'm going 
to be talking to members of Congress and to others to see what we can 
do about that.  With regard to the economic plan, I must say I found 
that rather amazing.  I don't want to get into an argument with Mr. 
Perot.  I'll be interested to hear what his specifics are, but I 
would -- go back and read his book and his plan.  There's a 
remarkable convergence except that we have more specific budget cuts, 
we raise taxes less on the middle class and more on the wealthy.  
But, otherwise, the plans are remarkably similar.  
	     
	     So I think it would be -- I'll be interested to see if 
maybe perhaps he's changed his position from his book last year and 
he has some new ideas to bring to bear.  I'll be glad to hear them.
	     
	     Q	  To follow up, sir, how do you plan to handle his 
political criticism?  He's launched a campaign against you.  Do you 
think you can sit back and just --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I will ask you to 
apply the same level of scrutiny to him as you do to me.  And if he's 
changed his position from the positions he took in the campaign last 
year, then we need to know why and what his ideas are.  Maybe he's 
got some constructive ideas.  
	     
	     I think the American people have shown that they're very 
impatient with people who don't want to produce results.  And the one 
thing I think that everybody has figured out about me in the last -- 
even if they don't agree with what I do -- is that I want to get 
something done.  I just came here to try to change things.  I want to 
do things.  And I want to do things that help people's lives.  So my 
judgment is that if he makes a suggestion that is good, that is 
constructive, that takes us beyond some idea I've proposed that will 
change people's lives for the better, fine.  But I think that that 
ought to be the test that we apply to everyone who weighs into this 
debate and not just to the President.

	     Q	  Mr. President, to go back to Bosnia for a minute.  
You continue to insist that this has to be multilateral action, a 
criteria that seems to have hamstrung us when it comes to many 
options thus far and makes it look as if this is a state of 
paralysis.  The United States is the last remaining superpower.  Why 
is it not appropriate in this situation for the United States to act 
unilaterally?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the United States -- surely you 
would agree, that the United States, even as the last remaining 
superpower, has to act consistent with international law under some 
mandate of the United Nations.

	     Q	  But you have a mandate and --

	     THE PRESIDENT:  They do, and that is one of the things 
that we have under review.  I haven't ruled out any option for 
action.  I would remind all of you, I have not ruled out any option, 
except that we have not discussed and we are not considering the 
introduction of American forces into continuing hostilities there.  
We are not.  

	     So we are reviewing other options.  But I also would 
remind you that, to be fair, our allies have had -- the French, the 
British and the Canadians -- have had troops on the ground there.  
They have been justifiably worried about those.  But they have 
supported the airdrops, the toughening of the sanctions.  They 
welcomed the American delegation now in Europe, working on how to 
make these sanctions really work and really bite against Serbia.  And 
I can tell you that the other nations involved are also genuinely 
reassessing their position, and I would not rule out the fact that we 
can reach an agreement for a concerted action that goes beyond where 
we have been.  I don't have any criticism of the British, the French 
and others about that.
	     
	     Q	  Would that be military action?
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, several of the leading lights in 
your administration, ranging from your FBI Director to your U.N. 
Ambassador, to your Deputy Budget Director to your Health Services 
Secretary, have issued statements in the last couple of weeks which 
are absolutely contradictory to some of the positions you've taken in 
your administration.  Why is that?  Are you losing your political 
grip?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Give me an example. 
	     
	     Q	  Example?  Judge Sessions said that there was no 
child abuse in Waco.  Madeleine Albright has said in this morning's 
newspapers, at least, that she favors air strikes in Bosnia.  All of 
these are things you said that you didn't support.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I don't know what -- we 
know that David Koresh had sex with children.  I think that is 
undisputed, is it not?  Is it not?  Does anybody dispute that?  Where 
I come from that qualifies as child abuse.  And we know that he had 
people teaching these kids how to kill themselves.  I think that 
qualifies as abuse.  And I'm not criticizing Judge Sessions because I 
don't know exactly what he said.
	     
	     In terms of Madeleine Albright, Madeleine Albright has 
made no public statement at all about air strikes.  There is a press 
report that she wrote me a confidential letter in which she expressed 
her -- or memo -- in which she expressed her views about the new 
direction we should take in response to my request to all the senior 
members of my administration to let me know what they thought we 
ought to do next.  And I have heard from her and from others about 
what they think we ought to do next.  And I'm not going to discuss 
the recommendations they made to me, but in the next few days when I 
make a decision about what to do, then I will announce what I'm going 
to do.  So I wouldn't say that either one of those examples qualifies 
speaking out of school.
	     
	     Q	  How about the Value Added Tax, Mr. President?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  What was that?
	     
	     Q	  The Value Added Tax -- Mrs. Rivlin and Miss Shalala 
both said that they thought that that was a good idea.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't mind them saying they think it's 
a good idea.  There are all kinds of arguments for it on policy 
grounds.  That does not mean that we have decided to incorporate it 
in the health care debate.  No decision has been made on that.  And I 
have no objection to their expressing their views on that.  We've had 
a lot of people from business and labor come to us saying that they 
thought that tax would help make their particular industries more 
competitive in the global economy.  I took no -- that wasn't taking a 
line against an administration policy.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, a week ago a group of gay and 
lesbian representatives came out of a meeting with you and expressed 
in the most ringing terms, their confidence in your understanding of 
them and their political aspirations, and their belief that you would 
fulfill those aspirations.  Do you feel now that you will be able to 
meet their now enhanced expectations?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't know about that.  And I 
don't know what their -- it depends on what the expectations are.  
But I'll tell you this:  I believe that this country's policies 
should be heavily biased in favor of nondiscrimination.  I believe 
when you tell people they can't do certain things in this country 
that other people can do, there ought to be an overwhelming and 
compelling reason for it.  I believe we need the services of all of 
our people, and I have said that consistently.  And not as a 
political proposition.  The first time this issue came up was in 1991 
when I was in Boston.  I was just asked the question about it.
	     
	     And I might add -- it's interesting that I have been 
attacked -- obviously, those who disagree with me here are primarily 
coming from the political right in America.  When I was Governor, I 
was attacked from the other direction for sticking up for the rights 
of religious fundamentalists to run their child care centers and to 
practice home schooling under appropriate safeguards.  I just have 
always had an almost libertarian view that we should try to protect 
the rights of American individual citizens to live up to the fullest 
of their capacities, and I'm going to stick right with that.
	     
	     Q	  Are you concerned, sir, that you may have generated 
expectations on their end and criticism among others that has 
hamstrung your administration in the sense of far too great emphasis 
on this issue?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, but I have not placed a great deal 
of emphasis on it.  It's gotten a lot of emphasis in other quarters 
and in the press.  I've just simply taken my position and tried to 
see it through.  And that's what I do.  It doesn't take a lot of my 
time as President to say what I believe in and what I intend to do, 
and that's what I'll continue to do.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, getting back to the situation in 
Bosnia -- and we understand you haven't made any final decisions on 
new options previously considered unacceptable.  But the two most 
commonly heard options would be lifting the arms embargo to enable 
the Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves and to initiate some limited 
air strikes, perhaps, to cut off supply lines.  Without telling us 
your decision -- presumably, you haven't made any final decisions on 
those two options -- what are the pros and cons that are going 
through your mind right now and will weigh heavily on your final 
decision?  
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm reluctant to get into this.  There 
are -- those are two of the options.  There are some other options 
that have been considered.  All have pluses and minuses; all have 
supporters and opponents within the administration and in the 
Congress, where, I would remind you, heavy consultations will be 
required to embark on any new policy.
	     
	     I do believe that on the air strike issue, the 
pronouncements that General Powell has made generally about military 
action, apply there.  If you take action, if the United States takes 
action, we must have a clearly-defined objective that can be met.  We 
must be able to understand it and its limitations must be clear.  The 
United States is not, should not, become involved as a partisan in a 
war.  
	     
	     With regard to the lifting of the arms embargo, the 
question obviously there is if you widen the capacity of people to 
fight will that help to get a settlement and bring about peace?  Will 
it lead to more bloodshed?  What kind of reaction can others have 
that would undermine the effectiveness of the policy?
	     
	     But I think both of them deserve some serious 
consideration, along with some other options we have.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think that these people who are trying to 
get us into war in Bosnia are really remembering that we haven't 
taken care of hundreds of thousands of veterans from the last war and 
we couldn't take care of our prisoners and get them all home from 
Vietnam?   And now many of them are coming up with bills for 
treatment of Agent Orange.  How can we afford to go to any more of 
these wars?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that's a good argument 
against the United States itself becoming involved as a belligerent 
in a war there.  But we are, after all, the world's only super power.  
We do have to lead the world  and there is a very serious problem of 
systematic ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, which could 
have not only enormous further humanitarian consequences -- and 
goodness knows there have been many -- but also could have other 
practical consequences in other nearby regions where the same sorts 
of ethnic tensions exist.

	     Q	  Did you make any kind of agreement with Boris 
Yeltsin to hold off either on air strikes or any kind of aggressive 
action against the Serbs until after Sunday?  And in general, how has 
his political situation affected your deliberation on Bosnia?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I have not made any agreement, and 
he did not ask for that.  We never even discussed that, interestingly 
enough.  The Russians, I would remind you, in the middle of President 
Yeltsin's campaign, abstained from our attempt to get tougher 
sanctions through the United Nations in what I thought was the proper 
decision for them and one that the United States and, I'm sure, the 
rest of the free world very much appreciated. 

	     Q	  Do you wish, Mr. President, that you'd become more 
involved in the planning of the Waco operation?  And how would you 
handle that situation differently now?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't think as a practical matter that 
the President should become involved in the planning of those kinds 
of things at that detail.  One of the things that I'm sure will come 
out when we look into this is -- the questions will be asked and 
answered, did all of us who up the line of command ask the questions 
we should have asked and get the answers we should have gotten?  And 
I look forward to that.  But at the time, I have to say, as I did 
before, the first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once 
we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military 
be consulted because of the quasi, as least, military nature of the 
conflict given the resources that Koresh had in his compound and 
their obvious willingness to use them.  And then on the day before 
the action, I asked the questions of the Attorney General which I 
have reported to you previously, and which at the time I thought were 
sufficient.  I have -- as I said, I'm sure -- I leave it to others to 
make the suggestions about whether there are other questions I should 
have asked.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, what is your assessment of Director 
Sessions' role in the Waco affair?  And have you made a decision on 
his future?  And if you haven't, will you give him a personal hearing 
before you do decide?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I have no assessment 
of his role since I had no direct contact with him.  And I mean no 
negative or positive inference.  I have no assessment there.  I stand 
by what I said before about my general high regard for the FBI.  And 
I'm waiting for a recommendation from the Attorney General about what 
to do with the direction of the FBI.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, since you said that one side in 
Bosnia conflict represents inhumanity that the Holocaust carried to 
the nth degree, why do you then tell us that the United States cannot 
take a partisan view in this war?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I said that the principle of 
ethnic cleansing is something we ought to stand up against.  That 
does not mean that the United States or the United Nations can enter 
a war, in effect, to redraw the lines, geographical lines of 
republics within what was Yugoslavia, or that that would ultimately 
be successful.
	     
	     I think what the United States has to do is to try to 
figure out whether there is some way consistent with forcing the 
people to resolve their own difficulties we can stand up to and stop 
ethnic cleansing.  And that is obviously the difficulty we are 
wrestling with.  This is clearly the most difficult foreign policy 
problem we face, and that all of our allies face.  And if it were 
easy, I suppose it would have been solved before.  We have tried to 
do more in the last 90 days than was previously done.  It has clearly 
not been enough to stop the Serbian aggression, and  we are now 
looking at what else we can do.
	     
	     Q	  Yesterday you specifically criticized the Roosevelt 
administration for not having bombed the railroads to the 
concentration camps and things that were near military targets.  
Aren't there steps like that that would not involve conflict --direct 
conflict or partisan belligerence that you might consider?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  There may be.  I would remind you that 
the circumstances were somewhat different.  We were then at war with 
Germany at the time and that's what made that whole incident so --
series of incidents -- so perplexing.  But we have -- as I say, we've 
got all of our options under review.
	     
	     Q	  The diplomatic initiative on Haiti is on the verge 
of collapse.  What can you do to salvage it short of a full-scale 
military operation?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you may know something I don't.  
That's not what our people tell me.  I think Mr. Caputo and 
Ambassador Pezzullo have done together a good job.  The thing keeps 
going back and forth because of the people who are involved with the 
de facto government there.  It's obvious what their concerns are.  
They were the same concerns that led to the ouster of Aristide in the 
first place, and President Aristide, we feel, should be restored to 
power.  We're working toward that.  I get a report on that -- we 
discuss it at least three times a week, and I'm convinced that we're 
going to prevail there and be successful.  
	     
	     I do believe that there's every reason to think that 
there will have to be some sort of multilateral presence to try to 
guarantee the security and the freedom from violence of people on 
both sides of the ledger while we try to establish the conditions of 
ongoing civilized society.  But I believe we're going to prevail 
there.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, would you care to make your 
assessment of the first 100 days before we make one for you?  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I'll say if -- I believe, first of 
all, we passed the budget resolution in record time.  That was the 
biggest issue.  That confirmed the direction of the administration 
and confirmed the commitments of the campaign that we could both 
bring the deficit down and increase investment, and that we could do 
it by specific spending cuts and by raising taxes, almost all of 
which come from the highest income people in this society --reversing 
a 12-year trend in which most of the tax burdens were borne by the 
middle class, whose incomes were going down when their taxes were 
going up, while the deficit went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion, the 
total national debt, and the deficit continued to go up.
	     
	     We have a 20-year low in interest rates from mortgages. 
We have lower interest rates across the board.  We have tens of 
billions of dollars flooding back into this economy as people 
refinance their debt.  
	     
	     We have established a new environmental policy, which is 
dramatically different.  The Secretary of Education has worked with 
me and with others and with the governors to establish a new approach 
in education that focuses on tough standards, as well as increasing 
opportunity.  We have done an enormous amount of work on political 
reform, on campaign finance and lobbying reform.  And I have imposed 
tough ethics requirements on my own administration's officials.  
These things are consistent with not only what I said I'd do in the 
campaign, but with turning the country around.  The Vice President is 
heading a task force which will literally change the way the federal 
government operates and make it much more responsive to the citizens 
of this country.  
	     
	     We are working on a whole range of other things.  The 
welfare reform initiative, to move people from welfare to work.  And, 
of course, a massive amount of work has been done on the health care 
issue, which is a huge economic and personal security problem for 
millions of Americans.  
	     
	     So I think it is amazing how much has been done.  More 
will be done.  We also passed the Family Leave bill.  A version of 
the motor voter bill -- that has not come out of conference back to 
me yet.  And everything has been passed except the stimulus program.  
So I think we're doing fine and we're moving in the right direction.  
I feel good about it.
	     
	     Q	  Sir, a follow-up.  Wouldn't you say, though, that 
one of your biggest initiatives, aid to Soviet Russia, is now 
practically finished -- if we can't pass a stimulus bill in our own 
country, how can we do it for them?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me recast the question a little bit.  
It's a good question -- (laughter) -- it's a good question, but to be 
fair we've got to recast it.  We have already -- the first round of 
aid to the Soviet -- to non-Soviet Russia, to a democratic Russia, is 
plainly going to go through, the first $1.6 billion.  The aid that we 
agreed with our partners in the G-7 to provide through the 
international financial institutions, which is a big dollar item, is 
plainly going to go through.  The question is, can we get any more 
aid for Russia that requires a new appropriation by the United States 
Congress?  And that is a question I think, Mary, that will be 
resolved in the weeks ahead, in part by what happens to the American 
workers and their jobs and their future.  I think the two things will 
be tied by many members of Congress.

	     Q	  The tailhook report came out this morning, 
documenting horrendous and nearly-criminal conduct on the part of the 
Navy.  How much did you discuss the incident and what might be done 
about it with your nominee to be the Secretary of the Navy?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  First, let me comment a little on that.  
The Inspector General's report details conduct which is wrong and 
which has no place in the armed services.  And I expect the report to 
be acted on in the appropriate way.  I also want to say to the 
American people and to all of you that the report should be taken for 
what it is, a very disturbing list of allegations which will have to 
be thoroughly examined.  It should not be taken as a general 
indictment of the United States Navy or of all the fine people who 
serve there.  It is very specific in its allegations, and it will be 
pursued.  

	     The only thing I said to the Secretary-Designate of the 
Navy and the only thing I should have said to him, I think, is that I 
expected him to take the report and to do his duty.  And I believe he 
will do that.

	     Q	  Mr. President, to back to Russia for just a minute.  
The latest poll show that Mr. Yeltsin will probably win his vote of 
confidence.  But there seems to be a real toss-up on whether or not 
voters are going to endorse his economic reforms.  

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I understand that.  

	     Q	  Can you live with a split -- (laughter) -- can you 
live with a split decision, though, or do you need both passed in 
order to then build support for Russian aid?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I believe -- the answer to your question 
is, for the United States, the key question should be that which is 
posed to any democracy, which is who wins the election.  If he wins 
the election, if he is ratified by the Russian people to continue as 
their President, then I think we should do our best to work with him 
toward reform.
	     
	     You know, we had a lot of other countries here for the 
Holocaust Museum dedication -- their leaders were here.  Leaders from 
Eastern Europe, leaders from at least one republic of the former 
Soviet Union; all of them having terrible economic challenges as they 
convert from a communist command and control economy to a market 
economy in a world where there's economic slowdown everywhere.  And 
in a world in which there's economic slowdown and difficulty, all 
leaders will have trouble having their policies be popular in a poll 
because they haven't produced the results that the people so 
earnestly yearn for.  You can understand that.  
	     
	     But if they have confidence in the leadership, I think 
that's all we can ask.  And the United States will -- if the Russian 
people ratify him as their President and stick with him then the 
United States will continue to work with him.  I think he is a 
genuine democrat -- small d -- and genuinely committed to reform.  I 
think that we should support that.

	     Q	  Mr. President, Mr. Perot has come out strongly in 
what is perceived behind the line against a free trade agreement --
NAFTA.  How hard are you going to fight for this free trade agreement 
and when do you expect to see it accomplished?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think we'll have the agreement ready 
in the fairly near future.  You know, our people are still working 
with the Mexican government and with the Canadians on the side 
agreements.  We're trying to work out what the environmental 
agreement will say, what the labor agreement will say, and then what 
the fairest way to deal with enforcement is.  
	     
	     The Mexicans say, and there is some merit to their 
position, that they're worried about transferring their sovereignty 
in enforcement to a multilateral commission.  Even in the United 
States, to be fair, we have some folks who are worried about that --
about giving that up.  On the other hand, if we're going to have an 
environmental agreement and a labor standards agreement that means 
something, then there has to be ultimately some consequences for 
violating them.  So what we're trying to do is to agree on an 
approach which would say that if there is a pattern of violations --
if you keep on violating it past a certain point -- maybe not an 
isolated incident, but a pattern of violation -- there is going to be 
some enforcement.  There must be consequences.  And we're working out 
the details of that.
	     
	     But I still feel quite good about it.  And this is just 
an area where I disagree with Mr. Perot and with others.  I think 
that we will win big if we have a fair agreement that integrates more 
closely the Mexican economy and the American economy and leads us 
from there to Chile to other market economies in Latin America, and 
gives us a bigger world in which to trade.  I think that's the only 
way a rich country can grow richer.  If you look at what Japan and 
other countries in the Pacific are doing to reach out in their own 
region, it's a pretty good lesson to us that we had better worry 
about how to build those bridges in our own area.  
	     
	     So this is an idea battle.  You know, you've got a lot 
of questions and I want to answer them all, but let me say not every 
one of these things can be distilled simply into politics -- you 
know, who's for this and who's for that, and if this person is for 
this, somebody else has got to be for that.  A lot of these things 
honestly involved real debates over ideas, over who's right and wrong 
about the world toward which we're moving.  And the answers are not 
self-evident.  And one of the reasons that I wanted to run for 
President is I wanted to sort of open the floodgates for debating 
these ideas so that we could try to change in the appropriate way.  
So I just have a difference of opinion.  I believe that the concept 
of NAFTA is sound, even though, as you know, I thought that the 
details needed to be improved.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, there was a tremendous flurry of 
interest earlier this month in the Russian document that purported to 
show that the Vietnamese had held back American prisoners.  General 
Vessey has now said publicly that while the document itself was 
authentic, he believes that it was incorrect.  Do you have a personal 
view at this point about that issue?  And more broadly, do you 
believe that, in fact, the Vietnamese did return all the American 
prisoners at the time of the Paris Peace Accord?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  First let me say, I saw General Vessey 
before he went to Vietnam and after he returned.  And I have a high 
regard for him and I appreciate his willingness to serve his country 
in this way.  As to whether the document had any basis in fact, let 
me say that the government of Vietnam was more forthcoming than it 
had been in the past and gave us some documents that would tend to 
undermine the validity of the Russian documents claim.
	     
	     I do not know whether that is right or wrong.  We are 
having it basically evaluated at this time, and when we complete the 
evaluation, we'll tell you.  And, of course, we want to tell the 
families of those who were missing in action or who were POWs.  I 
think that we'll be able to make some progress in eliminating some of 
the questions about the outstanding cases as a result of this last 
interchange, but I cannot say that I'm fully satisfied that we know 
all that we need to know.  There are still some cases that we don't 
know the answer to.  But I do believe we're making some progress.  I 
was encouraged by the last trip.
	     
	     Q	  I'd like to follow up on that.  Before the U.S. 
normalizes relations, allows trade to go forward, do you have to be 
personally sure that every case has been resolved or would you be 
willing to go forward on the basis that while it may take years to 
resolve these cases, the Vietnamese have made sufficient offerings to 
us to confirm good faith?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  A lot of experts say you can never 
resolve every case, every one, that we couldn't resolve all the cases 
for them and that there are still some cases that have not been 
factually resolved, going back to the Second World War.  But what I 
would have to be convinced of is that we had gone a long way toward 
resolving every case that could be resolved at this moment in time, 
and that there was a complete, open and unrestricted commitment to 
continue to do everything that could be done always to keep resolving 
those cases.  And we're not there yet.  
	     
	     Again, I have to be guided a little bit by people who 
know a lot about this.  And I confess to being much more heavily 
influenced by the families of the people whose lives were lost there, 
or whose lives remain in question than by the commercial interest and 
the other things which seem so compelling in this moment.  I just am 
very influenced by how the families feel.
	     
	     Q	     your economic stimulus package, are you doing 
some kind of reality check now and scaling back some of your plans, 
your legislative plans for the coming year, including the crime bill, 
the health care initiative and other things?  Are there any plans to 
do that?  And also, did you underestimate the power of Senator Bob 
Dole?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, what I underestimated was the extent 
to which what I thought was a fairly self-evident case, particularly 
after we stayed below the spending caps approved by this Congress, 
including the Republicans who were in this Congress last year -- when 
we had already passed a budget resolution which called for over $500 
billion in deficit reduction.  When they had voted repeatedly for 
supplemental appropriations to help foreign governments, I thought at 
least four of them would vote to break cloture, and I underestimated 
that.  I did not have an adequate strategy of dealing with that.  
	     
	     I also thought that if I made a good-faith effort to 
negotiate and to compromise, that it would not be rebuffed.  Instead, 
every time I offered something they reduced the offer that they had 
previously been talking to the Majority Leader about.  So it was a 
strange set of events.  But I think what happened was what was a 
significant part of our plan, but not the major part of it, acquired 
a political connotation that got out of proportion to the merits, so 
that a lot of Republicans were saying to me privately, "Mr. 
President, I'd like to be for this, but I can't now.  And we're all 
strung out and we're divided."  
	     
	     And I think we need to do a reality check.  As I said, 
what I want to know -- let me go back to what I said -- what I want 
to know from our folks and from our friends in the Senate on -- and 
Republicans or Democrats -- is what could I have done differently to 
make it come out differently.  Because the real losers here were not 
the President and the administration.  The real losers were the 
hundreds of thousands of people who won't have jobs now.  We could 
have put another 700,000 kids to work this summer.  I mean, we could 
have done a lot of good things with that money.  And I think that is 
very, very sad.  And it became more political than it should have.  
But the underlying rationale I don't think holds a lot of water --
that it was deficit spending.  That just won't wash.
	     
	     Q	     and redo --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No.  I mean, you know, for example --you 
mentioned the crime bill.  I think it would be a real mistake not to 
pass the crime bill.  I mean, the crime bill was almost on the point 
of passage last year.  And they were all fighting over the Brady 
Bill.  Surely, surely after what we have been through in this country 
just in the last three months, with the kind of mindless violence we 
have seen, we can pass a bill requiring people to go through a 
waiting period before they buy a handgun.  And surely we can see that 
we need more police officers on the street.  
	     
	     That's another thing that -- I really believe that once 
we move some of that money -- not all, but some of it up into this 
jobs package to make some of the jobs rehiring police officers on the 
street who'd been laid off, that would be a compelling case.  I mean 
people are scared in this country and I think we need to go forward. 
I feel very strongly that we need to go forward on the crime bill.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, back to the tailhook report for a 
second.  That report contained very strong criticism of the Navy's 
senior leadership in general, but did not name any of the senior 
officers.  Do you believe that the senior officers who are implicated 
in this, including Admiral Kelso who was there one night in Las 
Vegas, should they be disciplined and do you believe the public has a 
right to know the names of the senior officers?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  You should know that under the rules of 
law which apply to this, I am in the chain of command.  There is now 
an Inspector General's report and the law must take its course.  If I 
were to answer that question I might prejudice any decisions which 
might be later made in this case.  I don't really think -- I think 
all I can tell you is what I have already said.  I was very disturbed 
by the specific allegations in the Inspector General's report, and I 
want appropriate action to be taken.  
	     
	     Until the proper procedures have a chance to kick in and 
appropriate action is taken, I have been advised that because I am 
the Commander-in-Chief I have to be very careful about what I say so 
as not to prejudice the rights of anybody against whom any action 
might proceed or to prejudice the case in any other way either pro or 
con.  So I can't say any more except to say that I want this thing 
handled in an appropriate and thorough way.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, could I ask you for a clarification 
on Bosnia?  You said that you were not considering introduction of 
American forces.  Does that include any air forces as well as ground 
forces, sir?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I said ground forces.
	     
	     Q	  You said ground forces.  Could I ask you, sir, if 
you fear that using U.S. air strikes might  draw the United States 
into a ground war there?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I just don't want to discuss our 
evaluation of the options anymore.  I've told you that there's never 
been a serious discussion in this country about the introduction of 
ground forces into an ongoing conflict there.
	     
	     Q	  With hundreds of thousands of gays in Washington 
this weekend for the march, did you ever reconsider your decision to 
leave town for this weekend?  Did you ever consider in any way 
participating in some of the activities? 
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Why not?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Because I -- and, basically, I wouldn't 
participate in other marches.  I think once you become President, on 
balance, except under unusual circumstances, that is not what should 
be done.  But more importantly, I'm going to the American Society of 
Newspaper Editors, a trip that presumably most of you would want me 
to make, to try to focus anew on what I think are the fundamental 
issues at stake for our country right now.  And I expect that I will 
say something about the fact that a lot of Americans have come here, 
asking for a climate that is free of discrimination; asking, 
basically, to be able to work hard and live by the rules and be 
treated like other American citizens if they do that, and just that.  
And that's always been my position -- not only for the gays who will 
be here, but for others as well.  
	     
	     Thank you very much.

                                 END1:48 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179060
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

In article <onrC5xzu4.IIF@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>[...]
>of course the last MOW was the same thing but [the media] ignored us.
>I guess that was just labor pains.
>perhaps they will ignore us again, in which case we will come in
>even largeer numbers next time.

Local media hasn't said much, if anything, about the MOW.  Also, when
I called a straight friend in Arlington to tell him I would be on his
doorstep this weekend, he didn't know anything at all about the march.
This is a gay-sympathetic person who notices things like this.  I
thought it was strange that he was unaware of what was happening.  It
made me wonder just how much coverage is getting to "mainstream" America.

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |  Head like a hole, black as your soul.
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  I'd rather die
                                     |  Than give you control.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |               - Nine Inch Nails

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179062
From: pcalitri@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (pat calitri)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
>of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
>recent works suggest.

Oh, please, enlighten us all. What articles in particular are you
quoting from? I'm doing my Masters in Psychopathology and it would
interest me greatly in seeing these articles that you know exist
(yet I know nothing about). I'm sure I could give them to people
doing their PhD's. With information like this, they'll have their
degree in no time.  (sprinkle sarcasm where applicable)

Don't bother with the little-girl-is-raped-by-her-daddy-and-is-now-
a-lesbian-because-of-it studies. They have always been under critical 
scrutiny as to their validity. (Correlation != causation).

========================= Fluffy the Wonder Bunny ============================
       Sex is not the answer, sex is the question. Yes is the answer.
==============================================================================
   Behind each "Have a nice day" is a "Go fuck yourself." ---Ralph Cherubini
==============================================================================
      The other night I was lying in bed, looking up at the stars, and
              I wondered, "Where the FUCK is my ROOF ?!?"
====================== pcalitri@descartes.waterloo.edu =======================
  Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature and join the fun!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179063
From: rogerd@netcom.com (Roger D.)
Subject: Re: Clayton is an asshole (but we all already know that)

:      Here's a hypothetical question...  If Clayton said something like "all
: those niggers are really stupid."  (Please don't be offended, I'm not racist
: but merely using an example of Clayton's malign logic).  And then said he
: read a report that a lot of blacks in inner cities dropped out of school, I
: bet he wouldn't have your support.  Yet he can claim that all homosexuals are
: dishonest, evil, lying child molesters without *PERSONALLY* having a single
: homosexual friend or acquaintance and you'll sit there and support him.

:      God created a place for bigots.  It's called Hell and Clayton is going
: to burn there for a long time.  I pray for him to find in his heart the
: Christian values he espouses so that he can learn to love his gay brothers
: and sisters, because anyone with so much hatred in his soul coulld never
: be righteous.

There is a difference between supporting Claytons opinions and supporting
his right to speak.  I want you to know that you cannot educate and/or
elevate ones understanding by calling him names.  Clayton has an opinion
which in his mind is as valid as any opinion anyone else on the net has.
If you were to walk up to black person to talk about blacks in the inner
city and began the conversation with "Those niggers in th.......".  You
would lose the attention of that black person by the time you spoke your
second word.  All name calling and derisive remarks do is turn off the
audience you are trying to address.  Clayton is guilty of that and as
such has distracted attention away from his message to bits and pieces
of his conversation.  I don't understand why people want to repeat his
mistakes!

-- 
==================================================
=	rogerd@netcom.com - - rogerd@aqm.com	 =
=						 =
=	  Hanging by the tips of my finger	 =
=	    at the edge of the internet		 =
==================================================


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179066
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Waco

In article <C5u66A.BFH@cbnews.cb.att.com> ddn@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.d.nason) writes:

>Thirdly, it seems incredibly hypocritical to place blame given
>the benefit of hindsight - something that those who made the
>decisions did not have the benefit of.  Why not give them the courtesy
>of acknowledging that they did the best they could with the
>data they had - in a very, very difficult situation.

  What is your proof that they "did the best they could"?   Unless
  they had strong evidence that the children were in IMMEDIATE danger
  then "the best they could" have done was to SHOW RESTRAINT.

  Some of us DID predict this outcome, or at least suggested a
  strong possibility of it.  I, for one, said that in the event of
  an assault against the building the CHILDREN were the ones in danger
  either from the assault itself or from a "Jonestown" (my phrase
  a week after the seige started) style suicide.  And as I pointed
  out then, and repeatedly over the objections of people on the net 
  who disagreed with me, an adult may freely choose suicide but they
  have no right to impose this choice on their children.

  Now, while I don't expect the FBI to pay any attention to what I 
  have to say on this, I *DO* expect them to figure it out on their
  own or to take the advice of experts.  The cult specialist inter-
  viewed in yesterday's Boston Globe said he was repeatedly "stonewalled"
  by the FBI when he pointed out to them that their confrontational
  tactics played perfectly into Koresh's mad view of the world and so 
  increased the chance of a tragic outcome.

>Some responses have gone so far to suggest that the actions were
>done without regard for the lives of the people in the compound - give
>me a break.

  Give *US* a break!   Pumping teargas for 45 minutes into a compound 
  filled with CHILDREN?!!   This doesn't seem to show much regard for 
  their lives or safety.   "Nontoxic teargas" is an oxymoron.  Children
  have tiny respiratory passages which are easily blocked by the secretions
  induced by teargas; moreover teargas can easily cause fatalities in anyone
  subject to laryngospasms, asthma, or heart disease.

  If a madman is holding a gun to a hostage, someone who provokes the 
  madman by attacking him bears nearly as much repsonsibility for the
  death of the hostage as the madman himself.  These kinds of situations
  have to be handled *delicately* - not by surrounding a place with
  tanks and heavily armed personnel and blaring rock music from loud-
  speakers at all hours.   That approach is idiotic.  


>Be part of the solution - not the problem.

  The solution is to greatly reduce the authority of the "the authorities".
  The Feds showed themselves here, as they have so many times in the
  past, to be a gang of trigger-happy, impulsive, yahoos who cause more
  trouble than they prevent.    Their confrontational approach reinforced
  every single message Koresh was giving his followers, virtually guarantee-
  ing that whatever crazy solution Koresh proposed would be followed
  willingly.   This was pointed out here, on Compuserve, in the press,
  just about every place except in the Justice Department where it seems
  a n.i.h. philosophy prevails.  
  
          
---peter



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179067
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Remarks by the President on Waco w/ Q&A 4.20.93

In article <1r2g4oINNqa7@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes:
>
>                           THE WHITE HOUSE
>
>                    Office of the Press Secretary
>______________________________________________________________
>For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     
>
>	     
>                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
>            IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS 
>
>
>1:36 P.M. EDT
>	     
>	     
>	     THE PRESIDENT:  On February the 28th, four federal 
>agents were killed in the line of duty trying to enforce the law 
>against the Branch Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled 
>weaponry and ammunition, and placed innocent children at risk.  
>Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51-day 
>standoff ensued.  
>	     
>	     The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every 
>reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without 
>bloodshed and further loss of life.  The Bureau's efforts were 
>ultimately unavailing because the individual with whom they were 
>dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably 
>insane.      
>

The Stacy Koon-Lawrence Powell defense!  The decisions of Janet
Reno and Bill Clinton in this affair are essentially the moral
equivalents of Stacy Koon's.  Reno and Clinton have the advantage
in that they investigate themselves. 

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179068
From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

In article <visser.735172473@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>
>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>	More "gridlock" talk from another relic of the past.  The
>Selective Service system creates jobs and is an investment in 
>the future of america......and whats wrong with that?
>
  Do we want to 'create jobs'? or do we want jobs created that are productive
  in our supply/demand economy? If your answer is the former then we can
  just round up all jobless people and pay them to build sandcastles in
  the desert. If you answer the latter then I fail to see how another
  bureaucracy produces anything.

>	We need jobs because at this point in the recovery, the economy
>should have generated 10 billion jobs and since it has not, the
>government has to step in and help.  Shutting down selective service
>would cost "good jobs" and we can't do that.  
>
>	What we really need is to involve selective service in a more
>closely directed manner.  We need the selective service involved
>in environmental protection, high-speed rail, commuter aircraft, 
>civil rights, national service and health care.  Every dollar
>we put into selective service now will get us $10 less spending
>in future.
>
>	I really believe now to think about it that selective service
>is long-past due for the creation of a cabinet position.
>
>
>	Your not beyond hope, just get back on america's side and
>start doing your part for change.  What Bill needs from you
>now is support for the economic stimulus and health care reform.
>You need to devote all your energies to fighting gridlock and
>supporting change.  Get on the team.  After all, the evil has
>been banished from washington and the time for complaint 
>is past being neccessary.
>
>	And remember, Bill Clinton cares.  He may someday even have
>a town meeting in your city.  If your an appropriate sort of 
>person, if you phrase your questions properly and show the
>proper respect and awe, you might have the chance to ask Mr,
>President your question in person.
>
>
  Oh, i get it. This is sarcastic, right?



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179069
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <116288@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
>>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.
>
>1. You haven't shown any disproportionate involvement.
>
>2. The Janus Report, which came out recently, gives 9% as the percentage
>of exclusively or predominantly gay men.

  I thumbed through the Janus Report in a bookstore recently looking
  for a clue about their methodology.   They were very unclear about
  it, but as far as I could tell they relied on their professional
  associates in the psychotherapy profession to provide the subjects,
  interviews, and numbers.    If so, this would hardly represent an
  average cross-section.    I posted to Usenet at the time asking for
  more data about their methodology but answer came there none.  (I
  must have been out of my mind for even asking for factual information
  on Usenet!)


>3. No one is presumably going to say they're gay if they're not. But
>some no doubt are going to hide their homosexuality in surveys. Thus
>the 1-2% is a lower limit.

  This is the problem.  People have to have a lot of confidence in 
  the anonymity of a study before they can counted on to speak 
  freely about stuff like that.    But I agree that if someone's 
  going to lie it will be in the direction of a gay person claiming
  to be straight rather than the other way around.


>I still say that weighing all the evidence gives a most likely percentage
>between 5 and 7%.

  I don't see why there's any more evidence for this figure than any
  other.    It seems totally arbitrary.  



---peter


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179070
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: Waco and Panama

In article <1993Apr21.224506.922@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>I completely agree with you.  The *illegal* invasion of Panama was
>something Mr. Bush never did have to answer for.  Remember, not
>only did a lot of Panamanian civilians get killed, but more than
>a few American soldiers died too.  All this for arresting a petty
>dictator.  Here's the icing on the cake:  to my knowledge the flow
>of drugs from Panama hasn't slowed down at all with the removal of
>Noriega.  So, what good did it do to remove him from power?  The
>cigarette cops and the FBI killing the Branch Davidians in Waco is
>equally reprehensible.
>
>BTW, I've cross-posted this article to t.p.d. because I want to
>hear from knowledgable people on whether or not the arrest of
>Noriega affected the drug trade in any way.

The arrest of Noriega did not have any major adverse effect on the
drug trade going through Panama. Money laundering continues to be
Panama's main industry. In fact, it is bigger now than before Noriega
was arrested [1]. Panama's current administration also has ties with
the Colombian cocaine cartels [2]. And large amounts cocaine still
flow through Panama on a regular basis [3].

Oh well...

Sources (from the book _Drugs in America_ by Vincent Bugliosi):
[1] IRS Criminal Investigations Divison
[2] _New York Times_
[3] U.S. State Department

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179071
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

In article <C5wx0u.II8@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.010657.18469@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>> 
>>I've come to learn to suspect anything in the American press about
>>our "system".  If much or some of it were true, you'd have to take
>>us for idiots for tolerating it.  And given that our insurance was
>>installed during a period when there were only Liberal and Tory
>>governments federally and provincially, and the socialists are still
>>chafing, they would've pressed for real socialized medicine to fix
>>things ... think about it.  After all, we are using the U.S. as a
>>metric to make comparison ... both for keeping-up-with-the-Joneses
>>as for confirming that we did something right.
>
>True, but remember that most of the Canadian-bashing exists because American
>proponents of your system make it look like it walks on water. Even you don't
>go that far.

Sorry, but I'd have to differ.  The Canadian-bashing wrt to the health 
insurance system is largely with little evidence or prompting.  Having
kept up with this debate on the net for some months, just about all the
criticism of the Canadian system has misquoted or misinterpreted even
the anti-Canadian propaganda put out by the American insurance industry
and the AMA.  

In a few cases, such as Mr. Case, the critiques are well-reasoned and
worthy of response.  Most others are misinformed, illogical,
or just plain dumb.  I don't think the same can be said of the "American
proponents" of the Canadian system, much less of the Canadian proponents.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179073
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.20.93




	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 20, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

	     
                          The Briefing Room


12:36 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know, the President is going 
to come out at 1:15 p.m.  With your indulgence, I think what we'd 
like to do is have the President award the National Teacher's Award 
first and then have the teacher leave, or whatever, and then he'll 
make a statement on Waco and take a couple questions.  So if we can 
just hold off going live and all that until that's done, it probably 
will work out a lot better. 
	     
	     Q	  If you'll give us the time.  That's the problem.
	     
	     Q	  We've got a two-minute warning problem.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, it is a problem.  It's about 
1:15 p.m.
	     
	     Q	  The teacher would walk off and then --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's -- I'm just trying 
to work this out here.  I think that's the best way to handle it.
	     
	     Q	  Can I ask you a series of questions about the way 
the President handled the notifications yesterday? 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Did you, for instance, talk to the Justice 
Department about who would come out and discuss what had happened in 
Waco and whether it should be the Attorney General or the President?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Why don't we just take a step even 
farther back from that and look at the whole sequence of events on 
the contact between the Justice Department and the White House.  As 
you know and as we've said, the President spoke with the Attorney 
General on Sunday, Sunday afternoon.  They had a good discussion, 
about 15 minutes.  The Attorney General informed the President of 
what she wanted to do.  He raised no objections.  Obviously, she had 
the implicit authority from the President to go forward.  He raised 
no objections.  She went forward.  They had a discussion of a general 
nature about the incident.
	     
	     Again, yesterday morning around 11:00 a.m., the 
President spoke with the Attorney General again.  They had a brief 
discussion over what was happening in Waco.  As you know, this was 
before the fire broke out at the compound.  And I think that was why 
there was some -- just some confusion.  I think that she was 
confusing in her minds before and after the fire, not the actual day 
when they spoke.  
	     
	     Then there was a number of contacts at a number of 
different levels in the White House yesterday afternoon between the 
Justice Department and the White House.  They were informing us of 

their decisions, what they would like to do.  There was an FBI 
briefing in Waco.  The Attorney General had her press conference.  
The President then issued a statement after that.
	     
	     Frankly, yesterday afternoon, you know, there was a fair 
amount of confusion over exactly what was happening on the ground in 
Waco, and I think that we wanted to be very careful not to have the 
President say anything until we had a much better sense of what was 
actually happening on the ground.  Once we were fairly clear on what 
was happening on the ground in Waco, the President issued a 
statement.  He spoke with the Attorney General again yesterday 
evening.
	     
	     Q	  At what hour was that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It was quite late.  I believe it 
was after he returned from the Holocaust Museum.  He took a tour of 
the Holocaust Museum last night.
	     
	     Q	  And he went out to dinner.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe briefly.  Yes, he went to 
dinner and then he spoke with the Attorney General last night.  I 
don't know the exact time; I think it was relatively late.  And he 
just said, I think as Dee Dee has reported, that he just wanted to 
tell her that he thought she handled a difficult situation very well, 
that she did a good job in a tough situation, and that she should try 
and get some sleep.  He then, again, spoke with her this morning 
about the follow-up in Waco, and about what they're going to do this 
afternoon.  As you know, the President will have an announcement to 
make at 1:15.
	     
	     Q	  Did he ever talk with Webb Hubbell yesterday, last 
night, or this morning?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, no.
	     
	     Q	  Was Webb Hubbell the point man for the White House?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Webb Hubbell is the general White 
House Liaison and several people talked to Webb.  The Attorney 
General was running the operation.
	     
	     Q	  Did he tell her that she should sleep well, that 
she had done a good job?  Or he just tell her that she should get 
some sleep?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think sleep well -- done a good 
job -- I don't know the exact words.  I think that sounds right.
	     
	     Q	  I mean, sleep well has implications as to 
conscience and whether she should feel badly about it or not.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I mean, I think everybody 
feels badly when you have a situation when --
	     
	     Q	  I understand that, but whether the issue of blame 
is brought up in that phraseology.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's the spirit -- no, it 
has nothing to do with that.  The spirit with which it was offered 
was that the entire administration and certainly the Attorney General 
had to face a very difficult decision, a very difficult situation 
yesterday.  And that he thought that she had handled it well, as best 
as she could and --
	     
	     Q	  Well, does he think it was mishandled?

	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- it was just speaking of warm 
words to a friend.
	     
	     Q	  Does he think the situation was mishandled?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President --
	     
	     Q	  In retrospect?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President stands  by the 
decisions of the law enforcement agencies, the decisions of the 
Attorney General.  He accepts full responsibility.  At the same time, 
I think that we all want to look to the future and figure out what 
exactly happened, do a full review, and make sure we do what we can 
to make sure this doesn't happen -- this kind of thing doesn't happen 
again, or at least we know how to handle it.
	     
	     Q	  How much did he know about what she was going to go 
ahead with?  I know that she made the case to him -- explained --
outlined the case for action.  Did she say to him on Sunday precisely 
what action?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think it was specific 
operational detail as to what was going to happen.  I think that they 
had a general discussion about the action, about the advisability of 
action.  I think, as she noted, he asked a few general questions just 
trying to get a sense of how things were considered.  But it wasn't 
minute-by-minute detail of how the operation --
	     
	     Q	  Well, was it, "we are going in."  Is it, "we're 
going to use tear gas"?  I mean, what?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe it was that we want to go 
in and take some action that would increase the pressure on those in 
the compound, and hopefully spur them towards some sort of movement 
out.
	     
	     Q	  George, was there ever a conscious political 
decision made, or even a discussion about distancing the President 
from --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I mean, we were in 
close contact with the Justice Department.  The President accepts 
responsibility for this.  At the same time -- I mean, we just wanted 
to be very, very clear about how this happened and be as factual as 
we could be on how the decisions were made.  It is the responsibility 
of those on the ground to make recommendations.  The Attorney General 
has operational control over this.  The President obviously accepts 
responsibility for all of this, and he stands by the Attorney 
General.
	     
	     Q	  George, there was a report on the television today 
-- and I don't know more than that -- one of the members of the cult 
had said going into a courthouse that the FBI had started the fire 
and not themselves.  There was also a picture yesterday on the TV of 
a smashing into the building  where the fire broke out.  And my 
question is, is the White House absolutely certain that this fire was 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  All the evidence we have is that 
this fire was started by David Koresh and those inside the compound 
-- every bit of evidence we have.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President ask the Attorney General why do 
this now, why this particular date, and did he ask about possible 
consequences of either death or injury?

	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know the specific 
questions.  He had general questions about how the decision was going 
about being made.
	     
	     Q	  Those are general questions and did he ask 
generally, why now?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he asked, have you 
considered all of the consequences; have you considered the 
recommendations?  I don't know if he asked the question, "why now?  "  
I don't know if he asked that specific question.
	     
	     Q	  Did she tell him why now in terms of the stuff 
that's come out since then about the information provided by the 
listening device about Koresh getting increasingly more violent?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I'm not certain how much 
specific detail they got into.  I know that she generally said that 
this is the recommendation she's prepared to make, I mean, the 
decision she's prepared to make.  It's based on the recommendations 
she was receiving from the field and after intensive questioning of 
those involved.  Again, I do not know how precisely detailed it was 
beyond that.
	     
	     Q	  What is the President's understanding why 
yesterday?  One of the people who went into the compound a couple 
weeks ago came out over the weekend with some speculation that he may 
have told law enforcement people something that precipitated this 
action.  Why yesterday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  This is the first I've heard.  I 
think what we can go to is what the FBI and the Attorney General has 
said.  There were indications that those inside the compound were at 
some danger.  It was clear that the negotiations had broken down and 
it was the judgment of the experts involved in the negotiations that 
the situation was not going to get any better at all.  
	     
	     There was also some concern over the vulnerability of 
the agents themselves who had been working long beyond the time that 
these teams normally have to work.  And as the Attorney General has 
said, there was some concern over the fact that they did not have 
replacements in place who could stand in for them, and there was a 
concern over the safety.  
	     
	     All of these factors came into play.  They also 
considered the advice of a number of psychologists and other experts 
on David Koresh and those in the compound.  I would just go back to 
what the Attorney General has said.  You have to make the best 
judgment you can, given the information you have at the time.  They 
did.  Obviously, we all regret the loss of life.  It's a terribly 
unfortunate situation.  We all wish it could have turned out 
differently, but that doesn't take away from the judgments that were 
made at the time.
	     
	     Q	  George, when did the President know that they were 
going to use tear gas?  Was it before the assault on the compound?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't know.  I don't believe 
he was given a lot of detail on exactly how the operation would go.  
I just don't know.
	     
	     Q	  Along that point, George, can you say whether the 
plan was presented to the President by the Attorney General as a way 
to end the standoff one way or the other yesterday?
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was presented as a way 
to increase the pressure on those in the compound and, we all hoped, 
as a way to move some of those out and bring it in -- it wasn't 
presented as tomorrow is D-Day, this is it.
	     
	     Q	  Is the President satisfied that, A, he had all this 
relevant information necessary to make a decision, and B, that Janet 
Reno had all the relevant information necessary to make a decision?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, I think he's satisfied that 
they were acting on the best advice and the best information they 
had, and he's not second-guessing it in any way whatsoever.
	     
	     Q	  George, was there a 12-hour gap between 
conversations between the President and the Attorney General?  In 
other words, they spoke at 11:00 a.m. and they didn't speak again 
until Clinton got back from dinner at --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's likely, yes.
	     
	     Q	  Did he call her?  What time did she call?  Was 
there a gap between when she called him?  I mean, was he at dinner 
when she called and --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no, no.  I think he called her 
last night.  I couldn't swear to it, but I believe he called her last 
night.  He just wanted to talk to her.
	     
	     Q	     what was going on?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not that I know of, no.
	     
	     Q	  What do you know about the situation now?  Everyone 
has perished who -- except eight or nine?  And do you know any of the 
other details?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know any more details than 
the FBI reported in Waco.
	     
	     Q	     watching CNN or how was he keeping track of what 
is going on?  If he wasn't talking to his Attorney General, how was 
he keeping track of what was going on here?  I mean, with all due 
respect to CNN, is that how he was doing it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  There was also -- as I said, 
several people in the White House were in constant contact with their 
counterparts at Justice to have the full and complete information.
	     
	     Q	  Who were those contacts?  I mean, was it Mack 
McLarty, Webb Hubbell?  How was the President being kept informed?  
That's not a --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe Mack was in contact with 
Webb.  I spoke with several people at the Justice Department.  I 
believe Bruce Lindsey spoke with people at the Justice Department.  
Either Bernie or Vince was also in contact at different times during 
the day with people at the Justice Department.  We were fully briefed 
and fully informed.
	     
	     Q	  We were told this morning that the President may 
have spoken -- a chance that he may have spoken with Webb.  Do you 
know if that's true or not?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's a chance he may 
have.  I don't believe he did, but I think there's certainly a chance 
that he may have at some point.  I don't believe he did.  I think 
that the last contact he had during the day yesterday directly with 

the Justice Department was the 11:00 a.m. phone call with the 
Attorney General.  But the White House was fully informed on a 
minute-to-minute basis of what was happening in Waco and what was 
happening at the Justice Department.
	     
	     Q	  George, who decided that the briefing would be done 
by the Attorney General?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Attorney General.
	     
	     Q	  Did you or did the White House communications staff 
-- were you ever involved with that decision?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  We were told about it.
	     
	     Q	  Did you ask her to go on Nightline and MacNeil-
Lehrer and all that stuff?  Was that part of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.
	     
	     Q	     there was no advice from the White House at all 
about her -- she was on all night, all day.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, and she did a very good job. 
	     
	     Q	  Why did you decide to have the President's reaction 
to the situation be only a written statement, which is traditionally 
the White House's way of distancing the President from the issue, not 
having him appear as personally saying anything?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, that wasn't the intent at 
all.  As I said, we had to -- we wanted to wait until we had all of 
the information at hand.  The President is also making a statement 
today.  The President made a statement yesterday morning.  The 
President has been fully involved --
	     
	     Q	  After this turned into less than a successful 
operation, the only statement from the President was what was on 
paper after the Attorney General had already given what amounted to 
the major facts in this.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, it was the first statement 
from the President, not the only statement from the President, number 
one.  
	     
	     Q	  After the --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Number two -- well, the first.  
Number two, the Attorney General --
	     
	     Q	  He gave a statement early in the morning when the 
thing was starting to move --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.  And he gave one yesterday 
and he's giving one today.  Now, the second point --
	     
	     Q	  It just happens this was a written statement with 
no sort of communications policy or thought process involved?  It was 
the President wants to put out a written statement?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Knowing what we knew at the time, 
we thought it was appropriate for the President and he thought it was 
appropriate to put out a written statement expressing his regret and 
expressing his support for the Attorney General's --
	     
	     Q	  Why was it not appropriate for him to personally do 
something?

	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, he did personally do so.  
That is his statement.  It's a statement under his name.
	     
	     Q	  George, yesterday during the briefing you didn't 
say the President took full responsibility for what happened --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I certainly did.
	     
	     Q	  No, what you said was --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's just not right, Susan.
	     
	     Q	  Well, I think you can go back to the transcript, I 
mean, unless I miss something --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'd love to.
	     
	     Q	     Janet Reno said that she took full 
responsibility and you said that she made the decision, that the FBI 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  And the President takes 
responsibility.  Absolutely.
	     
	     Q	  Took responsibility -- all right.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Check the transcript.
	     
	     Q	  Considering how little was known about what was 
going on inside the compound and, even now, how little is known, why 
is Washington calling this a mass suicide?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think that knowing what we 
know now and given all of the actions of David Koresh before and 
during, it is painfully clear that those there were under his 
control.
	     
	     Q	  It's stretching it a little bit where the kids are 
concerned, though, isn't it, George?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that that is an entirely 
different matter.  I mean, I think that David Koresh must bear 
responsibility for the deaths of those children, absolutely.  But he 
clearly was intent on creating some kind of an apocalyptic incident, 
and that's what he did.
	     
	     Q	  You're still operating completely on assumption, 
right?  I mean, you have no evidence, or you know of no evidence that 
this was mass suicide.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We have evidence that those inside 
the compound set fire to the compound, which led to the deaths of 
those inside.
	     
	     Q	  I didn't quite hear it.  This might be Ann's 
question, I didn't quite hear it.  But at what time did Clinton 
himself put out a statement on this?  I know Dee Dee said some stuff 
on this at 6:00 p.m., but the President put out --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  At 6:35 p.m., 6:40 p.m.
	     
	     Q	  Right after the evening news went on the air?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, right when we had all the 
information.  We were working on it.
	     

	     Q 	  Dee Dee confirmed this morning that the 
investigation the President is going to announce is going to be an 
administration-run investigation.  Why not have someone from the 
outside to make sure that it's not colored by those who would have a 
political stake, particularly those at the ATF whose actions have 
already been --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that clearly the ATF and 
the Justice Department will bear responsibility for the 
investigation.  That's not to rule out, as is often in investigations 
like this, having some sort of independent involvement as well.  But 
it will be run by the Treasury and Justice. 
	     
	     Q	  Are you confident that you will not have any 
problem getting --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.
	     
	     Q	  George, did the President reach out to anybody else 
to get advice after the meeting with Janet Reno?  And who else in the 
White House sat in on that meeting?  Anyone else from Justice?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe anybody else was 
there at the time.  It was a phone call on Monday, it wasn't a 
meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Sunday.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sunday.  It was a phone call, it 
wasn't a meeting.  I believe he might have been there with Bruce, but 
beyond that, I think he just talked to the Attorney General.
	     
	     Q	  George, you said that in that phone call, she said 
that we want to go in and take action, as you said, that will force 
him out.  What did he think she was talking about?  If he didn't know 
about tear gas, what exactly was his idea of what he was approving?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he was approving an action 
to increase the pressure on --
	     
	     qQ	   It didn't matter how she did that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no.  I mean --
	     
	     Q	  What information did he have in terms of how this 
would proceed?  Presumably he would have wanted to know, not minute-
by-minute, but in a general sense --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he knew that this was the 
recommendation of those on the ground and the recommendation of the 
law enforcement agencies.  I just don't know --
	     
	     Q	  What is "this" -- when you say that "this" was the 
recommendation --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The action to increase pressure.  I 
don't know exactly what he was told -- whether he was going to be 
told that the tank was going to go up to the left wall and punch a 
hole in the window, or whether he was just told generally that they 
were moving forward in a way that would increase the pressure.  I 
just don't know.
	     
	     Q	  It's hard to imagine him not asking, though.
	     
	     Q	     that Janet Reno presented him with as her best 
advice about what they should go forward with, he would have agreed?
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He was -- he did ask some general 
questions about the advice and recommendation he gave.  At the same 
time -- and I would repeat -- that this was based on the unanimous 
recommendation of the law enforcement agencies involved.
	     
	     Q	  George, it would seem that this question about just 
exactly in what detail the President was informed about the nature of 
the operation is going to come up again here and elsewhere.  Can you 
take that question and --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  Yes.
	     
	     Q	     get the answer and come back to us with all of 
it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us that there was never a meeting -- a 
strategy session -- where you and others decided, we will put out a 
written statement from the President and we will have Janet Reno be 
on all of these television broadcasts?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Never.  Never.
	     
	     Q	  And you never called the Justice Department and 
said to anyone or Janet Reno, "you're the one who needs to be out 
front explaining this"?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not once.
	     
	     Q	  It just happened that way that she was the 
spokesman, that no one ever saw Bill Sessions until --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  She made a decision as Attorney 
General that it was important for her as the operational officer in 
charge, as the person who made the decision, to go out and take the 
questions on this tragic incident.
	     
	     Q	  She had no guidance from the White House at all?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We certainly didn't object.
	     
	     Q	  But did you -- (laughter) -- no, I'm sure you 
didn't object, but did you suggest it?  Was this a plan --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No. Absolutely not.
	     
	     Q	     a strategy?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Did she clear it?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Did she notify you?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We certainly knew about it.
	     
	     Q	  What happened to this great detailed process you 
have for clearing and talking to every public information officer and 
every -- under every rock and every place in government that 
something as major as this could have occurred without a discussion 
between you and the public information people at least at the Justice 
Department?
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Attorney General made the 
decision and the Attorney General wanted to go forward.  It seemed 
like a good decision.  It was a good decision.  She did a good job.
	     
	     Q	  Let me ask it this way, George, if in hindsight how 
you would handle it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was handled very well.
	     
	     Q	  You wouldn't change a thing if --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Change what?
	     
	     Q	  The way the White House handled any part of it -- 
from start to finish.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think that's an awful broad 
question and we're certainly going to have a review.  One of the 
reasons for the investigation is to look for ways in the future that 
something like this -- see what we can learn from an incident like 
this and see what we can learn about how to handle them.  If you're 
talking specifically about the issue of the press conferences, no, 
there -- wouldn't make any change at all.
	     
	     Q	  Two questions:  First of all, on her going on TV, 
no White House people or outside media consultants came up with this 
idea?  It's just very reminiscent of what you guys did during the 
campaign.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  How so?
	     
	     Q	  I'm thinking of like watching Clinton on Nightline 
after the draft story; watching Clinton on --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There's absolutely no comparison.  
Yesterday there was a law enforcement incident.  The incident ended 
in tragic deaths of many, many people.  The Attorney General was 
involved in that decision.  The Attorney General made the decision to 
do that.  She felt it was her responsibility in the interest of 
public information to go out and take the questions of the press in 
order to make sure that all of the questions were answered, and she 
did a fantastic job.
	     
	     Q	  The second question is, did -- as someone who knows 
Clinton as well as you do, can you understand why it's sort of hard 
to believe that he might not have asked some detailed questions about 
what she intended to do?  In other words, she came and she said, I'm 
going to put pressure on them.  It's hard not to see Clinton, who's 
fairly intelligent and inquisitive, asking how.
	     
	     Q	  What kind?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Both the Attorney General said that 
he did ask questions, he did ask general questions.  I don't have a 
minute-by-minute account of the conversation.
	     
	     Q	  How long a conversation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was about 15 minutes.
	     
	     Q	  Telephone conversation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  George, was the federal cost of this standoff ever 
a consideration in terms of stepping up the pressure --
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe so, no.
	     
	     Q	  George, you keep saying that the President takes 
full responsibility, but then you refer to it as her decision.  Does 
the President not accept the fact that as Commander-In-Chief, it is 
ultimately his decision?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know what this has to do 
with Commander-In-Chief.  This was a law enforcement action, not a 
military action.  And he clearly takes responsibility for the 
decisions of the law enforcement agencies involved taken in his 
government.  I mean, I think there's just no ambiguity about that.
	     
	     Q	  But is he accepting it as his decision as well as 
hers, or is he saying it's her decision?  There's a difference.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As a matter of fact, it was her 
decision.  He did not object to that decision.  He clearly takes full 
responsibility. 
	     
	     Q	  George, this briefing has gone on just a little 
over 15 minutes, and as you can see a lot of things can be exchanged.  
What exactly did they spend 15 minutes talking about if it was just 
very general?  That's a long period of time in a phone conversation.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It is an awful long phone 
conversation.  It was a very important phone conversation.  I think 
Brit has asked that we take the question, and I've said that I would.
	     
	     Q	  One of the things Reno said last night is that the 
buck stops here.  I think that was her direct quotation.  Does the 
President agree with that in this case?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President says he accepts full 
responsibility.  I think what the Attorney General was saying is that 
she made a decision, that she's going to accept all the 
responsibility that comes to her.  And she's not shrinking from that 
at all, but neither is the President. 
	     
	     Q	  At any point in the conversation last night between 
the President and the Attorney General or this morning, did she ever 
offer her a resignation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge. 
	     
	     Q	  Even before the fire was out yesterday, there were 
some Republicans on Capitol Hill calling for an investigation.  Is 
the White House at all concerned about the timing of those requests 
trying to make political hay out of this situation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  And I don't want to cast any 
questions about the motives of those who are requesting 
investigation.  We want an investigation, and we'll have a full and 
complete investigation.
	     
	     Q	  In what forum will you answer Brit's question?  
Will you put out a written statement?  Will you -- the wires?  How 
will you answer the question that you've taken?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.
	     
	     Q	  George, can you remind us what the President was 
doing all yesterday afternoon, where he was, and what meetings he was 
involved in?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'll have to try and remember.  He 
had a series of meetings with different members of the staff during 

the afternoon.  He was certainly monitoring the situation in Waco and 
getting periodic reports on that as well.  He did see some on CNN as 
well.  I believe he saw a fair amount of the FBI press briefing as 
well.
	     
	     Q	  And those reports would have come to him from Mack 
McLarty, would they -- do you think?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Mack talked to him, Bruce talked to 
him, I talked to him.
	     
	     Q	  George, to follow Helen's question, in their 
conversation this morning did they discuss at all her statement last 
night in response to the question about whether she would resign?  
Did he say, I don't know why you felt the need to say that?  I'm here 
to reassure you that you don't have to do this?  Did that come up at 
all?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if it even came up 
that specifically.  I know that the bulk of the conversation was 
discussing where do we go from here and what form the investigation 
--
	     
	     Q	   The didn't talk at all about her kind of 
remarkable comment last night about --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I believe she was asked a 
question.
	     
	     Q	  And her response was, if the President wants me to, 
I will.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Which would be, I think, the 
standard response that most Cabinet members would give.  I mean, it's 
a conditional statement.
	     
	     Q	     have a need to talk about whether -- personally 
about whether the President wanted her --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they talked about 
it.  I mean, what I learned about the conversation was that it was 
largely about the investigation itself.  And this just didn't come 
up.  I did not ask the question if they talked about --
	     
	     Q	  Will you take that with the Brit package?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Certainly.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  George, for the record, does the President want her 
to resign?  I know Dee Dee answered this morning --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely not.  He supports Janet 
Reno.  She's a good Attorney General.  She's done a good job.  She 
handled a difficult situation extremely well.
	     
	     Q	  George, does the President feel that he and Janet 
Reno were let down by the unanimous professional advice from the law 
enforcement experts on the ground?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  And the President is not 
second-guessing that decision and those recommendations in any way.  
That is not to say that he doesn't regret the loss of life.  
Everybody regrets the loss of life in this situation.  But the best 
judgments were made in a difficult situation based on the best 
information we had.
	     

	     Q	  George, the 15-minute conversation was the one on 
Sunday, is that correct?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  How long was the one at 11:00 a.m. yesterday 
morning?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  I'll take that 
question, too.
	     
	     Q	  Were these outside experts that they were 
consulting with, or experts within the ATF and the FBI?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  You'd have to ask them.  I'm just 
not sure.  I know that there were several experts.
	     
	     Q	  And also, why weren't there replacements for these 
people?  Is the unit that small?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I think it is a very small 
highly-specialized unit.  But I think it's one of the kinds of things 
that the investigation will examine.
	     
	     Q	  George, isn't there a factor here involving the FBI 
Director?  Normally, a president, when he wants to get information, 
doesn't only asks the Attorney General.  I know the chain of command.  
But presidents talk to their FBI directors.  In this case, throughout 
this entire siege, he has not felt that he could pick up the phone 
and talk to Bill Sessions, who is from Waco, and get expertise from 
him on what to do and what not to do?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he talked to the FBI 
Director well in the beginning of the situation when it first broke 
out in Waco.  At the same time, the Attorney General bears the 
ultimate responsibility and he was getting fully briefed from the 
Attorney General.
	     
	     Q	  Don't you think the ambiguous situation that 
Director Sessions is in has some impact on the way the President is 
briefed and on the way that all of this evolved?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I mean, it's perfectly 
appropriate that he be briefed by the Attorney General and that the 
Attorney General has supervisory authority over the FBI Director, and 
that's following the chain of command.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you .

                                 END                    1:03 P.M. EDT
	     
#60-04/20
	     


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179075
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


In article <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...
> 
> >	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
> >is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
> >will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
> >these people were.
> 
> 	Just look at the history of Koresh and his folowers. They captured
> 	the Mount Carmel complex a few yearss ago in a gun battle with a
> 	rival BD sect, leaving more than one person dead. They weren't 
> 	exactly the most peace loving bunch.

Koresh & some of his followers were tried and found *innocent* of
all charges following that shootout.  Were you unaware of this or
did you purposly leave out this fact?


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179076
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares..


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares....**PAID** Maternity leave...

F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares....**PAID** Maternity leave...

=================================================================== 
Duration of nationally provided PAID maternity leave in weeks, 1988 
=================================================================== 

============================================ 
COUNTRY          WEEKS  COUNTRY        WEEKS 
============================================ 
United Kingdom      40  Germany           14 
Finland             38  Ireland           14 
Denmark             28  Japan             14 
France           16 28  Spain             14 
Italy               22  Netherlands       12 
Norway              20  Sweden            12 
Canada           17-18  Switzerland     8-12 
Austria             16  United States      0 
Belgium             14 

Source: International Labor Organization, "Work and Family: The Child Care 
Challenge," Conditions of Work Digest, vol. 7, February 1988. 

******************************************************************
From page 11 of: 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New      
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.     

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.     
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2    
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
[Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)] 

    ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.     
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The     
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But     
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.'' 

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations     







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179077
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu sez:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the
>impact, not from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?
>
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.

There's this minor thing called "interest of finality/repose".  What
it means is that parties aren't dragged into court over and over again
because the losing side "discovers" some "new" evidence.  I don't know
about you, Brett, but I suspect GM had the resources to find just
about as many expert and fact witnesses as it wanted before the trial
started.  Letting them re-open the case now is practically an
invitation to every civil litigant on earth to keep an ace in the hole
in case the verdict goes against him.

BTW, in federal criminal cases, Rule 33 does permit a motion for a new
trial "based on . . . *newly discovered* evidence" if made within 2
years of the verdict.  (Emphasis mine.)  If you're trying to make a
backhanded point about criminal justice in a discussion that has
little to do with criminal trials -- as the estimable David Brock did
in his amusing WSJ piece last week -- save your breath.



>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be 
>believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

Yup.  Which is why they shoulda been brought around the first time
through. 


>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
>	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

Unless there's some reason to believe that this supposed bias predated
the trial (as opposed to being a product of it), and that GM was
unfairly prevented from discovering it (by venireman concealment or
otherwise), why should GM be allowed to complain?

-- 
MORAL: Always Choose the Right Sort of Parents 
       Before You Start in to be Rough
                                        - George Ade
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179078
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1993Apr15.170239.8211@hemlock.cray.com>
	rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite
>evidence of his inocents.

I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who
was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book
is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays
caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179079
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5L4rp.EBM@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>> I really don't want to waste time in
>>> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>>> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  
>>
>>  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
>>not eager to make a fool of myself.
>
>Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about
>and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you
>wish.
>
>The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits
>so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along
>with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced
>organized crime specifically; etc, etc

Ahhh, the classic Truth By Blatant Assertion technique.  Too bad it's
so demonstrably false.  Take a look at Great Britain sometime for a 
nice history on drug criminalization.  The evidence there shows that
during periods of time when drugs (such as heroin) were illegal, crime
went up and people did die from bad drugs.  During times when drugs
were legalized, those trends were reversed.

>
>If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into
>why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group
>was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little
>research.

Now this is a great example of an ironclad proof.  Gosh, I'm convinced.
( :-} for the humor impaired).  First, assert something for which you
have no evidence, then dodge requests for proof by claiming to know
what this group was intended for.  As to research, if you'd done any
at all, you'd realize that there is plenty of reason to believe that
legalizing drugs will have many benefits to society.  There are some
plausible arguments against it, too, but they aren't enough to convince
me that criminalization of drugs is the answer.  I'm willing to be
convinced I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt the likes of you can do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179080
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1qn73aINNmq9@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:

> I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who
> was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book
> is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays
> caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.

And I recommend the movie _The Thin Blue Line_, which is about the
same case.  Not as much legal detail, but still an excellent film.  It
shows how very easy it is to come up with seemingly conclusive
evidence against someone whom you think is guilty.
--
Matthew Austern                       Maybe we can eventually make language a
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             complete impediment to understanding.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179081
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?)
Subject: Bush's WI (was Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative

In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes...
>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
> 
>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
>	bill.

I guess your strength isn't in math. Clinton hasn't been president for
6 months. In other words, it's BUSH'S Wiretapping Initiative.
> 
>	I strongly urge you to begin considering your future.
>	I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport
>	in the mail soon.
> 
>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
>	you are still able.
> 
Have you?
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179082
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <VEAL.731.734985604@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@
alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:>
>>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>
>>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
>>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
>>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
>>have in Europe)
>>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
>>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
>>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, 
>
>       The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase.
>There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase
>incrementally.
>
I was a graduate student in the early 1980s, and we had a conference on 
Reaganomics where Jerry Jordan, then a member of the Council of Economic 
Advisors, was a speaker.  I had the pleasure of driving him back to the 
airport afterwards, and since taxes were the main topic of discussion I 
thought I would ask him about the VAT.  I have favored it for these reasons 
you mention, that the income base is too hazy to define, that it taxes 
savings and investment, that it is likely to be more visible.  He agreed, 
and reported that the CEA at that time was in favor of VAT.  So why not 
propose it?  I asked.  He replied that the Reagan White House feared that 
the Democrats would introduce VAT *in addition to* the income tax, rather 
than in lieu.  Better not to give them any ideas, he said.

Pretty prescient.

>       (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of
>Europe's that makes it "visible?")
>
Yes, any Canadian readers, please tell us if the tax is displayed on price 
stickers (I'm relatively certain it is not in Europe).

--King "Sparky" Banaian                 |"It's almost as though young
kbanaian@pitzer.claremont.edu           |white guys get up in the
Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College      |morning and have a big smile
Latest 1993 GDP forecast:  2.4%         |on their face ... because,
                                        |you know, Homer wrote the
                                        |_Iliad_."  -- D'Souza

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179083
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks by the President: Teacher of the Year Award






                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     

                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
           DURING PRESENTATION OF TEACHER OF THE YEAR AWARD
	     
                           The Rose Garden 


1:25 P.M. EDT


	     THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Please be seated.  I 
want to say, first, how delighted I am to be here with Secretary 
Riley and with Senator Graham.  The three of us served as governors 
together during the 1980s when we worked constantly on strategies to 
improve our schools, when we led often difficult and long efforts to 
upgrade the standards in American education and to improve the 
quality of instruction our children were receiving.  
	     
	     There were no two governors whom I admired more during 
that period than the two who now stand on this stage with the Teacher 
of the Year.  And I think both of them would join me in saying that, 
after all the testimony has been heard and all the bills have been 
passed and the funds have been raised and allocated, it all comes 
down to what happens between the teacher and the students in the 
classroom.
	     
	     That's why today's ceremony honoring the National 
Teacher of the Year is so important.  Tracey Leon Bailey is one 
recognition all across our country for highly advanced and innovative 
science programs.  He's developed and introduced into Florida's 
classrooms cutting-edge programs in molecular biology and DNA 
fingerprinting -- subjects usually taught only in college and, I 
might add, probably only dimly understood here in the Nation's 
Capital.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Within three years of being hired by a satellite high 
school, Mr. Bailey's institution had one of the strongest science 
programs in the entire state of Florida, and it won numerous national 
and international awards.  These advanced programs aren't just for a 
favored few.  Tracey Bailey has inspired all kinds of students, 
including those previously known as low-achieving or at-risk to reach 
for excellence and to attain it.  This is what our students need and 
what our country needs. 
	     
	     Today, we know that a good future with high wages and 
rich opportunities rests on the foundation of quality education for a 
lifetime.  The basics aren't enough anymore.  All our kids need 
competence in math and science and advanced problem-solving.  That's 
why Tracey Bailey's accomplishments are so important and why I am so 
pleased and proud to participate in recognizing and honoring these 
accomplishments. 
	     
	     Tracey, you represent the best in the United States.  
I'm glad to recognize you today and to formally present you with this 
Apple Award as the Teacher of the Year for 1993.  (Applause.)  
	     
	     MR. BAILEY:  Thank you, Mr. President.  It is indeed a 
great honor and a tremendous responsibility to represent the nation's 
2.5 million teachers.  And we appreciate the support that you have 
shown for education, and we're looking forward to working with you to 
help redesign and improve our nation's schools.  
	     
	     We know that the quality of our children's education 
will directly impact the future of our economic and social landscape 
in the years to come.  And we thank you so much for your continued 
support and commitment to our children's education.  Thank you again.  
(Applause.)

	     THE PRESIDENT:  In closing, I would like to also welcome 
the education leaders in Florida who are here, those representing the 
national education groups who have also come.  I'd like to recognize 
Tracey's congressman, Representative Jim Bacchus in the back, himself 
a great advocate of education.  And I'd like to remind all of you 
that the ultimate purpose of the National Teacher of the Year Award 
is to find a way for the rest of us to express our appreciation to 
people all across this country who give their lives to our children, 
all of the teachers of this country who get up every day and do their 
best to try to advance the cause of learning for all the children of 
America.  They are, in so many ways, our most important public 
servants.
	     
	     Thank you very much.  (Applause.)
	     
                                 END1:29 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179084
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: WACO burning



It is interesting, sometimes, to listen to U.S. news as seen through
the eyes of another country.......

B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London,
reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.

Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
spin-doctors censoring such information?

The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
were british citizens.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179085
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Waco


In a previous article, ddn@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.d.nason) says:

>give me a break.

      Give ME a break, chum.  Are you telling me that Clinton and
      Reno DID NOT KNOW that the BATF actions were ILLEGAL, adn
      in VIOLATION of their warrant?


>Be part of the solution - not the problem.


     The problem is Clinton.  YOU be part of him.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179086
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: WACO burning


In a previous article, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:

>
>
>reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
>making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
>lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
>people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.


      This is pretty much what Koresh's lawyers were told by the
      remaining survivors on Larry King LIve.  In addition, parts 
      of the unsealed warrant were mentioned.  It surely sounds 
      as if the BATF were in VIOLATION from day ONE.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179087
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes...

>It is interesting, sometimes, to listen to U.S. news as seen through
>the eyes of another country.......

>B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London,
>reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
>making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
>lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
>people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.

>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
>spin-doctors censoring such information?

	It was on CBS yesterday. The explanation is reasonable enough.
	Then again, if the fire was accidental, why didn't more
	people get out?

>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
>were british citizens.

	That's true. I think there were several Australians in the 
	group as well.

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179088
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Phill says Koresh == Hitler, was Welcome to Police State USA

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>|>>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>|>>hear it.
>|>
>|>They _had_ a sure-fire method: keep them bottled up and talk them to death or
>|>surrender without giving him justification for some looney-tune religious
>|>stunt.
>|>
>|>Phil, I've been reading your postings for months and I'm convinced that you
>|>will back anything, no matter how damaging it may be to yours or anyone
>|>else's rights if you think it will hurt people you don't like.  It's people
>|>with that attitude that set up the preconditions for the Holocaust, a process
>|>that is in place _now_ in this country, even if the tattered, pitiful remains
>|>of the Constitution is slowing its progress.  This isn't a Libertarian issue,
>|>others may argue that line, but from a strictly Constitutional view of a
>|>democratic gov't, what the FBI and BATF did was wrong, wrong, wrong, even if
>|>their _reasons_ for trying to arrest Koresh were 100% right.  _Anything_ that
>|>leads to the deaths of 17 children, if nothing else touches your stoney
>|>heart, is _wrong_ no matter who pushed the button.  For God's sake, man, get
>|>your morality back.

>The person who murdered 17 children was Koresh. He kept them there and 
>brought about their deaths deliberately.

>You may consider that I am a complete bastard and a not very nice chap.
>Thats quite true. I don't pretend to be. Being nice is what amateurs
>try to do. If you want to talk politics you are talking hard decisions
>such as whether the lives of the troops should be risked attempting
>to rescue the children. Anyone who has held the office of President
>of the United States since FDR has held the threat that if the USA
>or its allies were to be threatened then the USA would risk nuclear 
>Holocaust in order to protect freedom. Beleive it or not, that is not
>the sort of threat that nice chaps make. Do they have a gun nutters
>section of the US version of CND by any chance?


>There are cases where society has to be protected from
>madmen such as Koresh or Hitler. If it were not for the consideration
>of the 17 children in there the question of the tactics to be used would
>not be a matter of anything but academic significance. It is not for
>the govt to prevent people from commiting mass suicide.

>The latest reports are that cult members were shot attempting to
>leave the compound by Koresh loyalists during the fire. If proven
>that would entail the final nail in the coffin of those who want to
>promote Koresh as some sort of role model or hero.

>I need hardly add that it is Koresh that has created the Holocaust in
>this case by the deliberate arson of the ranch appocalypse.

Let me see if I got this right.

Group of religious plinter schismatics erect a compound
and after at least fifty years of peaceful co-existance
with the outside community (having shoot outs only with
each other) - this makes them dangerous.  Prior history
would seem to indicate they are only dangerous to themselves.

Last I knew there was no National Branch Davidian Party
blaming the debacle in VeitNam on Foreign Meddlers and
three-two beer, calling for the Rounding up of Meat Packers,
Growers and Slaughter Houses.

You want tough political choices - how about letting odd balls
be odd balls?  (I know, this requires tolerance for 
those that go into Government - but we all know people
who have no useful skills.)


ith the death of the children everybody is getting
real upset - what about the other 40 plus people?
I suppose that you consider children to be property
of the state with the family as custodians. (In the
States its the other way around - children are parental property.)
If what you consider a Corrupt Government demands that
you send you children into _their_ tender care - I
suppose that you will obey the State and turn you children
over to their care.  Sorry - I am not as enamoured of the
womb to tomb cradle that is IngSoc.

Gotta go, the beach is calling.
chus
pyotr

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
April 19, 1993 - You realize that this makes twice in two
months that the Government had a Perfect Plan that went awry?


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179089
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Fact Sheet on Russian Statement 4.23.93




                         The White House


                  Office of the Press Secretary

---------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release                             April 23, 1993



                     Background Information:

                    Advancing U.S. Relations 
        with Russia and the other New Independent States 

                         April 23, 1993


At the Vancouver summit, President Clinton and President Yeltsin 
agreed to pursue a number of measures designed to implement an 
economic and strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia.  
Since then, President Clinton has directed that a number of steps 
be taken to move this process forward.  The Administration is 
announcing a number of steps today in order to underscore its 
deep commitment to a new and closer partnership with Russia based 
on its government's commitment to reform.


Executive Review of Cold War Laws

President Clinton and President Yeltsin discussed the 
desirability of reviewing and updating U.S. laws and regulations 
to reflect the end of the Cold War.  Congress has already acted 
to revise many laws to reflect the fact that a communist Soviet 
Union has been replaced by a democratic Russia and other 
independent states.  However, many laws and regulations remain 
that contain language and restrictions that fail to reflect the 
end of the Cold War and that unnecessarily undermine relations 
with Russia and the other new independent states.

The President today has ordered an Executive review of laws and 
regulations so that, where appropriate and consistent with U.S. 
security and other national interests, such provisions can be 
revised or removed.  He has asked Ambassador-at-large Strobe 
Talbott to coordinate this review on an expedited basis.  The 
President has indicated that he will welcome congressional 
efforts to help this review proceed as quickly as possible.

This review will weigh all considerations that pertain to 
revision of such provisions, and the initiation of the review may 
help to remedy some of the circumstances that have justified such 
provisions in the past.  For example, because the Russians are 
eager to have their status changed under the Jackson-Vanik 
legislation, President Yeltsin personally assured President 
Clinton in Vancouver that he would look into individual cases 
involving continuing restrictions on emigration from Russia.  By 
addressing such issues, this review can help strengthen the bonds 
of trust and partnership between the U.S. and Russia, and between
the U.S. and the other new independent states.


Review of COCOM

It is also time to consider expeditiously with America's allies 
the future of another Cold War institution -- the Coordinating 
Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM).  The United 
States has begun a thorough review of how to reorient export 
controls to the post-Cold War world, in which Russia is no longer 
viewed as a potential adversary, but as a potential ally in 
combatting the proliferation of sensitive technology.

Steps to Improve the Security Relationship

The President also has taken steps to move ahead on a range of 
efforts discussed in Vancouver that can strengthen U.S. security 
and improve our security relationship with the Russians and the 
other states.


Accelerated Deactivation of Nuclear Weapons

In Vancouver, the two Presidents discussed accelerating the 
process of deactivating nuclear strategic systems scheduled for 
elimination under the START I Treaty.  President Clinton has 
directed the Department of Defense to complete this process well 
in advance of the seven year reduction period outlined in START 
I.  In addition, the United States, together with Russia and the 
other relevant states of the former Soviet Union, will be 
exploring programs under Nunn-Lugar to help them to accelerate 
this process.


Multilateral Test Ban

The two Presidents agreed at Vancouver that negotiations on a 
multilateral nuclear test ban should commence at an early date, 
and that the two governments would consult with each other 
accordingly.  The United States looks forward to beginning 
consultations with Russia, our allies, and other states, on the 
specific issues related to this negotiation.  The United States 
expects to start this consultative process within the next two 
months.    


Detargeting

The two Presidents also began a dialogue on the issue of nuclear 
targeting at Vancouver.  As the United States and Russia move 
into a new relationship of strategic partnership, there is a need 
to reexamine many of the assumptions and means employed in the 
past to safeguard U.S. security against a nuclear adversary.  The 
Administration is beginning a comprehensive review of measures 
that could enhance strategic stability, including recent 
proposals for detargeting nuclear missiles.   

Other Measures to Create a New Security Relationship

In response to the incident involving a collision between US and 
Russian submarines last month, Secretary Aspin will be ready to 
discuss ways to avoid such incidents in the future with Russian 
Defense Minister Grachev during his visit to the United States in 
late May.

Secretary Aspin will also be prepared to move forward with 
Defense Minister Grachev in May to develop a combined training 
program between our two military forces and to prepare for joint 
exercises in peacekeeping, such as that authorized by the UN 
Security Council.  The United States looks forward to broadening 
such training and exercises to include other peacekeeping 
contributors, in order to improve inter-operability, readiness, 
and planning for multilateral peacekeeping operations.  The US 
and Russia are working together to convene a May Ministerial 
Meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss proposals for 
enhancing the UN's peacekeeping capability and to move 
consideration of the Secretary-General's Agenda for Peace from 
the discussion to the implementation phase.  The U.S. is also 
working with the Russians to focus specifically on improvements 
in the financing and management of UN operations.  The purpose of 
these initiatives will be to cooperate on peacekeeping for our 
participation in UN or CSCE sponsored actions.


Multilateral and Bilateral Partnership with Reform

Finally, the Administration continues to move ahead on a range of 
initiatives aimed at striking a partnership with economic and 
political reformers throughout Russia and the other states.  The 
Administration is continuing work with our G-7 partners to 
assemble the package of multilateral assistance that Secretaries 
Bentsen and Christopher recently negotiated in Tokyo.  And the 
Administration is continuing consultation with Congress over the 
further efforts the U.S. will take to assist the process of 
reform in Russia and the other states.

                           *    *    *

The Administration believes these steps can increase American 
security while improving the relationship between the U.S. and 
Russia, and between the U.S. and the other new independent 
states.

                               -30-



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179091
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

(misc.legal trimmed)

In article <C5uqsM.3I9@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

> Let me explain some possible "means" to libertarian-style government
> one last time.

> If the dominate philosophy of a society held that it was OK to kill your
> neighbor for sport, no government system (except a strong tyranny by the
> minority) could keep the people from killing each other.

> The dominate philosophy in our society holds that it is OK for people to
> steal and coerce each other as long as it's done by vote or through the
> government machine.  Libertarians realize what this legal stealing and
> coercion does to a society.

> So just as a society of non-murderers would not vote for the "right" to
> murder, a society of non-coercers would not vote for the ability to
> coerce.

> If libertarianism became the dominate philosophy, the people would do a
> good job of restraining government (to the extent that libertarianism
> was dominate).

> So means #1 is educating the people to become libertarian.

Well, that's the obvious conclusion, given your train of logic.  The
corollary then is that it must be a waste of time for the party to run
candidates until the educational program has shown some results.

Followups to a.p.l.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179092
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Waco *is* Gov't fault (Was Re: Libertarian Party on CIA/FBI/ATF)

In article <C5wKyG.3Fy@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

> |>1)  They raided an American's property because of *rumors* about
> |>    Koresh's intentions with some converted, yet still 2nd-amendment
> |>    protected, firearms (a judge-approved warrant justifies nothing)

> In a democracy under the rule of law a search warrant justifies a 
> search.

And this search procedure must also follow the rule of law.

> The US constitution does not justify murder of those attempting to 
> mount a search for illegally held weapons.

It may, if necessary, when the search is executed in an illegal and
violent fashion.

> The Govt has a right to use lethal force in certain cases. Attempts to 
> capture dangerous criminals who are armed and threatening the lives of others
> is one. 

These "criminals" were threatening the lives of NO ONE -- they were fired 
on FIRST, according to a number of accounts.

> In this case they used sub lethal force. 

Wrong.  Firing a gun at someone is lethal force, even if no one is hit.
Of course, they DID hit AND kill people.

> The children were held hostage. The adults were wanted variously for murder
> and conspiracy to murder.

You are silly.  There are no such warrants in existence, Phill.

> |>4)  It took hundreds of gov't agents with tax-funded cellular phones
> |>    *ten minutes* to dial 9-1-1 for the fire department

> They should not have called the fire dept at all. There was no role
> for them to play in a situation where those that might be rescued might
> well shoot at them. Calling the fire dept meant that WACO was deprived
> of a resource that might have been needed elsewhere should a situation 
> where it could have been used arisen.

Thanks, Phill, for another example of that great socialist sensitivity.
"Obey the government or die."

*PLONK*
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179093
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes...
>In article <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>> In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...

>> >	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
>> >is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
>> >will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
>> >these people were.

>> 	Just look at the history of Koresh and his folowers. They captured
>> 	the Mount Carmel complex a few yearss ago in a gun battle with a
>> 	rival BD sect, leaving more than one person dead. They weren't 
>> 	exactly the most peace loving bunch.

>Koresh & some of his followers were tried and found *innocent* of
>all charges following that shootout.  Were you unaware of this or
>did you purposly leave out this fact?

	The fact is that Koresh and his followers involved themselves
	in a gun battle to control the Mt Carmel complex. That is not
	in dispute. From what I remember of the trial, the authories
	couldn't reasonably establish who fired first, the big reason
	behind the aquittal.

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179094
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Not talking to soldiers, part II

In article <C5trFx.B38@csulb.edu>, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>	Janet, some advice: go with the SEALs/Delta Force/Green Berets next
>>time and talk nicely to the generals.
> 
>   This might be illegal without a very specific Presidential declaration
> or even a change in law. In general (sic), U.S. military troops are not
> permitted to be used for domestic policing operations.

	Do you mean besides the National Guard?

	Outside of military reservations?

	Besides national emergencies?

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179095
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Waco

Do all those who are saying the government is responsible for the death
of those in the compound also say that the Isrealis are responsible
for the death of the Isreali athletes at the Olympics? Hey, the
Palestinians and the Dividians COULD have given up peacefully ('yeah,
and monkey could fly out my butt' - Wayne).
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179097
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


Doesn't seem like those responsible for the assault were very concerned
about the welfare of the children inside.  Seems like they were more
interested in flexing their muscle before the media.  My reasoning?
Just ask yourself this one question:

Suppose the scenario was slightly different and we had Chelsea Clinton
being kidnapped by terrorists, holed up in a compound for 51 days.
Do you think Clinton, Reno, the FBI, and the ATF would be so eager
to use a show of force?

Nuff said.


-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179098
From: asper@calvin.uucp (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1r1pn6$nap@lll-winken.llnl.gov> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
>This, too, is ridiculous.  In no way can the provoker be considered
>to have played more than an exceedingly minor role.  A person
>who kills is ultimately responsible for his own actions.
>

Finally, someone seems to be making sense in this thread.

Alan


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179099
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <fern.735342004@camelot> fern@camelot.bradley.edu (Jill Rosencrans) writes:
>In <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>>into killing the children.
>
>she "provoked" koresh?  excuse me, but David Koresh killed 
>the inhabitants of that compound, not a gov't official.  These people 
>were controlled by koresh...he killed them a long time ago
>when he refused to release the children and other "hostages" as you 
>call them in your comparison.

    This is the first I hear that Koresh refused to release
    someone.  In fact, a lot of people, including children, came out
    during the stand-off.

    How do you know Koresh killed his followers?  The FBI said
    he had had no such plans (and they had the place bugged), Koresh's 
    attorney said the same thing, and the survivors claimed that the 
    fire was started by goverment agents.







-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179102
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: WACO burning


In article <1r7bh0$cc2@nwfocus.wa.com>, turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley) writes:

|>goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
|>
|>>In article <16BB87EF1.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
|>>> 
|>>>Yes we've heard that the survivors are now saying that. We've also
|>>>seen the videotape which shows that the fire started in two or
|>>>three different places which weren't near the tank.
|>
|>>    I have not seen the tape on CNN.  Which network did you see it on?
|>
|>I saw the film on CNN *as* it happend. It was clear from that tape that
|>the fire started in ONE location. Right where the tank was attacking,
|>and then had pulled back. 

No, this is not true. the CNN pictures show two sites clearly and a third is
barely distinguished. 

If you have a tape you should note that there are two towers at either end
of the building, a big one and a little one. What appears to be merely a 
long shot of the big tower with the tank in front is in fact the little
tower. You can tell beacuse the flag in the foreground switches sides from the
right of the picture to the left.

The third site is visible as the flames clearly come from a point obscured by
the small tower. You need a tape and a good slow motion video to see this.



Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179103
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <1993Apr20.135819.14473@e2big.mko.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes...
>> 
>>In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
>>|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
>> 
>>|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:

[unrelated text deleted]


>>|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
>>|>a mile of the compound?
>> 
>>Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
>>has a range of 3000 meters.
>
>
>  What crap, Phil. 50mm? Wrong. To give you a clue as to how big 50mm is, the
> F-16 fighter aircraft have 20mm gattling guns used to shoot down other 
> aircraft. A 50mm gun would be somewhere in the `cannon' realm. They might
> have had .50 calibre but definitely not 50mm. 
>
>

I think that Phil needs to get out a ruler and see exactly how big 50mm rounds
are - roughly 2" diameter.  The type of stuff used in Anti-Aircraft gunnery.
.50 calibre is much smaller, but the 3000m effective range (~2mi) sounds about
right. Maybe he just got the two confused..... The FBI's reasoning was sound,
but the note from PH-B was factually wrong.

Tom H.

>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Paul R. Busta	                                    Busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com
> Salem,N.H.                                   
> 603-894-3962
>
>
>           "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
>                       violent revolution inevitable..."
>


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179105
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Waco Investigation Paranoia

In <16BB98B5A.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:

+>Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely
+>responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will
+>show that Koresch is responsible' bs. In an investigation of this
+>size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the
+>investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.

	The place has burned to the ground.  The FBI and company
have the whole area cordoned off and have already arrested 
reporters for being at the site and taking pictures.

	All your going to get in terms of a story is what the FBI, ATF
and the Texas Rangers decide to release.  



+>And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
+>this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.
 
	When the Philadephia cops dropped their bomb on MOVE and
managed to burn down an entire neighborhood many people said 
the same thing.  Dead men and rubble tell no tales that the
police dont want them to tell.  

	You can judge the real political mood on this from the
fact that Congressperson Pat Scroder is a 100% supporter of
the FBI's actions.  She was on television this week saying that
the cost of the operation in Waco was a valid reason for the
storming and gassing of the compound.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179106
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: The Government Is LYING


Yesterday, the FBI was saying that at least three of the bodies had
gunshot wounds, indicating that they were shot trying to escape the
fire.  Today's paper quotes the medical examiner as saying that there
is no evidence of gunshot wounds in any of the recovered bodies.

At the beginning of this siege, it was reported that while Koresh
had a class III (machine gun) license, today's paper quotes the
government as saying, no, they didn't have a license.

Today's paper reports that a number of the bodies were found with
shoulder weapons next to them, as if they had been using them while
dying -- which doesn't sound like the sort of action I would expect
from a suicide.

Our government lies, as it tries to cover over its incompetence
and negligence.  Why should I believe the FBI's claims about
anything else, when we can see that they are LYING?

This system of government is beyond reform.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179107
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.163758.17886@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15491@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <852@esun179.gdc.com>, piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt) writes:
# ## Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for
# ## the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes
# ## (such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing
# ## to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?
# ## 
# ## -garison
# 
# #What do you mean?  If adults want to get together for sodomy in
# #private, that's their business.
# 
# And that's precisely what they do.  So what's your problem with the queer
# population, boyo?  The only difference between us is what we do in
# private--who we love.
# 
# ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

Do it in private, and it won't be a problem.  But the reason that
the homosexual activists are so hot on antidiscrimination laws is
that they want:

1. To be able to wear that lovely chiffon evening gown to work, and
not have people get disgusted;

2. To be able to wear their NAMBLA T-shirt and not worry about
getting fired;

3. To be able to have access to young boys, so that they start
making the next generation of homosexuals.

If your right to privacy is what makes sodomy laws unconstitutional
(a position that I agree with), then keep it private, and there
won't be a problem.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179108
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association

From article <pdb059-220493112512@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>, by pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew):
> In article <philC5v0vo.7Ju@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
> wrote:

#> A very well put together post. I disagree with several key points, but the
#> post is an excellent one with which to "engage in discourse":

I agree wholeheartedly.  Paul, you have handled this so well,
I think that you could write ballot materials.

> Thank you.  I'd hoped to avoid the rancor that has characterized much
> of the debate on this issue.  I'm also not going to prolong the debate
> on this.  I wanted to respond to a couple of the points you make, but
> this will be my last posting on this.

No, don't stop!

#> Right to Equal Opportunity (lets call it REO) involves coercion in all cases
#> (by definition).

> One question:  is it your position that there is no REO?  Or just that
> this is a lesser right to FOA?

Good question.  It just depends.  How's that for an answer?  :-)
Seriously, I believe that it depends on wether or not you are
talking about a governmental employer or not.  In this case, I
believe that there should be absolutely no discrimination,
direct or indirect, period.  I feel this way not because it would
offend my moral sensibilities (which it of course would), but
because the government is a coercive entity which we cannot
escape.  It boggles my mind that in my lifetime, there were
"whites only" drinking fountains in some parks, but no fountains
for others, yet the taxes garnished to support those fountains
certainly were not applied to "whites only."  In essence, we
cannot escape the coercive state.  Even Randy Weavers have to pay
property tax.  On the other hand, private employers are not a
monopoly, and their businesses should be run by them, and not by
the government, unless they elect to turn their affairs over to
that government.

#> Why? Says who? Why can mom & pop have FOA, but IBM be forced, and force is
#> the correct word here, to have REO?

> In the case of the mom & pop store, their FOA is directly affected.  They,
> as individuals, will have to associate with whomever they hire.  In the
> case of IBM, I ask again, whose FOA are we protecting?  I do not accept
> that IBM, as a corporate entity, has a right to FOA.

But if the mom & pop store is affected by who they hire,
isn't IBM?  There is a slippery slope here.  In Santa Cruz
(where a number of loony anti-discrimination laws exist),
a guy sued a restaurant for not hiring him because he had
every imaginable kitchen utensil dangling from his earlobe,
and his tatoos were very distracting.

#> Suddenly, by arm waving, by magic, a landlord does not have FOA. And on
#> what basis does the FOA of the landlord "disappear"?

#> It seems that vague terms like "no contact with tenants" suffice.

> On the basis that the landlord has no contact with his/her tenants.  If
> the landlord doesn't associate with his tenants, then how can he complain
> that his FOA is being violated?

I have a lot of interaction (all positive) with my tenants,
so I guess that that isn't an issue.  But say I were to buy
a unit in another town, and have it managed by a third party.
Let's say that I have a real aversion to Christians because
of the stuff that they buy into hook line and sinker, and
because of the lunatic schmucks that they try to get elected.
I don't want any of those fish symbols hanging in the window
of a house that I own.  Should the government intervene?  If
I was Elie Weizel and the only rental applicant was Tom
Metzger, should I be forced to rent this distant unit to him?

#> The companies on the Fortune 500, for example, are all privately owned. They
#> can give you a list of all of their owners. They have no "anonymous",
#> unknown to them, owners.

> "Publicly owned" in the sense that their stock is publicly traded and that
> the shares of stock are owned by a generic, and ever-changing "public".

Yes, and the neat thing about this is that unlike the mom &
pop store, you and I can buy shares in IBM, and have influence
over their decision making policies if we don't like them.

Anyway, Paul, keep up the good work.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179109
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5w5CB.Ct4@rahul.net>, starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes:
> On 22 Apr 93 10:39:15 GMT, Theodore A. Kaldis observed:
> : alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
# : # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
# : # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
# : # addressed lesbians?
# 
# : I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a
# : homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian.
# : There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the
# : aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants.
# 
# The last time I checked homosexual men and women were both human.

I think Mr. Kaldis was using the expression in the slang sense,
though I agree it is NOT an appropriate expression to use in this
context.

# They both prefer to engage in sexual acts with people of the same
# gender.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the "trademark behaviour"
# of either homosexual men or homosexual women, except in the minds of
# misinformed folk, clueless folk, and bigots.
# 
# So what makes homosexual men and homosexual women different animals?
# 
# Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

1. That homosexual men are extremely promiscuous, and homosexual women
are, if any more promiscuous than heterosexual women, it's not by
much.

2. That homosexual men are overrepresented among child molesters 
(about 30% of child molestation is done by homosexual or bisexual
men), while homosexual women don't appear to be similarly over-
represented.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179110
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5wA0D.IvA@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <Apr.22.06.39.15.1993.27912@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr21.222523.21713@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
# ## Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
# ## he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
# ## addressed lesbians?
# #
# #I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a
# #homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian.
# #There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the
# #aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants.
# 
# So it has nothing to do with your morals, its just that you wouldn't
# have anything to wack off to if you didn't have tapes of Lesbians
# going at it....
# 
# I think we are getting closer to the truth now.

No, we are getting at Mr. Foard's sickness.  This may surprise
homosexuals, but lots of people in this country do NOT spend their
time watching pornography and masturbating.  Some of us have 
real lives, instead of sexual compulsions.  But I don't expect
a homosexual to understand that.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179111
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.142032.26340@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright) writes:
> In article <Apr.22.06.39.15.1993.27912@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> |> In article <1993Apr21.222523.21713@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
# |# # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
# |# # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
# |# # addressed lesbians?
# |# 
# |# I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a
# |# homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian.
# |# There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the
# |# aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants.
# 
# Obviously.  A homosexual male is of the XY chromosome pair and the lesbian
# is of XX.  Besides, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?  Since
# Mr Cramer is _very_ straight, he most probably gets off to the thought of
# lesbians, like the majority of adolescent males.
# 
# |#   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
# |  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |

I hate to disappoint you, but that's not the case.  I don't "get off"
on lesbian sex, nor am I an adolescent.  Now, when I was an adolescent,
I believed that homosexuals were just like everyone else.  But I've
learned since then.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179112
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
> Did anyone notice that Clinton was smiling and making jokes just before
> this press conference? Considering the number of people killed, this 
> seems very inappropriate to me.

Why?  He, Reno, and the FBI got what they wanted -- a reminder of
who is the boss in America -- the thugs who work for the government.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179113
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.165002.18208@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15501@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I used to think that homosexuals were OK -- but havng now gotten a
# #chance through USENET to know quite a few, I've realized that I was
# #misled in my youth.  Homosexuals are vicious, screwed-up, often
# #really evil people.
# 
# That's a load of shit.  If you really have the naivete to believe that the
# bozos over on soc.motss characterize our entire populace, you need to LIVE a
# little.  Try soc.bi, for example...you'll find almost exclusively a bunch of

Yet, the characteristics of soc.motss fit quite well with the other
evidence that is available.  High promiscuity, child sexual abuse
history, support for child molestation advocacy groups like NAMBLA,
S&M, etc.

# well-adjusted, friendly, humanistic people.  And, in any case, I think
# you'll find that most people are quite different from the persona they
# present on USENET.  For all I know, you're a wonderful, enlightened human
# being taking the role of hatemonger for satirical effect.
# 
# Somehow I doubt it, though....

Hatemonger: someone who reminds people of why homosexuals are dying
in such large quantities of AIDS -- because their sexual compulsions
prevented them from keeping their number of sexual partners below
four digits.

# ## I've got a few clues for you.  (a) I'm not working to pass any laws.  (b)
# 
# #It's being done in your name.
# 
# And that makes it my responsibility, I see.  Suppose I kill someone in the
# name of Clayton Cramer.  How does that make you a murderer?

If I know about it, and don't express my disapproval, it certainly
would make you suspicious about me, wouldn't it?

# #My morals aren't yours.  I wouldn't march in a parade with a group
# #that advocates child molestation.  It doesn't stop homosexuals.
# 
# I wouldn't march in a parade with a group like that either.  And if you're
# talking about NAMBLA, I think you'll find that they DO NOT advocate child
# molestation.  I also think you'll find that the VAST MAJORITY of homosexuals

They advocate sex between adults and children, with NO lower limit on
age.  But that's right, homosexuals don't believe that an adult sodomizing
a five year old is child molestation.

# will have no truck with that group anyway.

Fooled me.  They march in a number of gay parades around the country.

# ## #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# ## #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
# ## 
# ## But not between members of the same sex, right?  How can you live with such
# ## hypocrisy?
# ## 
# ## ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
# 
# #Sure.  Whatever consenting adults want to do in private is none of
# #the government's business.  YOU are the ones that want more laws
# #telling me what to do in private.
# 
# Quit lumping me in with groups.  The fact is that homophobia is an evil,
# unjustified prejudice, just like racism or sexism.  You can't reject all but
# one of those.
# 
# Drewcifer

It is NOTHING like racism or sexism.  You CHOOSE to be a homosexual.
My distaste for homosexuality is because of what homosexuals DO.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179114
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.165729.18393@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15511@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## Sigh.  You're absolutely right.  We have no political power whatsoever. 
# 
# #If only that were true.  In California, homosexuals have enough power
# #to impose their morals on others.
# 
# The only "moral" we're imposing is one which you supposedly embrace already:
# every human being's right to be treated as such.

I don't expect to be hired based on my sexual orientation.  If someone
decides he wants a gay-only staff of employees, that's his business.
I won't force him to hire heterosexuals; please don't force me to
hire homosexuals.

# ## Therefore, we should be oppressed and ignored and denigrated, right?  I
# 
# #You aren't oppressed in California.
# 
# But it's OK to oppress us, that's what you're saying!

No.  I'm saying it's none of the government's business what two
consenting adults do in private.  You don't believe that, unfortunately.

# ## certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir, because if she heard how
# ## disparaging you are towards political minorities, and if she had any shred
# ## of self-respect, she'd be out the door.
# 
# #Why do you keep insulting women and blacks by comparing them to
# #homosexuals?
# 
# This sort of crap makes me so fucking sick that I can't even bring myself to
# touch it.  You're a fuckwit with no perspective, no valid life experience,
# and no true knowledge of the human condition.  I see no point in trying to
# convince you politely that we're not all like the ones you've met, because
# you're showing no willingness at all to be open-minded enough to accept that
# your stupid generalizations have exceptions.  You are an intellectual waste,
# and the reason you believe the worst of homosexuals is that you bring out
# the worst in them.
# 
# ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

And you are yet another reminder of the emotional instability of
homosexuals.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179115
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Why didn't they come out?

After the initial gun battle was over, they had 50 days to come out
peacefully. They had their high priced lawyer, and judging by the
posts here they had some public support. Can anyone come up
with a rational explanation why the didn't come out (even after
they negotiated coming out after the radio sermon) that doesn't
include the Davidians wanting to commit suicide/murder/general mayhem?
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
document_id: 179116
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu>
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have
>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning
>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>into killing the children.
 
Janet Reno, the FBI, et al were nothing but pawns in Koresh's game.
He was a madman who was going to hurt the children, and everyone
else in the compound no matter what the FBI did.
 
>The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with
>a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person.
>In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes
>him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the
>hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically
>threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would
>release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would
>pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.
 
Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions
with the result of the police trying to take the place by
force and the result being the death of the hostages and the
gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of
the blame landing squarely on the police.
 
In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down
from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages
other terrorists and hostage takers.
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 124146
From: mpye@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: Re: Media horrified at Perot investigating Bush!

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> +>I can't find my source.
> +>But.  If you state that you will retract your claim, I'll go dig one up
> +>at the library.  Fair enough?
> 
> 	ARE YOU SERIOUS?  I'm not talking about retracting anything until
> you have produced SOMETHING.
> 
> 	If you were not just talking off the top of your head, I would
> assume that you have SOME memory of what your source is.
> 
> 	PUT UP NOW without conditions!


Yes, very serious.  I claim that I can substantiate my statement that
Rudman says he doesn't believe Perot was investigating him.  You claim
Perot was investigating him.  If you will state that you were in error
on this point, provided I produce the source, I'll go dig it up.

Now give me one reason why I should go to the trouble if you won't
agree to this?  It is simple enough you know.  But I don't have time
to waste if you'll just blow it off with more of the tripe you usually
post.



---
Michael Pye
email: mpye@csupomona.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176845
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over

In <C4v13w.Dup@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <bob1.733696161@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <C4ruo8.77r@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>>  Norway (where you appear to be posting from) is just such a 
>>>  place, although it has always escaped my understanding just
>>>  what the appeal, to allegedly rational people, of such a
>>>  scheme might be.  What gives King Olav V (or whoever it is
>>>  now - my atlas is from 1987) the right to any special legal
>>>  status or title based on a mere accident of birth? 
>>
>>To begin with, it's quite inexpensive compared to here, what with our
>>having six former presidents still alive, drawing pensions, expense
>>accounts, and secret service protection.

>  Maybe so, but they were, after all, President.  In the corporate 
>  world it's SOP for retiring senior executives to be given nice
>  pensions, etc.  The point is that they performed a service and
>  this is part of the compensation package.   The only "service" 
>  royals have to perform for their free ride is being born.

We might be better off had some of our former presidents done nothing.


>---peter



>PS  - . . . which is not to say that some of our presidents have 
>      not provided a service for the country too dissimilar from what
>      occurs when a bull "services" a cow (for those of you familiar
>      with cattle breeding).
>                                                 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176846
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Bill Conklin's letter to A.J.

In article <1993Apr5.040414.14939@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>	Again, the main point.

>	No human being not yet born can be bound to any contract.

Wrong.  It's possible to inherit a debt.

>	Further, no third party can be bound to any contract that
>they are not a party to.

See above.

>	The Constitution *for* the United States is just such a contract.
>No third party can be bound to it. Further, no human who is not specifically
>mentioned in Article 6 and has not taken an oath or made an affirmation
>to uphold said Const can be bound to uphold or obey it.

The Constitution is not a contract.  It is a statute.  Please, 
Mr. Teel, or anyone, show me one case where the U.S. 
Constitution, or any state constitution, is considered a 
contract.

>	The Const is designed to limit the powers of government, not to
>bind THE PEOPLE.

It is also designed to delineate the powers of the U.S. 
government.

>	This argument will be presented in great detail in the next post.

I can't wait.

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176847
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Traffic Case

In article <1993Apr5.140934.876@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>	The [McDonald] case was dismissed in the interests of Justice

On whose authority do you have this and on what grounds was it 
dismissed?

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176849
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!

In article <765445d3219144t87@infoserv.com>,
 jamesdon@infoserv.com (James A. Donald) writes...
>The tax protesters are legally correct, but they are put in jail anyway.

Hello?  What the Sloan decision means is that the tax protestors 
were wrong.

>The weakness of the governments legal position is shown by the fact that when
>someone protesting tax or gun laws on legal grounds gets a federal jury trial
>(very rare) the feds blatantly stack the jury, with the same old faces turning
>up time after time.

Demonstrate, please!  The rules of procedure make this very 
unlikely.

>However Teel should have mentioned that though his advice is legally sound, if
>you follow it you will probably wind up in jail.

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Which makes it legally unsound.  If I were representing Mr. Teel, 
I'd try a procedural approach if I could find one, or recommend 
he plea-bargain.  He's setting himself up to be in hot water.

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176850
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: A demo of Nonsense Talk- and what about all the other lies?

In article <15196@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Homosexuals have been lying about the 10% number for so long that
>the politicians are running scared of them.  Of course, homosexuals
>lying should be no surprise.
>

How can you lie about something that no one knows for sure.  I am the first
to state that the 10% figure may be too high- but it may just be too low,
depending on what you are talking about.

Keep in mind that there are 'practicing' heterosexuals that are actually
gay.  These people chose to take a road that avoids being harassed and
they wanted to 'fit-in' with everyone other 'normal' person.

But let's get off of this irrational behavior of calling everyone a liar,
you cannot even start to support such claims.

>Also, the corrupt, criminal and lying nature of Kinsey's work, which
>provides much of the justification for homosexual "rights" in the modern
>era, should make people step back for a moment and question the rest
>of the crap that they have been force-fed by the news media.

This sure sounds definitive.  How do you label Kinsey's work like this,
from that factually based and scientific journal WSJ?

>-- 
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

This is an interesting statement.  Do you realize how many things you do
your life that are not based on 'mutual consent'- and that it may be
required on occasion that all parties may not be mutually consenting?
This

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176851
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: The Evidence

In article <15177@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <113567@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <cjkC4MCwp.8ox@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
># #If homosexuals did keep themselves in the privacy of their own home, this 
># #wouldn't be a problem.  However, there are various 'cliques' (sp?) that
># #don't.  They want to present the argument that it is just as moral and
># #right as heterosexuality.
># 
># You know, I'm offended by newspapers publicly announcing weddings.
># Heterosexuals should keep their nutpials out of the public eyes. They
># should be banned from wearing wedding rings. From having legal recognition
># of marriage.
># 
># Anything that's public and sexual don't mix.
>
>The difference, of course, is that we are right, and you are wrong.
>If you are a minority that wants freedom, it helps to not be 
>obnoxious about it.  It does not surprise me that as groups like

TRANSLATION- you minorities stay in predesignated areas.  We the majority
are 'right', anything you do is 'wrong', since might makes right, and
the majority always rules.

>Queer Nation become increasingly belligerent in their public 
>demonstrations, that violence against homosexuals rises.  Anything
>that reminds the crazies who like to beat up homosexuals of their
>presence is going to aggravate things.


Oh- crime prevention at its best.  Well let's extrapolate this, maybe if 
you didn't display all of your private property, then those nasty theifs
wouldn't go after it.  And don't carry any money, that way those muggers
won't bother you.

>
>And you still don't realize that either way it is, says that homosexuals
>are very dangerous to children.
>
># 
># So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality?
>
>The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it.  The sexual
>predatory component that glorifies the pursuit of "candy-ass" and
>"hairless cocks" in the words of Le JoJo, the typical homosexual.

Oh I did not know that Le JoJo is a typical homosexual.

Stop making statements about something you know nothing about, that is
gay people.  You make your sweeping generalizations with no grounding 
in reality.


What I hope is not true- That you are a typical heterosexual.  Anyone want
to comment on this?

And if you are typical then I can start extrapolating a lot of interesting
conjectures about heterosexuals.

>-- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176852
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, 3/23

In article <1pprtvINNctl@aludra.usc.edu> sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child) writes:
>arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Apr1.164804.1105@Rapnet.Sanders.Lockheed.Com> babb@k2 (Scott Babb) writes:
>>>Jack Schmidling (arf@genesis.MCS.COM) wrote:
>>>: jac2y@Virginia.EDU (Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>) writes:
>>>: : 
>
>[...]
>
>>>Why do you restrict your condemnation of racial strife to Israel?
>>>Do the situations in Bosnia, Tibet, China, etc. not merit your comment?
>
>>As far as I am aware, we have not sent close to $100 billion dollars to
>						  ^^^
>				Let's not exaggerate.


I notice you did not offer an alternative number.  Try this one on for
size..... by the year 2000, American taxpayers will have given Israel
one dollar for every star in the Milky Way Galaxy.

I will let you look up the number.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176853
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!

dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>Which makes it legally unsound.  If I were representing Mr. Teel, 
>I'd try a procedural approach if I could find one, or recommend 
>he plea-bargain.  He's setting himself up to be in hot water.

Indeed.  Reading the cases of people who've tried the various things
Mr. Teel suggests show that defendants fall into two classes: (1) those
who win on procedural grounds or some grounds not related to their
claim, and (2) those who lose.

Consider Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir.1985), which I've seen
cited by tax protestors other than Mr. Teel as a win for Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff offered $100,000 on TV to anyone who would call in the
show and cite any section of the Internal Revenue Code that says that
an individual has to file a return.

Mr. Newman took him up on it.  Mr. Newman had seen the show in a rebroadcast
the next morning.  Mr. Schiff claimed that the offer only extended to
people who actually say the original broadcast, and so there was no offer
for Mr. Newman to accept, and so no unilateral contract was formed, and
so Mr. Schiff did not have to pay $100,000.

Mr. Schiff was correct, and so won.  So, yes, Mr. Schiff won against a
claim on the $100,000 reward.  However, his win had nothing to do with
the tax code.

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176855
From: starowl@bolero.rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

>Very simple.  An 'Insurance Commissioner' is a bureaucrat - a regulator.
>It is his/her duties to make rules to enforce laws.  

...and to make life difficult for us actuaries..... :-/

-- 
Michael D. Adams	(starowl@a2i.rahul.net)	  Champaign, IL / southeast AL

   "THRUSH believes in the two-party system: The masters and the slaves."
		-- Napoleon Solo (from The Man from U.N.C.L.E)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176856
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Sick and tired (was Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter)

In article <1993Apr4.054843.22307@mks.com> richw@mks.com (Rich Wales) writes:
>Why can't you just cite us a case in which Joe Schmoe, a regular
>employee earning regular wages from a regular company, refuses to pay
>his income tax, gets hauled into court, is convicted of wilful tax eva-
>sion, and then has his conviction overturned by the US Supreme Court
>with a landmark 7-2 majority ruling that income tax is indeed totally
>voluntary?  What, you say?  No such case exists?  Hmmm, I wonder why
>not; why haven't you?

Unless I've got my notes mixed up, 939 F.2d 499 comes close to this.
Regular guy.  Blue-collar worker at a regular company.  Hauled into
court.  Convicted.  Appeals to 7th circuit.  Makes all the right
arguments (his brief is cited by Mr. Teel as an example of a
"winning" brief).  Shot down, 3-zip by the 7th circuit.  Appeals to
the Supreme Court.  And...

...Certiorari denied.  Defendant goes to jail.  Oh well.

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176857
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format 
>   so popular]
>
>Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:

<looking around>  Who?  Where?
Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
conservatives do as well.  

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176858
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Who be Conservative on this.....

In <1993Apr2.154706.15557@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

|Congress is NOT allowed to abrogate the constitutional rights and privileges 
|already enjoyed by persons, however, unless the abrogation has a "rational 
|reason" or a "compelling interest" to it, depending on which standard is 
|applied. This is relevant because granting a right to one class of persons 
|by definition ALWAYS impinges on the rights of another class or classes or
|persons, to some degree. In the case of abortion, establishing rights for
|the unborn impinges GREATLY on the rights of pregnant women. There has yet
|to be presented a sufficient justification for such fetal rights.

Not to your satisfaction. But the arguments have convinced me, and others.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176859
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Rodney King Trial, Civil Rights Violations, Double Jeopardy

In <1993Apr2.182942.22445@husc3.harvard.edu> spanagel@husc11.harvard.edu (David Spanagel) writes:

|Recently it's occured to me that I've never heard of any PERSON ever being
|tried in Federal Court for violating someone's civil rights. Of course
|there have been cases before the Supreme Court in which it was decided
|that someone's civil rights had been violated (e.g., Miranda, Escobedo,
|etc.), but institutions were, de facto, the defendants, not individuals. Am I
|mistaken? Have there been similar cases against individuals in the past? 

I know it was used several times in the south, to prosecute the murders of
blacks, after all white juries had cleared the accussed.

|Furthermore, what are the specific charges against the four LAPD officers? 
|Which civil rights or laws are they accused of violating? 

I believe it is a general charge, that is no specific right is mentioned.

|What about double jeopardy? Has there been any concern that a verdict
|against Koon, et al. might be overturned upon appeal because they're being tried
|again for the same actions? (I thought I heard something on the news about 
|this.)

The SS has previously ruled that since the seperate governments were in
essence seperate sovereigns, then double jeopardy does not apply.

(If this is true, then could defendents also be tried under city and
county governments?)

This mornings paper said that the ACLU has decided to reinstate its
opposition to this kind of thing. They had earlier suspended their
opposition while they examined the King case. There might be hope
for the ACLU after all.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176860
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?

In <1993Apr2.125134.3780@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's dad) writes:

|In article <C4tAuw.Mrz@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In article <1pasrg$ife@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 
|> |	The title is self-explanatory; Isaac Asimov once pointed out
|> |that curious fact.
|> 
|> Are you saying that it should be considered unpatriotic if you do not give
|> everything you own to the state.

|Are you saying that it should be considered unpatriotic if you do not give
|your *life* in battle for the state?  The PC (Patrioticly Correct) certainly
|think so.

|>                                   I thought that kind of system collapsed
|> when the Soviet Union did.

|No, the pentagon is still standing and collecting names for the draft.

|> If that's not what you meant. At what point does paying more taxes cease
|> being patriotic?

|Your money or your life.  Which is more important?

Nice dodge. I give it a 9.2.

Now to answer your questions. I do not believe that there should be a
draft. The armed services should be voluntary. Can you say the same
about taxes.

I've answered your question. Would you now answer mine.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176861
From: jamesdon@infoserv.com (James A. Donald)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!


> Do you have a strange definition of "winning" that you titled this thread
> "Winning Tax Case!"?  Sloan *lost*.  By a unanimous 3-0 decision that tore
> his arguments to pieces.  He went to prison using these arguments.  See
> United States v Sloan, 939 F2d 499 (7th Cir 1990), aff'g 704 F Supp 880.

The tax protesters are legally correct, but they are put in jail anyway.

The weakness of the governments legal position is shown by the fact that when
someone protesting tax or gun laws on legal grounds gets a federal jury trial
(very rare) the feds blatantly stack the jury, with the same old faces turning
up time after time.

However Teel should have mentioned that though his advice is legally sound, if
you follow it you will probably wind up in jail.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                       |
James A. Donald        |  Joseph Stalin said: "Ideas are more powerful
                       |  than guns.  We would not let our enemies have
jamesdon@infoserv.com  |  guns, why should we let them have ideas."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176862
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Ashish Arora) writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
|> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
|> [...]
|> 
|> >    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
|> > the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
|> >  
|> > Brett
|> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.
|> 
|> cheers

Actually not.  Brett himself has actually posted the data previously.
What declined from 84 to 89, as I remember it, was _percent
increase_in_deficit_growth, i.e. the rate of growth of the deficit 
(2nd derivative of total deficit with respect of to time) decreased.
Brett apparently has numbed himself into thinking that the deficit
declined.  If you keep spending more than you earn, the deficit keeps
growing.  If you keep _borrowing_ at a lesser rate than you borrowed
previously, the deficit increases.  You only decrease deficits when your
income exceeds spending and you use the difference to pay off debts.

Figgie's book paints the real data, pictorially, in gory detail.  Each
president, essentially ran up twice as much total debt, in half the time.
Reagan/congress was simply awful.  Bush/congress was unbelievable.

As a really rigorous aside to this thread.....

During pledge night the other night on the public channel, there was an
"economist" who gave an hour or so presentation.  His data was predictive
and based largely on population data. I don't know his name, but his
arguments were brilliant.  He confirmed, with data, what many of us know
with common sense -- the boom of the 80's has nothing to do with government
policy, particularly "supply side" policy, since taxes do not "cause" 
economic activities.  People cause economic activity.  More can be 
explained by watching population waves roll through the years and 
create cycles.  He has made models and predictions for years well into
the middle of next century.  It will be neat to see how accurate he
is.

Paul Collacchi

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176864
From: hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians


Wasn't it Tricky Dick who issued stern warnings to Bush & Clinton
not to 'Lose Russia'?  (a la 'Who lost China?')


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176865
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Price Controls for Medical Care (WAS Re: We're from the govt...)

In article <SLAGLE.93Apr5075759@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.185755.17803@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>> Thanks to Kim for following up.  I was hoping that someone would bring up
>> the issue of cost compensation.  The problem with the argument is that it
>> fails to explain why kidney dialysis (RD) services have expanded massively in
>> the last decade.  After all, no one is forcing private providers to offer
>> this service.  If they are losing money on the treatment (which according 
>> to information I've collected from several providers they are not) why
>> would they not simply limit their losses by cutting back on services
>> (engage in effective rationing of supply) rather than expand the coverage
>> to a larger market that must then be compensated by raising prices in
>> other areas?
>
>Perhaps there is a competitive advantage in there after all.  Would
>not reputable and dedicated physicians prefer to affiliate with an
>institution that offers dialysis services?  Would they not therefore
>tend to admit patients in greater numbers to an institution that 
>offered a full range of diagnostic and treatment options?  

Undoubtedly.  In fact, it is the fact that hospitals frequently compete
for physicians rather than for patients that (in part) complicates and 
undermines a simplistic free-market analysis of the market for medical care.

>Hospitals tend to lose money on all sorts of high-tech, high-price 
>machinery. They manage to make it up on other charges.

Once again, there is no evidence that this is true in regard to kidney
dialysis.  Although price controls have promoted an expansion of services
to a much greater volume of patients, RD is still a profitable service.
Otherwise, one would expect to see evidence of rationing rather than the
vast expansion that has occurred.

>
>> Remember, the notion that you can lose a little on each treatment but
>> make it up in volume is not good economics even in a free market. :) 
>
>Then how do you explain why grocery stores routinely offer an
>array of products at prices below cost?  Are not grocery stores
>embedded in a relatively free market?

Can you spell "loss leader?"  I knew you could.  Grocery stores do not
attempt to make up the loss on an individual product by selling more of
it.  In fact, your argument above is that kidney dialysis is a loss leader 
for other medical treatments where lost revenue can be regained.  

But the evidence does not support this contention.  Rather, it appears that
price controls have disciplined the market by forcing an expansion of
service and development of improved lower-cost technology to provide 
comparable benefits.  Providers continue to profit from RD, they simply
make less on each treatment than they would have if the price had 
risen at the rate that uncontrolled treatments have.

There is no question that had price controls forced the price of RD 
substantially below its actual cost that some or all of the doomsday
predictions of free-market advocates would have been seen -- restriction
of service, lagging technological development, etc.  Likewise, it appears
that in the VA and armed forces medical care systems, where providers 
are government agencies, some of these negative impacts may occur.  
(RD patients in the VA system in Spokane, for example, must travel to
Seattle, 300 miles away, for treatment.)  

The bottom line, however, is that this is an example of government 
intervention (of a rather extreme sort) that appears to have had beneficial
results for both providers and consumers.  Claims that "government
bureaucracy" inevitably leads to undesirable outcomes in the marketplace
should take such such cases into account.

jsh

>
>=Mark
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176866
From: richw@mks.com (Rich Wales)
Subject: Sick and tired (was Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter)

Replying to A.J. Teel:

	Well, the two nifty letters giving concrete proof that the
	Income Tax is voluntary and giving specific procedures for
	stopping withholding, et cetera have been out there for a
	while now.

Humbug.  Those letters don't provide "concrete proof" of anything at all
in the absence of any case law that demonstrates the method will actu-
ally work for ordinary people in everyday situations.

Specifically, show us some case law in which the courts have ruled that
income tax is illegal and/or that ordinary working types do not have to
pay income tax (and that they can legally avoid paying income tax with-
out declaring themselves to be churches or some such silliness).  This
issue is sufficiently important that I think we have a right to expect
something squarely on point from the US Supreme Court (in the case of
federal tax) or a state's supreme court (for a state's income tax).

Unless you can do that, I for one am unwilling to call your material
"concrete proof".

	There has been no refutation to date.  Have the nay-sayers
	finally given up as defeated?  Sure would like to hear their
	reasons for disbelief at this point.

Refutation??  Refutation of what?  You haven't made a case yet.  You've
posted plenty of claims, but you haven't given us any valid reason to
believe that any court in the US will agree with you.  Your claims seem
on the surface to deviate so radically from the legal mainstream that I
feel the burden of proof is still on =you= to show that your arguments
have any merit whatsoever.  And the cases you've cited involve such
strange situations that I see no reason to assume that the rulings are
applicable to anyone else, or that they will ultimately stand on appeal
to the Supreme Court.

Why can't you just cite us a case in which Joe Schmoe, a regular
employee earning regular wages from a regular company, refuses to pay
his income tax, gets hauled into court, is convicted of wilful tax eva-
sion, and then has his conviction overturned by the US Supreme Court
with a landmark 7-2 majority ruling that income tax is indeed totally
voluntary?  What, you say?  No such case exists?  Hmmm, I wonder why
not; why haven't you?

	Shall I conclude that the point has been received and the
	opposition has forfeited the field?

With all due respect, you can conclude anything you want.  I just hope,
for your own sake, that you don't conclude that anyone in a position of
authority in the United States or any legitimate or illegitimate polit-
ical subdivision thereof is going to agree with your conclusions.

For that matter, I confess I'm thoroughly confused as to =why= you would
be looking for court rulings in your favor anyway -- since I thought you
told us earlier that every court in the US has been in cahoots with big
banking interests since the 1938 "admiralty jurisdiction" coverup thing.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that they'd go to all the trouble
to subvert the system, and yet would still promptly slink back into
their burrows in the face of anyone who knew enough to invoke the right
combination of magic spells and mystic mumbo-jumbo?

Not only that, but why do you even =care= what the US courts say anyway?
Didn't you tell us a while back that you've disavowed all attempts by US
officials to classify you as a "14th Amendment federal citizen"?  When
the FBI comes to haul you away for tax evasion, why don't you just tell
them they're out of their jurisdiction and should go back to Washington,
D.C., where they belong?

Or maybe we should all just go back to mediaeval common law, which you
suggested would be better than all these statutes, codes, and the like.
If you want to renounce society's legal framework, fine; we can just
declare you an outlaw, OK?, and anyone who sees you driving on the roads
with no license plate on your car and no driver's license in your wallet
can just take you like a game animal and stew you for their supper (with
plenty of veggies and a pinch of salt, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207).

Sorry, everyone, it's getting late, and I'm sick and tired of all this
garbage.  If I know what's good for me, I'll just clam up and stop try-
ing to refute this nonsense, and if anyone falls for it and winds up in
jail for tax evasion or what-not, it'll be on their own head.

Needless to say, none of the above represents the opinions of my current
employer -- who, in any case, is a Canadian and doesn't really need to
care too much about US tax law.  I, on the other hand, am a "14th Amend-
ment federal citizen", with a US passport to prove it, and plan to keep
on filing Form 1040's for the foreseeable future (though I will probably
not owe any US income tax due to the foreign earned income exclusion
and/or the foreign tax credit).

-- 
Rich Wales <richw@mks.com>       //      Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (MKS)
35 King St. N. // Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 2W9 // +1 (519) 884-2251

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176867
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

In article <RLM.93Apr2050627@helen.surfcty.com>, rlm@helen.surfcty.com
(Robert L. McMillin) rants:
> The left likes to dodge the issues of morality and behavior, crying that
> anyone who raises them "blames the victim."  Nonetheless, as a recent
> editorial in the {Los Angeles Times} pointed out, the free love
> advocates of the 1960's have demolished the poor.  It's one thing to
> have children out of wedlock if you're, say, Murphy Brown (or someone
> like her), turning over a six figure salary -- and quite another if
> you're sixteen, have no skills, and no income.

And how did the "free love advocates of the 1960's" manage to perform
this demolition--forced breeding programs or something?

> By accepting and even celebrating single, out-of-wedlock parenthood, the
> 1960's radicals espousing free love set the stage for catastrophe among
> the poor. They must account for this...

Now let me get this straight.  After a nice, long rant about how
people need to take personal responsibility for their economic and
social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals (such as me, I guess)
are responsible for poor people's lifestyles?  Tell me how that
works--or do you think that poor people are just too dumb to think
for themselves?

There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family and
support systems in general among this nation's poor.  Somehow I
don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at the top of any 
sane person's list.

You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural revolution for
a lasting change for the worse, try so-called "relevant" or "values"
education.  Hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time.  How were
we to know you needed a real education first--I mean, we took that
for granted.

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
05 Apr 93   ****** ******   16 Germinal An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176868
From: akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous)
Subject: Re: Chrysler bailout

In article <1993Apr5.195216.27893@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) writes:
>
>     Plug this one in- I'm a Conservative, I *hate* Pee-Cee's (although I
>have to use one at work), and am a proud owner of a NeXT Station.
>
>The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler)
>so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?
>-- 

You have just reminded me of an old Tom Paxton song...

I"M CHANGING MY NAME TO CHRYSLER
(Tom Paxton, 1980)

Oh the price of gold is rising out of sight
And the dollar is in sorry shape tonight
What the dollar used to get us
Now won't buy a head of lettus
No the economic forecast isn't right
But amidst the clouds I spot a shining ray
I caneven glimpse a new and better way
And I've devised a plan of action
Worked it down to the last fraction
And I'm going into action here today.

Chorus:

  I am changing my name to Chrysler
  I am going down to Washington D.C.
  I will tell some power broker
  What they did for Iacoca
  Will be perfectly acceptable to me.
  I am changing my name to Chrysler
  I am heading for that great receiving line
  So when they hand a million grand out
  I'll be standing with my hand out
  Yes sir I'll get mine

When my creditors are screaming for their dough
I'll be proud to tell them all where they can go
They won'y have to scream and holler
They'll all be paid to the last dollar
Where the endless streams of money seam to flow
I'll be glad to tell them all what they can do
Its just a matter of a simple form or two
It's not renumeration it's a liberal education
Ain't you kind of glad that I'm in debt to you

Chorus

Since the first first amphibians crawled out of the slime
We've been struggling in an unrelenting climb
We were hardly up and walking before money started talking
And it's sad failure is an awful crime
It's been that way for a millennium or two
But now it seems there's a different point of view
If you're a corporate titanic and your failure is gigantic
Down in congress there is a safety net for you.

Chorus...



Perhaps Steven Jobs should take Paxton's advice and change his name to
Chrysler, or perhaps set himself up as an S&L, maybe Neil Bush could
give him a hand?

================================================================
akasacou@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca

No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn...
                                      J.Morrison

The opinions expressed above are mine.  Like anyone else would
admit to them.
================================================================


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176869
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)

In <C50FHG.MEA@ocsmd.ocs.com> mark@ocsmd.ocs.com (Mark Wilson) writes:

>Yuri Villanueva (elmo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu) wrote:
>: pbray@envy.reed.edu (Public account) writes:
>: 
>: > In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  
>: > as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>: >> In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>  
>: >> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>: >> 
>: >>We are told, by U.S. congresswoman Barbara Jordan, that we are biologically
>: >>incapable of compassion.
>Personally, I doubt she said anything of the kind, but if
>someone can provide the ORIGINAL quote, IN CONTEXT, WITH SOURCE
>(for, ahem, cross-checking), I would we willing to agree
>she is full of sh*t.  Naturally, if no one can provide these
>bits of data, the paraphrase listed must be disregarded,
>and its poster regarded as full of sh*t.  OK, so which will it be?

I followed up without a thought of double-checking...if I double-checked
every fact people vomited onto the table here on the net, I'd never have
time to sleep.  But to pass the buck to the person who originally posted
that quote...

...well, Michael?  Take it away!  (wild applause)

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176870
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)

julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
|> In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
|> >  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format 
|> >   so popular]
|> >
|> >Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:
|> 
|> <looking around>  Who?  Where?
|> Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
|> conservatives do as well.  
|> 
|> Julie
|> DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Yes, it was Nixon who was most vocal about giving money to Russia.  It
makes me proud to be a libertarian.  It appears both conservatives and
liberals prefer to cold war until you win, then nurse the enemy back to
health for another go around.

It's like subsidizing the wealthy countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) with
free defense, and then trade-warring with them because of the economic
competition.  It's like subsidizing tobacco farmers while paying
bureaucrats to pursuade people not to smoke.

I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.

Roger Collins

"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap,
 we would soon want bread."
	-- Thomas Jefferson

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176871
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Subject: Re: $50,000 Reward!

ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:

>	If you are a "United States' Citizen" and a "resident" of the
>state, then your citizenship is in D.C. and thus are a 14th Amendment
>Citizen. Are you a Citizen of the State in which you live? If you are
>a "resident" then you *are not*.

So the only people who are citizens of a state are ones who don't live
in that state?  So am I a "citizen" of 49 other states since I live in
California?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176876
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Motor Voter


>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> When I entered 1st grade, Eisenhower was President and John F. Kennedy
>> was just a relatively obscure Senator from New England.  So how old do
>> you think I am now?

And we all hope, Teddy, that you will graduate from the first grade
while Clinton is President. Keep trying.


--
Disclaimer: :remialcsiD

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176877
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr03.102200.4802@armory.com> rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>In article <C4tI6G.8C3@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>>In article <C4oBCK.761@unix.portal.com> drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes:
>>>There is something that bothers me about this whole arguement.
>>>
>>>
>>>5) Could someone please CALMLY explain why homosexuality is such a great sin?
>>>   Without giving the standard "Just because God sez so". Almost all of Judeo-
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks for your posting, I enjoyed it.
>>
>>The reason Homosexuality is a sin is because the Jews were a struggling
>>group of people trying hard to survive and differentiate between
>>themselves and their oppressors.  This led to several things.
>>
>>1. Worshipping one god.  All their foes were polytheistic.
>>
>>2. All sex was put in to a moral context.  All their foes were perverts
>>   and spilled their seed liberally.  
>--------------------------------
>It's just as easy to spill seed or spread it thin heterosexualy, why then
>the specific prohibition on homosexuals, especially since the answer to
>everything back then was stoning to death, doesn't help population growth
>much. Also to just say that "their foes were perverts" begs the question,

The key word is `spilled'.  If semen was spilled anywhere where there
was a chance of procreation it was OK.  If it was spilt on the ground or
in to a man it was a big sin, ditto with animals. The jews said sex=pro-
creation.

Homosexuals didn't breed, there fore they are evil and should be stoned
to death.  


>
>>3. All sex was directed towards breeding.  The jews were few in number
>>   and their foes many.  To survive everything had to go into multiplication.
>--------------------------------------
>Like I said, stoning to death doesn't help population much. It sounds more
>like a set of prejudices that already existed and were blown into a religion
>to emphasize the differences of Jewish culture and enshrine some pretty


Stoning non-breeding population was fine.  Only the breeders were
considered to be worth much.

>>   1% Jesus, 70% Judaism, 29% original (prejudiced) Bullshit.
>-------------------------------
>I'll buy the bullshit. He was a profound misogynist as well. He might have
>been bitterly gay himself. No record of marriage.
>-RSW
>
>>>Ben Gibson
>>Xavier
>
>
>-- 
>* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *


Xavier
-- 
* Xavier Gallagher*************************** Play  ***************************
*     Cheap       * Part time Dark Overlord *  by   ** s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ******
* World Wide UUCP *    Of the universe      * email ***************************
* Feeds & E-mail  *************************** =-->  Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176878
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: So Why Does Clayton Cramer Fixate on Molesting Children

In article <93093.073457RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
>-
>-2. The homosexuals have gotten a law passed in California that
>-makes it illegal to discriminate against a person in employment
>-based on their sexual orientation -- and not defined sexual
>-orientation.  Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
>-
>





GOT HIM!  Cramer is now claiming that pedophilia is a sexual orientation
rather than a chronicly homosexual condition.  This changes the whole
argument in as much that is pedophilia is a sexual orientation all
of its own peds cannot be called homosexual.  Peds are peds who
may have a preference as to the sex of the child they molest (though
most do not have a preference) but that is a subset of their basic
ped nature.

Cramer has as much as admitted that peds and gay men are different
orientations.  All we need now is to get him to admit that
the apparent similarities he keeps on about are just optical illusions.

xavier
-- 
* Xavier Gallagher*************************** Play  ***************************
*     Cheap       * Part time Dark Overlord *  by   ** s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ******
* World Wide UUCP *    Of the universe      * email ***************************
* Feeds & E-mail  *************************** =-->  Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176880
From: jac2y@Virginia.EDU ("Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>")
Subject: Re: Damn Furriners Be Taken Over

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu  writes:

Kaldis, you are a worm.

> Rank balderdash!  America's reputation abroad has become tarnished
> because of feckless and pusillanimous cowards who apparently do not
> have the requisite gonads to stand up for American honor and dignity.

Translation-  It's them DAMN liberals again!

> The American Way may not be the only way, and you may not consider it
> to be necessarily the best way, but, by God, it's _OUR_ way and we're
> going to stick with it!  If you can't go along with the program, then
> perhaps you should consider moving elsewhere.

Who gave you the authority to create and enforce this rather
hazy thing called "the American Way"?  This is a democracy, and
we don't need to stick to it or stick up for it unless we so
choose.  Remember that, Ted, from Civics class in Greeley, CO?

> That is exactly the _PROBLEM_ with Canadians!  They don't stand for
> anything with certitude.

Nice generalization.

> You pipsqueak!  You mouse!  If you are sorry to intrude then why do
> it?  Don't you have the courage of your convictions?  Hell, do you
> even have any convictions to start with?  What kind of example of
> manly dignity is this?  Sheesh!

Coming from such a crass example of "manly dignity," he must
feel _really_ hurt.

Jon, jac2y@virginia.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176881
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?


In article <C4z3xw.3EF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu writes:
| I like the way people call it "cruel and unusual punishment", as if
| imprisonment isn't cruel, too.  Lethal injection pales in comparison.
| And, they have a death sentence because they were convicted of a cruel
| and unusual *crime*.

It's not what they did that matters.  It's what *you* do and
what *I* do and what *we* do in response that matters.  Do we
lessen ourselves by killing in response to killing?  It's
vengeance.  That's all.  It's no deterrent.  It serves no
purpose but to slake somebody's blood lust.

| It would be nice, though, if we never convicted someone of a crime they
| didn't commit, and it would make the death penalty much more justifiable.

Yeah yeah yeah... and sure would be nice if we didn't apply the
death penalty disproportionately to minorities.  I'll revisit my
opinion on the death penalty when there are more whites up for
it than blacks.  I.e., when hell freezes over.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"The people causing the trouble were socialists and homosexuals,
the typical sort of person who opposes us."  --Don Treshman, 
ex-Klansman, leader of the "pro-life" group Rescue America, 
on BBC TV, 2 April 1993.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176882
From: nadja@weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: ProLifer Or Terrorist Threat

In article <C4zA0H.IHD@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes:
>In article 1pamhpINN7d3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
>>I'm prepared to instruct individuals in the proper use and 
>>handling of firearms.  

>>As a Desert Storm vet with six years in the National Guard, I have a
>>great deal of experience in handling weapons and tactical training. 


>ps: anyone up for a discussion of counter sniper operations?
>Security drills, Your Friend the Counter Terrorist Operation.....


If twit promises to train them in tactics and weapons handlings, I doubt
any of them will last long enough to become terrorists. Look for a sudden
rise in firearms accidents among the Fiends of the Fetus, though.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176883
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:

[ edited ]

Now that's funny!  (remembering that good humor always dances
uncomfortably close to the truth) 

I can't wait to see the inevitable flames.  :-)

--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176885
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes:

>Nigel Allen (ndallen@r-node.hub.org) wrote:
>: Here is a press release from the California Department of Insurance.
>: 
>:  California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to
>: Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
>----------------
>I may be a little dense but I would have thought that protecting consumers
>from scam insurance companies would be the prime objective of something 
>called the Cal insurance Commission. If they aren't accomplishing that now
>then why do we need them?

Very simple.  An 'Insurance Commissioner' is a bureaucrat - a regulator.
It is his/her duties to make rules to enforce laws.  He/she cannot
make laws.  If there is no law that covers a specific subject, say
scam insurance companies, a regulator cannot create one.  So they have
to go to a proper legislative body to get such a law enacted.  For
the California Insurance Commissioner, there are two possible legislative
bodies:  the California State Legislature and the U.S. Congress.  We all
know how little the California State Legislature accomplishes, esp. 
along the lines of insurance reform legislation (negative movement).  So
Garamendi wants the feds to do it, because: (a) he has a better chance
of getting a federal law through, and (b) since many of the scam
companies work across state lines/national borders, it is better to
have a law that reach out into other jurisdictions.

>John Eaton
>!hp-vcd!johne

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176886
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993

In article <1993Apr5.201051.15818@dsd.es.com>  
Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Waldrop) writes:

What did this have to do with SF?  And please don't answer
that a number of libertarians are SF fans or vice versa. I know a 
number of SF fans who are also baseball fans but I don't plan on 
posting the Red Sox schedule.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176887
From: gal2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Jacob Galley)
Subject: Clinton's sister, Shalala


Last night I heard something about Bill Clinton's sister being
involved in a marijuana bust, and the news being suppressed. I also
heard something about her being an "ex-con". This source is not
reliable, though. (It was a collage/booklet advertising a local band.)

Can anyone on the net verify this or provide more details? I'm
surprised I haven't seen anything about this in this newsgroup.

Also, does anyone know what happened to the charges that Shalala was a
regular pot smoker when she was in college? This ghastly accusation
was reported on CNN Streamline News the day she was nominated, then I
never heard anything about it again.

It's almost enough to make me want to start an Act-Up type campaign
to invade the privacy of closet smokers! (If only this type of
publicity didn't violate people's rights. . . .)

Jake.
-- 
* What's so interdisciplinary about studying lower levels of thought process?
				  <-- Jacob Galley * gal2@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176888
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?

In article <1pkkidINNsrj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Mar30.181636.22756@pmafire.inel.gov>, 
>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) said:
>
>> A real world data point: A person has a much stronger legal claim for
>> harrassment (sexual or otherwise) if they make it clear to the
>> offender that their behaviour is unwanted.  If the behaviour persists,
>> harrassment is much easier to demonstrate, due to the fact that the
>> offender knew that the behaviour was unwanted.
>
>No argument here... my original query regarded the question of why the
>_first_ sexual proposition made by Person A to Person B would be
>considered to be sexual harassment by some/many people.  (Assuming, of
>course, that there does not exist a power relationship between A and B
>such that the proposition carries strong implications of extortion right
>from Word One.)

I can only say that those people are wrong. The word harass means to 
irritate or torment persistently; I'd hardly consider one time to fall
under the definition of persistent.  Additionally, there is no basis
to assume the behaviour is unwanted, unlike an illegal proposition.
>
>> Of course, I think the original question of offering money for sex is
>> inarguably harrassment, because the activity is illegal, and could be
>> presumed to be unwanted by the average citizen.
>
>I have to take issue with this viewpoint... given that (a) prostitution
>is a victimless crime and (b) there are literally millions of Americans
>who participate in some sort of victimless activities which the state
>has defined to be criminal (e.g., prostitution, obscenity, gambling,
>using certain recreational drugs, having non-mercenary sex with persons
>not one's spouse in certain states, having "unnatural" sex with people
>regardless of marital status or exchange of money in certain states,
>etc.), I'd have to say that the idea that an activity may be presumed to
>be unwanted by the average citizen merely because it is illegal is the
>sort of sophistry that only a judge could indulge in with a straight
>face.  (He said, speaking as a law student who's read his share of
>judicial opinions in which reality was not only denied but, in fact,
>actually inverted in order to make the universe conform to the writer's
>politics.)

I was speaking from a legalistic viewpoint.  What you say is true, but
the law, in order to make what little sense it manages to make, has to
make *some* assumptions.  Assuming that an illegal activity is unwanted
by the average citizen I think is reasonable.  Certainly, I would need
a preponderance of evidence on the side of the propositioner that there
was a reasonable belief that the proposition was welcome.

The number of people who participate in "victimless" crimes notwithstanding,
the fact reamins that under the law, the activity is illegal.  To presume
that the proposition *is* welcome simply because a large number of people
indulge in it is the type of sophistry only a lawyer could indulge in
with a straight face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176889
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians


In article <C513wJ.75y@encore.com> rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>|> In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>|> >  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format 
>|> >   so popular]
>|> >
>|> >Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:
>|> 
>|> <looking around>  Who?  Where?
>|> Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
>|> conservatives do as well.  
>|> 
>Yes, it was Nixon who was most vocal about giving money to Russia.  It
>makes me proud to be a libertarian.  It appears both conservatives and
>liberals prefer to cold war until you win, then nurse the enemy back to
>health for another go around.

Enemy?  Sounds like that's the viewpoint of the stereotypical rednecked
conservative -- 'always been commies, always will be.'  I suggest you
listen very carefully to the stuff Yeltsin and his people are saying
and compare that with the very anti-West slogans coming from his
opponents in the Russian congress.  I sure know who I want to back.

Oh, BTW, Germany has sure come back as a terrible enemy after WWII,
hasn't it?
>
>It's like subsidizing the wealthy countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) with
>free defense, and then trade-warring with them because of the economic
>competition.  It's like subsidizing tobacco farmers while paying
>bureaucrats to pursuade people not to smoke.

Better to let them degenerate into civil war?  Remember all those
nuclear weapons in Russia.  I cannot imagine that they would not
be used in a civil war.  If nationialists take over and, even if
they prevent a civil war, most feel they must take back large
parts of land that are in other countries (like Ukraine.)  I also cannot
imagine Ukraine giving up land without a fight, possibly nuclear.

How does this affect us?  Well, we are on the same planet and if
vast tracks of Europe are blown away I think we'd feel something.
A massive breakup of a country that spans 1/6th the planet is
bound to have affects here.  (Of course, there is also the
humanitarian argument that democracies should help other
democracies (or struggling democracies).)

>
>I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
>stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
>was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
>constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
>from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.

Seriously.  Everyone has different opinions on what is stupid.
My two "causes" are aid to Russia and a strong space program.
Someone else will champion welfare or education or doing studies
of drunken goldfish.  That is why we have a republic and not a
true democracy.  Instead of gridlock on a massive scale, we
only have gridlock on a congressional scale.

BTW, who is to decide 'stupid?'  This is just like those who
want to impose their 'morals' on others -- just the sort of
thing I thought Libertarians were against.

Actually, my politics are pretty Libertarian except on this one issue 
and this is why it is impossible for me to join the party.  It seems
that Libertarians want to withdraw from the rest of the world and
let it sink or swim.  We could do that 100 years ago but not now.
Like it or not we are in the beginnings of a global economy and
global decision making. 

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176890
From: rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy)
Subject: Re: So Why Does Clayton Cramer Fixate on Molesting Children


In article <1993Apr04.071624.14068@armory.com> (talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,soc.men), rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
] In article <93093.073457RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
] >     I think the dialogue would go better if (at least some) gays
] >showed awareness of a practical issue.  For example. men and women use
] >different toilets.  Hence men who are likely to abuse girls have that
] >avenue closed to them.  There are many other situations where it is easy
] >to prevent sexual abuse BETWEEN the two sexes through such measures and
] >social conventions.  It is harder to prevent it with gays but if those
] >gays who do not abuse children (nor want to) became aware that this is
] >a practical problem that we can solve with good will on both sides, then
] >we can have protection for parents and children at the same time as
] >protection for gays in those ways that are of importance to their
] >pursuit of happiness in their own way.
] >
] >Just a thought
] >
] >Rohit Parikh
] -------------------
] Sorry, Rohit, but you are responding to someone well-recognized as a
] flaming nut, i.e., Clayton Cramer. He must have been abused by a man and is
] living his life in an attempt to vilify all men who like sex with other men
] something slightly similar to the way his assailant liked it with him. He
] will alter or misrepresent anything he finds to try to prove that there are
] homosexuals who wish to rape little boys like he was coming out of the
] woodwork. There is no hope for him. In all probability he is secretly gay,
] which compounds his neurosis in his own mind, by thinking that someone else
] made him that way. I don't personally see how someone like him could walk
] and chew gum at the same time, as mentally crippled and dominated as he is
] by his fantasies.
] 
] He would have you believe that the figures on the percentage of people who
] like to do it with the same sex sometime or all the time is way smaller
] than it is, but then he will virtually assert that everyone's queer and
] they're trying to get him. He actually believes, despite all evidence that
] homosexuals do some huge disproportionate amount of child sexual abuse,
] even though he insists that there may be as few as 1% of them in the male
] population! If there were that few of them in the population, San Francisco
] would currently be empty, because a significant portion of them have sought
] a tolerant atmosphere in that city, and the numbers simply do not work when
] you add up their home town origins. There is nothing to be gained by
] communicating with Clayton Cramer, he is unable to listen to anyone.
] -RSW
] 
] 
] --
] * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
] * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
] * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
] * Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Sorry, but I don't see how the response applies to what was posted.

Unless I am badly mistaken, Rohit is suggesting that protecting boys
from men is different than protecting girls from men. There are situations
in which boys and girls are apart from members of the *opposite* sex
(due to social convention or whatever) and thus are safe (in at least
some sense). These same situations don't (necessarily) protect the
children from abuse by members of the *same* sex.

If we can understand that, it's not such a tremendous leap to suggest
that if we all think about it hard, *someone* may come up with a
practical solution (or even a partial solution) to some of the situations
in which children are made vulnerable to homosexuals who wish to abuse
them. By working together "with good will on both sides", we may be
able to start solving problems without restricting anyone's freedoms.

Mr. Walz on the other hand is using Rohit's post as an excuse for
personal attacks on Mr. Cramer. While Mr. Walz hasn't (by a *long*
stretch) been the only one to flame Mr. Cramer, it is no less childish
and it only serves to weaken any other arguments he may make in the
future.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Roy       Usenet: rick@howtek.MV.com       America Online: QED
Disclaimer: My employer's views are orthogonal to these.
The early bird got worms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176891
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>There is a deeper reason. Taxes,  by their very nature, are un-American.
>One need only look at the birth and history of the US to see this fact.

So that's why the 13 newly independent states all had tax systems...

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176894
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP> a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:
)MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes:
)
)
)>The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE 
)>to submit to sexual intercourse."
)
)Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states
)had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised
)as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but
)was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only,
)uniformly throughout the U.S.

I agree mostly with Chris.  It is (unfortunately, IMO) true that the *FBI*
figures for rape based on the 'uniform crime report' report only female
rapes. However, some states (such as Illinois) are not tabluated because they
refuse to comply with this sexist definition!
-- 
The worms crawl in
The worms crawl out
The worms post to the net from your account

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176895
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C4vrII.H2@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15150@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <C4oBCK.761@unix.portal.com>, drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes:
# #They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them,
# #rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings
# #or beliefs of the other person.
# 
# Cramer, you are off your target again.  The law *forces* no one to obey
# it.  At every point any individual may stand up and say *this law
# sucks*.  Even you could say this.  Gay men and women have not *forced*

You mean they passed a law that does nothing at all?  No enforcement
mechanisms?  As usual, you are wrong.

# any off this.  Changes in the law have been brought about by
# democratic* processes, those same processes are the ones that protect
# you from certain abuses.

Yeah, right.  I guess the next time a homosexual complains about
sodomy laws, I can just echo your stupidity about "democratic
processes" and he won't have any basis for complaint.

# #I must admit that I never understood why it is referred to as an 
# #abomination, until I started to read soc.motss, and started finding
# #evidence that homosexuality is a response to child molestation --
# #which is disproportionately done by homosexuals.  (Just to make
# #Brian Kane happy -- 30% of molestation is done by homosexuals and
# #bisexuals, but it is possible that this is because homosexual/bisexual
# #molesters have far more victims than heterosexual molesters.)
# 
# No it isn't.  No it isn't. No it isn't and it depends on the subset
# (note *subset*) of abuse you look at.

Repeating it three times makes it more correct?

# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
# 
# * Xavier Gallagher*************************** Play  ***************************
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176896
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr3.165155.1@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz>, quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # I thought I was clear.  Because homosexuals support laws to force
# # employment of homosexuals against the will of some employers, they
# # are attempting to interfere with private acts between mutually consenting
# # adults.
# 
#    Ok, I'll leave others to discuss your use of statistics, but I think I'm
# able to discuss liberterian ideas.
#    The ideas are good. They seek to maximise individual rights by keeping
# governments out of transactions between consenting adults. If an employer wants
# to discriminate against a group, she/he should be allowed to to maximise their
# freedom. The discriminatees can go elsewhere.
#    Unfortunately, it doesn't relate to maximising total individual rights
# within a community. If an employer or shopkeeper or whatever can discriminate
# in this way, then the freedom of the discriminatee goes down. Because people do
# not live in perfect economic conditions, with perfect mobility, unlimited
# numbers of potential employers of their skills, unlimited places to buy goods,
# the liberterian argument leads to a *decrease* in the amount of liberty in the
# community. 

You mean, if a large part of the population supports discrimination 
against homosexuals, they will be injured.  But if a large part of the
population supports such discrimination, how did that law get passed?

# Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176897
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP>, a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:
> MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes:
# #The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE 
# #to submit to sexual intercourse."
# 
# Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states
# had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised
# as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but
# was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only,
# uniformly throughout the U.S.
# 
# -Chris

There may be some confusion here.  The Uniform Crime Reports program
run by the FBI defines rape as a female victim only crime -- even
though some states have the laws de-sexed.  I suspect that this causes
male victims of rape to be left out of the UCR data.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176898
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws

In article <1993Apr3.201408.4999@hobbes.kzoo.edu>, k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Unfortunately, homosexuals don't believe in this concept of freedom.
# #They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them,
# #rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings
# #or beliefs of the other person.
# 
# Allow me to point out that Clayton is once again unfairly lumping an
# entire class of people, as if they all have one will.  Having completely
# dived into the abyss of believing that there are no queers in the world
# who think differently from the child-molestation-advocating minority on
# soc.motss, he doesn't even notice that he's starting a sentence with
# "They believe" when the referent of that "they" is millions of people.
# "...so few as to be irrelevant..."

If you don't want to be lumped together as a group, stop insisting
on being treated as a member of a group.

# dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
# # Force people to hire?  No.  Require people to give them a fair 
# # look?  Yes.
# 
# cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #You give them a fair look.  You decide that you don't want to hire
# #the guy wearing the NAMBLA T-shirt.  He files a lawsuit.  You lose.
# #Yes, such laws force you to hire homosexuals.
# 
# Pedophiles, as well?

Sexual orientation is not defined by the anti-discrimination law
that was passed last year.  Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation?

# And, Cramer, let me describe how you'd have it, and see if this is
# accurate.  I apply for a job at a computer company.  They see I'm
# wearing some article of homosexual adornment, I dunno, maybe a
# "Silence = Death" pin or something.  They turn me down because of
# that.  I can't do a darned thing and have to go look somewhere else.
# Am I correct in assuming that you wholeheartedly approve of the
# company's actions, or at least that you wholeheartedly support their
# right to take that action?

I wholeheartedly support their right to take this action.  I wouldn't
do it myself, unless it was something like the NAMBLA T-shirt.

# How about:  a black man applies for a job at a bank.  The bank decides,
# based on statistics, a black person would be more likely to steal
# money, and denies the man the job.  Would you support the bank's right
# to this freedom?  If not, explain how this differs.

I support their right to do so (just like I support your right to 
engage in sodomy with consenting adults), but I think they are doing 
something wrong.  I wouldn't do business with such a bank.

# Clayton has repeatedly said that California's statutes classify
# pedophilia as a sexual orientation, and that discriminating on the
# basis of sexual orientation is illegal.
# 
# If true, I'm frankly amazed.  But I don't trust Clayton to give me
# the whole story.  Would someone clarify for me whether this is true,
# what sort of discrimination Clayton's talking about (jobs? housing?
# hate crimes?), and whether the effect of the law is really that
# a daycare has to hire an admitted pedophile.
# -- 
#  Jamie McCarthy		Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Here's the law that was passed and signed by the governor:

     The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

 1       SECTION 1.  The purpose of this act is to codify
 2  existing case law as determined in Gay Law Students v.
 3  Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 24 Cal. 3d 458 (1979)
 4  and Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 235 Cal. App. 3d 654
 5  (1991) prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
 6  orientation.
 7       SEC. 2.  Section 1102. is added to the Labor Code, to
 8  read:
 9       1102.1.  (a) Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit
10  discrimination or disparate treatment in any of the terms
11  and conditions of employment based on actual or
12  perceived sexual orientation.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

13       (b)  This section shall not apply to a religious
14  association or corporation not organized for private
15  profit, whether incorporated as a religious or public
16  benefit corporation.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176899
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <gc3g2B6w165w@honour.welly.gen.nz>, radagast@honour.welly.gen.nz (Radagast) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # Unfortunately, homosexuals don't believe in this concept of freedom.
# # They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them,
# # rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings
# # or beliefs of the other person.
# 
# <ha ha ha#, oh, Clayton, you're so good, so consistent, so predictable,
# yup, that's right, they, these homosexual people want to FORCE you to
# ignore what's none of your fucking business.  IE. <I will explain slowly#
# their sexual orientation should be irrelevant, as irrelevant as their
# gender, skin colour, religious affiliation, attitude to hand-gun ownership,
# etc.  They want to FORCE you to hire the best person for the job, rent the
# accomodation to the person who will look after it, do business with whoever
# will make you money..

Yet, when a law was proposed for Virginia that extended this 
philosophy to cigarette smokers (so that people who smoked away
from the work couldn't be discriminated against by employers),
the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't
give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power
play.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176900
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Hilter and homosexuals

In article <ericsC4x1K9.Apz@netcom.com>, erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:
> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
# 
# #Are you saying that:
# 
# #(1) People voted for Hitler, and he became Reich Chancellor, in good
# #part because he used bully boys to attack communists,
# 
# Hitler did not become become Reich Chancellor because people voted for
# him. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that or not, but I just thought
# I'd bring that up.
# 
# Eric Smith

Hitler became Chancellor because people voted for his political
party.  That's not a huge difference in a parliamentary system.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176901
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <1993Apr3.185448.13811@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <kmitchelC4wA87.HLz@netcom.com> kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
# #Slavery makes economic sense (it NEVER makes MORAL sense) when human
# #muscle power is an economically valuable asset. Agricultural slavery might
# #have lasted right up to the first mechanical cotton reaper, but no
# #further; reapers are cheaper than slaves, and don't have to be fed during
# #the winter. 
# 
# This argument makes a several fundamental errors.  First "agricultural"
# slavery was not limited to production of cotton.  In the American south
# slave labor was used extensively to grow tobacco, sugar, and rice, all
# of which remained labor intensive enterprises well into the 20th century.

And of course, in states like Kentucky and Virginia, not well-suited to
large-scale plantations, slave labor was used to make one of the most 
valuable agricultural products of all: more slaves.  In some ways, this
treatment of humans beings as breeding livestock is the most horrifying
aspect of American slavery.

# Second, although mechanization of cotton production could be expected to
# reduce the demands for labor eventually, it was only in the 1940's 
# the mechanization of cotton production in the South largely eliminated
# the labor intensive character of the operation, long after the "first
# mechanical cotton reaper" was invented.

This is an interesting question.  Steinbeck's _Grapes of Wrath_
(published in the 1930s), uses agricultural mechanization of cotton
production in Arkansas as the cause of the Joad family being evicted
from the land.  How many years were involved in the mechanization of
cotton farming?  When did this first appear?

# #Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the
# Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176902
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Was Re: Top Ten Tricks...)

In article <1993Apr4.005634.24695@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <1993Apr3.002339.22888@rigel.econ.uga.edu> depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr2.154232.29527@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
# # "labor" is a tough one. Labor is defined, economically, as the efforts,
# # both mental and physical, of humans. Capital is defined as intermediate
# # goods used to create other goods and services. Now, if a slave is considered
# # an intermediate good, then the slave has now been dehumanized and is 
# # simply a machine. Not good for the anti-slave (i.e. pro-human rights) 
# # argument. So, slaves are humans, and they produce labor. 
# 
# Sorry.  The question of defining slave "labor" is no "tough(er)" than 
# defining the "labor" of a horse, an ox, or any other livestock.  Both
# legally and economically in a slave-economy, "slaves are (NOT) humans,"  
# they are livestock.

Can you provide some evidence that the slave states regarded slaves as
not humans?  They were "outside our society" and similar phrases that
basically meant that they didn't have to recognized as having the same
rights as a free person, but they were never considered "not human" to
my knowledge.

# Like a horse that pulls a plow, a slave's "labor" is the return on the
# capital required to purchase and feed him.  The parallel is so obvious
# I'm not sure how you missed it.  After all, its was the "liberty" to 
# use their "property" as they saw fit that motivated Southern planters
# to emphasize the importance of "states' rights."

If that were the case, the slave states would not have passed so many
laws that restricted the freedom of slave owners to do as they wished
with their property.  Examples: laws prohibiting manumission without
legislative grant; laws prohibiting teaching slaves to read & write.

# #Craig.
# Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176903
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <1993Apr2.055109.5833@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes:
> In article <1993Mar31.224355.21442@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
# #The argument that "slavery was a dying institution" was often made by
# 						     ^^^
# 						     (IS)
# 
# #historians, mainly Southerners, who sought to divert attention from the 
# #institution as the central issue of the Civil War.  In fact, however,
# #the argument is specious, at best.  More recent scholarship from the 
# #last 20-30 years demonstrates rather conclusively that the cotton/sugar/
# #tobacco economy and its reliance on slavery was increasingly dominant in 
# #the South prior to the Civil War.
# 
# This is because the South did not receive the massive momentum of capital
#  intensive growth that the Northern states did. Compare the Northern
#  agricultural system with the Southern and you will see a major difference 
#  in the capital to labor intensity.

Capital and labor are one and the same in a slave economy.  Except that
capital doesn't reproduce quite as readily as slaves did.

Slavery was a dying institution before the cotton gin, yes, but not
in 1850.

# #It is true that cotton suffered from price depression in the 1840's -
# #the period used to claim that slavery would not have lasted in the 
# #South.  
# 
# That is not the argument that I have heard. It would not have lasted because
#  the growth in the North would not have been sustained for much longer without
#  spilling over to the Southern states, i.e. Northern industry would have 
#  migrated capital to the Southern states, and with that would have come 
#  immigrant labor to the ports of the South, e.g. Charleston, Savannah, Mobile,
#  New Orleans, etc. This would have put the breaks on the slave market and
#  slavery would have been out-moded by the capital intensity of competing 
#  agriculturalists. Those that insisted on keeping slaves because of their
#  "Cruel Hearts and Hatred for Black People" would have been driven out of
#  business. Simple capital to labor ratio...read Michael Parkin _Microeconomics_
#  2nd edition, and any other basic economics book.

This assumes that the slave holder dominance over state governments
would not have caused the passage of laws to keep out capital from the
North.  Since slave holders were prepared to do almost anything else
to destroy free markets in order to maintain slavery, I do not doubt
that they would have passed laws to cripple any serious competitive
threat.  Thomas Sowell's _Market and Minorities_ argues that the
maintenance of slavery, and the costs it imposed on state and local
governments, discouraged not only capital formation, but also outside
capital investment in the Southern states.

# 	Craig A. Depken, II
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176904
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <1993Apr2.154232.29527@Princeton.EDU>, glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
> In article <1993Apr2.055109.5833@rigel.econ.uga.edu> depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes:
> [to which is concluded...]
> >The South only wanted FREE TRADE!!! 
> 
> No, they wanted slavery.  If free trade was in their economic interests
> under that regime (which it was), then free trade they wanted too.  But

> Gary L Hewitt                          glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu

Of course, free trade and slavery don't make much sense together in
a phrase anyway.  Perhaps Mr. Depken meant, "low import tariffs," but
that is quite a bit less than "free trade."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176905
From: tak@leland.Stanford.EDU (David William Budd)
Subject: Re: Rodney King Trial, Civil Rights Violations, Double Jeopardy

In article <C50puL.CL4@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Apr2.182942.22445@husc3.harvard.edu> spanagel@husc11.harvard.edu (David Spanagel) writes:
>


>|Furthermore, what are the specific charges against the four LAPD officers? 
>|Which civil rights or laws are they accused of violating? 
>
>I believe it is a general charge, that is no specific right is mentioned.


I don't think that this is accurate. I believe, and could be wrong, that
there IS a specific right allegedly to have been violated, like the
14th or due process or whatever.

>|What about double jeopardy? Has there been any concern that a verdict
>|against Koon, et al. might be overturned upon appeal because they're being tried
>|again for the same actions? (I thought I heard something on the news about 
>|this.)
>
>The SS has previously ruled that since the seperate governments were in
>essence seperate sovereigns, then double jeopardy does not apply.
>
>(If this is true, then could defendents also be tried under city and
>county governments?)
>
>This mornings paper said that the ACLU has decided to reinstate its
>opposition to this kind of thing. They had earlier suspended their
>opposition while they examined the King case. There might be hope
>for the ACLU after all.
>-- 

Double jeopardy does not apply, but not for the reasons you quote. Double
jeopardy states that a person may not be tried twice on the same charge.
However, the police are not on trial for the crime of excessive force
or assault. They are NOW on trial for the DIFFERENT crime of violating
Mr. King's civil rights. 

AS for the city and county or state trying you more than once, 
it most likely will not happen. This is because cities and states
have separate laws governing behaviour. For example, in some states,
it is an offence to carry marijuana, but not a city offence. Also,
I think murder is against federal, but not some state laws. 

===============================================================================
 !           \                                                                 
 !       1-------1                     
 ! \     1_______1           __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 !  \    1_______1     /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !       !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
 !       !    \/       /   ---------     and put a bullet through his head.'"
         ! /    \/      |   |  \   \                                  
                        |  / \____/| 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176906
From: schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz)
Subject: Re: 19th Century Capitalism

In article <31MAR199317363332@jane.uh.edu>, mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris
Struble) wrote:
Christian Struble writes:

> Some people are not very good at getting the best deal for their 
> effort, and others are unwilling to put forth much effort, even in
> the face of economic incentives. There will always be some people 
> who are stupid or lazy, relative to the ability or effort of most 
> others. The question is what do you do with them? There are three 
> options:
> [...]
> 2) Kill those who are not productive as a drain upon "society". 
>    This is the communist ("All who do not toil shall not eat" - 
>    Lenin) or fascist approach.
> [...]

    You're being too generous to the communists, I think.  In practice,
communism has "solved" the problem by killing off anybody who is _too_
productive, and who therefore raises embarrassing questions about why the
rest of the group is a bunch of sluggards.  The mass butchery of "kulaks"
in the USSR is a good instance of this.
    A poor second best is to have a neighboring capitalist country to which
people of politically incorrect skill and ambition flee.  I often wonder
just what Castro would have done if the Cubans presently in Miami would
have been forced to remain in Cuba.  Would they have revolted and killed
him off, or been killed?
    Best of all is to build a wall locking the citizens of your country in,
load it up so heavily with attack dogs, barbed wire, and land mines that
most people fleeing over it die, and then give everyone the choice of
obedience, prison, or flight.  This would be a bad science-fiction novel,
if the East Germans hadn't actually done it.  The last person to die
crossing the wall, as I recall, was an unarmed woman who was shot in the
back.  Erich Honecker was going to go on trial for that, but he fled to
socialists in Chile.
    It's good to be kind to one's intellectual opponents, but sometimes
it's a sheer waste of time.

--Erich Schwarz / schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176907
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In article <C513wJ.75y@encore.com> rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>...
>I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
>stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
>was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
>constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
>from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.
>
>Roger Collins
>

Since you asked, Article I Section 1.  Article I Section 8.  Article I 
Section 10.  Article II Section 2.  Article VI.  Sixteenth Amendment.

With this as a guide, try reading it yourself.

jsh

--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176909
From: riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)

In article <1pkvcl$nu0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>In a previous article, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) says:
>
>>so much land, and in the long run, we have a zero sum game going. Someone,
>>somewhere, is going to make a killing from nosediving real estate
>>markets. The worst thing to do is panic. The best thing you can do is
>>to ride out deflation to the end. It hurts, but you're better off 
>>than if you sell short and donate to someone else's inheritance.
>
>
>      Sad.  Paradigm Shift is coming, chum.
>     Ride the WAVE!

	I don't believe in the "Wave Theory".

>
>     " There's only so much land ".   Oh, God, is this Mike Zimmer's
>    replacement?!

	My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, doesn't believe in 
money at all. She started out as a real estate developer, and now raises
horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock
in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.

>
>     Here, let me spell it out for you.
>
>     Can you spell TWO TRILLION DOLLAR BANK BAILOUT?

	Maybe you'd like to invest in some foreign currency.

	Which one would you guess to come out on top ?

	(Sigh - speculators never learn.)



Bill R.

--

"The only proposals in the Senate that I         "My opinions do not represent
have seen fit to mention are particularly        those of my employer or
praiseworthy or particularly scandalous ones.    any government agency."
It seems to me that the historian's foremost     - Bill Riggs
duty is to ensure that virtue is remembered,
and to deter evil words and deeds with the
fear of posterity's damnation."
- Tacitus, _Annals_ III. 65

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176910
From: riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Subject: Losers (Was Re: Stop putting down white het males.)

In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>
>
>>  I don't know what you as a white male did. I do know what white males,
>>as a class, have done.
>
>>  They've invented the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, printing with
>>movable type, photography, computers, the electric guitar. anasthesia, rocket
>>powered space flight, the computer, electricity, the telephone, TV, motion
>>pictures, penecillin(sp), telescopes, nylon, and the X-Ray machine.
>
>Two glaring errors here.  First, white males don't do anything as a "class." 
>INDIVIDUAL white males invented those things, which means nothing to white
>males as a whole.  Second, you neglected to mention Charles Manson, Hitler,
>McCarthy, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and a whole slew of individuals who
>have done horrible, evil things.  If white males can take the credit for
>our fellow white males' boons, we must also take the blame for our
>fellows' blights.  I claim we deserve neither credit nor blame for these
>things.
>
>
>>  We are told, by U.S. congresswoman Barbara Jordan, that we are biologically
>>incapable of compassion.
>
>She's full of shit.
>
>>  We are told by Susan Brownmiller that we're all rapists and that's ALL
>>we are.
>
>She's full of shit.
>
>>  We're told by Catherine Comins that a false rape charge is actually good 
>>for us.
>
>She's full of shit.
>
>>  We are told by the feminist lawyers that we are not to be trusted with 
>>children. 
>
>They're full of shit.
>
>>  We are told, by Newsweek magazine, that we are "poor sports" if we complain.
>
>Newsweek is full of shit.
>
>The point, ladies and gents?  Michael is not entirely correct in his theory
>that because members of our race and gender made great advances, the race
>and gender as a whole deserve more respect than they receive.  White males
>DO deserve to be treated better than they are being treated, but not for
>that reason.  And the male-bashers he quoted are repugnant hate-mongers, no
>better than the chauvinists they despise.  So no one's right, as usual.
>
>White males need to wake up and realize that they're being unfair, yes.  But
>everyone else needs to wake up and realize that being unfair right back is
>disgusting, racist and sexist.
>
>Why can't we learn to treat everyone fairly, without generalizing?  What
>stupidity gene makes this so difficult?  "I'd like to buy the world a
>clue..."


	The word that is missing in this whole discourse is not the "B"
word, or the "H" word, or even the "N" or "W" words. It is the "L" word -
LOSER !!

	That's right. When we boil all the crap out of this argument, it
is all about WINNING and LOSING, and nothing else. Let me explain.

	Remember the eighties ? No excuses. Nobody who can handle a mail
buffer can claim they are "too young" to remember Ronald Reagan - yet.
The eighties were about "How America Learned to Win Once Again". Then
(wouldn't you know), we won so well that there was nothing left to win.
No Cold War to endure. No nuclear holocaust. No more worlds to conquer
(We forgot about outer space long ago). The kind of overwhelming, no
holds barred success that killed Alexander the Great. Yes, there were a
few "little" problems along the way - stock market meltdown here, an
S&L bailout there, a few revolts and crazy Middle Eastern dictators to
contend with, but as Tacitus would tell ya', the God Augustus never had
it so good. 

	In the meantime, there is guilt for winning, maybe a fear that one
doesn't deserve one's bounty - or success. So there is a "kinder and gentler
type of politician these days, Bill Clinton, affirmative action, and lots of
discourse about people who "don't get it". For those of us in the winning
business, this kind of talk is mildly irritating, but there is still no 
suggestion of losing.

	But what do we find now ? To put it mildy, the stereotype of our 
"white male" non-winner is Woody Hayes in the Rose Bowl, punching out 
photojournalists when those California fruits and nuts steal another one
with a "Hail Mary" pass in the Fourth Quarter. (The whole idea behind 'three
yards and a cloud of dust' is to wear your opponent down until he collapses
in the final period) But Woody just used his fists - Uzzies seem to be the 
weapon of choice these days. 
	
	Who is D-FENS, anyway ? The answer is as plain as the horn rims on 
your face. The guy is MICHAEL DOUGLAS, posing as a LOSER. This 
is known as controversial casting. But that baggy short-sleeved white shirt 
sure does look natural on Mike doesn't it. Gordon Gekko will never look the 
same. (Though Woody always dressed that way.) Did we really expect Gekko to 
take it easy and enjoy that kind of wardrobe, without putting up a fuss ?

	What we are starting to lose sight of is, that bashing D-FENS is 
the same game as bashing that poor African American slug that Clint Eastwood
used to blow away all the time. As that arch-WASP (male gender) George C. Scott
declaimed, "Americans traditionally LOVE TO WIN. They love a winner, and will 
not tolerate a loser." And so on. 

	The political implications are simple. If, as many socialists - and
Democrats - do, you consider society a finite pie to a apportioned in some 
"equitable" way, then you have to worry about who is a winner and who is a 
loser to tell whose side you are on. That could be black women today, Asian
homosexuals tommorrow, and yes indeed, white men some yet to be determined
day when the balance of the pie has finally swung against that (39%) 
minority.

	Or you can just blow the whole thing off and say - as do most
conservatives and all the libertarians - and act is if you didn't care
who's winning and who's losing. In some cases, you might say something
about make sure the game is fair (equality of opportunity, not of condition).
In the latter case, you might be able to identify yourself as a 
"neoconservative" or a "neoliberal" depending on how much you want to limit
the pot.

	Either way you go, the way of the Winner is no longer the way to be
popular - at least after you graduate from High School (but you'll still
be popular at High School reunions). But it beats being a Nerd, as I 
would imagine Michael Douglas would now agree, and in the long run, it
is the only way to go. (Even in Hollywood, which treats Losers worse than any
other place in America except for New York and Washington, D.C. - and even in
Columbus, Ohio, which produced Alex Keaton, but no champion football teams in
the eighties and the first quarter of the nineties) I'd like to 
see more Winners in this society, regardless of race, gender, religious 
preference, and sexual orientation. Maybe we should even let a few more of 
them be white men !! (We should DEFINITELY let the Buckeyes win the Rose Bowl
someday)



Bill R.

--

"The only proposals in the Senate that I         "My opinions do not represent
have seen fit to mention are particularly        those of my employer or
praiseworthy or particularly scandalous ones.    any government agency."
It seems to me that the historian's foremost     - Bill Riggs
duty is to ensure that virtue is remembered,
and to deter evil words and deeds with the
fear of posterity's damnation."
- Tacitus, _Annals_ III. 65

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176911
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction

In article <1993Apr5.045612.14229@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

> [...]  You're not breathing clean air provided by government
> regulations, [...]

If this doesn't beat all I ever heard!  The above certainly says a
mouthful about the mindset of Ted Frank, and also of statists
everywhere.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176912
From: zippy@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead)
Subject: Re: $50,000 Reward!

In article <5APR199313494915@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
   In article <1993Apr4.105514.11664@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
   >	No, the definition of "resident" is very specific. It is the
   >same thing as "alien". Look it up. Remember that the common usage of
   >the words ARE NOT always their legal meaning.

   This I gotta see some authority for.

from Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Ed., page 1473:

RESIDENCE.  A factual place of abode.  Living in a particular
locality.  Reese v. Reese, 179 Misc. 665, 40 N.Y.S.2d 468, 472;
Zimmerman, 175 Or. 585, 155 P.2d 293, 295.  It requires only bodily
presence as an inhabitant of a place.  In re Campbell's Guardianship,
216 Minn. 113, 11 N.W.2d 786, 789.

     As ``domicile'' and ``residence'' are usually in the same place,
they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are
not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as
in the city and country, but only one domicile.  Residence means
living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that
locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.  Residence
simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place,
while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an
intention to make it one's domicile.  In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S.
209, 148 Misc. 588.  ``Residence'' demands less intimate local ties
than ``domicile,'' but ``domicile'' allows absence for indefinite
period if intent to return remains.  Immigration Act 1917, sec. 3, 8
U.S.C.A. sec. 136 (e, p).  Transatlantica Italiana v. Elting,
C.C.A.N.Y., 74 F.2d 732, 733.  But see, Ward v. Ward, 115, W.Va 429,
176 S.E. 708, 709; Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Craig, 182 Okl.
610, 80 P 2d 221, 224; holding that residence and domicile are
synonymous terms.  ``Residence'' has a meaning dependent on context
and purpose of statute.  In re Jones, 341 Pa. 329, 19 A.2d 280, 282.
Words ``residence'' and ``domicile'' may have an identical or variable
meaning depending on subject-matter and context of statute.  Kemp v.
Kemp, 16 N.Y.S.2d 26, 34, 172 Misc. 738.

     Legal residence.  See Legal.

RESIDENT.  One who has his residence in a place.  See Residence.

     Also a tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and
not to depart from the same; called, also, ``homme levant et
couchant,'' and in Normandy, ``resseant du fief.''

--
Ronald Cole                                     E-mail: zippy@ecst.csuchico.edu
Senior Software Engineer                        Phone: +1 916 899 2100
OPTX International                              
            "The Bill Of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited By Law"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176913
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Hate Crimes Laws

In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com
>(Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>>...
>>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>
>>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>   assault laws.  
>
>So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a
>straight?  

And who's advocating that?  Hate crimes laws are aimed at the motivations
of the acts.  Just like premeditated homicide is treated stricter than
heat-of-passion homicide.

>>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>   charges and multiple crimes.
>
>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>act should never merit more than on charge.  

So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with
more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property
damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.

>Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf


-- 
ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |  his advice is legally sound, if you follow it 
the u of c law school     |  you will probably wind up in jail."
standard disclaimers      |                    -- James Donald, in misc.legal

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176915
From: edo2877@ucs.usl.edu (Ott Edward D)
Subject: E-MAIL

   

does anyone have the e-mail address for the white house. if so please send it to
me thanks a lot.


    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176916
From: zippy@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction

In article <1993Apr5.144853.3842@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
   ... an amazing illustration of disconnection from reality.

Glad to see that you agree that the current Government is reticent
about admitting the sovereignty of the people!  Speaking from personal
experience, I have had judges illegally assume jurisdiction even after
I demanded that the DA prove such jurisdiction on the record, and the
DA stood mute.  I have also had an appellate court uphold such action
and hide behind California Rules of Court, Rule 106 ("The judges of
the appellate department shall not be required to write opinions in
any cases decided by them, but may do so whenever they deem it
advisable or in the public interest.").  That is reality, I agree.




--
Ronald Cole                                     E-mail: zippy@ecst.csuchico.edu
Senior Software Engineer                        Phone: +1 916 899 2100
OPTX International                              
            "The Bill Of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited By Law"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176917
Subject: Re: New Funding Plan for the Military
From: medkeffjs@hirama.hiram.edu (Jeff Medkeff)

In article <C4zI26.34D@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com 
  (drieux, just drieux) writes (about the armed services):
> 
> ps: Maybe even privatize the organization, or consider
> 'out sourcing' various aspects of the DOD as a part of
> the current 'Down Sizing' - Who Knows, Maybe if we 
> Finally Allowed to "Free Market" to take control, we will
> no longer have a military run by the same folks who are
> running the post office.....
> 
> pps: slow down, and think before you flame, Rhetoric is an ArtForm.

Well, uh, actually I agree.


-- 
Jeffrey S. Medkeff      Bitnet-    medkeffjs@hiramb
PO Box 1098             Internet-  medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Hiram, OH 44234         Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight. But
U.S.A.                  Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176918
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Trickle down (Was: 1937 was: Dan Quayle, genius

garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:

>rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls)             writes...

>>Jason K. Schechner (jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

>>: In article <1pf22mINNd7c@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:

>>: >What decade did you live in?  Unemployment dropped during the 80's, 
>>: >inflation dropped during the 80's and interest rates dropped during
>>: >the 80's.
 
>>: 	This all may be true, but we're paying for it now, through the
>>: nose.  Our current recession (and some would argue the world's
                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>First off, we're not in a recession.  We've had a record number of months of
>>straight economic growth.  Even the democrats are admitting that the
>>recession ofcicially ended in March of 1991.

>This months's unemployment rate in California was 9.4%
>Sure feels like a recession to me.

Maybe we should ask the 83,103 people who were laid off this January whether
or not we're in a recession. That was a figure that was reported in the
New York Times. There is no official figure, because the Bureau of Labor
Statistics stopped government tracking of layoffs eight months ago due to
budget cuts.

(The above information was published in Harper's Index, Harper's magazine.)

-----
Eric Smith		|  The day Dan Quayle is our President is the day
erics@netcom.com	|  Shelley Winters runs with the bulls in Pamplona.
erics@infoserv.com	|             - Dennis Miller
CI$: 70262,3610		|


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176919
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Hate Crimes Laws

In article <1993Apr6.043935.27366@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>
>>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>>act should never merit more than on charge.  
>
>So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with
>more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property
>damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.
>
>ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though 

Again, Mr. Frank has come to the rescue with his cool headed reason.  How
about, "One charge per victim?"  Of course I'll think about it in a few days
and find a case where this doesn't apply either.  

What the heck, I don't study law, I just hate lawyers. :)

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  according to the rules of Centrifugal
This University is too Commie-	|  Bumblepuppy. -Huxley, Brave New World
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176920
From: s5ugxk@almserv.uucp (Girish Kumtheker)
Subject: How many $$ beibg spent at Waco by BATF ??

Hi,


Wonder how much money is being spent at Waco by BATF ?

Are we paying because BATF messed up and have made this
a prestige issue ??


Girish



-- 

Girish Kumthekar		Unix Technical Support

E mail address : s5ugxk@fnma.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176921
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?

In article <C4vy56.C0t@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1993Mar31.185128.5668@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>In article <1pasrg$ife@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>
>>>	The title is self-explanatory; Isaac Asimov once pointed out
>>>that curious fact.
>>
>>Well, since tax evasion is illegal, one generally would not bother to 
>>consider whether it was unpatriotic or not.  How often does one think
>>of murder as being unpatriotic?
>>
>>Perhaps a more appropriate question would be "why is tax *avoidance* not
>>considered unpatriotic?".  The answer to this is simple.  Tax avoidance
>>is simply defined as paying the minimum tax you are legally obligated to
>>pay.
>
>There is a deeper reason. Taxes,  by their very nature, are un-American.
>One need only look at the birth and history of the US to see this fact.

Wasn't the beef with the English over "taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION",
not taxation itself?  

From my admittedly dim recollection of US history, most of the problems 
we Americans have had with taxes have been with unfair/unjust taxation
schemes, not with taxes themselves.  It's pretty hard to run a government
without any means of support.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176922
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: response

Fucking news reader... I don't think this got posted...  If it did, ignore
it this time.

(A response to Korey)

------------ begin my response -----------------
In article <1plorlINNslt@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> kkruse@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Korey J. Kruse) writes:
>lamontg@u.washington.edu writes:
>[...]
>>
>>well, i just did a quick medline scan and came up with the following article
>>by Tashkin that reviews the literature, i'd probably start here...
>
>>         Document 13
>>AN   90273700.  9007A.
>>AU   Tashkin-D-P.
>>IN   Department of Medicine, University of California, School of Medicine,
>>     Los Angeles 90024.
>>TI   Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse.
>>RF   REVIEW ARTICLE: 61 REFS.
[...]
>Why isn't this information in the FAQ on marijuana ?    If we expect
>people to think we are telling them the truth about drugs, why does
>this group constantly refute every negative thing about almost all
>drugs.     

Maybe because the claims deserve refute?  The above abstract lists various
possible links to cannabis use (unfiltered almost guaranteed) and lung
problems.  Someone may get overly excited when they see that article, but 
without actually digging up the study and seeing how the studies gathered 
their data it really doesn't tell you shit.  I'm going to track down that
study hopefully tomarrow.

[...]

>I never claimed pot was more or less damageing than
>cigarettes......I was just trying to keep ourselves honest.   If we are
>going to educate kids...and adults...and tell them the truth about drugs
>don't you think a much better approach would be to list the pro's and
>con's of each type of drug.   

What justifies _the_ truth about drugs?  Research?  What sort of 
research?  Correlational data can help establish a theory, but it does not
prove anything.

>How can you expect someone to make a
>decision when the PDFA on one hand says that all drugs are absolutely
>BAD BAD BAD.....and this newsgroup consistently refuses to admit that
>drugs like heroin even have negative side effects.    

Heroin _is_ a relatively safe drug.  What makes it unsafe are IV administration
and shit like adulterants.  There are side effects, like withdrawal, but they
effect people differently.  

>I've seen numerous
>posts claiming heroin has lower addiction rates that cigarettes, which
>might be true, but it is very deceiving, because heroin is much more
>harmful drug to be addicted to than cigarettes.   Heroin addicts are
>far more prone to end up in the gutter and destroy their family and
>friends than people addicted to just cigarettes.    

Stereotypical statement.  I know people who use heroin and opiates that 
function just fine in society.  

>This group does
>provide some very good information to people, but I am worried that
>the pro-legalization/pro-decriminalization movement is being hurt when
>it refuses to admit that any/some drugs are VERY harmful....

Name some of these drugs so we can debate about them more specifically.

[...]
>      I'm all for legalization of most drugs, but when someone asks me
>about relative risks of certain drugs or possible bad side effects, I
>would like to know them....and not be given the run-around by this
>group....which recently tried to tell me that pot was not harmful in
>any manner to people's lungs.     

NO, NO, NO.  (or at least I haven't been arguing this).  there is not enough
data to form a scientific conclusion.  that _doesn't_ mean that cannabis
is benign to users' lungs.  we can form all the theories we want, but they
are only theories.  some theories are supported by more evidence than others,
and that makes them stronger.  

>I think it's time y'all re-examined
>your positions and try to understand that you cannot fight the PDFA
>by calling them a bunch of liars....

the hell I can't!  they state *UN-JUSTIFIED CONCLUSIONS* *AS FACT* as
a *POLITICAL* strategy to stop drug use.

[...]

In general, I somewhat see what you're saying.  And people like Jack Herer
contribute to this.  This has been quite a big mind-fuck for me recently,
and I've pretty came to the conclusion that you can't trust _ANYBODY_ by
word of mouth alone -- my attitude about the general population has
decreased significantly.  

gotta run to class..

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu


>    _   _   _                _       _   _    kkruse@ksuvm.bitnet
>|/ | | |_) |_ \ /     |  |/ |_) | | (_` |_    kkruse@ksuvm.ksu.edu
>|\ |_| | \ |_  |    (_|  |\ | \ |_| ._) |_    kkruse@matt.ksu.edu






Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176923
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993

This is as bad as the "Did You Know"  Japan bashing of 2 weeks ago.  After
finding  this set of postings for the third time I hope no one shows up.

I don't know why fools insist on posting to every group.  It just
agrevates people.  
--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176924
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

Hmmm...intersting (and long) message, but TWICE? Well, I don't care for
libertarianism, but that is a philisophical disagreement, not a tactical
one. Reform of existing laws would be an awfully good idea. You wouldn't
believe some of the outrageous things the guardians of our two party 
system do to shut out dissent. 
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176925
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Part 4 (Re: Looks like Clayton must retract

In article <1ppi1gINNg19@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
    >>>Does the greatly increased rates of incarceration amongst
    >>>blacks show that they are dysfunctional or that the majority
    >>>of them support criminal activity?
    >>>
    >Isn't this a matter of demographics? Doesn't this simply show
    >that since criminal behaviour is common (or apt to be common)
    >in the 18-34 (insert your favorite correct numbers here) year
    >old range and since the percentage of blacks in this range is
    >higher than in other groups, then it follows statistically
    >that more blacks in prison is an expected result?
    >
    >Note that I haven't said anything about blacks being given
    >stiffer or longer sentences than other groups. I'm sure this
    >has to have an effect on the issue of over-representation of
    >blacks in prison...

Blacks have the same (+- 2%) crime report rate, arrest rate, and incarceration
rate for violent crimes.

So I doubt that for violent crimes, that there is any inherent bias mechanism
present.

There is a wider discrepancy for all crimes for blacks wrt to 3 categories.

Interestingly enough, the discrepancy is the largest in the Southern
United States -- where blacks are incarcerated well BELOW the average in
the rest of the United States! Which points to an anti-bias-against wrt
blacks.

In any case, for violent crimes and burglary and drug selling, blacks are
reported 53%, arrested 44%, and are present in jails/prisons 47% (1988).

Considering that 12% of the population is black, 6% are black males, and
some percentage of that is out of the high/low age groups, we do have a
situation where (if I remember my old calculations right) 4% of the
population commits almost half of the really nasty crimes.

Blacks with similar histories (crime) to whites get the same sentences,
except in the South, where they receive around 20% less on paper!!



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176926
From: schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Hillary and Chealsea Don't Like Men in Uniform

In article <C4vxvK.Bxr@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) wrote: 
> Top Ten Reasons Hillary and Chealsea Don't Like Men in Uniform
>                             ^^^^^^^^
> [...]
> 
> 6.  They keep saluting and stuff. Its embarassing.
>                                   ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> [...]
> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993



Ed:

    Before you ridicule the intelligence of other people, LEARN TO SPELL. 
Your typographical errors are, indeed, "embarassing" to those of us who
read alt.politics.libertarian for its allegedly superior ideas and writing.

--Erich Schwarz / schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176927
From: cogsdell@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (tony c)
Subject: GUILTY .. or NOT GUILTY.........(comparitive fault law)

Thanks to everyone who sent replies regarding this case.  A few of them were
very informative and helped very much. 


                     Once again.
 THANKS!                                                  T.C.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176928
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr5.193616.14521@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
    >Now let me get this straight. After a nice, long rant about
    >how people need to take personal responsibility for their
    >economic and social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals
    >(such as me, I guess) are responsible for poor people's
    >lifestyles? Tell me how that works--or do you think that poor
    >people are just too dumb to think for themselves?
    >
    >There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family
    >and support systems in general among this nation's poor.
    >Somehow I don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at
    >the top of any sane person's list.
    >
    >You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural
    >revolution for a lasting change for the worse, try so-called
    >"relevant" or "values" education. Hey, it seemed like a good
    >idea at the time. How were we to know you needed a real
    >education first--I mean, we took that for granted.

The 1960's generation were the most spoiled and irresponsible.

The Depression had create mothers and fathers that were determined that their
kids would not want for anything -- going overboard and creating a nation of
brats.

Consider the contrast between two famous events in July of 1969.

Apollo 11 and Woodstock.

Which group had large numbers of people that could not feed themselves and
reverted to the cultural level of primitives (defecation in public etc.).

And which group assembled, took care of itself, and dispersed with no damage,
no deaths, no large numbers of drug problems ....

-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176929
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

In article <1993Apr5.200623.15140@dsd.es.com>, Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Waldrop) writes:
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> Announcing. . . Announcing. . . Announcing. . . Announcing
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>                     PUBLIC HEARINGS
>
>                on the compliance by the 
>
>                UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
>
>          and the governments of the states of
>
>         FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS, MISSOURI,
>         WEST VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, INDIANA,
>          MARYLAND, OKLAHOMA, NEVADA, WYOMING,
>                   GEORGIA, AND MAINE
>
>      with Certain International Agreements Signed
>     by the United States Government, in particular,
>
>           THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
>                  AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
>                 (signed 5 October 1977)
>
>                         and the
>
>        DOCUMENT OF THE COPENHAGEN MEETING OF THE
>        CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN DIMENSION OF THE
>         CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION
>                        IN EUROPE
>                       (June 1990)
>
>                 A Democracy Project of
>
>                   CELEBRATE LIBERTY!
>        THE 1993 LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
>                   AND POLITICAL EXPO
>
>                     Sept. 2-5, 1993
>              Salt Palace Convention Center
>                     Marriott Hotel
>                  Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>                            
>These hearings will investigate charges that the governments
>referenced above routinely violate the political and
>democratic rights of political minority parties.  Persons
>interested in testifying at these hearings, or in submitting
>written or documentary evidence, should contact:
>
>                       Bob Waldrop
>                     P.O. Box 526175
>                Salt Lake City, UT  84152
>                     (801)-582-3318
>          Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org
>
>Examples of possible information of interest includes
>evidence and testimony regarding: 
>
>(1)   Unfair or unequal treatment of political minorities;
>
>(2)   Physical assaults on volunteers, candidates, or
>      members of minority parties;
>
>(3)   Arrests of minority party petitioners, candidates, or
>      members while engaged in political activity;
>
>(4)   Structural barriers to organizing third parties and/or
>      running for office as anything other than a Democrat
>      or Republican (e.g. signature totals required for
>      petitions to put new parties and candidates on ballots,
>      requirements for third parties that Democrats and
>      Republicans are not required to meet, etc.);
>
>(5)   Taxpayer subsidies of Democratic and Republican
>      candidates that are denied or not available to third
>      parties;
>
>(6)   Fraudulent or non-reporting of minority party vote
>      totals (e.g. stating totals for Democratic and
>      Republican party candidates as equal to 100% of the
>      vote);
>
>(7)   Refusals by state legislatures, governors, and courts to
>      hear petitions for redress of grievances from third
>      parties, and/or unfavorable rulings/laws
>      discriminating against third parties;
>
>(8)   Refusal to allow registration as a member of a third
>      party when registering to vote (in states where
>      partisan voter registration is optional or required);
>
>(9)   Vote fraud, stuffing ballot boxes, losing ballots, fixing
>      elections, threatening candidates, ballot printing errors;
>      machine voting irregularities, dishonest/corrupt
>      election officials, refusal to register third party voters
>      or allow filing by third party candidates; failure to
>      print third party registration options on official voter
>      registration documents; intimidation of third party
>      voters and/or candidates; and/or any other criminal
>      acts by local, county, state or federal election officials;
>
>(10)  Exclusion of third party candidates from debate
>      forums sponsored by public schools, state colleges and
>      universities, and governments (including events
>      carried on television and radio stations owned and/or
>      subsidized by governments;
>
>(11)  Any other information relevant to the topic.
>
>Information is solicited about incidents relating to all non-
>Democratic and non-Republican political parties, such as
>Libertarian, New Alliance, Socialist Workers Party, Natural
>Law Party, Taxpayers, Populist, Consumer, Green, American,
>Communist, etc., as well as independent candidates such as
>John Anderson, Ross Perot, Eugene McCarthy, Barry
>Commoner, etc.
>
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>Representatives of the governments referenced above will be
>invited to respond to any allegations.
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>
>        RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT OF THE
>          COPENHAGEN MEETING REFERENCED ABOVE:
>
>"(The participating States) recognize that pluralistic
>democracy and the rule of law are essential for ensuring
>respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms. . .
>They therefore welcome the commitment expressed by all
>participating States to the ideals of democracy and political
>pluralism. . . The participating States express their conviction
>that full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
>and the development of societies based on pluralistic
>democracy. . . are prerequisites for progress in setting up the
>lasting order of peace, security, justice, and co-operation. . .
>They therefore reaffirm their commitment to implement fully
>all provisions of the Final Act and of the other CSCE
>documents relating to the human dimension. . . In order to
>strengthen respect for, and enjoyment of, human rights and
>fundamental freedoms, to develop human contacts and to
>resolve issues of a related humanitarian character, the
>participating States agree on the following. . .
>
>"(2). . . They consider that the rule of law does not mean
>merely a formal legality which assures regularity and
>consistency in the achievement and enforcement of
>democratic order, but justice based on the recognition and
>full acceptance of the supreme value of the human
>personality and guaranteed by institutions providing a
>framework for its fullest expression."
>      
>"(3)  They reaffirm that democracy is an inherent element of
>the rule of law.  They recognize the importance of pluralism
>with regard to political organizations."
>
>"(4)  They confirm that they will respect each other's right
>freely to choose and develop, in accordance with
>international human rights standards, their political, social,
>economic and cultural systems.  In exercising this right, they
>will ensure that their laws, regulations, practices, and policies
>conform with their obligations under international law and
>are brought into harmony with the provisions of the
>Declaration on Principles and other CSCE commitments."
>
>"(5)  They solemnly declare that among those elements of
>justice which are essential to the full expression of the
>inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
>human beings are the following. . ."
>
>". . . (5.4) -- a clear separation between the State and political
>parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with
>the state. . ."
>
>". . . (7)  To ensure that the will of the people serves as
>the basis of the authority of government, the participating
>states will. . ."
>
>"(7.4) -- ensure . . . that (votes) are counted and reported
>honestly with the official results made public;"
>
>"(7.5) -- respect the right of citizens to seek political or public
>office, individually or as representatives of political parties or
>organizations, without discrimination."
>
>
>                RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
>        INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF 5 OCTOBER 1977
>                    REFERENCED ABOVE
>
>The States Parties to the present Covenant. . . Recognizing
>that. . . the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and
>political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only
>be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may
>enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic,
>social, and cultural rights, Considering the obligation of
>States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote
>universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
>freedoms. . . Agree upon the following articles. . .
>
>Article 2.  (1) Each State Party to the present Covenant
>undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within
>its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
>recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of
>any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
>political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
>birth, or other status.
>
>(2)  Where not already provided for by existing legislative or
>other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant
>undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its
>constitutional processes and with the provisions of the
>present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures
>as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in
>the present Covenant. . .
>
>Article 3.  The States Parties to the present Covenant
>undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to
>the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the
>present Covenant. . .
>
>Article 25.  Every citizen shall have the right and the
>opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in
>article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:  (a) to take
>part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through
>freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected at
>genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and
>equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot,
>guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c)
>to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service
>in his country.
>
>Article 26.  All persons are equal before the law and are
>entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of
>the law.  In this respect, the law shall prohibit any
>discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and
>effective protection against discrimination on any ground
>such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
>opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other
>status.
>
>
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>There will be no peace without freedom.
>Think Globally -- Act Locally.
>Resist Much.  Obey Little.
>Question Authority.
>
>Comments from Bob Waldrop are the responsibility of Bob
>Waldrop!  For a good time call 415-457-6388.
>
>E-Mail:           Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org
>Snail Mail:       P.O. Box 526175
>                  Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-6175
>                  United States of America
>Voice Phone:      (801) 582-3318
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>
>
>-- 
>		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian.
>Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1993 Rich Thomson
>UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
>Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176930
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

Ack! Sorry for the repeat posts: I thought I was posting to the newsgroup
on which this appeared. Couldn't figure out why it wasn't appearing in
my newsgroup. Stupid of me. Slap my hands. Bang my head against the wall.
Sorry! Bloody public anouncements...mumble mumble mumble...
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176931
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues

Well, the message was interesting (and long), but TWICE? Oh Well. Personally,
I loathe libertarianism, but my disagreement is philisophical, not tactical.
Election law reform is a good idea. You would not believe what kind of stunts
the creatures of the 2 party system are capable of pulling.
============================================================================
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
     
When the words fold open,
it means the death of doors;
even casement windows sense the danger.   (Amon Liner)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176933
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Motor Voter

In article <Apr.2.07.48.07.1993.21309@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) wrote:
> 
> When I entered 1st grade, Eisenhower was President and John F. Kennedy
> was just a relatively obscure Senator from New England.  So how old do
> you think I am now?

Ask me whether I'm surprised that you haven't managed to waddle out of
college after all this time.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176935
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds



  Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds

  Washington, DC -- The energy tax and subsidized energy-efficiency
  measures supported by President Clinton and Energy Secretary Hazel
  O'Leary are based on faulty assumptions, a new study from the Cato
  Institute points out.

    According to Jerry Taylor, Cato's director of natural resource studies,
  we are not running out of sources of energy. The world now has almost 10
  times the proven oil reserves it had in 1950 and twice the reserves of
  1970. Proven reserves of coal and natural gas have increased just as
  dramatically.

    When standards of living, population densities, and industrial
  structures are controlled for, the United States is no less energy
  efficient than Japan and more energy efficient than many of the Group
  of Seven nations.

    Energy independence provides little protection against domestic oil
  price shocks because the energy economy is global. Moreover, since the
  cost of oil represents only about 2 percent of gross national product,
  even large increases in the price of oil would have little impact on the
  overall U.S. economy.

    Market economies are, on average, 2.75 times more energy efficient per
  $1,000 of GNP than are centrally planned economies.

    Utilities' subsidized energy-efficiency measurs, known as demand-side
  management programs, encourage free riders, overuse of competing resource
  inputs, an competitive inequities. Furthermore, DSM programs do not
  reduce demand.

    Taylor concludes that government-mandated energy conservation imposes
  unnecessary costs on consumers and wastes, not conserves, energy; that
  subsidizing energy-conservation technologies will stymie, not advance,
  gains in energy conservation; and that central control over the lifeblood
  of modern society--energy--would transfer tremendous power to the state
  at the expense of the individual.

    "Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The Case Against Coercion" is no.
  189 in the Policy Analysis series published by the Cato Institute, an
  independent public policy research organization in Washington, DC.



Available from:
  Cato Institute
  224 Second Street SE
  Washington, DC  20003



---------------------------------------------------------------------------




                        The Cato Institute

    Founded in 1977, the Cato Institute is a public policy research
  foundation dedicated to broadening the parameters of policy debate
  to allow consideration of more options that are consistent with the
  traditional American principles of limited government, individual
  liberty, and peace.  To that end, the Institute strives to achieve
  greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in 
  questions of policy and the proper role of government.
    The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, libertarian pamphlets
  that were widely read in the American Colonies in the early 18th
  century and played a major role in laying the philosophical foundation
  of the American Revolution.
    Despite the achievement of the nation's Founders, today virtually
  no aspect of life is free from government encroachment.  A pervasive
  intolerance for individual rights is shown by government's arbitrary
  intrusions into private economic transactions and its disregard for
  civil liberties.
    To counter that trend the Cato Institute undertakes an extensive
  publications program that addresses the complete spectrum of policy
  issues.  Books, monographs, and shorter studies are commissioned
  to examine the federal budget, Social Security, regulation, military
  spending, international trade, and myriad other issues.  Major policy
  conferences are held throughout the year, from which papers are
  published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal.
    In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts
  no government funding.  Contributions are received from foundations,
  corporations, and individuals, and other revenue is generated from
  the sale of publications.  The Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt,
  educational foundation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue
  Code.

  The Cato Institute
  224 Second Street S.E.
  Washington, DC  20003

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176936
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: SECRET PURPOSE OF FALKLANDS WAR



SECRET PURPOSE OF FALKLANDS WAR;  [with IN-VISIBILITY Technology]

Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER #74 of 80

Digitized by Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net

"AUDIO LETTER(R)" is a registered trademark of Audio Books,
Inc., a Texas corporation, which originally produced this tape
recording.  Reproduced under open license granted by Audio
Books, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R), 1629 K St. NW, Washington,
DC  20006.

   Hello, my friends, this is Dr. Beter.  Today is April 30,
1982, and this is my AUDIO LETTER(R) No. 74.

  It's now been almost one month since war broke out in the South
Atlantic.  On the surface it seems that it's only a dispute
between Argentina and Great Britain over the barren, wind-swept
Falkland Islands and South Georgia Island.  In reality, it's far
more than that.

   The so-called Falklands crisis is just the visible tip of a
giant military operation.  During this month of April 1982,
fierce naval battles have taken place--not only in the South
Atlantic but also in the South Pacific.  Up to now most of the
hostilities have been kept under wraps by wartime censorship on
all sides.  But as I say these words, the naval war in the
Southern Hemisphere is about to come to the surface.

   Beginning today, April 30, a total naval and air blockade of
the Falklands by the Royal Navy has begun.  At the same time a
counterblockade has been declared by Argentina in the same area.

   To be effective, a blockade must be imposed over a period of
time, but the Royal Navy does not have that much time.  Winter is
coming on in the South Atlantic, and the British supply lines are
overextended.  Having come this far, Her Majesty's navy cannot
simply drop the blockade and sail away in a few weeks time
without drawing blood from Argentina.  As a result the British
will be forced to undertake military operations very soon no
matter how risky they may be.

   There is also another reason why the Royal Navy now has no
choice but to engage the Argentine forces in combat.  That
reason, my friends, is that the Royal Navy has already suffered
losses in secret combat this month.  Up to this moment there will
be no way to explain away the damage which has been sustained by
the British fleet.  Only when publicly admitted fighting erupts
will the British dare to admit that they have suffered battle
losses.  To obtain that cover story, the British have no choice
but to sail into combat; but in doing so, they will be risking
even heavier losses on top of those already sustained.  In short,
my friends, Her Majesty's navy has sailed into a trap.

   The events now unfolding in the South Atlantic carry strange,
ironic echoes of the past.  For weeks now we've been hearing
countless commentators referring to the British task force as an
"armada" (quote).  The British of all people ought to be very
uneasy with that description.  The original Spanish Armada 400
years ago was renowned as a seemingly invincible fighting force,
but it came to grief in a naval disaster so complete that it
changed the course of history--and it was none other than the
English navy that destroyed the Spanish Armada.

   The original Spanish Armada put to sea in 1588 during the
reign of England's Queen Elizabeth I.  The Armada was an invasion
fleet carrying thousands of crack fighting men to invade England. 
They were met by the daring sea dogs of Sir Francis Drake.  Drake
and his small, fast ships turned the tables on the Spanish Armada
by changing the rules of battle.  The English fleet was equipped
with new longer-range guns, and it stayed upwind and out of
reach.  From there the English pounded, smashed, and shattered
the big ships of the mighty Armada.  When it was all over, barely
half the Spanish fleet was left to limp back to port.  Drake's
defeat of the Spanish Armada was a shock to the world.  It opened
the door for England under Queen Elizabeth I to start its
expansion into a truly global empire.

   Today, 400 years later, history seems to have come full
circle.  Queen Elizabeth II is witnessing the dismantling of the
world empire whose heyday began under Queen Elizabeth I, and now
the cultures of England and of Spain are once again in
confrontation.  Once again a so-called armada is preparing for
invasion, but this time the armada is British, not Spanish.  Four
hundred years ago Sir Francis Drake was the hero of the day;
today, the ghost of Francis Drake is once again on the scene.

   The South Atlantic war zone is at the eastern end of the Drake
Passage around the southern tip of South America.  The defeat of
the Spanish Armada four centuries ago broke the back of Spain's
naval supremacy, and now the defeat of the new British armada may
well break the back of what remains of the once glorious Royal
Navy.

   My three special topics for this AUDIO LETTER are:

Topic #1--THE MILITARY SECRET OF SOUTH GEORGIA ISLAND
Topic #2--THE SECRET NAVAL WAR OF THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
Topic #3--THE ROCKEFELLER FEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR.

Topic #1--When the Falkland Islands crisis began early this month
it looked at first like a tempest in a teapot.  For a century and
a half since 1833, the Islands have been controlled by Great
Britain.  During that entire time, British sovereignty over the
Falklands has been disputed by Argentina.  There have been
countless threats by Argentina to seize the Islands, which it
calls the Malvinas, but the threats have always come to nothing
in the past and Britain has never even gotten very worried about
them.

   The Islands are four times as distant from Argentina as Cuba
is from the United States, and they are not much of a prize. 
After 150 years of occupancy, the Falklands are home to fewer
than 2,000 British settlers and a lot of sheep.  In short, the
remote Falkland Islands hardly look like something to fight over,
and yet here we are watching another crisis take place.  We are
watching as war erupts between Great Britain and Argentina.

   The Thatcher government is acting as if it has forgotten all
about its usual preoccupation with the Soviet threat at NATO's
doorstep.  Instead, Britain is throwing almost everything it's
got at Argentina---aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers,
submarines, assault ships--you name it.  Luxury cruise ships have
even been commissioned and turned into troop carriers overnight. 
Wave after wave of additional assault troops have been activated
and sent to join the fleet even after it sailed.  Ships and
submarines have been pulled off station from normal NATO duty and
sent to reinforce the task force.  The initial 40-ship force has
grown steadily over the past several weeks into an armada
numbering over 70.  Over two-thirds of the entire Royal Navy has
already been deployed to the South Atlantic off Argentina.

   Watching all this, a lot of people are asking: What's this
fight really all about?  The most popular answer suggested in the
major media is "oil."  Vast deposits of oil are known to exist
under the continental shelf between Argentina and the Falklands,
but that has been known for nearly 10 years.  In no way does it
explain the timing of the sudden military offensive by Argentina
this month, and oil explains even less about the Argentine
seizure of South Georgia Island.

   South Georgia Island is 800 miles east of the Falklands with
no known oil deposits anywhere near it; and compared to South
Georgia, the Falklands are an island paradise.  South Georgia
Island is covered with rugged mountains, treacherous valleys,
glaciers, and semi-permanent snow.  Most of it is uninhabitable. 
On top of all that, Argentina has absolutely no legal or
historical claim to South Georgia Island.  In that respect it
stands in sharp contrast to the Falklands.

   In the early 1830s the Falklands were occupied for a while by
Argentine colonists.  In 1833 the British expelled them and took
over the Island.  For that and other historical reasons,
Argentina argues that the Falklands really belong to Argentina,
not Britain.

   But no such argument is possible for South Georgia Island.  It
has always been controlled by Britain, never by Argentina or
Spain.  The Argentine seizure of South Georgia Island looks even
more unreasonable from a military point of view.  Argentina's
leaders are military men and they think in military terms.  They
were well aware ahead of time that far-off South Georgia Island
could not possibly be held for long.  By seizing it they were
setting themselves up to absorb a military defeat, as the Island
was retaken by Britain.  So the question is: Why did Argentina's
military junta bother with the seemingly worthless South Georgia
Island at all?

   My friends, the answers to all these questions are military,
not political or economic.  South Georgia Island possesses an
enormous military secret.  It's a giant underground installation
buried under the mountains at the northwest end of the Island. 
The real reason for the so-called Falkland crisis is this secret
installation, together with two other similar installations which
I will describe shortly.

   The secret military complexes have been in existence for many
years; they are not new.  What is new is the accelerated nuclear
war timetable of the American Bolshevik war planners here in
Washington.  For the past two months I've been reporting the
details of this new war plan to you as quickly as I can obtain
and verify them.

   The plan calls for NUCLEAR WAR ONE to erupt by September of
this year 1982!!  It is this fast-approaching nuclear war threat
that caused the so-called Falklands crisis to erupt now.

   What is going on now is a coordinated effort to spoil part of
the Bolshevik grand strategy for the coming nuclear war.  The
mutual enemies of the American Bolsheviks here--namely, the
Rockefeller cartel--and Russia's new rulers in the Kremlin are
behind the present crisis.  They are trying to ruin Phase #3 of
the "PROJECT Z" war plan which I revealed last month.  That phase
is to be world domination by the American Bolsheviks after both
Russia and the United States have been destroyed in NUCLEAR WAR
ONE.  As I mentioned last month, the key to this plan is the
existence of secret weapons stockpiles in various places around
the world.

   The American Bolshevik military planners here in America are
working with other Bolshevik agents in key military positions of
other countries to set off war.  Having done that, they intend to
ride out the nuclear holocaust they have caused, safe and cozy in
Government war bunkers!  When the warring nations finally lie
smoldering and exhausted, the Bolsheviks will leave the shattered
remains of their host countries.  They will rendezvous at the
secret weapons installations and bring their weapons into the
open.  They will confront the world with the only remaining
fresh, up-to-date, powerful military force on earth; and using
that military power, they will become the undisputed rulers of
the world--that is, they plan to do all this, and they plan to
pave the way for world domination very soon by setting off
NUCLEAR WAR ONE in a matter of months.  The Rockefeller cartel
and Russia's new anti-Bolshevik rulers are working together in a
race against time to try to head off the Bolshevik war plan.

   Last month I mentioned that the Bolsheviks here are
benefitting from war preparations which were started by the
Rockefellers long ago.  It has only been about three years since
the Rockefellers were dislodged as the prime movers of the United
States Government by the Bolsheviks.  Since that time the United
States Government has been a house divided, torn by internal
power struggles between rival Bolshevik and Rockefeller factions. 
But before that, the United States had been dominated for decades
both economically and politically by the Four Rockefeller
Brothers.

   In 1961 the Brothers launched a new long-range plan for world
domination.  It was a two-prong strategy, half visible and half
secret, which I first described long ago in AUDIO LETTER No. 28. 
It was a plan for the United States to arm to the teeth in secret
while appearing to disarm gradually.  Without repeating all the
details, the basic idea was grandiose yet simple.  By
deliberately appearing weak, the Rockefeller-controlled United
States would maneuver itself into a nuclear war with Russia. 
Then the secret weapons, including superweapons, would be
unleashed to smash Russia and take over the world.

   When they set the grand plan in motion in 1961, the
Rockefeller Brothers were looking ahead to a nuclear war by the
late 1970s.  Their military analysts concluded very early that
the war being planned would have very different effects on the
Northern and Southern Hemispheres.  Both superpowers, the United
States and the Soviet Union, are located well up in the Northern
Hemisphere; so are the other full-fledged nuclear powers--Great
Britain, France, Red China, and India.  By contrast, the
strategic targets for nuclear war in the Southern Hemisphere are
relatively few and far between.  In other words, it was expected
that the coming nuclear war would be essentially a Northern
Hemisphere war.

   In an all-out nuclear holocaust it is known that serious
radioactive fallout will gradually spread to affect even areas
not initially hit by war.  But there are limits to how far the
war clouds can spread.  It was discovered long ago that there is
very little mixing between the air of the Northern and Southern
Hemispheres.  In the northern half of our planet, cold air from
the North Pole works its way southward towards the equator, then
it works its way back to the north as warm air.  A mirror image
of this process takes up the southern half of the planet. 
Northern and Southern Hemisphere air meet in the equatorial zone,
but very little of the air changes places.

   The military conclusion, my friends, is this: the coming
nuclear war could ruin large areas of the Northern Hemisphere for
generations to come; but if the calculations are right, the
Southern Hemisphere could escape virtually unaffected by the war. 
This was music to the ears of the Four Rockefeller Brothers.  A
quick look at the globe of the world shows why.  The Rockefeller
cartel has dominated Latin America ever since World War II.  As I
discussed in my very first monthly AUDIO LETTER, Nelson
Rockefeller solidified the cartel grip on Latin America during
the war.  He accomplished this as so-called "Coordinator of
Hemispheric Defense" for then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 
So that takes care of the South American continent and its
natural resources.

   Then there is the African continent.  There, too, Rockefeller
control was already in effect over wide areas of Black Africa,
especially south of the equator.  All this was thanks to the
efforts of John D. Rockefeller III, as I detailed in AUDIO LETTER
No. 36.

   Looking around the globe, the most important remaining land
masses from the standpoint of world domination are Australia and
New Zealand.  Thanks to World War II, both were wide open to the
Rockefellers.

   The Rockefeller Brothers decided to establish secret military
installations in the Southern Hemisphere for use after the coming
war.  By this means they expected to become the masters of the
surviving southern half of planet Earth after the Northern
Hemisphere war.  Then, as the Northern Hemisphere gradually
recovered from the nuclear holocaust, the Rockefeller empire
would be able to pick up the pieces.  In this way the third
generation Rockefeller Brothers expected their family dynasty to
inherit the Earth.

   In order to control the Southern Hemisphere militarily after
the war, some means would have to be available to project
military power onto any land mass.  For example, revolts against
Rockefeller domination would require troops--not a blast from the
beam weapons on the Moon.  The most critical factor for postwar
military domination of the world was found to be a navy.  A
minimum of two secret naval fleets would be required--one based
in the South Atlantic, the other in the South Pacific.  Since the
reserve naval fleets were to be kept secret until after the
Northern Hemisphere nuclear war, they could not be built in
existing shipyards.  New construction facilities had to be built
and they had to be hidden.  To hide an entire shipyard is no
small task; they take up a lot of space.  On top of that, it was
essential that the ships remain hidden after they were built. 
The best way to achieve that was to combine the shipyard and
naval base into one over-all secret installation.  Finally, the
secret naval installation had to be invulnerable to nuclear
attack; otherwise if its existence were ever discovered
prematurely, the secret navy might be wiped out.

   The combined requirements for secrecy, space, and protection
against attack were formidable; but one day in 1959, while all
these plans were still in the early stages of development, the
answer presented itself.  During a so-called banking trip to
Sweden, David Rockefeller was given a tour of a unique hidden
naval port.  The port is hollowed out from solid granite cliffs
which come right down to the water.  The entrance to the port is
a gigantic hole in the side of the cliff which can be sealed off
with enormous steel doors.  Inside this big doorway on the water
a huge cavity has been hollowed out to accommodate ships.

   The Rockefeller Brothers and their military adviser decided
that a bigger, more secret, better protected version of the
Swedish hidden port was just what they wanted.  A survey of
candidate sites was then initiated.  The site survey covered
coastal areas throughout the Southern Hemisphere.  Many areas
were rejected very quickly because the topography was wrong. 
Other areas were rejected because they were too close to the
equator.  Still others had to be ruled out because there were too
many people living nearby, making the desired level of secrecy
impossible.  Finally, it was essential that the sites chosen for
the secret naval installations be totally secure politically.

   At last the sites for the secret naval installations were
selected.  In the South Pacific, extreme southern New Zealand was
selected.  This is what I was alluding to in AUDIO LETTER No. 71
three months ago when I called attention to New Zealand's extreme
importance in the coming war.

   In order to obtain the necessary space, the secret New Zealand
naval installation had to be divided up into two sites located
close together.  One is at the extreme southwest tip of South
Island where the mountain range known as the Southern Alps comes
down virtually to the water's edge.  The other part of the
installation is built into the northwest tip of Stewart Island,
which is off the tip of South Island.  The Stewart Island
facility is hollowed out within a rise known as Mt. Anglem.

   The New Zealand location met all the requirements.  Ever since
World War II the government of New Zealand has been tied even
closer to the United States than to Great Britain.  The location
is far from the equator, and the installations are buried deep
under mountains, protected from nuclear attack.  They are also
too deep to be reached by particle-beam attacks, and the New
Zealand site is well situated to command the entire South
Pacific.

   In the South Atlantic an even more perfect site was found. 
That site, my friends, is South Georgia Island.  It is located
perfectly for naval domination of the entire South Atlantic.  The
tall, rugged mountains provided a perfect location for the secret
installation at the northwest tip of the 100-mile long island. 
It is controlled by Great Britain whose government, like that of
New Zealand, was willing to cooperate; and South Georgia Island
was virtually uninhabited except for a whaling station on the
northeast coast.  The whaling station was some 50 miles away from
the secret new installation which was being built, but Britain
took no chances.  In 1965 the whaling station was closed down. 
Since that time there have been no inhabitants on South Georgia
Island except for a few dozen alleged Antarctic scientists.

   Construction of the secret naval facilities--two in New
Zealand, one on South Georgia Island--began in the early 1960's. 
The techniques were adapted from those used previously to build
other large underground facilities, such as the NORAD
installation inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado; however these
techniques were adapted in radically new ways to achieve
construction access directly from the sea instead of overland. 
In this way, the sheltering mountain was left undisturbed in
appearance both during and after construction.

   The cuts in the mountain side which were necessary to let
ships in and out were kept as small as possible and were well
camouflaged.  Like the Swedish hidden naval port arrangement, the
entrances to the secret installations can be sealed up.  When
sealed, the entrance is virtually impossible to detect unless you
know exactly where it is; and unlike most large construction
projects, there are no tailings or piles of leftover rock lying
around to attract attention.  The man-made caverns which house
the secret naval installations are enormous, but all the rock and
debris was disposed of at sea.

   Once the secret naval facilities were built, they had to be
outfitted for ship construction and docksite storage.  The fake
disarmament of the United States during the 1960s contributed
greatly to this task.  From 1961 to 1968 one man played a pivotal
role in this elaborate Rockefeller scheme.  He was then-Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara.  All through the 60's McNamara
presided over the public paring back of America's visible
military power.  This included the closing down and dismantling
of entire shipyards.  What we were not told was where all that
shipyard equipment went afterwards.  Where it went, my friends,
was to the new secret installations which were being outfitted in
New Zealand and South Georgia Island!

   The secret naval installations have been used as duplication
facilities to reproduce certain ships and submarines designed and
built here in the United States.  As Defense Secretary Caspar
Weinberger told Congress recently, it is cheaper to build two
ships at a time.  That is especially true if the second ship is
an exact duplicate of the first.  This has become even more true
in recent years through the use of computerized manufacturing
techniques.

   The secret naval fleets which have been built at the secret
installations are made up of duplicates--exact duplicates of
certain other ships and submarines.  They are all nuclear
powered--nuclear "subs"; nuclear cruisers; nuclear destroyers;
and yes, nuclear aircraft carriers, three of them.  A secret twin
was built for the U.S.S. Nimitz, for the U.S.S. Eisenhower, and
for the newly-launched U.S.S. Carl Vincent.  All have been
financed through the gigantic cost overruns, so called, that we
constantly hear about in the Defense Department; and all three
carriers have been provided with a full complement of aircraft
whose manufacture was financed the same way!

   The ships of the secret American Bolshevik naval fleets are
all duplicates of other nuclear-powered vessels.  Even so, the
secret naval ships possess one key difference.

   Last month I revealed that the so-called "Stealth Program" has
succeeded in developing a kind of electromagnetic invisibility
shield.  This technique makes an object invisible from a distance
by distorting light waves in its vicinity.

   A whole new fleet of Phantom war-planes are now going into
crash production that use this principle; and, my friends, all of
the secret American Bolshevik navy ships have already been
outfitted with similar Stealth-field equipment!  The Stealth
principle is actually easier to apply to ships than to airplanes
because there is more room for the powerful equipment that
generates the field.

   After NUCLEAR WAR ONE, the secret Stealth navy of the American
Bolsheviks would be light years ahead of any other navy left on
earth.  It would be perfect for the intended role of world
domination.  The Rockefellers set it all in motion long ago, my
friends, but three years ago they lost control of the United
States Military.  Now it's the American Bolsheviks who are in
control, and they are bent on war.

   These secret naval installations have precipitated what is
being called the "Falklands crisis."

Topic #2--In AUDIO LETTER(R) No. 73 last month I described
"PROJECT Z", the new Bolshevik three-phase strategy for NUCLEAR
WAR ONE.

   An elite group of American Bolshevik military planners here
are flushing out the plan right now at a secret war-room here in
Washington.  It's a plan by which the United States will strike
the first nuclear blow, followed by all-out thermonuclear war
with Russia.

   Having set off the holocaust, the Bolsheviks here and in
certain other countries plan to rise it out safe in comfortable
war bunkers.  Finally after NUCLEAR WAR ONE fizzles out in
stalemate, they plan to leave behind the ashes of the United
States and her allies.  Activating Phase #3 of their grand
strategy, they plan to unveil their secret weapons, especially
their secret naval fleets.  With these they plan to conquer and
rule what is left of the world.  The United States as we know it
will be dead and gone; but in the eyes of the Bolsheviks
themselves, this outcome will constitute victory.

   Up to now the nuclear war timetable which I first revealed two
months ago is still on track.  They are still shooting for
nuclear war to begin by September of this year 1982!  Time is
fast running out.

   The Bolsheviks here are sprinting as fast as they can toward
war; but, my friends, the Bolsheviks are not the only runners in
this race.  They have two deadly enemies, both of whom are
equally determined to trip up the Bolsheviks.  One enemy of the
Bolsheviks here is the Rockefeller cartel; the other enemy is the
new anti-Bolshevik ruling clique in Russia; and now these two
mutual enemies of the Bolsheviks are pooling their efforts in
certain ways.

   In AUDIO LETTER No. 71 three months ago I reported that a
limited, new anti-Bolshevik coalition was in the works between
the Rockefeller cartel and the Russians.  The January 26 meeting
between Haig and Gromyko in Geneva, Switzerland, was a turning
point in the formation of this coalition.  It is now a reality,
and is responsible for the so-called "Falkland crisis" now
dominating the headlines.  It should be emphasized that this new
relationship between the Rockefeller cartel and Russia falls far
short of a true alliance.  They have very major disputes to be
settled between them, but for the time being they have called a
truce between themselves to deal with their mutual deadly
enemy--the Bolsheviks here in America.

   The first priority of the Russians and the Rockefellers is to
slow down the Bolshevik preparations for imminent nuclear war. 
If they can do that, time is on the side of the Rockefeller
cartel in certain political movements which I discussed last
summer in AUDIO LETTER No. 67.  A slow-down in the nuclear war
timetable will also give more breathing space for additional
anti-Bolshevik actions to be implemented.

   The joint Rockefeller-Russian planners decided by mid-February
that military action against the Bolsheviks was essential very
quickly.  No other type of action had any hope of taking effect
fast enough to prevent nuclear war by the end of this summer.

   The exact details of the "PROJECT Z" war plan are not known to
either the Rockefellers or the Russians, but the general outlines
are known to be as I described last month.

   It was decided that military action should be devised that
would undermine Phase #3 of the Bolshevik war plan--that is, the
Bolshevik-controlled secret naval installations and fleets in the
Southern Hemisphere should be attacked and crippled.  By working
together, the Rockefeller cartel and the Russians were able to
devise an attack plan which neither could have carried out alone. 
The Rockefeller group, who built and originally controlled these
bases, provided detailed Intelligence about the best way to
attack them.  The Russians with their enormous military machine
provided the muscle to actually carry out the attack.

   It was essential to devise a scheme that would enable both
secret fleets in the South Atlantic and South Pacific to be
attacked.  Survival intact of either fleet would leave the
Bolshevik war plan still workable.

   Military analysts concluded very quickly that a direct assault
on the New Zealand facilities was out of the question.  There was
no combination of commandos, frogmen, or other military force
which could possibly keep an attack secret from the outside
world.  Any attack on the New Zealand bases would set off the
very war which the Rockefellers and Russians want to prevent.

   But the situation in the South Atlantic was a different
matter.  In a way, the greatest asset of South Georgia Island was
also its Achilles' heel.  The extreme isolation which protected
the secrecy of the South Georgia base also made a covert military
assault feasible.  The key lay with Argentina and her
long-standing claims to the Falkland Islands.

   As I mentioned in Topic #1, the Rockefeller cartel has
dominated all of Latin America for decades.  Cartel operatives
were sent to Argentina to work out a deal with the government
military junta there.  The historic dispute over the Falkland
Islands was to be used to provide a ruse, a military cover, to
enable the South Georgia base to be attacked.  The Argentine
generals were not told everything about the situation by any
means, but they were told enough to make clear what they were to
do.

   As an inducement to cooperate, the Argentine leaders were
promised handsome rewards.  They were guaranteed that after the
shooting was over, the Falkland Islands would remain in Argentine
hands.  This guarantee included the promise of covert military
assistance as needed against the Royal Navy.  And to bolster the
troubled Argentine economy, it was promised that the Rockefeller
cartel will help develop the immense offshore oil reserves.  With
these combined promises of military glory and financial rewards,
the Argentine military junta agreed to the plan.

   On March 19 Argentina carried out Act #1 in the joint attack
plan.  A group of Argentine scrap-metal merchants, of all things,
landed at the abandoned old whaling station on South Georgia
Island.  Supposedly they were there to dismantle the old
buildings and cart them off to sell.  While they were at it they
also raised the Argentine flag over the work-site.  The British,
always nervous about South Georgia Island, promptly reacted as
expected.  The British Antarctic survey ship "Endurance" put 22
Marines ashore.  They drove off the scrap merchants and tore down
the Argentine flag.

   The incident provided the desired excuse for the Argentine
Junta to bring the simmering 150-year-old Falklands dispute to a
boil.  From time to time in the past, Argentina has claimed that
South Georgia is part of the Falklands because it is administered
that way by Britain.  That argument is very flimsy but it now
came in very handy.  It was nothing new to hear this from
Argentine leaders, so there was no hint of what was really afoot.

   During late March, Argentine military forces started
assembling for an assault on the Falklands.  "Nothing new",
thought the British high command.  Argentina has carried out
threatening maneuvers in the past many times.  It was believed
that they were about to do it again; but on April 2 Argentine
forces did the unexpected.  After many past false alarms, this
time they actually invaded and seized the Islands.  All Argentine
public statements emphasized the long-standing historical claims
to the Falklands themselves; but just for good measure, the next
day a small Argentine force also seized far-off South Georgia
Island.  The force was so small that it gave the appearance
initially that it was just a side show from Argentina's point of
view; however, the small contingent of 22 Royal Marines were
overpowered and bundled off the Island along with a group of 13
alleged scientists.  That was the moment of payoff in the joint
Rockefeller-Russian attack plan.

   Thanks to the elaborate distraction staged by the Argentine
forces, a special commando team got onto the Island undetected. 
Based on the detailed Rockefeller information about the base, the
team moved to a location on the mountain directly above the
cavernous secret base.  Special high-speed drilling equipment was
set up by the Rockefeller members of the team while the Russian
members concentrated on military defense.  By late that evening,
April 3, the military high command in London finally learned what
was really taking place.  The secret South Georgia base was under
attack by virtually the only means possible.  The joint
Rockefeller-Russian team were drilling a shaft down through the
mountain toward the hollowed out cavern inside.  It was only a
matter of time until their drill would break through the ceiling
of the giant hidden naval base.  Once the hole was made, the next
step was obvious.  The Rockefeller-Russian team would put a
weapon of some kind through the hole.  The best guess was that it
would be a nerve gas.

   The shock waves that went through the highest levels of the
British government on the evening of April 3 can hardly be
described, my friends.  The Thatcher government, like the
so-called Reagan Administration here in America, is Bolshevik
controlled.  That's why Margaret Thatcher always says, "Me, too"
any time the Reagan Administration says or does anything against
Russia.  Both governments are party to the secret nuclear war
plan in complete betrayal of the people of their respective
countries, and on the evening of April 3 they suddenly discovered
that their precious war plan was in deep, deep trouble.

   Immediately the Thatcher government started assembling a naval
armada to sail for the South Atlantic.  Haste was the order of
the day.  The drilling on South Georgia Island was proceeding
around the clock.  The best estimates were that the drilling
would break through into the roof of the naval base in about
three weeks, on or about April 24.  If help did not reach South
Georgia by then, the secret installation might be doomed.  The
forces stationed at the installation itself were unable to defend
themselves under the circumstances.  Their mighty naval ships
were ships in a bottle.  They did not dare open the bottle to
sail out to fight because the Russian commandos were armed with
tactical and nuclear weapons.  To open the blast-proof entrance
doors would be suicide.

   On April 5, just two days after South Georgia Island was
seized, some 40 naval ships began moving out of British ports. 
The same day Lord Carrington was sacked as Foreign Minister.  He
was forced to resign, my friends, because he had assisted the
Rockefeller attack plan by downplaying the Argentine attack
preparations.

   That same day, April 5, New Zealand, the home of the other
secret naval fleet, broke diplomatic relations with Argentina. 
The two hidden New Zealand facilities had been placed on "Red
Alert."  As a precautionary measure, all submarines at the twin
base were ordered to sea.  Several surface ships were already at
sea undergoing "sea trials", but that still left seven (7) major
ships inside the hidden twin naval base including one of the
nuclear aircraft carriers I mentioned earlier.

   On that busy day of April 5, Argentina's Foreign Minister,
Costa Mendez, was at the United Nations in New York.  He was
alarmed by the deployment of such a large part of the Royal Navy. 
Costa Mendez hurried here to Washington to seek reassurances from
certain officials.  He got them!

   For the next two weeks or so the news was filled with stories
about the allegedly slow movement of the British fleet while
negotiations went on.  That, my friends, was only a cover story. 
The Royal Navy was actually joining up and moving as rapidly as
possible toward South Georgia Island.  If the task force arrived
in time to save the secret base, a major battle was likely.  The
official stories about "slow movement" of the British armada were
intended to give a cushion of time for that battle.  If need be,
the fleet would have several days to retake South Georgia Island,
then it could move on to arrive near the Falklands on the
announced schedule.  In this way the crucial importance of South
Georgia Island would be hidden and the big secret preserved.

   It was initially expected that advance elements of the British
fleet would reach the vicinity of South Georgia Island within two
weeks.  That would have been soon enough to attack the joint
Rockefeller-Russian commando team and stop the drilling before it
was completed.  But Russian Cosmospheres and submarines made a
shambles of the plan.

   Key advance elements of the South Georgia attack contingent
left Ascension Island early April 14, two days before it was
announced officially.  Shortly after they did so, they ran into
trouble.  Russian Cosmospheres and attack submarines closed in on
a single ship which was critical to the planned counterassault on
South Georgia Island.  The Cosmospheres bombarded the bridge and
combat information center of the ship with neutron radiation.  In
moments the ship was without any command, its communications and
radar silenced.  Then a Russian "sub" closed in and quickly
finished off this key British ship with torpedoes.  It broke
apart with secondary explosions and sank rapidly.  So far as is
known, there were no survivors.

   This unexpected shock in the mid-Atlantic produced two
results, both important:

First, it caused a slowdown in the race toward the South Atlantic
by the British armada.  The task force had to be regrouped into a
configuration better suited for an enroute defense, but that cost
valuable time.  Public announcements from London about the
progress of the fleet reflected this slowdown.  The timetable for
arrival on battle stations near the Falklands started stretching
out longer and longer.  All this bought extra time for the joint
commando team on South Georgia Island.  The drilling continued.

The other result of the sinking was equally important.  Word was
flashed to the South Pacific Stealth navy to prepare for possible
action.  It was obvious that the Russian Navy was getting
involved in the Atlantic, which meant that the Royal Navy could
be in big trouble.  During the dead of night, early April 15, the
seven Stealth ships put to sea from their twin secret bases in
southern New Zealand.  They deployed to a secret operational
headquarters area in the Antipodes Islands, 450 miles southeast
of New Zealand.  Their electromagnetic shields were operating to
provide protection from attack.  These shields make it impossible
to communicate with the outside world or even to see it, as I
explained last month; but once they arrived at the Antipodes, the
Stealth ships hooked up to buoys equipped with shielded
communication cables to the Island headquarters.  The Antipodes
headquarters, in turn, was in constant touch with the South
Georgia base by way of a transoceanic cable around the tip of
South America.  The deployment of the available ships of the
South Pacific Stealth fleet was exactly what the joint
Rockefeller-Russian planners had hoped for.  The ships had been
flushed out from their essentially invulnerable hiding place in
New Zealand!

   The British ship's sinking of April 14 was also followed by
other events.  On April 15 the Argentine Navy started moving out
of port.  The same day, Alexander Haig arrived again in Buenos
Aires.  Supposedly he was there as a diplomat, but in reality he
was there as a General, dealing with Generals.  Haig is the top
Governmental operative of the Rockefeller cartel, as I have
revealed in the past.  He was making sure that the Argentines did
not get cold feet and back down at that critical moment.  Four
days later, April 19, Haig left for Washington.  As he boarded
his plane, Haig somberly told reporters, "Time is running out." 
And so it was, my friends, for the secret South Georgia base.

   The very next day, April 20, the drill broke through into the
hollowed-out cavern of the naval base.  Bolshevik military
analysts in London had not expected that it could be completed
until at least the following weekend.  The British fleet was
still out of range.

   The weapon which the commando team inserted down through the
long hole was a small, compact Russian neutron bomb.  When it was
detonated inside the confines of the huge artificial cave, the
effects were devastating.  The intense radiation instantly killed
everyone inside the base.  Also the heat and blast effects of the
bomb are believed to have damaged all the ships inside
sufficiently to badly disable them.

   Meanwhile, Russian Cosmospheres and submarines were converging
on the Stealth ships which were near the Antipodes Islands
awaiting orders.  From a distance, the ships were invisible to
the eye due to their protective shields, which also protect
against beam-weapon attack; but they were sitting ducks for the
tactics which the Russians employed.

   Floating overhead, the Cosmospheres located the seven ships
using their Psychoenergetic Range-Finding equipment known as PRF. 
As I have reported in the past, there is no method known by which
PRF can be jammed.  The Cosmospheres radioed the exact locations
of the ships to the attack submarines.  The "subs" were armed
with special non-homing, non-nuclear torpedoes designed to
explode on impact.  More sophisticated torpedoes would have been
thrown off course or detonated prematurely by the protective
shield of each ship; but these simple torpedoes just cruise right
through each invisibility field to strike the ship and explode. 
Within 15 minutes after the attack began, all seven Bolshevik
Stealth ships were on their way to the bottom, and with them went
their Bolshevik Commanders and mercenary crews collected from
around the world.

   The South Pacific action took place just after sunset local
time.  The time here in Washington was around 2:00 P.M. April 23. 
That evening Secretary of State Haig was seen briefly in public
with the new British Foreign Minister, Francis Pym.  Pym was
wearing the artificial pseudo-smile which diplomats are taught
always to display in public.  But not Haig.  Haig was grinning
from ear to ear, and no wonder.  The joint Rockefeller-Russian
military operation had been a brilliant success.  The secret
Bolshevik South Atlantic fleet had been virtually wiped out,
bottled up inside South Georgia Island; and the South Pacific
fleet, while not totally wiped out, had been badly crippled.  By
working together, the Rockefeller cartel and the Russians had won
the secret naval war of the Southern Hemisphere.

Topic #3--As I say these words, news reports give the impression
that war is about to erupt in the South Atlantic, but the real
war in the Southern Hemisphere is already over.  What we are
watching now is the beginning of its bloody aftermath.  That
aftermath is the battle for the Falkland Islands.  They have been
promised to Argentina as a reward for her role in the secret war.

   At this moment the Bolsheviks here in Washington are pressing
for a public announcement that the United States will side with
Britain.  As soon as that takes place, military action will heat
up fast around the Falklands.  Britain has no choice but to
fight.  She has already suffered casualties which cannot be
explained without a public battle; but by fighting, the
Bolsheviks in Britain are running the risk of a humiliating and
tragic defeat for the Royal Navy.

   Meanwhile, the Rockefeller strategists here are now
concentrating on a fast-building, anti-nuclear-war campaign.  On
all sides now we are hearing about the so-called "nuclear freeze
movement."  There are documentaries, articles, publicity of all
kinds to sensitize us to the terrors of nuclear war.  In recent
months, there have even been referenda popping up on election
ballots dealing with the nuclear war issue.  Medical doctors are
banding together to warn the public about what would happen if
there were a nuclear war.

   We are being told that all this is just popping up
spontaneously.  We are now 37 years into the nuclear age and
nothing like this has ever gained so much momentum before, yet
now we are supposed to believe that millions of Americans have
spontaneously gotten the same ideas at the same time.  If you
believe that, my friends, I give up.  Movements like this never,
and I mean never, develop without leadership, organization, and
money--and plenty of it.

   What we are watching is the Rockefeller public relations
machine at work.  As I've explained in the past, the Rockefeller
cartel cannot afford to let a nuclear war take place.  If it
does, they will lose everything because they are not in a
position to control it.  Instead, the deadly enemies of the
Rockefeller cartel, the Bolsheviks here, will win out if there is
a war; and so the Rockefeller faction is now doing everything in
its power to prevent a nuclear war.

   The present anti-nuclear-war orientation of the Rockefeller
cartel creates certain temporary common interests between them
and Russia; but as Russia's new rulers know very well, this does
not spring from any great moral perspective on the part of the
Rockefeller group.  It's purely a matter of practical necessity
right now for the Rockefellers.

   The Russians regard the United States as a house divided, and
they are exploiting that division by working in careful ways with
the Rockefellers.  Their first priority is to rid the world of
the deadly Bolshevik menace of all-out, even suicidal, nuclear
war; but once that is done, they know that there will be a day of
reckoning with the Rockefeller cartel some day.

   The Rockefeller group is working toward a definite objective
with their new anti-nuclear-war propaganda.  That objective is
renewed power--and power that moves them closer to their old
dream of WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The Bolsheviks here have unwittingly
provided fertile ground for the powerful new Rockefeller antiwar
campaign.  Under Bolshevik control, the so-called Reagan
Administration has become so hawkish that it's scaring people. 
The Rockefeller antiwar campaign is designed to capitalize on
that latent fear as a tool of power.

   These days the smell of war is in the air.  The Falklands
crisis is helping to make that more intense.  The Rockefeller
propaganda machine is now paving the way for the argument that
surrender of sovereignty is the only way to avoid war.  A new
super-United Nations of sorts is now in the works to fill the
bill.  It will have teeth!  As presently envisioned, the new
organization will be based in Geneva, Switzerland.  The working
name, though this may be changed, is the "World Nonproliferation
Council."  The plan is to bring it into being as the outgrowth of
nuclear nonproliferation treaties, but its true purpose will be
to use fear--the fear of war--to control us all.

                       LAST MINUTE SUMMARY

   Now it's time for my Last Minute Summary.  In this AUDIO
LETTER I have reported on the reasons behind the so-called
Falkland Islands crisis.  The crisis erupted because of secret
Bolshevik-controlled naval installations in the Southern
Hemisphere.  These have been attacked by joint action of the
Rockefeller cartel and the Russians in an attempt to slow down
the nuclear-war timetable.  The attacks were successful, but the
results remain to be seen.  One result, though, is that the Royal
Navy has now been drawn into a trap.  Britain's Waterloo at sea
may well be at hand.

   My friends, two factions are struggling for control over our
United States--the Rockefeller cartel and the Bolsheviks.  They
differ in style but both seek to control us through fear.  If we
are ever to rise above their trickery, it must be through the
power of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only hope.  As the Scripture
tells us, our Lord "...has not given us the spirit of fear; but
of power, of love, and of a sound mind."  We must learn to wage
peace.  As our Lord declared long ago, "Blessed are the
peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God."

   Until next month, God willing, this is Dr. Beter.  Thank you,
and may God bless each and every one of you.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176938
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Supply-Sider Lightbulb Joke

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> There was once the following joke:

> How many supply-siders does it take to screw in a light bulb?

> None.  They let the free market do it.

If the free market places an attractive price on the screwing in of a
light bulb, you can bet your bottom dollar that the light bulb will
most certainly get screwed in -- and most promptly at that, too.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176939
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

_TOO_ many.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176940
From: MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr5.233224.10069@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>,
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) says:
>
>In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP> a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:
>)MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes:
>)
>)
>)>The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE
>)>to submit to sexual intercourse."
>)
>)Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states
>)had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised
>)as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but
>)was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only,
>)uniformly throughout the U.S.
>
>I agree mostly with Chris.  It is (unfortunately, IMO) true that the *FBI*
>figures for rape based on the 'uniform crime report' report only female
>rapes. However, some states (such as Illinois) are not tabluated because they
>refuse to comply with this sexist definition!
>--
>The worms crawl in
>The worms crawl out
>The worms post to the net from your account

Insofar as several "liberal" jurisdictions are concerned, the essential
elements of rape are gender neutral. Nonetheless, I decided to provide
a number of references to support my original argument. Black's Law
Dictionary (every law student/lawyer's friend) defines rape as: Unlawful
sexual intercourse with a female without her consent. The unlawful
knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and against her will. The Model
Penal Code (the statute proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners
of Uniform State Laws or other organization for adoption by state legislatures)
defines rape as: A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife
is guilty of rape if he (a) compels her to submit by force or by threat of
imminent death.... (MPC @213.1(1)(a))

Indeed the following jurisdictions/states have statutes similar to the MPC:

Alabama-- Code of Ala. @13A-6-61 (1992)
Arkansas--Ark.Stat.Ann. @5-14-103 (1993)
District of Columbia--D.C. Code @22-2801 (1992)
Georgia--O.F.G.A. @16-6-1 (1992)
Idaho--Idaho Code @18-6101 (1992)
Maryland--Md.Ann.Code.Art. 27 @462 (1992)
Mississippi--Miss.Code Ann. @97-3-71 (1993)
New York (check case law)--N.Y.C.L.S. Penal @130.35 (1993)
North Carolina--N.C. Gen.Stat. @14-27-2 (1992)
Puerto Rico--L.P.R.A. @4062 (1993)

Ta,

Martina

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176941
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Availability With Russian Press 4.4.93





                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                  (Vancouver, British Columbia)
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                               April 4, 1993

	     
                PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
                        WITH RUSSIAN PRESS
	     
                           Canada Place
                   Vancouver, British Columbia



2:46 P.M. PDT

	     	  
	     Q	  I had two questions for both Presidents, so you 
could probably answer for Boris, too.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'll give you my answer, then I'll 
give you Yeltsin's answer.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  The first is that this is the meeting of the 
Presidents, so the money that's being promised is government 
money, and naturally it's going to be distributed through the 
government.  But you've indicated that three-quarters are going 
to be going to businesses.  So the question is how the Russian 
businesses themselves are going to be consulted, if ever?  What 
are the priorities, because there are several association of 
Russian businessmen existing already, so will they be invited to 
participate in setting up priorities for investment?  
	     
	     This is the first.  And second, to you.  We know 
that polls, public polls in America do not show that Americans 
are very enthusiastic about giving this aid.  Like Newsweek polls 
say that about 75 percent don't approve it, and New York Times 
published that 52 percent support if it just prevents civil war; 
42 percent if it fosters democratic reform; and only 29 percent 
if it just personally supports Yeltsin.  How are you going to 
sort of handle this problem that Americans themselves are not 
very enthusiastic?  Thank you.
	     
	     Q	  I have a question, I'm sorry -- is there going 
to be a translation of everything into Russian?  No, just the 
answers.  Just the answers.  Okay.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  The answer to the first question is, 
it depends on what kind of aid we're discussing.  For example, 
the funds that will be set up for financing new businesses will 
obviously go to those businesses who apply and who seem to be 
good risks and make the application.  The privatization fund will 
be used to support the privatization of existing public 
enterprises.  Then there are some other general funds in the 
Democracy Corps and other things which people in Russia will have 
some influence over the distribution of.  
	     
	     With regard to your second question, let me say that 
I would think that there would be people in both countries who 
would not feel too warmly toward simply the American government 
giving money to the Russian government.  There's opposition to 
that in Russia.  And in our country, throughout our whole history 
there has been an opposition to foreign aid of all kinds.  That 
is, this has nothing to do with Russia.  If you look at the whole 
history of America, any kind of aid program has always been 
unpopular.  
	     
	     What I have tried to tell the American people is, is 
this is not an aid program, this is an investment program; that 
this is an investment in our future.  We spent $4 trillion --
trillion -- on armaments on soldiers and other investments 
because of the Cold War.  Now, with a democratic government in 
Russia, with the newly independent states, the remainder of them 
working on a democracy and struggling to get their economies 
going, it seems to me very much in our interest to make it 
possible to do whatever we can for democracy to survive, for the 
economy of Russia to grow because of the potential for trade and 
investment there, and for us to continue the effort to reduce 
nuclear weapons and other elements of hostility on both sides, on 
our side and on the Russian side.  
	     
	     So I don't see this as an aid program; this is an 
investment for the United States.  This is very much in the 
interest of the United States.  The things I announced today, the 
second stage of the program, which I hope to put together next 
week, in my view are things that are good for my country and for 
the taxpayers and workers of my country.  
	     
	     Russia is a very great nation that needs some 
partnership now, some common endeavor with other people who share 
her goals.  But it would be a great mistake for anyone to view 
this as some sort of just a charity or an aid issue.  That's not 
what it is, it's an investment for America and it's a wonderful 
investment.  
	     
	     Like all investments, there is some risk.  But 
there's far less risk with a far greater potential of return than 
the $4 trillion we spent looking at each other across the barrier 
of the Cold War.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, first of all thank you very 
much, indeed, for coming here and talking to us.  In the memory 
of the living correspondents, this is the first time an American 
President is doing this to the Russian press corps, so it's kind 
of a very measured breakthrough.  
	     
	     I have two questions.  One, in your introductory 
remarks of the other press conference, you mentioned in brief 
that you discussed the START II and START I issues.  Could you 
tell us:  Did you reach an agreement with President Yeltsin as to 
what might be done in order to have Ukraine join the ratification 
of START I and the NPT regime?  And my second question is, how 
confident you are that the United States Congress would be eager 
to support you in lifting Jackson-Vanik and other restrictions 
inherited from the Cold War?  
	     
	     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  First, we discussed the issue of 
Ukraine with regard to START I and NPT, and generally, with 
regard to the need to proceed to have the other independent 
states all be non-nuclear; but also to have the United States 
develop strong relationships with them.  We know that one thing 
that we could do that would increase, I think, the willingness of 
the Ukraine to support this direction is to successfully conclude 
our own negotiations on highly enriched uranium, because that 
would provide not only an important economic opportunity for 
Russia, but also for Ukraine, and it would show some reaching out 
on our part.  But we agreed that basically the people who signed 
off on the Lisbon Protocol have got to honor what they did, and 
we agreed to continue to press that.
	     
	     I, myself, have spent a good deal of time trying to 
reassure Ukraine's leaders, specifically the President and the 
Foreign Minister, that I want strong ties with Ukraine, that the 
United States very much wants a good relationship with Ukraine, 
but that, in order to do what we need to do together to 
strengthen the economy of Ukraine and to have the United States 
be fully supportive, the commitment to ratify START I and to join 
the NPT regime is critical.
	     
	     What was the second question?  
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  With regard to Jackson-Vanik and 
COCOM, I would make two points:  First, I have agreed with the 
Republican and Democratic leaders in the Congress that we will, 
as soon as I return, have a list of all the legislative and other 
restrictions, some of them are regulatory in nature, imposed on 
relations between the United States and Russia, that are legacies 
of the Cold War.  And we will see whether they're -- how many of 
them we could agree to do away with right now, at least among the 
leadership of the Congress.
	     
	     With regard to Jackson-Vanik, I think there will be 
an openness to change the law if the Congress is convinced there 
are, in fact, no more refusniks, no more people who wish to 
emigrate who are not being allowed to.  If the fact is that there 
is no one there who would have been -- who the law was designed 
to affect, then I think that the desire to keep the law will be 
much less.
	     
	     With regard to COCOM, my guess is, and it's nothing 
more than a guess, that the leadership of Congress and indeed my 
own advisers, might prefer to see some sort of phased movement 
out of the COCOM regime.  But I think they would be willing to 
begin it in the fairly near future.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. Clinton, when I read your speech in 
Annapolis, I got the impression that you have a completely 
different personal -- and I stress that -- personal, not 
political approach towards Russia, compared to the approach of 
Mr. Bush.  Could you formulate in a few words, what is the 
difference between you as a personality and your approach -- the 
difference between your approach to Russia and the approach of 
Mr. Bush?  And who made you -- why did you cite Akhmatova in the 
last part of your speech?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me say, first, I do not wish to 
compare myself with President Bush or anyone else.  I can't say 
what was in his heart about Russia.  I can say that since I was a 
boy, I have been personally fascinated with the history, the 
music and the culture, and the literature of Russia.  I have been 
thrilled by Russian music since I was a serious student of music 
for more than 30 years now.  I have read major Russian novelists 
and many of your poets and followed your ballet and tried to know 
as much as I could about your history.  
	     
	     And I went to the Soviet Union -- but it was then 
the Soviet Union -- you may know it was a big issue in the last 
presidential campaign that I spent the first week of 1970 alone 
in Moscow and did not return again until three days before Mr. 
Yeltsin was elected President.  But all that time I was away, I 
was following events there very closely and hoping for the day 
when we could be genuine partners.  So I have always had a 
personal feeling about Russia.  
	     
	     I remember, for example -- a lot of you know I like 
music very much.  One of the most moving experiences for me as a 
musician was when Leonard Bernstein took the New York 
Philharmonic to Moscow and played Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony 
to the Russians.  And he played the last movement more rapidly 
than anyone had ever played it before because it was technically 
so difficult.  That is something I followed very closely when it 
occurred.  
	     
	     These are things that have always had a big impact 
on my life.  And I had just always hoped that someday, if I ever 
had the chance to, I could play a role in seeing our two 
countries become closer partners.  (Applause.)
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                               END3:06 P.M. PDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176942
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Public Schedule of the President 4.5.93



                        THE WHITE HOUSE 

                  Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                        April 5, 1993




                PUBLIC SCHEDULE OF THE PRESIDENT
                     TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1993



11:15 AM EST   	    PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS REMARKS with 
                    Egyptian President Mubarek, the East Room, 
                    The White House

               	    Open Press




                FUTURE SCHEDULE OF THE PRESIDENT


APRIL 16, 1993 	    PRESIDENT CLINTON MEETS with Japanese Prime 
                    Minister Miyazawa, the White House


APRIL 26, 1993 	    PRESIDENT CLINTON MEETS with Italian 
                    President Amato, the White House

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176943
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Losers (Was Re: Stop putting down white het males.)

In article <1939@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)        writes...
>In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>>In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>>>  I don't know what you as a white male did. I do know what white males,
>>>as a class, have done.
>>>  They've invented the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, printing with
>>>movable type, photography, computers, the electric guitar. anasthesia, rocket
>>>powered space flight, the computer, electricity, the telephone, TV, motion
>>>pictures, penecillin(sp), telescopes, nylon, and the X-Ray machine.
>>
>>Two glaring errors here.  First, white males don't do anything as a "class." 
>>INDIVIDUAL white males invented those things, which means nothing to white
>>males as a whole.  Second, you neglected to mention Charles Manson, Hitler,
>>McCarthy, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and a whole slew of individuals who
>>have done horrible, evil things.  If white males can take the credit for
>>our fellow white males' boons, we must also take the blame for our
>>fellows' blights.  I claim we deserve neither credit nor blame for these
>>things.
>
>>White males need to wake up and realize that they're being unfair, yes.  But
>>everyone else needs to wake up and realize that being unfair right back is
>>disgusting, racist and sexist.
>>Why can't we learn to treat everyone fairly, without generalizing?  What
>>stupidity gene makes this so difficult?  "I'd like to buy the world a
>>clue..." 
> 
>	The word that is missing in this whole discourse is not the "B"
>word, or the "H" word, or even the "N" or "W" words. It is the "L" word -
>LOSER !!
> 
>	That's right. When we boil all the crap out of this argument, it
>is all about WINNING and LOSING, and nothing else. Let me explain.
>	In the meantime, there is guilt for winning, maybe a fear that one
>doesn't deserve one's bounty - or success. So there is a "kinder and gentler
>type of politician these days, Bill Clinton, affirmative action, and lots of
>discourse about people who "don't get it". For those of us in the winning
>business, this kind of talk is mildly irritating, but there is still no 
>suggestion of losing.
>	Who is D-FENS, anyway ? The answer is as plain as the horn rims on 
>your face. The guy is MICHAEL DOUGLAS, posing as a LOSER. This 
>is known as controversial casting. But that baggy short-sleeved white shirt 
>sure does look natural on Mike doesn't it. Gordon Gekko will never look the 
>same. (Though Woody always dressed that way.) Did we really expect Gekko to 
>take it easy and enjoy that kind of wardrobe, without putting up a fuss ?
>	What we are starting to lose sight of is, that bashing D-FENS is 
>the same game as bashing that poor African American slug that Clint Eastwood
>used to blow away all the time. As that arch-WASP (male gender) George C. Scott
>declaimed, "Americans traditionally LOVE TO WIN. They love a winner, and will 
>not tolerate a loser." And so on. 

Since we are talking in theory and opinion, then I'll put in my $.02.
	First, a rebuttle. Personally, I love under-dogs. Unlike 
bandwagon jumpers, I abandon teams when they start winning. People that
cheer for winners just because they are winners are insecure people who are
afraid to be associated with something negative.

>	The political implications are simple. If, as many socialists - and
>Democrats - do, you consider society a finite pie to a apportioned in some 
>"equitable" way, then you have to worry about who is a winner and who is a 
>loser to tell whose side you are on. That could be black women today, Asian
>homosexuals tommorrow, and yes indeed, white men some yet to be determined
>day when the balance of the pie has finally swung against that (39%) 
>minority.

On this one point, I agree. The reason that people bash WASP's is 
because they have been on top for a long time. Whoever is on top is
going to oppress whoever is below them so that they can stay on top.
If Hannibal had pushed on to Rome after his victory at Cannae we might
all be bashing the blacks for oppressing us peacefull white people 
for all these centuries. I seriously doubt that if the blacks had 
conquered the world that they would have treated their colonies any
better/worse than the whites did.
	The white race did some unspeakable things to the other races of
the world. But they only did what any other conquering race would have done
(ie. Khan). The real question is, should we carry over that blame to the
present generation who didn't participate in the crimes? Would it do 
any good? Has it done Bosnia any good? They are fighting wars that stopped
hundreds, even thousands, of years ago. 
	My opinion is, if there are inequities now, then let's change
them. But don't blame me for what my ancestors did. It wouldn't settle
anything anyway.

>	Either way you go, the way of the Winner is no longer the way to be
>popular - at least after you graduate from High School (but you'll still
>be popular at High School reunions). But it beats being a Nerd, as I 
>would imagine Michael Douglas would now agree, and in the long run, it
>is the only way to go.

That's where you are dead wrong. You don't join up on a side just because
they are winning. That makes you spineless. Winning, in high school and
after high school, is still the best way to be popular, but it doesn't make
you right. All the best causes in history were loosing causes (with only
a couple exceptions). Winning only makes a difference to other people, not
to yourself. And what good is the opinions of other people if they only care
how you appear (ie. a Winner).

	If you can't beat them, fight them every inch of the way. 

>Bill R.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At that moment the bottom fell out of Authur's mind.          Garrett Johnson
 His eyes turned inside out. His feet began to leak out     Garrett@Ingres.com
 of the top of his head. The room folded flat around him, 
 spun around, shifted out of existence and left him sliding
 into his own naval." - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176944
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.5.93






                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                   April 5, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS


                          The Briefing Room


 10:10 A.M. EDT
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know, the President is soon 
to be on his way, on Amtrack to Camden Yards.  He'll be throwing out 
the first pitch.
	     
	     Q	  It's MARC, the Maryland Area Transit, it's not 
Amtrack.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, it's not Amtrack?  Well, he's 
going from Union Station, you're right.  Excuse me.
	     
	     Q	  George, what exactly are you prepared to do to 
break the logjam with  ??? Senate?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, as you know, there are 
discussions between Senator Mitchell and Senator Dole this morning, 
and I think that the President is going to continue to make the point 
that he believes that our investment package, our jobs package needs 
to be passed as quickly as possible.  We need this investment for 
summer jobs, for immunization, for highway construction, for the 
important programs that will put people back to work right away this 
summer.  And the President continues to believe his program should be 
passed.
	     
	     Q	  Will he compromise, that's the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, as you know, the discussions 
are going on this morning in the Senate betwen Senator Mitchell and 
Senator Dole, let's see what they come up with.  But the President 
believes his jobs program should go forward.
	     
	     Q	  George, would the President be willing to accept $8 
billion for one year, which apparently appears to be the compromise 
being offered by --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I don't know what is being 
offered by either side.  The Senate discussions are going on right 
now, let's see what happens today.
	     
	     Q	  Would he go that far -- no matter what the 
Republicans have offered so far, would he go that far, $8 billion per 
year?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that his 
program should be passed at this time.  Clearly, we're going to be 
willing to listen to what the Senators might or might not be able to 
come up with, but I'm not going to get into figures right now.  Let's 
see what happens.
	     
	     Q	  It's reasonable to assume, isn't it, from what has 
happened so far that a compromise is going to be necessary in order 
to get a vote?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the Republicans seem more 
intrested in stopping progress on the President's jobs bill, than in 
doing something to create --  MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the 
Republicans seem more interested in stopping progress on the 
President's jobs bill than in doing something to create real action, 
real jobs this summer for the American people.  I think there's no 
question about that.  There's been some frustration of legislative 
activity over the last few days.
	     
	     Q	  So, you'll need to compromise to get your package 
through?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We'll see what happens with the 
conversations between Senator Mitchell and Senator Dole this morning.
	     
	     Q	     prepared to compromise --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President's prepared to listen 
to what Senator Mitchell has to say this morning after his meeting 
with Senator Dole. 
	     
	     Q	  Does he feel that he has been defeated in his --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not in the least.  In fact, he's 
been very successful so far in the beginning of his term.
	     
	     Q	  How?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He passed his budget in record 
time, in six weeks, and it's a budget which reduces the deficit by 
$500 billion over five years.  And it's a budget which provides for 
important investments in our future.  Right now we've also had strong 
passage of his jobs program through the House.  Simply because a 
minority of Republicans in the Senate choose to perpetuate gridlock 
and hold up action on the President's jobs program is not a sign that 
he is not succeeding overall.
	     
	     Q	  He can't beat this, can he?
	     
	     Q	  The fact is they can do that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the Republicans can stop 
action.  There's no question about that.
	     
	     Q	  What are you going to do about it?
	     
	     Q	  George, what do you know about these alleged notes 
taken by Boris Yeltsin during one of the meetings in which it appears 
that the President told Boris Yeltsin not to trust the Japanese; that 
when they say yes they mean no?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's a complete 
misreading of what happened at the meeting.  The context of the 
conversation was that President Clinton was actually reassuring 
President Yeltsin at the time about his conversations with Prime 
Minister Miyazawa over the Kuril Islands and the Prime Minister's 
belief that Japan would play a constructive role in the G-7 process.  
I mean this was a casual comment about Japanese courtesy and 
etiquette but overall it was in the context of a conversation where 
he was reassuring President Yeltsin that he believed the Japanese 
were serious about their commitment to the G-7 process.
	     
	     Q	   Are you saying that the President said that when 
the Japanese say yes they mean no?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's not -- I don't know the 
exact words and there was a much longer discussion about he did say 
something along the lines that he believes that on this issue Prime 
Minister Miyazawa intends to really go forward with the G-7 process.
	     
	     Q	  Have there been any attempts to explain this to the 
Japanese because apparently the Japanese press has picked this up and 
there appears to be --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I've seen the reports in the 
Japanese press and it actually does put the situation in context.  It 
does talk about the Japanese -- understanding the Japanese points of 
view.  I don't think it's going to be a problem.  I believe that 
there may have been some diplomatic context just to clear things up 
but I'm not positive.
	     
	     Q	  George, was the specific comment that was made 
specific to the Kuril Island situation or was it a general 
observation on Japanese etiquette?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The discussion was about --
	     
	     Q	  The specific comment is what I'm asking about that 
has alleged to have been translated from the Russian notes, "when the 
Japanese say yes they mean no."
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, it was a combination.  I mean 
I don't think that's the whole sentence.  I think that the specific 
comment was a broad, general observation followed up by a specific 
finish to the sentence where he said in this case he believes that 
Prime Minister Miyazawa means to keep the commitment.
	     
	     Q	  Was he saying it facetiously first?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was just a casual 
observation.
	     
	     Q	  And then you say diplomatic contacts were made to 
clear it up.  Has the President sent a message?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, I don't think the President 
spoke; I believe that Secretary Christopher has made some calls but 
I'm not sure exactly how many.
	     
	     Q	  Well, this obviously is a bigger deal than you're 
making it out to be if Christopher has had to make some calls.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no.  It was just that we got 
the reports in Vancouver and the Secretary wanted to make sure that 
it was understood and make sure there was absolutely no 
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- reports in Vancouver, and the 
Secretary wanted to make sure that it was understood, and make sure 
there is absolutely no misunderstanding, and I don't believe there is 
on.
	     
	     Q	  What is our position about the Japanese?  That they 
may have to say one thing, but actualy mean another?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  The position on the Japanese 
is as the President stated to President Yeltsin throughout the two 
days.  He said that he had had a good conversation with Prime 
Minister Miazawa prior to the Summit.  He reiterated the U.S. 
position, the long-standing support for the Japanese position on the 
Kuril Islands, but also reiterated Prime Minister Miazawa's 
commitment to move forward on the G-7 process and to play a 
constructive role.  And I think President Yeltsin was very glad to 
hear that.
	     
	     Q	  After listening to Secretary Christopher on Iraq 
for the last few days, I'm a little confused.  What is the U.S. 
policy?  Do you want to see Saddam Hussein overturned?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's the same policy that Secretary 
Christopher has reiterated, and all of the U.S officials have 
reiterated.  We expect full and complete and unequivocal compliance 
with all U.N. resolutions.  Right now we do not have that compliance.
	     
	     Q	     throwing it out further that if Iraq complies, 
Saddam can't stay in office?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.  I think that that's -- our 
judgment is that it is not possible for Saddam Hussein to comply with 
the resolutions and stay in power.  But the important point is that 
we expect compliance by Iraq with all U.N. resolutions, and we will 
continue to demand it.
	     
	     Q	  And are you concerned the Iran will become the 
dominant power in the area --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Secretary Christopher has also 
spoken to Iran over the last several days, and he says we also expect 
full Iranian compliance with all international norms, and stopping 
support of terrorism.
	     
	     Q	  That's a very glib statement that he won't stay in 
power if he complies with U.N. resolutions.  On what logic do you 
base that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right now Saddam Hussein is not 
complying with the U.N. resolutions at all.  He is not respecting the 
rights of his people, as is required by the U.N. resolution.  He is 
not fully complying with all the resolutions regarding inspections.  
He is not fully complying with all the resolutions regarding 
armaments.
	     
	     Q	  Well, when do you think that if he did comply he 
would be out of power?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, right now his power rests on 
the repression of his people.  If he stopped doing that it would make 
it more difficult for him to stay in power.
	     
	     Q	  George, back on the stimulus package, why is it 
that you and the President accuse the Republicans of playing pure 
politics and perpetuating gridlock?  Why is it that -- what evidence 
do you have that they just don't have a genuine idealogical 
difference with you that's in good faith?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the fact that several times 
in the past the Republicans, many of the ones who are now leading the 
fight for the filibuster, have supported the very funding they now 
seek to stop, most especially, the highway funding.  
	     
	     Q	  George, in regards to that, some of the moderate 
Republicans said that the White House erred by not being more open to 
them during the -- while the plan was put together, that they had 
one, sort of, proforma meeting between the White House and the Senate 
Republicans, and that was it.  Does the Administration look back and 
thinks perhaps it could have done a better job of working with some -
-
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I'm not sure that it's true 
that there was only one meeting.  I mean, the President met with the 
Republican leadership on at least two occasions before the 
introduction of his package.  He met with the entire Senate 
Republican Caucus also for lunch, and went up there.  We are 
continually in contact with as many Republicans as we can find who 
have an interest in the President's package.  We are interested in 
what they have to say, as well.  But we believe that this program is 
important, and we're going to continue to fight for it.
	     
	     Q	     your all or nothing, do it with the Democrats 
alone strategy, did you maybe miscalculate the ability to get it 
through?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I mean, I think that there is 
no question that under the Senate rules a determined minority can 
frustrate activity.  I mean, there is just no question about that.  
You only need 40 plus one to keep going.  40 plus one to keep going 
and to stop any action, and that's what the Republicans are doing.
	     
	     Q	     going to rethink the way you attempt to get 
other things passed as you go through this process for the rest of 
the summer?
	     
	     Q	     work with Republicans and try to woo some 
Republicans into your camp?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we're going to continue to 
look for the support of Republicans whenever we can get it on the 
President's intiatives?
	     
	     Q	  But on this one -- how are you going to do it 
differently than you did it on this one because on this one you 
really did stiff the Republicans from the beginning and made it clear 
that it was a Democratic majority that would get this through and 
could get it through and you really didn't need Republican votes?  
Are you going to take a different tack when you have to go for 
particular votes?  When you have to go through --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't see into the future and 
understand every possible turn in the legislative road.  Clearly the 
President's going to continue to reach out when he can.
	     
	     Q	  You don't have any regrets then about the way you 
have handled it up to now and you don't plan any changes in your 
approach in dealing with the Republicans in Congress based on this 
experience?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Obviously the President would like 
his package passed as quickly as possible and he's going to continue 
to press for that.  We will continue to reach out to Republicans, 
there's not question about that.  And we'll continue to reason with 
them and try and find appropriate avenues for cooperation.  In this 
case the Republicans have chosen to unify around a filibuster, around 
a plan to frustrate action not a plan to move forward.
	     
	     Q	  They're being denied any other legislative means of 
putting their proposals forward.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think they're being --
	     
	     Q	     any ideas.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think their amendments are being 
defeated; I don't know that they're being denied.
	     
	     Q	     to present them.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's not exactly true.  I mean 
they get the votes --
	     
	     Q	     that theirs can be passed though by the 
parliamentary rules under which they're playing.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Unless they get a majority in 
support all the way around, no, that's not exactly true.
	     
	     Q	  George, one more on Iraq.  Is the administration 
backing any of the Iraqi opposition?  Grooming any new leadership?
	     
	     Q	     backing any of the Iraqi -- leadership?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, I -- again, we're pressing for 
Iraqi compliance.  I don't know if we can get into the business of 
grooming leadership.  I believe there have been some contacts, at 
some levels, with Iraqi opposition groups.  I don't know  about 
anything recently.
	     
	     Q	     Jesse Jackson, who, of course, is not the 
President's best friend, has, however, been told that there is to be 
some kind of town meeting, or some kind of involvement by the 
President, pre-empted the ball game -- Los Angeles.  Will he consider 
something like that, or any other kind of intervention there?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, as you know, the President 
appointed Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, about 10 days ago, to be a 
special envoy to California, and coordiante cabinet activities around 
the California economic situation, including the situation in Los 
Angeles.  
	     
	     I believe there will also be visits out to Los Angeles 
by the Education -- or have been visits by the Education Secretary, 
Mr. Riley.  I believe that Transportation Secretary Pena and HUD 
Secretary Cisneros are also going out.  And there may be other visits 
by Cabinet officials over the next several days and weeks.  I 
wouldn't rule out the possibility of a visit by President Clinton to 
California.  Obviously, he is following the situation closely, and is 
concerned about making sure that we make the right long term policy 
decisions that will help create the kind of economic opportunities 
which help prevent disturbances.  But we're going to continue to 
watch it.
	     
	     Q	  George, as a follow-up, Reverend Jackson is also 
supposed to be outside the ball park today, in Baltimore, with a 
group of supporters protesting the lack of minorities in baseball 
management.  Does the President have a position on that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has received 
correspondence from Reverend Jackson.  I know that Reverend Jackson 
has also spoken with the White House Chief of Staff, Mack McLarty.  
He clearly raises serious questions.  There has been some progress in 
baseball over the last several years, but still not enough.  But the 
President intends to continue to go to the ball game.
	     
	     Q	  Is he going to say anything about it today, or see 
Reverend Jackson while he's out there?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if he is going to see 
them, but as I said, the President believes that Reverend Jackson has 
raised some serious questions, and it's something that, as I said, 
even though there has been progress, it's clearly not enough.
	     
	     Q	  Did Reverend Jackson ask him not to go to the ball 
game?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure about that.  I believe 
the characterization the Reverend Jackson is talking about is an 
informational pickett.  I don't know that he asked him not to go to 
the ball game, but he sent a long, detailed, formal letter outlining 
his concerns with the situation in major league baseball and the 
President read it.
	     
	     Q	  George, the Orioles are playing the Rangers, the 
managing partner of the Rangers is George W. Bush.  Is he going to be 
there, and is he going to meet with the President?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.
	     
	     Q	  What is the Mubarak schedule?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I know that President Mubarak is 
coming tomorrow morning for a working meeting, they will have a 
lunch, and I believe that he is having dinner tonight with Vice 
President Gore.
	     
	     Q	  And joint statements tomorrow --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe so, yes.  At the end, 
yes.
	     
	     Q	  Is there evidence, George, that the Egyptians did 
warn the U.S. about a potential terrorist bombing -- terrorist 
activities?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As reported in The New York Times, 
I mean, I think that President Mubarak did say that there has been 
general conversations with the Egyptians, as there have been for a 
long period of time.  We do have general intelligence sharing, I 
mean.  But President Mubarak was very careful to point out that there 
was no specific information on this visit that was passed forward.  
The President will continue to investigate the situation, but he also 
reiterates his belief that we cannot tolerate terrorism of any kind.
	     
	     Q	  George, he did make specific -- or the Egyptians, 
apparently, did issue specific warnings about this individual who, 
forgive me --this individual who, forgive me the name escapes me at 
the moment, and said the Egyptians were more or less rebuffed in 
their attempts to get some kind of action.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know if I would 
agree with your characterization of the Mubarak interview.  He did 
say that they gave general warnings about the possibility of a 
network in the United States and upon which we took appropriate 
action.  But there was no specific information on this specific 
operation at all.
	     
	     Q	  So, the White House doesn't feel that any of the 
law enforcement agencies whether it be the CIA or FBI who would have 
received this kind of information was lax or derelict in its duty in 
not pursuing some kind of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, not at all.
	     
	     Q	  What's next with Serbia?  It got only a passing 
mention in the news conference yesterday --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  You didn't get to ask your 
question.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, exactly.  Was there any agreement on concerted 
action between the two countries?  And even if there wasn't, what 
does the U.S. do next?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the U.S. is clearly going 
to move forward in the U.N. today continuing discussions with our 
allies on a sanctions resolution and we'll continue to look for ways 
to press the Serbians to come to the negotiating table and sign an 
agreement.
	     
	     Q	  George, why do you think sanctions is still an 
option?  I mean the Serbians make it clear that at least the 
leadership is surviving just fine and they feel like they can wait 
you out and even the administration officials we had in the other day 
said there's no evidence that they're going to have an effect any 
time soon.  The Bosnian Serbs have said no to the peace plan.  When 
does no mean no and you have to do something different?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I mean we are doing something 
different.  We're moving forward on further sanctions through the 
U.N. and those discussions will continue.  We're going to continue to 
try and tighten the noose on Serbia, and I think that every 
opportunity we have to do that will have an effect over time.
	     
	     Q	  Are we looking again at lifting the arms embargo? 
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has said that this is something 
that is under consideration.
	     
	     Q	  George, do you have any more on Hugh Rodham's 
condition, how he's doing?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As far as I know nothing's changed.
	     
	     Q	  George, -- week after Mr. Mubarak?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's a little unclear.  I think 
we'll be able to get you more either tonight or tomorrow morning 
after the Mubarak visit.
	     
	     Q	  Is he going somewhere for Easter?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not that I know of.
	     
	     Q	  What more can you tell us about the additional aid 
to Russia that the President plans to ask Congress about?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's going to be consulting with 
the Congress and with our G-7 partners over the next couple of weeks.  
I know that he spoke last evening with Congressman Gephardt and their 
delegation before the -- the congressional delegation meets with the 
Russians this week and those consultations will continue over the 
next several weeks.
	     
	     Q	  Do you expect that package to be of the magnitude 
of the one announced Sunday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not going to discuss the 
magnitude.
	     
	     Q	  How about the list of Cold War restrictions, where 
do you stand on that --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As the President said yesterday, 
he's going to be looking for that list from the Congress this week 
and reviewing it.  He believes -- he's going to try and get it this 
week and he's going to review the list, and we're going to take a 
hard look at it.
	     
	     Q	  But they're making it up?  I mean it's no White 
House involvement, Congress is compiling this list?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he's going to talk to the 
congressional leaders about compiling the list but I'm certain we'll 
be able to get our own researchers working as well.
	     
	     Q	  George, isn't lifting the arms embargo more of a 
probability than a possibility?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's something that's under 
discussion.
	     
	     Q	  Secretary Christopher has said that it's a matter 
of time and -- for months before that happens.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, all I can say is that it's 
something that the President is reviewing.  Right now we're working 
with our allies in the U.N on a sanctions resolution, and we'll 
continue to review other matters.
	     
	     Q	  George, can you tell us anything about the schedule 
this week?  Any travel?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They just asked about that.  I 
don't have anything more beyond tomorrow's visit with Mubarak right 
now.
	     
	     Q	  Are there consultations, George, with any Jewish 
American organizations concerning Jackson-Vanick?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know the National Conference 
of Soviet Jewry has a list of, I believe, 
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- as you know, the National 
Conference of Soviet Jewry has a list of, I believe, 200 Refuseniks.  
We'll certainly take a look at that and continue appropriate 
discussions.
	     
	     Thanks.


                                 ###



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176945
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks on Trip to Baltimore 4.5.93






                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 5, 1993 

                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
        EN ROUTE TO CAMDEN YARDS FOR ORIOLES OPENING DAY GAME
	     
                              MARC Train
                       En Route to Camden Yards



11:45 A.M. EDT
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, what do you think of Jesse Jackson's 
protest today?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think it's an informational protest.  
I think it's fine.  The owners put out a statement few days ago, 
which they say was the first step in, you know, efforts to increase 
minority ownership and minority increases in management.  I think we 
should.  I'm encouraged by Don Baylor's appointment out in Colorado.  
And I think it's time to make a move on that front.  So, I think it's 
a legitimate issue, and I think it's -- like I said, it's an 
informational picket and not an attempt to get people not to go to 
the game.  So, I think it's good.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think they're moving fast enough?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that it was a good first 
step.  And I think you'll see some movement now.  And I think it's an 
issue that deserves some attention, and they're obviously going to 
give it some.  And I think that Reverend Jackson being out there will 
highlight the issue.  So I think it's fine.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, how about the logjam in the Senate 
on the economic stimulus plan?  Do you think they'll be able to break 
that and get cloture?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't know, we're working at it.  I 
mean, it's a classic -- there was an article in the paper today, one 
of the papers I saw, which pretty well summed it up.  They said, you 
know, this is a -- it's just a political power play.  In the Senate 
the majority does not rule.  It's not like the country.  It's not 
like the -- it's not like the House.  If the minority chooses, they 
can stop majority rule.  And that's what they're doing.  There are a 
lot of Republican senators who have told people that they might vote 
for the stimulus program but there's enormous partisan political 
pressure not to do it.  
	     
	     And, of course, what it means is that in this time when 
no new jobs are being created, even though there seems to be an 
economic recovery, it means that for political purposes they're 
willing to deny jobs to places like Baltimore and Dallas and Houston 
and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Portland and Seattle.  It's very 
sad.  I mean, the block grant program was designed to create jobs in 
a hurry based on local priorities, and it's one that the Republicans 
had always championed.  Just about the only Democrat champions of the 
program were people like me who were out there at the grassroots 
level, governors and senators.  I just think it's real sad that they 
have chosen to exert the minority muscle in a way that will keep 
Americans out of work.  I think it's a mistake.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END11:50 A.M. EDT

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176946
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for Evidence, Mr. Cramer

In article <mortalC4wxLn.8s2@netcom.com>, mortal@netcom.com (Sam Lowry) writes:
> In article <15033@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Mar19.142816.15709@rational.com>, kima@excalibur.Rational.com (Kim Althoff) writes:
> >> In article <14992@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## # Gay men constitute at least 20% of all child molestations.  Whether
# ## # this is because gay molesters are unusually common, or have unusually
# ## # high numbers of victims, sort of misses the point, doesn't it?  It
# ## # means that whichever is the case, homosexual men are remarkably
# ## # hazardous to children.
# #
# Clayton says:
# #
# #You are incorrect.  The most recent survey data I can find shows that
# #26% of molestation is exclusively homosexuals, 4% is bisexual (victims
# #are both male and female), and the remainder is exclusively heterosexual.

#     So what you are saying is that 74% of the child molestations are 
#   committed by heterosexuals. I cannot see the correlation you cite

Bisexuals are heterosexuals?  Since when?

#   which concludes that by being homosexual, you will molest children or that
#   by being homosexual you will have the propensity for molesting children.

I haven't said that "homosexual = child molester," simply that is more
likely.

#   If 26% of the molestations are by homosexuals, why are you so concerned
#   about creating a relation between the two? If you had evidence that 
#   95% of the molestations are committed by homosexuals you might find a 
#   relationship. Ok, where is the realtionship you make?        

The one that is shown when NAMBLA marches in gay parades.

#     Also, what is the reason people molest? From Human Sexuality and a 
#   psych class or too I have taken the overwhelming voice says that people
#   commit these acts as power trips and to feel in control. This has nothing
#   to do with sexual orientation. 

You mean that S&M, because it's a power trip, has nothing to do with
sexual orientation?

#   mortal@netcom.com
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176947
From: elliott@optilink.COM (Paul Elliott)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject

In article <C4y3DD.L1n@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
>Anyone with any degree of sensitivity or awareness has to be  
>concerned about the horrendous amount of "child abuse" that 
>exists in this country. [...]
>
>The critical factor here is whether the sexual activity is "forced"  [...]
>
>When a child is "forced" there is often "damage", on the other hand,
>"consensual" relationships are often found to be "positive experiences" 
>for all concerned. [...]
>
>Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
>North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample

Why all the quote marks, Roy?  I can see that they might be appropriate where
there is a legitimate concern that the words are being distorted by context, 
or that they have been appropriated Newspeak-style, but, reading your comments above,
one might be excused if they assumed that you were claiming that "child abuse",
"forced" sexual activity, and "damage" caused by this is non-existant or
greatly overblown.

"Positive experiences", indeed!

-Paul Elliott
(Member in good standing of the Optilink Mafia)



-- 
--------     Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - Petaluma, CA USA      ----------
    {uunet,pyramid,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott -or- elliott@optilink.com
       "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176948
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade

In article <C4xAwp.tAK@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <1993Apr3.041411.23590@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# #  "Abortions destructive of the fetus must be permitted, even
# #   just before birth, if they promote what the [Supreme] Court
# #   calls ``health''
# 
# Yes, Doug, we all know that Roe v. Wade prevents states from prohibiting
# abortions necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.  Only
# very stupid people (such as yourself) confuse a discussion of mental health
# related to "Jane Doe", who was in a mental institution, and attempt to claim
# that this same argument could be applied to a woman who decided she wanted
# an abortion because she was having a "bad hair day".
# 
# As you well know, the facts are that there are about 100 third-trimester
# abortions performed in this country annually, and those are *only* done for
# *serious* health reasons.
# --
# Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Hmmm.  Human gestation period is something like 39 weeks.  That means
third trimester abortions are those done after 26 weeks.  In consulting
a 1989 World Almanac, I see that 1% of abortions in 1983 were done at 
21 weeks or more.  That's about 1268 abortions in 1983 after 21 weeks.
Unless the number of abortions performed has dropped dramatically, or
a LOT of abortions are done between 21 and 26 weeks, I think you are
wrong.

By the way, Roe v. Wade allowed states to adopt very, very broad
prohibitions on third-trimester abortions, but some states, such as
California, declined to do so.  It was reported* that what finally 
stopped third trimester elective abortions in the Bay Area wasn't law, 
but that the only hospital doing them ran out of nurses, then doctors,
willing to do them.  Not surprisingly, the bay area NOW chapter was
terribly upset about this.

I remain pro-choice, but when pro-choicers compare abortion in a
clinic to a religious ritual in a church, you have to start wondering
a bit if the pro-life criticism of abortion as modern human sacrifice
doesn't have a grain of truth to it.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176949
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation

From article <C4zLJ8.Bun@queernet.org>, by rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese):
> In article <15148@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

#>NAMBLA's presence in the SF Gay Pride Parade says quite a bit.
#>It says that either the parade organizers want to show support
#>for NAMBLA, or they themselves have a fundamental misunderstanding
#>of their rights and responsibilities.  I would really, really like
#>to believe the latter, but I would need some help to do so.

> There are dozens of examples of the latter; NAMBLA is an especially
> glaring one, but hardly the only one.

Perhaps, though the exclusion of the Gay Perotistas in the
SF Gay Pride Parade would make me think that they had some
clue in this regard.  Dozens of examples?  I don't know...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176950
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation

In article <C4tz28.Cpp@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
>In <15148@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

##It should be noted that NAMBLA has not been present in the
##other 600 or so gay parades in the nation. While I view this
##as an isolated event, I am very troubled by its reccurence.

>I hope I'm not going to hate myself for getting involved in
>this discussion, but I felt obliged to keep things factually
>accurate.

>Last year NAMBLA marched in the Pride Parades in Boston, New
>York and San Francisco. It was not the first time we
>participated in these parades and it will not be the last. (I
>have marched with the NAMBLA contingent in New York, every
>year, for more than a decade.)

Thank you for correcting the error in my post to the net.
This information came from a newspaper article that was
fuzzy in my mind.  I can only wonder if there have been
similar outcries about NAMBLA's presence in the parades
of New York and Boston.

Yours in Liberation from Molestation,

Mark

North American Micro-Biological Laboratories Association
For a packet containing a sample bulletin, publications list
and membership information send $1.00 postage to...

Note:  Sometimes I do the darndest things while trying to
squelch my desire to flame the living daylights out of
somebody for their beliefs and/or associations, especially
if they are so genial...  Phil, take it away!  :-)
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176951
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In <C50sMA.3GK@voder.nsc.com> matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
>In article 164871 in talk.politics.misc, margoli@watson.ibm.com
>(Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>>I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person
>>>whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with
>>>a functioning brain.
>
>>No, if you want to use legal precedent, you should take a look at the
>>Model Penal Code, on which many states base their criminal code:
>
>My apologies if I was unclear; I was not trying to start a statutory
>debate, since there are many (in some cases conflicting) statutes on
>the books.  I was merely suggesting a paradigm that might make sense
>for a pro-choicer IMHO.

And I was pointing out that legal precedent defines a human being as
referring only to the born, so your suggestion was incorrect.

>>>If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
>>>have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
>>>their children.
>
>>And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children,
>>even if necessary to save the child's life.
>
>There is a confusion here between action and inaction: a parent does not have
>to run out in front of a bus to save their child's life either, but a parent
>IS required to feed his children.

There is a confusion here about what "bodily resources" constitutes.  Blood
transfusions and organ donations involve bodily resources; your examples
do not.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176952
From: starowl@bolero.rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: How many heterosexuals are there?

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>_TOO_ many.

Agreed.  We need more folks to admit they're bi.

-- 
Michael D. Adams	(starowl@a2i.rahul.net)	  Champaign, IL / southeast AL

   "THRUSH believes in the two-party system: The masters and the slaves."
		-- Napoleon Solo (from The Man from U.N.C.L.E)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176953
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <C513wJ.75y@encore.com> rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>|> Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other
>>|> conservatives do as well.  
>>|> 
>>Yes, it was Nixon who was most vocal about giving money to Russia.  It
>>makes me proud to be a libertarian.  It appears both conservatives and
>>liberals prefer to cold war until you win, then nurse the enemy back to
>>health for another go around.

>Enemy?  Sounds like that's the viewpoint of the stereotypical rednecked
>conservative -- 'always been commies, always will be.'

OK, I should have said "former" enemy.  I was being sarcastic about what
interventionists want to do.

>I suggest you
>listen very carefully to the stuff Yeltsin and his people are saying
>and compare that with the very anti-West slogans coming from his
>opponents in the Russian congress.  I sure know who I want to back.

Could we back him without forcing others to back him at the point of a
gun?

Have you considered a non-interventionist policy?  If market reform does
happen, Russia will certainly get *private* capital at *private* risk to
help their economy.  They will even have incentive to do so for the same
reason.  If they don't reform, then our government will probably
consider them enemies anyway and rather spend money to hurt rather than help
them.

Then their's the ideological point.  We want to "win" Russia over to
our type of government -- a type where the rulers can rule without limit
over everyone's finances?

>>It's like subsidizing the wealthy countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) with
>>free defense, and then trade-warring with them because of the economic
>>competition.  It's like subsidizing tobacco farmers while paying
>>bureaucrats to pursuade people not to smoke.

>Better to let them degenerate into civil war?  Remember all those
>nuclear weapons in Russia.  I cannot imagine that they would not
>be used in a civil war.  If nationialists take over and, even if
>they prevent a civil war, most feel they must take back large
>parts of land that are in other countries (like Ukraine.)  I also cannot
>imagine Ukraine giving up land without a fight, possibly nuclear.

>How does this affect us?  Well, we are on the same planet and if
>vast tracks of Europe are blown away I think we'd feel something.
>A massive breakup of a country that spans 1/6th the planet is
>bound to have affects here.  (Of course, there is also the
>humanitarian argument that democracies should help other
>democracies (or struggling democracies).)

If a $1.6 billion gift was that important to our well being, couldn't it
be raised voluntarilly?  People already give over $100 billion a year to
charity.

>>
>>I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing
>>stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution
>>was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate
>>constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money
>>from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.

>Seriously.  Everyone has different opinions on what is stupid.
>My two "causes" are aid to Russia and a strong space program.
>Someone else will champion welfare or education or doing studies
>of drunken goldfish.  That is why we have a republic and not a
>true democracy.  Instead of gridlock on a massive scale, we
>only have gridlock on a congressional scale.

It seems instead of gridlock on any scale, we have aid to Russia,
expensive space programs, national charity that doesn't help the poor,
and probably, studies of drunken goldfish.  I think *limited* government
is more key than how democratic it is.

>BTW, who is to decide 'stupid?'  This is just like those who
>want to impose their 'morals' on others -- just the sort of
>thing I thought Libertarians were against.

That was an opinion, and libertarians are very big on free speech.

>Actually, my politics are pretty Libertarian except on this one issue 
>and this is why it is impossible for me to join the party.  It seems
>that Libertarians want to withdraw from the rest of the world and
>let it sink or swim.

If you are pretty libertarian except on this one issue then you should
be VERY libertarian.  Consider it a compromise.  How much money would
your fellow Russia-aiders have to give to Russia if those you oppose
weren't using the same government machine to steal money from you
and your group for causes you don't support?

>We could do that 100 years ago but not now.

People have been saying that for hundreds of years.

>Like it or not we are in the beginnings of a global economy and
>global decision making. 

All the more reason to depend on the free market which can more
efficiently process information, than to depend on rulers for decisions
on complex issues.

>Julie
>DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Roger Collins

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government
of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?
Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?  Let
history answer this question.
	-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176954
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> You mean, if a large part of the population supports discrimination 
> against homosexuals, they will be injured.  But if a large part of the
> population supports such discrimination, how did that law get passed?

   An addition to anti-discrimination laws which includes homo and bisexuality
? One would assume it would be because politicians were listening to the people
coming up with rational arguments rather than variations on bigotry. Logic
sometimes prevails.
   BTW, glad to see that you've admitted sexual attraction to children is a
seperate sexual orientation. Didn't think you had that much honesty.

-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, 
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."--gene spafford,1992

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176955
From: popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:

> Besides which, we don't *want* Clinton assasinated, because that would make h
> a martyr a la JFK.
> 
> It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after
> watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down t
> toilet.
> 
> Assuming, of course, that the riots a fortnight from now don't do it for him.


He'd have to go a far ways to run things down as bad as Reagan and Bush 
did.  We didn't have riots but Bush got dumped out on his spotty Behind.


We'll see in 4 years.


Pope Charles Slack in our time!

?s


--
popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176956
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't
> give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power
> play.

   "Women are only interested in clothes and shopping"
   "Whites are imperialist colonial fascists"
   "Blacks are lazy uneducated scum"
   "Men are rapists"
   "Homosexuals support child-molesting"

   Slogans, my dear Cramer, are not an adequate substitute for thought.

-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, 
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."--gene spafford,1992

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176957
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Hate Crimes Laws

thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com
>>(Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>>>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>>>...
>>>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>>
>>>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>>   assault laws.  
>>
>>So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a
>>straight?  

>And who's advocating that?  Hate crimes laws are aimed at the motivations
>of the acts.  Just like premeditated homicide is treated stricter than
>heat-of-passion homicide.

But you still get into trouble. For example - how often are crimes
of violence not "hate crimes"? The question is then who are you
hating? If its another gang member, then its better than if
the person you hate is of a differnt color? 

Also, is it realistic to declare that crimes of hate are worse
than crimes of gross negligence? (Like random drive by shootings
where they can't be hate crimes because the shooter doesn't know
who he is going to hit - he just shoots into the crowd).

>>>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>>   charges and multiple crimes.
>>
>>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>>act should never merit more than on charge.  

>So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with
>more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property
>damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.

First, I heard today that there is a good chance that the U.S. instead
of New York is going after the bombers. This means no capital punishment.

Secondly, double jepardy does help keep the government from going after
you for first one murder, then the next, etc. A "sovereign" has essentially
one chance with a single fact pattern (such as the World Trade Center bombing).
That is why the bombers will in all probability be tried for all the
deaths, as well as the property damages, as well as conspiracy, at once.
Of course, as we discovered in the Rodney King case, there are two
"sovereigns", neither of which can try you twice for the same crime.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176958
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In article <h3lnrb8@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>vengeance.  That's all.  It's no deterrent.  It serves no

It seems to deter those who are executed from future criminal activity.

>Yeah yeah yeah... and sure would be nice if we didn't apply the
>death penalty disproportionately to minorities.  I'll revisit my
>opinion on the death penalty when there are more whites up for
>it than blacks.  I.e., when hell freezes over.

Why don't you compare the rates at which blacks and whites commit crimes?
Blacks commit crimes disproportionately, so in a perfectly fair penal
system, blacks would be disproportionately represented.

(Note: black vs. white crime rates is not a racial thing.  It's probably
an economic thing: poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and blacks
are more likely to be poor.  The way to reduce the proportion of minorities
in prison is to increase the wealth of minorities.)

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176959
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: US Government Sanctions Sacrilege

William December Starr writes...

in a typical lawyer baiting fashion, as usual. 

(All the while ignoring every principle of the ACLU.)

Good to see your still out there WDS. Surely we've
been around the ring enough by now, that you know 
you can't spin me up with expletives. 

Let's see if there's anything left worth responding to...

>Cyrus' "Achy Breaky Heart" ad infinitum until either Koresh surrenders or
>the rest of the state of Texas is totally depopulated... :-)

E for effort. Heard about the folks who live around foghorns and 
airports?

>> Erect an Inverted Cross, or a Star of David broken asunder, out in
>> front of the Davidians to provoke them. Or boom out Islamic prayers.
>> Or worse. What temple would you destroy?  What books would you burn?
>> Will you kill clergy? Will you mock the Spirit of GOD before the
>> innocent??
> 
>Sure I would.  Why not?

Seems right in character to me -- creature of the state. 
Btw, are you still happy with your presidents?

>> If you in government have no respect for other's faith, and no respect
>> for the lives and well being of those innocent children caught in this
>> hell you've created -- why should anyone respect your lipservice of
>> "rule of law?"
> 
>What does rule of law have to do with respect for anyone's religious
>faith?  

See the part about the children following the "and" in the first line
above. 

As to a connection, your "cult" is "faith in rules". 

>> No matter who the criminals are, or what they've done (and it looks
>> like there are criminals on both sides of the matter) -- their
>> conviction is not worth the abuse you're causing.
> 
>What abuse?  Please be specific.

Sure. My concern is the well being of the children.  

>> If you are willing to ignore the children, or heap abuse, insult, and
>> sacrilege on the children inside the Davidian house -- then GOD REBUKE
>> YOU. Best you learn directly from the Lord the corruption you're
>> committing. In GOD's good time and way, the LORD judge you -- I can
>> not. For truth be told I would send you all straight to hell -- and
>> GOD would be right in sending me right along with you.
> 
>Oh, fuck you and the God you rode in on, Stephen.  If you can show the
>legitimacy of God's claim of sovereignty over man, please do so.
>Otherwise stop ranting and raving about him already.
> 
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

{Interesting that you would respond "emotionally" in defense of the 
government. Maybe there is a beating heart there.}

For the record though, the biggest-baddest goverment on earth claims 
the most sovereignty over man. Best I can tell God allows anyone to
go to hell who wants to. Omnipotency logically determines that "allowing"
and "sending" mean the same thing.  (Mere human concepts of course.)

So come on WDS. Why bother to try some flimsy facade of logic. Waco
proves it's not needed -- the demonstration that government can walk
over it's own rules in the name of justice has been made. No problem 
by me. Noted and announced -- for the record. Just giving the govern-
ment it's due, and getting back to more worthwhile non-government 
concerns. 

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176960
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Background BRiefing in Vancouver 4.4.93





                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                 (Vancouver, British Columbia) 
______________________________________________________________


                       BACKGROUND BRIEFING
                               BY
                 SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS


                          April 4, 1993
	     
                          Canada Place
                  Vancouver, British Columbia  


9:40 A.M. PST
	     
	     
	     Folks, we're about to start the BACKGROUND BRIEFING 
on the aid package.

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Good morning.  The 
President -- President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed 
yesterday on a series of American initiatives to support economic 
and political reform in Russia, and it's valued at $1.6 billion.  

	     Before taking your questions and running through the 
basic outlines of this package, I want to make a few points.  
First, this is the maximum that the Clinton administration can do 
with available funds to support Russian reform.  All of the funds 
have been allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  There is 
no need for the administration to go back to the Congress to fund 
any of these programs.  All our Fiscal Year '93 funds currently 
are available, so in effect, all of these programs can begin 
tomorrow.
	     
	     The second point is that this package is designed to 
support Russian reformers.  All of the initiatives in the package 
are directed at reformers and for their benefit, and all have 
been worked out with prior consultation with the Russian 
government.
	     
	     Third, the President is determined that we will 
deliver on these commitments this year.  The package is designed 
to maximize our ability to support reform.  In designing it we 
wanted to avoid making commitments that we could not meet, and we 
feel very confident that we can meet all of these commitments in 
front of you.
	     
	     Fourth, I'd like to note the special importance of 
trade and investment.  I think it's fair to say that Russia's 
capital and technology needs throughout the next decade extend 
well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.  No collection of 
governments can meet those needs; only the private sector can do 
so.  And so the President and President Yeltsin agreed to make 
trade and investment a major priority in the relationship.  
	     
	     They also agreed that there would be a new joint 
commission on energy and space formed, headed on the U.S. side by 
Vice President Gore; on the Russian side by Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin.  And the goal of this effort is to break through 
the barriers to trade and investment on both sides and to promote 
a vastly expanded relationship.
	     
	     If it would be helpful I'd be prepared to run down 
the first page, which is a summary of U.S. assistance, and just 
give you some general background on what these programs are.  
I'll do it quickly and then I'll be glad to take questions.
	     
	     The first group of initiatives are humanitarian food 
and medical assistance.  This is part of our effort which has 
been underway for several years to provide basic humanitarian 
grant food assistance so that the Russian government can assure 
there's at least a minimal amount of bread on the shelves in the 
major cities.  That's $194 million in grant -- that is from Food 
for Progress, the grant portion of Food for Progress.  We'll also 
be continuing our grant assistance in medicines and 
pharmaceutical supplies, and that's $30 million.
	     
	     The second item is concessional food sales.  As you 
know, the United States has had a long-term grain relationship 
with Russia.  It's important to us and it's important to Russia 
that we continue that relationship.  The President has chosen the 
Food for Progress program which is a concessional loan program.  
The value over the next seven months is $700 million.  These are 
concessional terms.  The exact terms have not been worked out, 
but I think it's fair to say there will be a grace period on 
principal of six or seven years, and concessional rates 
thereafter for the life of the deal.
	     
	     The third program is a collection of private sector 
support.  We think this is one of the most important things we're 
going to do.  Privatization and the creation of small businesses 
is the number one priority of the reform government in Moscow.  
And so the President has decided to create a Russian-American 
enterprise fund capitalized this year at $50 million.  And the 
goal of this fund is to make direct loans to small businesses in 
Russia, to take equity positions in those businesses.  
	     
	     The President has also decided to create a 
privatization fund which would work directly with the Russian 
government in its priority objective of trying to convert state 
enterprises from a state-owned basis to a private basis.  He has 
also agreed -- the President has also agreed to establish a 
Eurasia foundation.  This would be a private foundation led by 
prominent Americans to fund democratization projects in Russia.
	     
	     The fourth grouping you see there in the summary 
page is democratization itself.  I think it's fair to say that 
this administration has given a new impetus to the goal of 
pursuing democratization in Russia.  You see that we have a total 
of $48 million in programs, various programs.  The detailed 
tables give an indication of some of the programs that we're 
launching.  
	     
	     The President is also calling for the development of 
a democracy corps, which will be an overarching umbrella group to 
try to incorporate all of the disparate private and public 
efforts now underway from the United States to support reform in 
Russia.
	     
	     The fifth program you see is Russian office of 
resettlement.  This is a new initiative created and 
conceptualized by this administration.  This is a demonstration 
project.  What we'd like to do is work with the Russian military 
to help resettle Russian officers returning from the Baltic 
states and other parts of the former Soviet Union.  We want to 
make sure that we work out the best way to do that, whether it's 
with Russian labor and Russian materials or using prefab American 
construction.  And so we've decided to fund on a demonstration 
basis the construction of 450 housing units.  We'll be working 
very closely with the Russian military on this.  And I would say 
that we have a long-term commitment to this project.  
	     
	     The sixth area is energy in the environment.  They 
are two issues that the President feels strongly about.  Our 
initial efforts will be feasibility studies to look into the 
possibility of enhancing their energy production, both oil and 
gas; and equally important trying to cut down on the leakages in 
the oil and gas pipeline systems, which cause so much 
environmental damage.
	     
	     I've talked a little bit about trade and investment, 
about the new group being created that the Vice President will 
chair on our side.  Secretary Ron Brown will also be cochairing 
with Deputy Prime Minister Shohkin, a business development 
committee, which will work in all other sectors of the economy, 
to break down the many barriers that currently exist and impede 
trade and investment.  We are also going to appoint a full-time 
investment ombudsman in the American government to work on this 
problem full-time.  
	     
	     And the point I'd like to make here is, trade and 
investment in the 1990s is every bit as important, to draw an 
analogy, as arms reductions was in the '70s and '80s.  And we 
just thought that in looking at this we needed to make a 
commitment within our own government to have people work on it -- 
senior people on a full-time basis, because it is terribly 
important.
	     
	     You'll notice that the United States is going to 
support Russia's membership in the GATT.  Russia has had observer 
status.  Russia has requested our support and, in fact, requested 
our advice in becoming a member of the GATT.  We think that the 
long-term goal of drawing Russia into the global economy is 
paramount, a very important goal.  And that is why we are 
supporting the membership in the GATT.  We are also supporting 
their access to GSP, the Generalized System of Preferences.  
	     
	     You'll note that Ex-Im has extended $82 million in 
credit for a caterpillar deal in Siberia, that OPIC has extended 
$150 million in credits and loan guarantees for a Conoco oil 
project.  I'd like to emphasize that we are very close to an 
agreement between Russia and the United States for a $2-billion 
framework facility through the Ex-Im Bank that would finance 
Russian purchases of American oil and gas equipment and services. 
We think this is a very important development.  We think we'll 
get there by April 14th, which is the opening day of the Tokyo 
conference, the G-7 conference.
	     
	     Before I take any further questions, I'd like to 
defer to my colleague, who will review the security assistance 
objectives with you.
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Our major 
unfinished agenda with the Russians and with their counterparts 
in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus is in the area of the safe and 
secure dismantlement of the nuclear arsenals on their territory 
under the terms of the START I and START II agreements.   
Recently we completed in Moscow three, I think, very important 
agreements that devote a significant chunk of Nunn-Lugar funding 
to three important programs.  The first is the program of $130 
million for the strategic nuclear delivery vehicle dismantlement 
program.  That is for submarines, for ICBM dismantlement and for 
bomber dismantlement -- $130 million.
	     
	     The second is a $75 million tranche of funding for 
the construction of a facility to store nuclear materials removed 
from the warheads as they are dismantled.  This will essentially 
contribute to the overall design and the early phases of the 
construction of that storage facility.  
	     
	     And finally, a $10-million tranche of money to help 
in the establishment of a monitoring system for the nuclear 
materials as they are withdrawn from the weapons system.  So we 
add that $215-million total to the extant Nunn-Lugar assistance 
which has been flowing -- about $150 million for some overall 
safety improvements for various kinds of equipment and safety 
measures that we have been working out with the Russians over the 
last couple of years.  
	     
	     So this is an area where we will be going a lot more 
work with not only the Russians but with the Ukrainians, Kazhaks, 
and Belarussians.  Belarus, for example, has just, in the last 
couple of weeks, received up to $65 million in FY'93 funds for 
safety, security and dismantlement programs on Belarussian 
territory.  And this was in the wake of their ratification of 
START I, an agreement to accede to NPT. 
	     
	     So we are working very hard with all the parties to 
the Lisbon protocols, and will continue to work very hard with 
them.  And I look upon these three recent agreements with Russia 
as a very important step in that process.
	     
	     Q	  The OPIC funds to -- is that for the field in 
Kazhakstan -- and Conoco already signed this deal with 
Kazhakstan.  Why do you feel now it is necessary -- if it's the 
same one, why do you feel it's necessary?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It's not the same 
deal.  Chevron signed a deal with Kazhakstan, the Tenges oil 
field.  This is a new investment project.  It's a polar lights 
oil development and renovation project, and it's being announced 
today.  So it's completely new.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us more about what's involved?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.  Conoco, like 
other American oil companies has been searching for ways to do 
two things.  One, to prospect for new oil in Siberia, west 
Siberia; and two, to try to get into the business of renovating 
oil wells and renovating pipelines, both oil and gas, in Russia.  
The objective here, obviously, is to take advantage of the 
natural resources in Russia, increase energy production, which 
will, in turn, increase hard currency revenues, which is what 
Russia needs.
	     
	     So we think this deal is very, very good development 
for Russia.  The Russians do as well, and it's good for an 
American company.  And the American government has played a 
leading role in pulling this together through the credit facility 
in OPIC and through the loan guarantee.
	     
	     Q	  So it's to search and also to renovate fields 
that are already there?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's right.
	     
	     Q	  On that point, should other American companies 
expect to get administration support for such deals, or should 
they now go to the Ex-Im and try to get the money out of the $2 
billion?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as you know, 
Ex-Im is part of the U.S. government and various parts of the 
U.S. government have been pushing, including the State Department 
and the White House for this deal to be consummated.  And we 
think it will.  And if we arrive at this agreement by April 14th, 
there will be $2 billion in financing available for American 
companies to sell their equipment and sell their services.
	     
	     Q	  That should take up all of the rest of the 
deals and their won't be -- and their will or there won't be 
support for OPIC sort of deals such as this Conoco?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's a 
tremendous amount of interest on the part of American oil and gas 
companies to invest in Russia.  We think that the Ex-Im oil and 
gas facility, the $2-billion facility, once it is concluded, will 
soak up a lot of that interest.  But I think the interest may 
even extend beyond that.  And if so, the government will respond.
	     
	     Q	  What's the current year budget costs of that 
$2-billion agreement should it go forward?  And is there any 
current year budget costs --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'll have to refer 
you to Ex-Im for that.  I don't know the details of that.
	     
	     Q	  The concessional food sales -- is there any 
current year costs to that, or is it delayed until the years in 
which the payments are due?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The concessional 
food sales are from Food for Progress, which is a USDA program.  
USDA has the funds, we don't need to go back to the Congress to 
expend those funds.  There will be a hit in the budget.  I'd 
refer you to USDA and OMB for the details on that.
	     
	     Q	  Can you talk about the Democracy Corps?
	     
	     Q	     and the private sector -- how many folks are 
going to be involved in that?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Why don't I start 
with the Democracy Corps first.  I think the administration felt 
coming into office that there were literally thousands of 
organization, private organizations in the United States that in 
one way or another were working at the goal of trying to achieve 
democratization in Russia, helping on a farmer-to-farmer basis.  
And there were literally 10 or 15 U.S. government agencies that 
had a variety of programs in this area.  And so the 
administration felt -- the President felt it was important to try 
to draw all of these initiatives together under one group to give 
some coherence to the efforts and to give some impetus to the 
efforts.  And so this is a presidential initiative.
	     
	     It will be headed by Ambassador Tom Simons who will 
soon take up his duties as the coordinator for U.S. assistance in 
the former Soviet Union.  And we're very hopeful that we might 
use this Democracy Corps not only to draw upon the resources of 
our own government, but the resources of the American private 
sector and schools and communities across the nation.
	     
	     Q	     any kind of commitment yet, any kind of word 
yet on FY'94, and any new money that needs to be appropriated 
besides the $300 million the President talked about?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The administration 
is requesting additional funds in FY'94 of $700 million.  What 
the President has done this weekend is to consult really 
intensively yesterday with President Yeltsin about additional 
measures the United States could take in some of these areas to 
support reform.  He'll be consulting with the Congress.  When he 
returns to Washington, he'll be consulting also with the other 
ally governments, and we'll make a decision at that time.
	     
	     Q	  Two questions about the $700 billion 
agricultural money.  First of all, I thought it was the sort of 
consensus that what Russia did not need was more loans for food.  
So why did you decide to do it that way?  Secondly, could you 
explain -- agriculture has been stopped from making further loans 
for food because of Russia's inability to pay.  How does this fit 
into that situation?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As you know, the 
United States for a long time has been a major supplier of grains 
and food commodities, agricultural products to Russia.  I think 
between 1991 and '92 we had extended -- a little bit of history 
here -- about $5.5 billion in credits, credit guarantees, through 
the Commodity Credit Corporation.  That was the principal vehicle 
to ensure the sale of American grain products.  On December 1 of 
last year, '92, the Russian government stopped its payments on 
that program.  They are now in arrears to us on that program, and 
therefore, by law, the United States cannot continue that 
program.  And so the President, working with Secretary Espy and 
other officials in the Cabinet, looked for other ways that we 
could promote American grain sales.  
	     
	     And I think we have two ways to do that.  We've 
announced today $194 million in grant food assistance through the 
Food for Progress program.  But we do not have sufficient 
authority to spend $700 million in grant food, and so we looked 
for a concessional loan program.  
	     
	     I think everybody agrees that Russia -- that a 
short-term loan program for Russia would not make sense now, but 
a long-term concessional loan program would.  And that is what 
this program is.  It will provide, once the final details are 
worked out, for a six to seven-year grace period on payments of 
principal.  And then from years seven through 15, which is the 
life of the deal, it will provide for concessional rates of 
interest -- generally around three to four percent.  And so we 
believe and the Russian government believes this is a good deal 
for them because it will avoid the imperative of early payments 
and put them into the out years, but it will also continue this 
very important grain relationship, which is important for them, 
and it's important for the American farm community.
	     
	     Q	  I gather from what you say that this could make 
it explicit -- the Russians' failure to pay the interest on ECC 
loan does not in any way affect this kind of loan going through, 
is that right? 
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me be explicit 
about that.  We are prevented under the law to from continuing  
the Commodity Credit Corporation short-term credit program 
because of Russia's arrearages to the United States.  All of you 
know about those arrearages.  They total about, I think, around 
$640 million.  USDA can give you an exact figure.  So having 
taken that into consideration and wanting to preserve American 
market share and a long-term grain relationship, wanting to 
respond to a specific request from the Russian government for 
major food assistance, knowing that we couldn't take it from the 
grant programs because we don't have sufficient authority there, 
we looked at Food for Progress, which is a program we've used to 
great effect in other parts of the world.  And we consulted with 
the Russian government and arrived at this solution.  
	     
	     I think the Russians are pleased because it provides 
them with the food, but also gives them a little bit of relief on 
the short-term payments.
	     
	     Q	  Where do those funds actually come from?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They come from the 
Food for Progress program, which is a program under USDA's 
authority.  USDA has the authority to spend these funds.  We do 
not need to go back to the Congress for these funds.  And I want 
to make that general point again:  Everything in this package, 
the $1.6 billion package, comprises funds that have already been 
allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  The administration 
can begin to spend these monies tomorrow.  And it's very 
important in our eyes that we expend all the funds this year, 
that we meet these commitments.  And we are confident we'll be 
able to do so.
	     
	     Q	  How did you arrive at the figure of $700 
million -- does that max out that program, or did you actually 
have a range from 0 to --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's a reason 
for it.  The reason was that the Russian government told us 
that's about the amount of grain that they needed between now and 
harvest time.  And so the idea is that we would begin the 
shipments probably $100 million per month from now until the 
harvest in the autumn, at which time Russia won't require the 
same level of food imports from the West.
	     
	     Q	  I would imagine there's going to be some 
considerable envy and jealousy on the part of some of the other 
republics because of the size and the scope of this with Russia.  
Have you given any consideration to advancing negotiations for 
the same kinds of projects with the Ukraine, with Georgia , with 
some of the other republics?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, we're very 
conscience of the fact that we also have an interest in extending 
American support to the 11 other countries of the former Soviet 
Union.  We have told ourselves, and we have planned that in the 
area of technical assistance, the grant technical assistance that 
you see, roughly 50 percent of the funding will go to Russia and 
roughly 50 percent to the other countries. 
	     
	     In the area of food sales, we have been active with 
Ukraine, in grant food assistance with Georgia and Armenia.  We 
will continue that.  And I think it's fair to say that after this 
summit we will go back and look at all of our programs with the 
other countries to ensure that they are adequate and they are 
productive and they're hard-hitting.
	     
	     Q	  Has anything happened at the summit to lead 
American energy companies and other companies to believe that 
Russia is going to be more user-friendly toward them in terms of 
taxing, legalities, bureaucracy?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, one of our 
primary objectives coming into this summit was to highlight,  not 
only the economic agenda, but also trade and investment.  And I'd 
like to refer to the point I made at the beginning.  We're 
convinced in talking about this problem -- the problem of how to 
support Russia long-term -- we're convinced that no collection of 
Western governments have the financial resources over the next 
decade to fuel the continuation of reform, that only the private 
sector can do that.  
	     
	     We look at our own society and we see tremendous 
capability in resources in the oil and gas sector.  It is a very 
good match with what the Russians need now, which is financial 
investment in the existing oil and gas wells and pipeline and new 
technology and new capital to finance new production.  
	     
	     That's what the Russian government has told us it 
wants to do, and so that's why we have made such a major emphasis 
on it.  That's why trade and investment was a prominent issue on 
the first day of these talks, and in fact, figured prominently 
last night in the meeting between President Yeltsin and President 
Clinton.  And we're hoping that together we might send a strong 
signal to the American business community that we support their 
efforts to invest in Russia, that the United States, through Ex-
Im and OPEC and the Department of Commerce, will be there to 
support them.
	     
	     Q	  My question is, is Yeltsin in any position to 
deliver on making Russia a more --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We think he is.  I 
would note that President Yeltsin's Prime Minister, Mr. 
Chernomyrdin, worked for 30 years in the Russian oil and gas 
sector.  He will now chair a high-level commission with the Vice 
President, Vice President Gore, to try to break through the 
barriers that currently exist to Western investment in the oil 
and gas sector.  We believe we have a commitment to make that 
committee an important committee.  And we're looking forward to 
the work.
	     
	     Q	  What type of mechanism is already in place to 
administer the private sector portion of the program?  And will 
the U.S. be directly involved in the tail end of distribution of 
the actual funds or is the money simply turned over to the 
Russian government for distribution at their will?
	     	    
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Are you talking 
about the variety of programs listed here?  It depends on the 
program itself.  In most cases, though, we are either working 
through American PBOs or American government agencies to ensure 
that the money obviously is well spent, that the money gets to 
the intended source.  That's an obligation we have to the 
Congress to ensure the money is well spent and that we can 
account for the money.  We have done that in the last couple of 
months intensively and we will continue to do it for each of 
these programs.
	     
	     But they are all quite different.  For instance, in 
the area of grant food and medical assistance, for grant food it 
is carried out through USDA and USDA accounts for the delivery of 
the food.  For grant medical assistance, we've been working 
through Project Hope which is a private organization.  For the 
housing -- for instance, the resettlement of Russian officers, 
we'll be working with a group of American PBOs.  On some of the 
democratization projects, we're working directly with Russian 
private individuals and private foundations.  We're working with 
journalists in Russia on a media project that you may have 
noticed.
	     
	     So we literally have here 30 to 40 different 
activities under all these rubrics and they're all going to be 
carried out in slightly different ways.  Some directly with the 
Russian government, some with Russian citizens.
	     
	     Q	  The Jackson-Vanik restrictions that remain and 
on the COCOM restrictions that remain, can you tell us what the 
President has to do on that?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as George 
noted yesterday, President Yeltsin raised these as irritants in 
the relationship.  The President has noted that.  I think it's 
fair to say we will go back now in our own government when we 
return to Washington and look at both of these questions, and 
we'll get back to the Russian government.
	     
	     Q	  You were not prepared for these questions when 
you got here?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We were prepared 
for these questions.  We've looked at them.  But we're not 
prepared to make a quick decision this weekend.  They require --
let me just explain, particularly on Jackson-Vanik.  They require 
consultation with the Congress.  They require consultation with 
the American Jewish community.  And we're very sensitive to those 
concerns.  And so we'll want to go back and talk to them before 
we take any action.
	     
	     Q	  Is this package designed so that you will not 
have to go to Congress for anything at this point?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As I said at the 
beginning, the advantage of this particular package is that all 
the funds have been allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  
So the administration will not have to go back to the Congress to 
seek any additional authority to fund any of these efforts.  In 
effect, they can all begin tomorrow, and I know that many of the 
agencies responsible for these projects will begin tomorrow.  And 
that's the advantage of this particular initiative.
	     
	     Q	  If this, as the President says, is a long-term, 
long-haul thing, and members of Congress are at this moment 
heading for Moscow, why aren't you talking about going to 
Congress and suggesting to the President of Russia that you are 
prepared to go to Congress for various things?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think we've been 
clear about that.  The President is discussing this weekend with 
President Yeltsin some additional ideas that we have for American 
funding of additional projects, and ideas that he has.  We have a 
major congressional delegation that left last night, headed by 
Representative Gephardt and we'll want to consult with that 
delegation and other members of Congress before doing anything.  
And we'll also want to consult with our allies.  So that's where 
it stands now.
	     
	     Q	  We've been told repeatedly that a number of 
these items represent different or new ways of spending the money 
already appropriated.  Could you just tick off which of these 
items represents reprogramming or at least spending money in ways 
that it was not previously set to be?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that we've 
said that these are all projects that either Congress had 
allocated money for through the Freedom Support Act; there were 
some funds that were left over from FY'92.  And this 
administration took office and had some new ideas about how the 
funds might be expended.
	     
	     We didn't use just the Freedom Support Act funds or 
the FY'92 funds.  We went into some of the agency allocations --
Ex-Im, OPIC, and USDA -- and tried to look for creative ways to 
further our programs.
	     
	     And example of that is the Food for Progress 
concessional loans.  We had hit a brick wall with another type of 
funding through USDA.  We could not go forward legally, and so we 
looked for a more creative way to ensure continued American 
market share and ensure continued grain sales, and we think we 
found it.
	     
	     Q	  Where, for example, are you getting the money 
for this Russian officer resettlement --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's from the 
Freedom Support Act funds.
	     
	     Q	  In other words, all of the money is being 
directly spent in new ways, so to speak --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Most of the grant 
projects that you see -- if you look at the general chart, the 
second chart, it's broken down into grant and credits.  And if 
you look under grants, the technical cooperation projects that 
total $281.9 million -- that is almost all Freedom Support Act 
funding.  A little bit of it is leftover funds from fiscal year 
'92.  The Nunn-Lugar funds, of course, you know about the 
legislative history of those funds.
	     
	     Q	     cooperation --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  From FY '92?  I 
don't have the exact figure.  It was not a considerable figure.
	     
	     Q	  Could you tell us please, has anything happened 
here this weekend that will break the log jam between Ukraine and 
Russia over START -- for START I and II as a result of what's 
happened here --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Both presidents, 
President Yeltsin and President Clinton, will be discussing this 
issue this morning.  In fact, we haven't yet gotten to security 
and arms control related issues.  That will be this morning's 
session.  I know that President Clinton will be very strongly 
reinforcing that this is a top priority for us.  We've been 
talking to the Russians and the Ukrainians over the last couple 
of weeks about ways that we might help to facilitate the 
discussions between them.  Up to this point, this has been a very 
important negotiation that's been going on essentially between 
Moscow and Kiev.  And we are at the point now of essentially 
discussing with them if there are ways that we could contribute 
to this discussion, help to move things forward essentially.  
	     
	     But in terms of what is coming out of this weekend, 
I don't yet know.  In a couple hours we'll know.
	     
	     Q?	    Just a follow-up on the financing here.  Is 
any of this robbing Peter to pay Boris -- since it's all current 
year appropriations, have you taken it from anyplace that's been 
earmarked and put it into this fund?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are smoke and 
mirrors here, and I think it's an important point to note.  We 
could have given you a page of assistance numbers that included 
out-year funding.  We're going to make a long-term commitment to 
many of these projects -- for instance, the enterprise funds, the 
privatization effort, the housing effort.  And we've already 
talked to the Russians about our long-term commitment.  
	     
	     We could have put in really big numbers and this 
could have been a bigger package, but we wanted to make a point:  
This package is FY '93.  It's funds that we have.  And we're 
going to do what we say we're going to do.  And the President 
feels very strongly about that.  In the past there is a legacy 
that the western governments, the combination of governments, put 
up large budget figures and for any number of reasons we're not 
able to meet them, we're determined, and the President is 
determined, to carry out every single program in this package.  
And we'll do it.  
	     
	     But we do have a longer-term commitment, and that's 
part of the discussions on economics this weekend.  We're looking 
for Russian ideas on what it is we can do to most effectively 
support reform.  And we've told them that we do have a commitment 
on some of these programs beyond this fiscal year.
	     
	     Q	     taken it way from any --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, we haven't.  
Okay, the question is, have we reprogrammed any of these funds; 
so have we taken it from other countries to pay for programs in 
Russia?  The answer is no, we have not done so.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of funding, there is no available 
monies left -- and you simply find a creative way to find money 
somewhere else.  Doesn't that, in fact, support the -- theory?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not at all.  I 
don't think it does.  That's a particular example, and the 
example is grain sales.  The Commodity Credit Corporation credit 
guarantee program was short-term loans that Russia had to pay 
back within 12 to 15 months.  You all know about Russia's debt 
problem, and Russia was unable to meet those commitments.  So we 
looked for a way to do two things:  to meet Russia's requirement 
for grain.  They're a net grain importer on a massive scale, and 
also meet our objective of making sure that the American farmers 
have a chance to sell their products to Russia.  And we simply 
look for another way to finance that.  And we have legislative 
authority to do it.  This program has been successful in other 
areas.  We had not tried it before in the former Soviet Union, 
but we thought we should now.
	     	  
	     Q	  Isn't this really the Bush-Clinton aid package 
for Russia, since these funds were really first derived by 
initiatives put forward by President Bush?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I don't think 
that's a fair characterization.  A lot of these funds were 
appropriated by the U.S. Congress is 1991, in 1992.  This 
administration took office and inherited some obligations that 
the Bush administration had made.  But we had a long six to seven 
week review of this program.  We decided to meet the commitments 
that had been made by the previous administration.  
	     
	     But we have gone well beyond them in funding the 
enterprise fund, which was just an idea, but the idea had not 
been filled out with a program.  There was no number attached to 
it.  In grouping together some projects and trying to make them 
into a coherent whole in the privatization effort, I would say, 
is another Clinton initiative.  
	     
	     Further, we listened to the Russian government and 
listened to the Russian military who told us that the 
resettlement of their officers was important to them for 
political and economic and social reasons.  And President Clinton 
has responded to that.  And we are making a long-term commitment 
that beyond this demonstration project we're going to figure out 
a way to do much more in trying to settle those officers.  
	     
	     I would also say that the President has given 
impetus to all of us in the agencies to think much more broadly 
about what it is we can do on democratization, because there we 
have some experience and some comparative advantage that lends 
itself to the Russian experience.  And in calling for the 
creation of a democracy corps, which is another new initiative, 
we're hopeful that we can take the resources of the private 
sector as well as the American government, to achieve that 
objective.  
	     
	     So I would not characterize it that way at all.  And 
as most of you know, I am a career civil servant.  I was in the 
last administration.  I'm very familiar with what the last 
administration did.  And I would characterize this as a Clinton 
assistance package for Russia.
	     
	     Q	  There's been a lot of criticism that aid in the 
past has not gotten to the people.  Is there anything in this 
outside of the ombudsman, that will guarantee that this money 
will not just disappear because it's being administered by the 
Russian government?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that -- I 
know that the President and other senior officials of our 
government are concerned that American money be spent wisely and 
that it get to the source that it's intended -- for which it's 
intended.  And so we're going to take great care -- AID and the 
State Department will take great care in making sure that the 
funds are expended properly and that they're reaching their 
source.
	     
	     I would not that this package is not simply a 
package of support solely to the Russian government.  Some of 
these projects, especially in democratization and exchanges, are 
going to be worked out directly with Russian private individuals, 
with businesses.  The private enterprise support is another 
example of that.
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If I could just add 
a word on this point with regard to the SSD-related programs, one 
area that we've been looking at very, very closely is 
consideration of actually using Russian firms in subcontracting 
for these kinds of programs.  They would be working very closely, 
of course, with the American firms, who would be the prime 
contractors.  But this is a fine example, I think, of a more --of 
a imaginative and flexible approach toward getting some of that 
funding down to the grassroots level, down to the ground in 
Russia; but at the same time ensuring that it is spent 
efficiently and for the purposes for which it was intended.
	     
	     Q	  When would the democracy corps start?  Exactly 
when do you see this happening?  How would get it off the ground?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the President 
is today calling for the creation of a democracy corps.  I think 
it's fair to say that we're going to work out its framework over 
the next couple of weeks.  Ambassador Simons takes up his duties 
on May 1st.  But in effect we've already started, because over 
the last couple of weeks the administration has begun to reach 
out to people in the private sector who have come to us asking us 
to help facilitate their activities in Russia.  And we've said 
that we will be helpful.  We've also tried to kind of coordinate 
in a much more effective way the activities of our own 
government.  We do have 10 or 15 agencies that are active in 
Russia in one way or another.  We think it makes sense to draw 
them together and to focus their efforts.
	     
	     Q	  Excuse me.  How much of this $1.6 billion will 
actually be spent in the United States by American made goods?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't have any 
figures for you now, but perhaps we could try to work something 
up in the next couple of days on that.
	     
	     Q	  This figure is larger than the figure that has 
been in the press -- did this program grow yesterday as a result 
of the discussions, or have we just been that far off the mark?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I think --
unfortunately the press has been a little bit off the mark, and 
I'm sorry to say that.  No, this package -- President Clinton put 
us to work about seven weeks ago on this package.  And he was 
briefed intensively on this.  He contributed a lot of the 
intellectual leadership in this package.  He contributed a lot of 
the ideas in the package.  And I think it's fair to say that we 
had this rough package worked out about two weeks ago.  We have 
been refining it ever since.  We spent a couple of days last week 
going over it with the Russian government, both the embassy in 
Washington and the government in Moscow through our own embassy.  
And so it's been evolving.  But this particular package has been 
together for about two weeks.
	     
	     Q	  Where is Yeltsin's input into this then?  There 
was so much talk before about the President wanted to get 
Yeltsin's views about specifically what was needed and so forth.  
Is that in the out years?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it's both.  
President Yeltsin has on several occasions told us, for instance, 
that support for the creation of private businesses is important 
to him; that the resettlement of Russian military officers is 
important; and that first and foremost the effort to privatize 
the state industries is important to them.  
	     
	     And so what we did was to try to make those the 
centerpiece of our technical assistance part o the package.  We 
listened to him.  On the privatization effort, we have been 
working with the Russian government for months on this trying to 
work out all the details.  So the Russian government on most of 
these programs was involved every step of the way.  
	     
	     But let me get at the other part of your question.  
The President is also using this weekend to talk about a broader 
set of initiatives that we might undertake.  And we're looking 
for his ideas.  The President has brought his own ideas to the 
table -- for instance, on energy and the environment and in 
housing.  But we're looking for Russian ideas not.  We need to 
consult with the Congress; and we need to consult with the other 
allied governments that are also active.
	     
	     Q	  There's essentially nothing that happened in 
the last day and a half that measurably altered the package that 
you came in with?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This particular 
package, as I said, was worked out and was ready about two weeks 
ago.  We have since then consulted with the Russian government on 
the final stages of its development, and so this weekend we've 
primarily talked about future, about what more the United States 
and other Western countries can do to support reform in Russia, 
which is our base objective here.
	     
	     Q	  I noticed that you -- that money appropriated 
to train bankers and businessmen and officers.  Can you tell me 
what about job training for workers who are displaced by 
privatization?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  You're right; we 
have a program to train Russian -- young Russians in banking and 
financial services in the United States.  Part of the housing 
initiative, it's not just to build housing units, it's to retrain 
Russian officers who are retiring into other professions.
	     
	     Q	     money for job training for workers whose 
jobs are disappearing because of privatization --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have not yet 
allocated any money for that.
	     
	     Q	  Why not?
	     
	     Q	     of the $6 million is going to build 450 
housing units.  Isn't that a lot of money per unit given what the 
Western dollar will buy in the former Soviet Union?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If you want to do 
housing the right way, it's not just the building the framework 
of a house, you've got to think about all the utilities.  You've 
got to think about the purchase of land.  You've got to think 
about sewage and gas and electricity and so forth.  And it's also 
retraining.  It's not enough to put retired -- an officer coming 
out of -- Riga or Tallin or Vilnius in a house in western Russia.  
We think we have an obligation to try to retrain those officers 
as well.  This is responding to a request from the Russian 
government.
	     
	     Q	     of the $6 million will go to retrain --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's right.
	     
	     Q	  Are you talking about apartment buildings or 
single --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We're talking about 
single, individual dwellings.
	     
	     Q	  You're saying that only 450 families will be 
served by this?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What I want to -- I 
thought I pointed out earlier, this is a demonstration project.  
What we didn't want to do -- given the experience that the 
Germans and the Turks and the Italians have had in building 
housing in western Russian, we did not want to leap into it with 
a huge amount of money.  What we want to do is work over the next 
couple of months and try to figure out with American 
organizations in the private sector the best way to get this job 
done.  
	     
	     I noted that we have a long-term commitment to that.  
And so I would expect that we would put a lot more money into 
this in the future .  But we want to do it wisely; we want to 
spend the money wisely.
	     
	     Q	  What is it about this program that convinces 
you that it will protect Russia's reforms and that Russia will be 
in a position to may back the money they're supposed to pay back, 
especially considering their other debt problem?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, look, I think 
it's important to note that the United States on its own does not 
have the capability to fuel a continuation of Russian reform.  
It's got to be a collective Western effort, and we're looking to 
our allies to do more as well.  But beyond that, it's really what 
the Russians do that is going to decide the fate of reform.  We 
can simply play a role, and we feel we have an obligation to do 
so, which is consistent with our national interests.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President say that the value of the 
U.S. contribution was that it would create security and 
prosperity for the United States?  So what is it about this 
program that does this?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think you have to 
go back to the fundamental objective of our policy toward Russia, 
and that is we want to do everything we can to support the 
continuation of reform.  We are convinced that if reformers stay 
in power, then we'll be able to continue the drawdown of nuclear 
forces, foreign policy cooperation and economic interaction, 
which are the three benefits to the United States from reform in 
Russia.  So it's not a simple question.  You can't just say that 
this program is the answer.  It's a long-term question and we 
have to make a long-term commitment to it.
	     
	     Q	  And then on the question of Russia's ability to 
repay, what convinces you they'll be able to pay seven to 15 
years from now?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the Russian 
government has made a commitment to repay, and what we're hoping 
is that if reform continues, and if they can continue to improve 
their oil and gas sector and earn additional hard currency 
revenues, that Russia will be in a position six or seven years 
from now to pay back those loans.
	     
	     Q	     substantial government-to-government loan 
we've ever gotten into with the Russians?
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't want to 
answer authoritatively on that.  I don't go back 20 or 30 years 
on this.  But in the last four or five years, yes it is, because 
the previous way that we financed grain exports was really to 
just ensure private bank loans.  This is a different type of 
effort.
	     
	     Q	     government loans in any other sector that 
you recall?  I know it wasn't done in --
	     
	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think it's fair 
to say this is a new and unique effort.

                               END10:25 A.M. PDT

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176962
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu> Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
>by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
>[...]
>
>>    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
>> the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
>>  
>> Brett
>Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.

Yes, sadly, this is true. The primary reason, and the essence of the
details that you are seeking, is that the Grahm-Rudman budget controls
were working.  In fact, they were working so well that unless the feds
did something, they were going to have to start cutting pork. So Bush
and the Democrats got together in a Budget Summit and replaced
Grahm-Rudman with the now historic Grand Compromise in which Bush
"consented" to raise taxes in exchange for certain caps on spending
increases.

As it turned out, the taxes killed the Reagan expansion and the caps
on spending increases were dispelled by Clinton in his first act as
President (so that he could create his own new plan with more tax
increases).

The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.

Chew on that awhile.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176963
From: gdnikoli@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic)
Subject: Re: Damn Furriners Be Taken Over

In article <Apr.2.23.41.04.1993.607@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1pa6pt$63r@access.digex.com> hess@access.digex.com (Paul Hess) writes:
>> that drag the US down and cause problems at home and abroad.
>Rank balderdash!  America's reputation abroad has become tarnished
>because of feckless and pusillanimous cowards who apparently do not
>have the requisite gonads to stand up for American honor and dignity.

    Don't be ridiculous, Kaldis. I suggest you give the "Ugly American"
concept, which I can easily see you demonstrating, a good hard second look.

>> The American Way is not the ONLY way, it's not necessarally the BEST
>> way, and it is incredibly arrogant to even think that.
>
>The American Way may not be the only way, and you may not consider it
>to be necessarily the best way, but, by God, it's _OUR_ way and we're
>going to stick with it!  If you can't go along with the program, then
>perhaps you should consider moving elsewhere.

    Dear God. Didn't this die out in the fifties with McCarthy and the
blacklists?

>> I've spent quite a bit of time in different provinces of Canada and
>> let me tell you, it is very refreshing to spend time with people who
>> are not full of arrogant nationalism and empty patriotism.
>That is exactly the _PROBLEM_ with Canadians!  They don't stand for
>anything with certitude.

    Didn't your mother ever teach you not to generalize? I am a Canadian, and
I stand up for _too many_ things with _too much_ certitude. 

>> The Canadians I know well enough to say this about, seem to have a
>> great deal of pride in their provinces and their country, but they
>> aren't blinded by flags and ideals like many Americans are.
>Could this be because they are bereft of ideals?

    Uh huh. This must explain the world reknowned, record low American crime
rate. I see now, it's all becoming so clear to me.

>> Well, I've said too much,
>Yes you have.

    No he hasn't.

>> but I was so angered by your words that I felt I had to say something.
>> Sorry to intrude.
>You pipsqueak!  You mouse!  If you are sorry to intrude then why do
>it?  Don't you have the courage of your convictions?  Hell, do you
>even have any convictions to start with?  What kind of example of
>manly dignity is this?  Sheesh!

    Remarkable audacity and misguidance. What you take for your own courage,
sir, is nothing more than simple loud-mouthedness coupled with unrestrained
bragging.

-- 
     "Please allow me to introduce myself.               SYMPATHY 
      I'm a man of wealth and taste.                   FOR THE DEVIL
      I've been around for long, long years.            the Laibach  
      Stolen many a man's soul, and faith."               remixes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176964
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>

From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
-BTW, I'm a WALC (white aryan lapsed catholic)
-
---
-d'baba Duane M. Hentrich        baba@Tymnet.Com
-
   I would like to go on record as objecting to Mr. Hentrich calling
himself an Aryan.  The word `Aryan' is of Sanskrit origin and occurs first
in the Hindu scripture, the Rigveda.  It seems to have been a tribal term
but may have had connotations of good character.  Such connotations
are quite explicit in the sayings of the Buddha who called his religion the
eightfold Aryan path.   The word was borrowed by the German scholar
Max Mueller who used it as a synonym for `indo-european', but then the
Nazis proceeded to steal it and started pretending that `aryan' is
synonymous with `nordic' which seems highly unlikely.  The people who
originally called themselves aryas,  the Iranians, Noprth Indians, the Afghans
and possibly the Kurds, are none of them nordic.  So the use of the word
by Westerners, though meant with apparent good humor in this case, is
nontheless inappropriate.  The only Westerners who may have some claim
to call themselves Aryans (by descent) are the Celts who seem to have wor-
shipped a god called Aryaman who is mentioned in the Rigveda.

  If you want to check what I am saying, look at  Mallory's book, ``In
search of the Indo-Europeans" or, just look at the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reason this usage is offensive is that most of Ancient Indian literature
as well as religion is directly or inderectly due to the Aryans and
for Westerners to butt in is really not nice, not to mention the horrible
things done by Germans to Jews, using a word to which the Germans have
no clear claim.

Rohit Parikh

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176965
From: n4hy@tang.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993



Rich Thompson posts some blather about the Libertarian Party:

>August 30, 31, Sept. 1:           Everything You Always Wanted to
>                                  Know About Winning Elections, but
>                                  Didn't Know Where to Ask!


What pray tell do the Libertarians know about winning elections?

Bob


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176966
From: <CXNBK@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty! 1993

Narrative, narrative, narrative. . .



C.B.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176967
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge


In article <1phgakINN9pb@apache.dtcc.edu>, bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:

|>In article <1993Apr2.093952.1149@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:
|>
|>>	Ed, they are losing their humor. Please take a break until they
|>>get funny again (?), if that is even possible. I liked a few of these,
|>>but that list is not even sarcastic, just insulting and definitely not
|>>one of your best. I look forward to some better lists after a sabatical?
|>>ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU
|>
|>  No, they must be working, they are getting lots of these 'complaints'
|>that they are not funny....  Keep 'em coming, it they weren't funny or
|>bothering them they'd just ignore them....   

If a six year old child does a funny trick and you say well done he will
do it again and it may be funny. Then they may repeat it over and over
again bu you still have to pretend its funny even though it isn't any
more. Once they are older than six you expect them to realise that doing
the same thing over and over again isn't funny any more.

Basicaly Ed fails to be amusing because he is merely crass. He does not
make jokes that have any political content beyond attempting to ridicule
their target. Calling someone Slick Willie is not funny even if you put
on a red nose while you say it, it was a good debating point used on the
spur of the moment 12 months ago but now its use merely demonstrates that the
user couldn't think of anything original to say.


In the UK there is a tradition of old retired Colnels who bore the dinner
guests rigid with their descriptions of old campagns. Ed is clearly one
of this type of people who fails to see when a joke is spent.



Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176968
From: nickn@eskimo.com (Nick Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: Debating special "hate crimes" laws  (was How many homosexuals...)

In article <1pmrakINNpun@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>> > If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault
>> > and battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a
>> > sort of double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>> > [Douglas Meier]
>>
>> Assuming the questions are not rhetorical, the answers are:
>>
>> () To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>    assault laws.  
>> () No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>    charges and multiple crimes.
>> () Yes.
>
>Let's leave aside the personal-insult potential that Doug created by
>asking his last question and just concentrate on the legal/political
>debate...  Last point first: yes, a single act may lead to multiple,
>independent charges.  However, as a side note, I _think_ that the
>prohibition on double jeopardy mandates that the suspect be tried on all
>those charges at the same time, in the same trial.  (Unless, of course,
>the government can pull the "separate sovereignties" crock that they're
>using on those four LAPD cops who arrested Rodney King, i.e. trying a
>person who's already been acquitted in state court on federal charges
>arising from the same act...  _I_ think that this is double jeopardy but
>apparently the courts don't agree with me.)

Note that the laws that don't agree with you were passed to protect
a class of people who couldn't get justice from the state courts;
specifically civil rights workers in Missisippi in the 60's. The 
federal protection of individual rights supersedes the non-feasance
of the state. Something similar has long been traditional ( well
he's queer so I beat him up...) for gays


>
>You pays your money and you takes your pick... me, I lean strongly
>towards the "against" argument.  I know that having the law treat
>everyone as equals, regardless of realities, will not in and of itself
>lead to true equality, and in fact may lead, at times, towards greater
>inequality.  Nonetheless, I believe that true equality is at least
>_possible_ when the laws treat people as being equal, while true
>equality is, by definition, _impossible_ when the laws themselves
>mandate unequal treatment of classes of people by the state.
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>
As Anatole France said; "The law in its impartial majesty forbids the
rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges."

Equality of law can be construed in any number of ways. For example
the fact that all property thefts, regardless of value, are not
punished equally is an inequality which protects those who have
a lot of money from having it stolen. You could easily define
equality to regard the property in terms of it's significance
for the owner. This would a form of equality that would be skewed
toward poorer people.

In fact, most anti-gay bashing laws are constructed to offer equal 
protection. They make it an offense to damage people based on a 
motivation of hatred for sexual orientation. Thus the law in its
impartial majesty protects hets as well as gays from being bashed.
I'm sure that's a great relief to Douglas Meier.



-- 
Nick Nussbaum		nickn@eskimo.com	PO 4738 Seattle,WA 98104

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176969
From: edo2877@ucs.usl.edu (Ott Edward D)
Subject: EMAIL

does anyone have Prez. Clinton`s e-mail address.
thanks a lot 
 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176970
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In article <C50sKE.3Ft@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
> 
> In Article 164905 in talk.politics.misc,decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
> (dean.kaflowitz)
> 
> >In article <C4rt3t.Ewp@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com 
> >(Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
> >> 
> >>>    1) Is an unborn child a human being at ANY POINT during pregnency?
> 
> > >In my opinion, at all points during the pregnancy it is human.
> > >You'll have to define what you mean by "human being" for me to
> > >answer the question as put.
> 
> A parallel: Q: "Is a person of color a human being?"
>             A: "You'll have to define what you mean by `human being'."

To answer your irrelevant question, yes a person of color is human,
but I still don't know what you mean by human being and you have
merely begged the question without responding.  By trying to inject
the notion of race into the discussion, you muddy the waters without
adding any insight whatever.  The same parallel question could
be "Is a polydactyl person a human being?"  You still have not
answered what you mean by human being.  Please do so.

> >> I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person
> >> whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with 
> >> a functioning brain.
> >Could you cite some of those precedents for me, or the basis of this
> >definition?  While the law does allow the removal of extraordinary
> >means of sustaining life in cases of brain death, this in itself
> >does not lead to your conclusion of how the law defines a human
> >being.  However, at least you defined human being in a tenuous
> >fashion.  That is, a "person whose rights are protected by the
> >Constitution and the law."
> 
> >For my answer to your question, I refer you to Roe v Wade and
> >subsequent Supreme Court decisions, which define to what
> >extent a fetus is protected by the Constitution and the law.
> "Certain judges have concurred that slavery is not a violation of
> human rights; therefore, it is not."

You won't answer the question and instead drag in irrelevancies.
If you want a definition of human being that does not depend on
the vagaries of law, but holds solid whatever the law may rule,
provide it for me.

> I would suggest that your blind faith would not likely hold up if the
> shoe were on the other foot.  The "brain life/death" paradigm is one that
> I suggest as one consistent with other legal definitions.  It clearly
> doesn't matter to you whether an unborn child has any rights or not,
> however, so the point is lost on you. 

More irrelevancies.  As Larry Margolis pointed out, the law
has made special exceptions in order to include fetuses, but does
not follow your version of human being.  And as he pointed out,
brain death is not a means of determining who has the rights
of the living, but rather who has died.  There is a significant
difference.

What I am wondering now is, has your argument so failed you that
you feel it necessary to drag out irrelevancies and leave the
thread you started?  You got answers to your questions when
you began baiting me, if you recall, after you had made some
ridiculous remarks about Adrienne Regard and, having been corrected,
changed the subject with your remarks about having a discussion
of substance.  If you really wanted a discussion of substance,
why then do you disregard logic and substance in order to toss
silly accussations, e.g. "It really doesn't matter to you..."
If it matters to you, then why not define human being and seek
some substance?  You're not going to convince a logical person
of the rightness of your position unless you apply some logic
and show some meaning to your words.

> >> >>         2) If she is, then why does the mother have the right to kill
> >> >>            her when she is in the womb but not after she has passed
> >> >>            through the birth canal?
> >> 
> >> >Because a woman has a right to have any object which threatens her
> >> >health and is within the confines of her body removed.  The other
> >> >side of the argument would give rights to the fetus that would not
> >> >be granted to an adult human.  If, for example, you were occupying
> >> >the body of another, for whatever reason or through whatever means,
> >> >the reason and means being irrelevant, that other would be able to
> >> >remove or have you removed.  If that removal required your demise,
> >> >I see no reason in law that such a removal could not be effected.
> >> Rather than examining a hypothetical thought experiment, let us examine
> >> a real, though rare, situation: siamese twins.  If one siamese twin has
> >> the other surgically removed, knowing that it will cause death (and
> >> barring some emergency where they will both die anyway), it is
> >> murder.
> >Is it?  Have you any support for this assertion?  Furthermore, your
> >analogy is completely inapplicable.  Siamese twins have an equal
> >claim to any body parts they have in common.  Try again.
> What establishes this "equal claim" beyond your assertion?  If it
> is merely a matter of "which came first", cannot one kill the other since
> they both have equal claim?  What if one has more motor control than
> the other?  Does that establish a "superior claim"?

As others point out, one is sacrificed for the other depending on
which has the better chance at survival.  Again, your analogy
fails.  Not precedence, but possession makes a difference here.
A woman's womb is indisputably her own.  Also, I see you ignore
my statement that you would grant rights to a fetus that would
not be granted a born human being.  Was that due to its inconvenience?

> >> You see, the right to life IS granted to adult humans in the
> >> same sense as it should be to the foetus AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO BIRTH.
> >Are Siamese twins ever separated in the womb?  Or is this
> >right you assert for Siamese twins, which I don't even think is
> >true as stated or valid as an analogy, one that exists after birth?
> >Freivald, your entire argument here is a failure.
> Interesting way of trying to combine two essentially orthogonal concepts.
> The point is that it is murder for one siamese twin to kill the other,
> regardless of their status of physiological dependence or interdependence.

Is it?  Please cite a precedent and the basis of the ruling.

> It would be difficult for one siamese twin to kill the other inside the
> womb, and even if it were possible I doubt that a case could be made for
> premeditation or neglegence.  Note the use of the phrase "it should be"
> in my post.

You simply assert things without any support.  Your analogy is
not accurate and your assertions are unsupported.  Try this on
for size.  It is not murder for one Siamese twin to kill
the other in the womb.  There.  We now have equal arguments.
But the idea is illogical.  For one Siamese twin to kill the
other in the womb would likely be to kill itself as well.  The
systems are dependent on each other for life.  I'm still struggling
to see anything analagous here and failing to do so.

> >> Of course, the situation is NOT a perfect comparison; it may well be that
> >> one siamese twin deliberately initiates oppression or coersion against
> >> the other.  This is clearly not the case with an unborn child.
> >And this last statement from you is a total non sequitur.  The
> >comparison is far worse than you give it credit for.
> Are you going to let this assertion stand on its own also, or do you 
> plan on following up with a reasoned argument?

Your argument is from Fantasy Island.  Your comparison is a total
failure, as I have demonstrated already, and has no basis in
reality, neither legally nor medically.  And for you to assert
that it is not a perfect comparison because of the impossible,
that of coercion or oppression, is ridiculous.  As I said,
you give the analogy too little credit for failure.  On the one
hand you start this by saying you want to take a real, rather than
a hypothetical, situation, then you fly off into Siamese twins
murdering one another in the womb or coercing or oppressing each
other in the womb when the reality of the situation you describe
in now way matches your version.  As I said before, decisions
are made regarding which twin lives and dies in situations where
they cannot both survive.  And, furthermore, as I have already said,
there is a difference between an equal claim to organs and a claim
that is unequal.  You seem to be asserting that a fetus has a
claim on a woman's womb.  When the fetus is born, what happens to
its claim?  And by what reason do you assert its claim?

> >> >>         3) If a parent has the right to choose to not take responsibility
> >> >>            for their own child, why are there laws and penalties against
> >> >>            child abandonment?
> >> >This last question is irrelevant and something of a non sequitur.
> >> >Can you establish some relevance or even some sense for it?
> >> If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
> >> have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
> >> their children.
> >Again, what is the relevance?  You have established no sense of when
> >that point is, you ignore the significant difference between a fetus
> >and a born child (the dependence of a born child can be transferred
> >to another party, while that of a fetus cannot; a born child does
> >not live within the body of another human being while a fetus does,
> >thereby representing potential and often actual harm to that
> >body, as in the case of one of our talk.abortion participants who
> >suffers from epilepsy and to whom pregnancy represents a significant
> >health risk, or as in the case of a woman I know, who chose to
> >continue her pregnancy, but spent her entire pregnancy confined to
> >a wheelchair and suffering great pain from constriction of some
> >nerve), and your argument is not an argument against abortion
> >generally, but at best an argument against abortion at "some
> >time during the course of pregnancy."
> Again, a quest for common ground.  Most of the pro-choice people I
> have spoken to in person (none of them pro-abortion activists) concede
> that the child has a right to life at some point that supersedes all
> of the mother's rights except that of her own life.  As is often the
> case in emotionally charged issues, the activists have a very different
> outlook from the mainstream.

You haven't answered the question.  The situations are not analagous.

> The dependence of a born child is not transferred instantaneously; it
> takes time and effort.  Incidentally, it is the pro-choice side, not
> me, arguing that the government should make it easy for parents to 
> abandon their children to the State.

Again you avoid the question.  Dependence can be transferred, and
it is not as slow as you seem to think.

> As to the anecdotal evidence of real human tragedy, there is ample
> on both sides.  I would hate to be in the position of the mother in
> NYC who has to tell her daughter that she lost her arm in a botched
> abortion attempt.

Yes, and I'd hate to have been the one to tell Dr Gunn's children that
he was murdered by a religious, "pro-life" fanatic.  Please do
try to stay relevant.

> >The kindest thing I can say about these responses of yours is
> >that I can see you are trying to say something, but the result
> >is a mish-mash of negligible value.
> Sez you.

Clever comeback.  I congratulate you on the readiness of your wit.
> 
> In Article 164906 in talk.politics.misc,decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> [Ground covered in another post deleted]
> 
> >> >If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
> >> >have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
> >> >their children.
> >> 
> >> And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children,
> >> even if necessary to save the child's life.
> 
> >As was this.  To make it painfully clear, you are not
> >obligated to donate a kidney to save your child's life
> >under law.
> 
> Again, the confusion between ACTION {deliberately taking away the life
> of a child} and INACTION {refusing to run out in front of a bus to save
> a child}.

What happened to that claim to bodily organs where life is at stake?
Why does this parent now have an indisputable right to his or her
kidney when previously the parent did not, by your standards?  What
is different about the two situations?  I see I have to spell this
out for you since the meaning was too subtle for you.  In the one
case you do not recognize a difference between a fetus and a born
child (you ask why a born child cannot be abandoned but a fetus
can), and in this case you recognize a significant difference
between the fetus and born child where the lives of the two are at
stake.  You can't have it both ways.  Action and inaction are
irrelevant to the principle, but you are wrong about the inaction
anyway.  Ask any of the numerous women who post here and have
borne children how inactive their pregnancy was.  To have a
healthy, live child, a woman does more than hang out, eat as
she chooses, plays volleyball like she always did, drinks at
parties with her friends, etc.  She behaves very differently, and
the provision of her resources to a fetus may be no more voluntary
than the beating of her heart, but it is far from inactive.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176971
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In article <C50sMA.3GK@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
> 
> 
> In article 164871 in talk.politics.misc, margoli@watson.ibm.com 
> (Larry Margolis) writes:
> 
> >>I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person
> >>whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with
> >>a functioning brain.
> 
> >No, if you want to use legal precedent, you should take a look at the
> >Model Penal Code, on which many states base their criminal code:
> 
> My apologies if I was unclear; I was not trying to start a statutory 
> debate, since there are many (in some cases conflicting) statutes on
> the books.  I was merely suggesting a paradigm that might make sense
> for a pro-choicer IMHO.

Cite one of these conflicting statutes.  You keep making
these assertions, but you haven't supported any of them yet.
I am speaking of statutes that conflict with the definition
Larry posted.

Why did you delete the code that Larry posted?

Also, the Model Penal Code made perfect sense to me.  Were you,
perhaps, confused by it?

Also, I am still looking for your definition.  The one you used
clearly indicates that a fetus is not a human being.

> >>This is not likely to please either pro-lifers or
> >>pro-choicers, but it is pretty clear from the legal/medical concept of
> >>"brain death".
> >"Brain death" is a method of deciding when a (known) person is legally
> >dead; there's no analogous concept of "brain birth".
> I have just coined it.  You may object to the paradigm, but it would
> make our treatment of human life statutorily consistent.

Circular arguments are usually very consistent.

> >>>>         3) If a parent has the right to choose to not take responsibility
> >>>>            for their own child, why are there laws and penalties against
> >>>>            child abandonment?
> >>>This last question is irrelevant and something of a non sequitur.
> >>>Can you establish some relevance or even some sense for it?
> >>If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly
> >>have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward
> >>their children.
> >And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children,
> >even if necessary to save the child's life.
> There is a confusion here between action and inaction: a parent does not have
> to run out in front of a bus to save their child's life either, but a parent
> IS required to feed his children.


Again, your desire for consistency disappears when it does not suit
your needs.  The principle of protecting life is abandoned based
on "action versus inaction."  Not much of a principle.  Suddenly
you recognize that the claim on bodily resources is dependent
on circumstances other than this principle of life.  That's
a very conevnient principle you have there, Matt.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176972
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

In article <C52CLI.G09@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1phgakINN9pb@apache.dtcc.edu>, bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:


>In the UK there is a tradition of old retired Colnels who bore the dinner
>guests rigid with their descriptions of old campagns. Ed is clearly one
>of this type of people who fails to see when a joke is spent.

  You are hereby authorized not to laugh.  By special dispensation of
her Hillariness.  This offer void where prohibited by law, consumer must
pay applicable sales tax.....
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176973
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)


In a previous article, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) says:

>
>	I don't believe in the "Wave Theory".

 
           You don't have to.  *It*  believes in YOU.


>horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock
>in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.


        Well, looking at our new government pals, I'm inclined to
        agree.  I don't much believe in our money, either. :)


>	Maybe you'd like to invest in some foreign currency.


    Oh, ho HO!   If only you knew!  :)

    Yup, I'm DEFINITELY checking out foreign currency, thanks to
    to this newsgroup.  It sure doesn't take much thinking to realize
    what direction the U.S. is headed.


>	(Sigh - speculators never learn.)


    Oh, ho HO!  Speculator?!  Me?!  No, no, I'm going with a sure
    thing.  Sure as "Bust in California Real Estate". :)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176976
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Responses to Ed's Top Ten Lists


In a previous article, mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) says:

>In article <C4zrEH.C7s@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) write
>s:
>
>The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler)
>so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?


      No.  The REAL question:  Should the Feds bail-out IBM ( a la Chrysler )
  so that important $80K manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?

       It could be part of the "Jobs Bill"



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176977
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Haiti  AIDS/HIV IMMIGRANTS



     In case you missed it on the news....the first 16 Haitians
of many that tested positive for HIV and were being held on a
base in Cuba have been flown to the U.S.
     Further a U.S. judge has ruled that they must receive
medical treatment or be returned to a place where they could
receive same.

      So guess what folks, we taxpayers get to pick up the tab 
(just as you might have expected) for people who have never
contributed a dime to the U.S. society.

      I think this government has its priorities ALL SCREWED UP.
If they want to help Haitians....how about removing the illegal
government, how about giving them development aid?
IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to waste resources on dying non-citizens
who will never be productive in either this country or their own.
It does not make sense when the same resources applied or even
just plain given to poor people in Haiti could significantly
help 100 people in Haiti per 1 AIDS-infected non-citizen immigrant.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176979
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Debating special "hate crimes" laws


In article <1993Apr4.235546.6450@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> > This sort [of] separate treatment by the law has no place in an
> > equal society; the solution to the fact that some classes are more
> > vulnerable to attack or discrimination is to do what has always
> > been done in response to imbalances in criminal activity and
> > citizen protection: to allocate _law enforcement_ resources to
> > more efficiently and effectively deal with the problems, not to
> > rewrite the _law_ itself.  [wdstarr]
>
> So how do you feel about increased penalties for killing a policeman?
> A federal employee?  Or to use both Scalia's and Stevens's example,
> increased penalties for threatening the president?  (I'm assuming
> that, like all good people, you oppose the marital exemption for rape,
> so I won't bring that up.)

In order of your questions, I oppose it, I oppose it, I oppose it and
(Huh?  Wha?  Where did _that_ topic come from and what's it got to do
with the discussion at hand? :-)

When I was discussing the concept of different criminal laws for crimes
against different classes of people (and yes, I do consider laws which
allow/mandate enhanced penalties following conviction based upon the
convict's attitudes towards the class membership of the victim to fit
into that category), the category of classes I had in mind was that of
the standard civil rights discussion -- classes based upon race, gender,
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.  Having you ask about
classes based upon one's _profession_ rather than one's personal
characteristics caught me off guard, and I had to think out the question
from scratch.

What I finally decided was that the law should not recognize such
classes because to do so would be to formally and officially declare
some people to be of more worth than others, and that would be anathema
to the underlying American concept of equal treatment under the law.

Last year, when a federal crime bill was under consideration which would
have expanded the federal death penalty to an additional fifty-plus
crimes, including the murder of various federal officers hitherto not
protected by that "aura of deterrence," critics pointed out the
absurdity of having laws which made the death penalty available for the
murder of a federal postal inspector but not for ther murder of a
civilian teacher, when the latter [arguably] provided a much more
valueable service and therefore would be the greater loss to society.
This was an emotionally compelling argument, but even the proponents of
that viewpoint appeared to tacitly assume that the state should judge
some lives as being more valuable than others on the basis of their
"contribution to society."  I view that doctrine as being both (a)
personally repugnant and (b) repugnant to the Equal Protection clause of
the 14th Amendment.

Accordingly, I believe that there should be no laws which give any
profession-based class of people special protection (via the mechanism
of supplying stronger statutory deterrence of crimes against members of
that class), not even police officers, federal officers or high-ranking
members of the Executive Branch of the federal government.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176980
From: gemmellj@merrimack.edu
Subject: e-mail to the hill ??

Now, that Clinton can get e-mail, i'm wondering if Congress is also
going on line.. If so, does anyone have the address to reach them??
I'm also looking for Bill's e-mail address.
please e-mail me, i am not a regualar reader of this newsgrouop.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176981
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds

In article <C51vzu.I1r@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>  Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, 
>  Study Finds

While I agree with much of this post, one point seems mis-directed...

>    When standards of living, population densities, and industrial
>  structures are controlled for, the United States is no less energy
>  efficient than Japan and more energy efficient than many of the Group
>  of Seven nations.

And when controlled for usage of oil, gas, etc. energy efficiency in
all countries turns out to be identical :-)

To take population density as an example, one way to reduce energy
used in transportation is surely to concentrate the population in
dense urban areas (though this might, of course, have other
disadvantages, possibly even relating to energy use).  The fact that
Japan is forced to do this by the nature of the country, while the US
is not, does not mean that people in the US would be unable to do this
if given sufficient motive to conserve energy.

    Radford Neal

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176982
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over

In article <01APR93.17160985.0059@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:

> Mark Anthony Young:

>> PPS: Many Americans have a "special legal status" based on "a mere
>> accident of birth".  Only people born in the US can become president
>> of the US.  And since Parliament could theoretically replace the Queen
>> with _anyone they want_ (even a "ferigner") US law is in one dimension
>> more restictive than UK law as regards birth privileges.

> This is not just theoretical.  Note how "ferigner" William III was
> imported from Holland to kick out local boy James II, [...]

Which provided the basis for the denoument of the film which
introduced Errol Flynn to the world.  (Love interest was Olivia de
Havilland, who went on to appear with Flynn in 7 more films.)

[Exercise for non-old-movie buffs: what film was this?]
[Exercise for old movie buffs: what were the 7 more films?]
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176985
From: dil8596@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.

it may be a little late to reply to your tirade and also on an inaapropriate
board but along with all of the so called great things the white male has done they have also contributed to society by means of mass genocide, the theft of
ideas and cultures, creating and the perptration of historical lies throughouttime among many other horrible activities.
but every culture has its upside and its downside.  it seems to me that the 
white male (must be extremely ignorant to qualify for the following - if
you're not disregard) and western culture are the only things that look to 
actively classify things as good or bad, worthy or unworthy (ya dig)
it can be seen with slavery and the manipulation and destruction of the 
american indians civilization.  nothing but selfish acts that benefit one 
group of people (and not even their women get or got respected or regarded as
equal - ain't that some stuff)

white men - not being specific - but in a lot of cases are just wack or have
wack conceptions of how the world is to serve their purpose.  

just look at david koresh - throughout history (i may be shortsighted on this one so excuse my predjudiced ignorance) only white men associate themselves withbeing GOD.  no other culture is ignorant or arrogant enough to assume such a 
position.  and then to manipulate and mislead all those people.

hmmm...  i'd say look in your history books but since it seems that history 
has been written to glorify the exploits of white men you'd only find lies.

awww that's enough already from me because this has nothing to do with sex or this board.  if ya'd like to continue this discussion e-mail me and we can 
compare and contrast ideas

			i like conflict - it's educational when the 
			communcation is good......................

my $.02 worth

(i apologize to those who thought this was going to be about SEX but i was
prompted by a response i found up here)

dave lewis - frisky HANDS man

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176986
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Subject: Re: Supply Side-revenue

In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> 
> The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
> ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.

Which, considering the amount Bush&congress added to it, would be a
not-inconsiderable achievement.

While we're on the subject, I also believe that the supply-side claim that
reducing taxes raised revenue is also false, because they typically factor in
SocSec taxes, which were *raised* a considerable amount, at the same time that
income taxes were cut.  If you look at income tax revenue alone, it fell after
after the cuts began, and didn't recover for several years. By then, record
deficits were well entrenched.
> 
> Chew on that awhile.

*crunch, crunch*

steve soar



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176987
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
: In article <1993Apr5.045612.14229@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
: 
: > [...]  You're not breathing clean air provided by government
: > regulations, [...]
: 
: If this doesn't beat all I ever heard!  The above certainly says a
: mouthful about the mindset of Ted Frank, and also of statists
: everywhere.
: --

Yes, there's certainly no need to argue with him, or address the
substance of what he says- he's a statist, after all.  Probably 
politically correct, too...                           

Bill


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176989
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy

In article <186042@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
> In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu
> (Ashish Arora) writes:
> |> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
> |> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
> |> [...]
> |> 
> |> >    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
> |> > the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
> |> >  
> |> > Brett
> |> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.
> |> 
> |> cheers
> 
> Actually not.  Brett himself has actually posted the data previously.
> What declined from 84 to 89, as I remember it, was _percent
> increase_in_deficit_growth, i.e. the rate of growth of the deficit 
> (2nd derivative of total deficit with respect of to time) decreased.

	Would you please define "nth derivative of debt"?  Last time I asked
you seem to have disappeared....

	And it's the deficits themselves that came down to 2.9% of GNP.  The
numbers are posted in the previous posting.

> Brett apparently has numbed himself into thinking that the deficit
> declined.  

	Cute, Paul, but with no numbers you still look foolish.

> If you keep spending more than you earn, the deficit keeps
> growing.  

	Paul, like many others, is confusing the deficit with the debt.

> If you keep _borrowing_ at a lesser rate than you borrowed
> previously, the deficit increases.  You only decrease deficits when your
> income exceeds spending and you use the difference to pay off debts.

	Not in terms of GNP, the one universally accepted measure of deficits
(at least among rigorous economists :)

...
> arguments were brilliant.  He confirmed, with data, what many of us know
> with common sense -- the boom of the 80's has nothing to do with government
> policy, particularly "supply side" policy, since taxes do not "cause" 
> economic activities.  People cause economic activity.  More can be 

	Semantics.  Lindsey proves otherwise.  Taxes make people change their
economic activities.
	Or shall we debate whether it is the gun, the bullet, or the person who
does the killing?

> explained by watching population waves roll through the years and 
> create cycles.  He has made models and predictions for years well into
> the middle of next century.  It will be neat to see how accurate he
> is.

	Or whether this gentleman can win the same praise as Lindsey. :)

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176990
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po..
> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig 
> [...]
> 
>>    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before  
>> the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend.
>>  
>> Brett
> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.

In billions of dollars (%GNP):
year  GNP    receipts     outlays       deficit     debt    unempl%  admin
====  ====   ===========  ============  =========   ======  =======  =======
1977  1930   355.6 (18.4) 409.2  (21.2) 53.6 (2.8)   709.1           Carter
1978  2174   399.6 (18.4) 458.7  (21.1) 59.2 (2.7)   780.4           Carter
1979  2444   463.3 (19.0) 503.5  (20.6) 40.2 (1.6)   833.8           Carter
1980  2674   517.1 (19.3) 590.9  (22.1) 73.8 (2.8)   914.3   7.9     Carter
1981  2986   599.3 (20.1) 678.2  (22.7) 78.9 (2.6)  1003.9   8.4     Reagan
1982  3130   617.8 (19.7) 745.7  (23.8) 127.9 (4.1) 1147.0  11.0     Reagan
1983  3325   600.6 (18.1) 808.3  (24.3) 207.8 (6.2) 1381.9  10.9     Reagan
1984  3688   666.5 (18.1) 851.8  (23.1) 185.3 (5.0) 1576.7   8.6     Reagan
1985  3958   734.1 (18.5) 946.3  (23.9) 212.3 (5.4) 1827.5   8.1     Reagan
1986  4177   769.1 (18.4) 989.8  (23.7) 220.7 (5.3) 2129.5   7.9     Reagan
1987  4442   854.1 (19.2) 1002.1 (22.6) 148.0 (3.4) 2354.3   7.1     Reagan
1988  4771   909.0 (19.1) 1064.1 (22.3) 155.1 (3.2) 2614.6   6.3     Reagan
1989  5201   990.8 (19.0) 1142.8 (22.0)	152.0 (2.9) 2881.1           Bush
1990         1031.2       1251.6        220.4       3190.5           Bush
1991	     1054.3	  1323.0	268.7       3599.0           Bush

[Source: Statistical Abstract of the US (1990 version), American Almanac 
(1993 version), Universal Almanac (1993 version), Information Please Almanac
(1991 version)]

		GRAPHICALLY: Deficits as a % of GNP, 1981-89

% GNP
7|
 |
6|                       X
 |                                       X       X
5|                               X                
 |                                                
4|               X
 |                                                       X
3|                                                               X       X
 |       X
2|
 |
1|
 |____________________________________________________________________________
0	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989

	Ironically, Bush could have frozen spending, kept his "no new taxes"
pledge and balanced the budget.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176991
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject

In <1ppjruINNhnt@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:

>In article <C4y3DD.L1n@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
>>     But this does not imply that ALL relationships between youth
>>     and adults are exploitative and abusive.

>>The critical factor here is whether the sexual activity is "forced" 
>>or whether it is an activity that is consensually agreed upon and 
>>freely engaged in by the people involved.

>>When a child is "forced" there is often "damage", on the other hand,

>	Wholeheartedly agree here.

>>"consensual" relationships are often found to be "positive experiences" 
>>for all concerned.

>	Why do I find this hard to believe?
>	Care to convince us?

Carlos,

   Why not check out some of the scientific research that has been
done in this area and convince yourself.

   Research around the world indicates that the issue of coercion is
the critical factor. 

For those interested in research on the topic I can suggest, Li et al
(England), Constantine (United States), and Sandfort (The Netherlands).
I especially like Sandfort's research for he actually quotes what the
boys who are involved in the relationships have to say.



Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives by Larry Constantine
  & Floyd M. Martinson (eds.). Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1980.
Boys On Their Contacts With Men by Theo Sandfort, Global Academic
  Publishers, Elmhurst, New York, 1987.
Perspectives on Paedophilia by Brian Taylor (ed.). Batsford Academic &
  Educational Ltd., London, 1981.
Paedophilia: A Factual Report by Frits Bernard. Enclave, Rotterdam,
  The Netherlands, 1985.
Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys by Parker Rossman. Maurice
  Temple Smith Ltd., Middlesex, Great Britain, 1985.
Children's Sexual Encounters With Adults by C.K. Li, D.J. West & T.P.
  Woodhouse. Gerald Duckworth & Co., London, 1990.


Yours in Liberation,

Roy


-- 
Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176992
From: acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)


In article <1938@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, doesn't believe in 
>money at all. She started out as a real estate developer, and now raises
>horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock
>in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.

If time is really hard, can a bank selectively call in some mortgage
loans early?  What if the bank folds, can its creditors call in the
loans?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176993
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...

...His account that is.

Many important issues, and some not-so important ones, are discussed here
on the net on a daily basis.  I have just been informed of what I feel is
one of the most important things that we could ever discuss -- The 
out-and-out censorship of one of our fellow posters because some people
don't like what he says or thinks.

We have all seen the postings here by AJ Teel.  Although many of us have
not agreed with their content, I'm sure most of us have been at least
somewhat interested in them.  I, for one, am greatful to live (I thought)
in a country where people like Mr. Teel are allowed to say what they please.
If I don't wan't to read it, I can just skip on by, or unsuscribe.  But,
unfortunately, some people cannot let others live and let live.  They feel
an overwhelming need to snuff out the little bastards.  Now it seems that
Mr. Teel will be with us no more, due mainly to our brother, and cheif
net police, Ted Frank.


PLEASE HELP AJ TEEL REGAIN NET (POST) ACCESS AND CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE. 

                      ARE YOU ON TED'S HIT LIST?  
                      ARE YOUR THOUGHTS CORRECT?  
                        IS YOUR ACCOUNT SAFE?
         HAS YOUR SYSADMIN BEEN CONTACTED BY THE THOUGHT POLICE?

I thought the NLG and the ACLU supported people with diverse opinions. NOT!

 
Please read the following forwarded messages from AJ Teel so that 
you may understand this vial act for what it is...

------------------------------ forwarded ---------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Officer Ted Frank, Thought Police Badge Number NWO-666
Summary: Ted wins the argument by killing his opponent!
Expires: 
Sender: "A. J. Teel, Sui Juris" (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Keywords: NWO Ted Frank

Well, well, well... Thanks to eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) and
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank), my account is to be axed.
I guess that the information I am presenting is just toooo difficult
for them to deal with. They (ONLY Ted and Mark) have complained to my
sysadmin some unknown number of times to get me off the net. (In his
defense, Mark sent only one message and it was not THAT bad; it has
been posted in one of the newsgroups; However, it *was* not directed
at me as would be common practice and I am VERY good at responding
via netmail...)

While I disagree with Ted, I would not send mail to his sysadmin
to get him axed. Name-calling was not enough; jumping on every post
I made was not enough; ignoring specific points when they were not
what the desired picture was not enough; SIMPLY IGNORING ME IF I
AM SUCH A KOOK WAS NOT ENOUGH. Even now I do not wish to have him
axed, but I do wish to express my disgust about this. "Argumentum
ad silence-your-opponent-um"?! I would have thought he would have
wanted me to stay around just to have someone to yell about and
seem sooo wise... (to himself, I think).

The issue that seems to be: "Is the following an advertisement?"
Apparently, Ted and Mark think so...

1) I Posted an article from around one year ago as it was taken 
	*off the net* from last year. If reposting an article
	constitutes posting an ad, then I am guilty. This post
	did have a name and address and, yes, a price. If one
	had posted the address and subscription price of "Newsweek",
	would that be an ad? I get nothing from showing this stuff.
2) I Posted a list of documents showing examples of the kind of
	"proof" that was REQUESTED BY TED FRANK. He then complains
	to my sysadmin saying that I am advertising and, lo and
	behold, "poof", there goes my account. This one had an
	address in it! Oh, no! I Guess that means it is an ad!

If you value the alternative view I have been discussing, or VALUE
ITS DISCUSSION even if you do not agree with it, I ask that you send
a note saying as much to me to show to the sysadmin. They rarely get
"Ya know, that user on your net was real helpful..." or whatever; they
only get "I don't like what that user is doing because...".
Please do not send the note to the sysadmin. I need to take it to them
in a manner that has at least a chance of getting through.

In my files here are hundreds of responses from people saying "Thanks for
the info" or "Could you send me such and such?" or "Your posts are
very interesting... keep it up." and only a handfull of "Go aways". But,
I guess the fact that I have decided not to waste my time trying to
convince Ted is a Net Offense[TM] of such magnitude as to warrant
a message complaining about me. (Knock, knock..."My name is Ted and
and this is Mark... We're from the thought police. Seems you have
some pretty dangerous ideas here, and we're here to confiscate them...")
NWO Indeed!

Guess I will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with
a new plan... Thanks Ted and Mike. Hope you are happy.
I will be on for a few more days and then... that's all folks!
Your comments and support are requested. I can no longer post
to news. I ask what this has accomplished... Is there some benefit
from making alternative views simply vanish? Not in my book. 
Seems the easiest way to win an argument is to make the opposing side
shut up. Images of Waco.... ah, but alas... And all this when I am in the
process of typing in a letter to me from the Tax Collector saying that
a lien was removed due to a letter that I wrote challenging jurisdiction.
Oh, well... It takes time to come up with the info requested, and I
was just getting started.

It should be noted that Ted Frank has been accused publicly over 40
times of being an NWO supporter and has never made an statements to the
contrary. Further, what ARE Ted Frank's motivations for getting me axed?
We all know that SOME PEOPLE are getting paid to collect info on people
on the net that are of "interest" to the government, and Ted sure seems
to have a *personal* interest in debunking me. Hmmm... just who does
he work for? The University of Chicago which he "attends"(?) is well
known as one of the biggest NWO supporters...

And finally, if anyone would be able to help me find a new account here
in the Boulder/Denver area, I would greatly appreciate it. I am in the
process of installing Linux and so will be able to do UUCP or maybe
a TC/IP connection. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Since I
am longer be able to post news and will no longer have email VERY
soon, I hope that anyone who wishes to contact me will do so via:

	A. J. Teel, Sui Juris
	c/o USPS Box 19043
	Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.
	Postal Zone: 80308-9043
	
	or leave me voice mail at: c/o (408) 281-0434


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected messages from Ted Frank via sysadmin follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)


---------------------------

>From barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu Mon Apr  5 14:39:21 1993
Received: from locutus.cs.colorado.edu by dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA14777
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:39:19 -0600
Received: by locutus.cs.colorado.edu with SMTP id AA15908
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:36:54 -0600
Message-Id: <199304052036.AA15908@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
To: "Ted Frank" <thf2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: List of documents 
Cc: cstmr@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, csops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu,
        ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, vaxops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Reply-To: trouble@cs.colorado.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 05 Apr 93 13:29:06 CDT
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 14:36:51 -0600
From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Status: OR

--------

    Please ask ******* to stop advertising his wares on the network. Thank you.
			[Editor's Note:    ^^^???]
    
    In article <1993Apr5.154256.5169@colorado.edu> ajteel writes:
    >[START OF DOCUMENT: doclist.txt.lis ]
    >DOCUMENTS NOW AVAILABLE
    >
    >BILL MEDINA, Sui Juris
    >Post Office Box 70400
    >Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A.
    >Postal Zone: 94086-0400
    
    (79 lines deleted).

---------------
  Resolution:
---------------

Thank you.  He has been warned before.  We are taking action.


Barbara J. Dyker                       Department of Computer Science
Manager, Computer Operations           Campus Box 430B, ECEE00-69
barb@cs.colorado.edu                   University of Colorado
(303) 492-2545                         Boulder, CO  80309-0430

--------------------
>From barb@locutus
.cs.colorado.edu Mon Apr  5 15:50:36 1993
Received: from locutus.cs.colorado.edu by dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA15809
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU>); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:34 -0600
Received: by locutus.cs.colorado.edu id AA16069
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ajteel); Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:27 -0600
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:50:27 -0600
From: Barbara Dyker <barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
Message-Id: <199304052150.AA16069@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.87.1)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.87.1)
To: ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Subject: your account
Cc: vaxops@locutus.cs.colorado.edu, usenet@locutus.cs.colorado.edu,
        mozer@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
Status: OR

[...]

I had already warned you that your inappropriate use of
your account here must stop.  You have used your account
here as a soapbox for your political "sui juris" agenda.

[...]

> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 13:26:43 -0700
> From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
> To: ajteel@locutus.cs.colorado.edu
> 

> Also, if you are reported for any more commercial
> announcements, your account may be disabled. 

[Editor's note: What commercial advertisemnets are we talking about?]

> From: barb@bruno.cs.colorado.edu
> To: "A.J. Teel" <ajteel@dendrite.cs.colorado.edu>
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 17:26:40 MST
> 

[...]

> As long as
> they aren't causing any problems, we typically don't
> mind. ...We have received two complaints about the
> content of your messages so far (at least one of which I
> consider valid) - which already constitutes excessive
> in my book.  Just don't let it happen again. 

[Editor's note: I *wonder* who the other post was from??!]

>From laszlo@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu Thu Mar 18 01:40:15 1993
To: "Ted Frank" <thf2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Bouncing 

Cc: cstmr@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu, csops@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu
Reply-To: trouble@cs.colorado.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 17 Mar 93 21:05:59 CST
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 08:40:15 MST
From: laszlo@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu

--------

In article <1993Mar18.012344.6213@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU
    >Bounced names:
    >   garry@research.att.com
    >   bill@kean.usc.mun.ca
    >   jad@hopper.Virginia.EDU
    >   kima@gator.rational.com
    >
    >Hello All:
    >   I am having trouble reaching the following (keeps bouncing).
    >   If you sent me mail and haven't gotten a response, check here.
    >   Also, can anyone tell me why these are bouncing? I used
    >   the reply in elm which should send it right back, right?
    >With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
    >Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)
    >
[...]

[Editor's Note: The reason for posting the header lines from the bounced
messages was to show what the problem was and hopefully correct it.]

[Ted Frank] It's inexcusable to post 150 lines of bounced mail headers to four
newsgroups.
    A simple four-line post would have been sufficient.

---------------
  Resolution:
---------------
[Lazlo]
yes i agree. BUT our policy is to not watch everypost someone  here  
makes.
we generally let the net itself take care of inappropriate postings
by flaming the user into shape (which i assume this is ment to be).
we (CS operations) don't like to get involved in this stuff (unless
its illegal, repetitive posts of 1gig gifs, harassment, or something
else that offends the community in general). my suggestion is that
you take it to email and explain what a post for bounces should look  
like or tell him to RTFM

laz
[Editor's note: Obviously, Ted had no such intention of doing so...]

ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |  his advice is legally sound, if you follow it 
the u of c law school     |  you will probably wind up in jail."
standard disclaimers      |                    -- James Donald, in misc.legal

[Editor's Note: From this .sig, it seems obvious that Ted Frank has an
axe to grind... Why that particular quote?.... Hmmm... Sure makes me wonder.]


-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176994
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, 3/23
From: sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child)

arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:

>In article <1pprtvINNctl@aludra.usc.edu> sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child) writes:
>>arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Apr1.164804.1105@Rapnet.Sanders.Lockheed.Com> babb@k2 (Scott Babb) writes:
>>>>Jack Schmidling (arf@genesis.MCS.COM) wrote:
>>>>: jac2y@Virginia.EDU (Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>) writes:
>>>>: : 
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Why do you restrict your condemnation of racial strife to Israel?
>>>>Do the situations in Bosnia, Tibet, China, etc. not merit your comment?
>>
>>>As far as I am aware, we have not sent close to $100 billion dollars to
>>						  ^^^
>>				Let's not exaggerate.


>I notice you did not offer an alternative number.  Try this one on for
>size..... by the year 2000, American taxpayers will have given Israel
>one dollar for every star in the Milky Way Galaxy.

>I will let you look up the number.

OK, I admit I have no hard data on this. Why don't you help me with this?
If you would compile a commented list of all grants, un-repaid loans (if any),
and direct aid, I'd be very interested to see it. If you could give me
references from, for example, Congressional Budget Authorization Hearings,
I could look them up here and I'd be happy to post a verification of your
data.

Otherwise, I'll try my hand at this, but unfortunately I won't have sufficient
time available until the end of this month, so the results would be delayed.

Let me know if you're interested in doing this.

___Samuel___
Mossad Special Agent ID314159
Media Spiking and Mind Control Division
Los Angeles Offices
-- 
_________Pratice Safe .Signature! Prevent Dangerous Signature Virii!_______
Guildenstern: Our names shouted in a certain dawn ... a message ... a
              summons ... There must have been a moment, at the beginning,
              where we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176995
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Defense against the detractors...

In article <1993Apr2.021154.18039@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>In article <C4tDAB.A4o@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>In <1993Apr1.141455.16433@colorado.edu>, ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU sez:
>>>	(I would have thought you would have found better means
>>>of refuting or responding to the substantive points and information in
>>>the S.B. 

>>The S.B. needs no refutation by me.  The patent absurdity of your
>>beloved Great Book speaks for itself.

>	Your ignorance is clearly showing itself again, Mark.
>	Why don't you read the post and show us all where the
>	Silver Bulletin is wrong. It is an expose' of the
>	corruption and fraud in government. Or do you feel
>	that our wonderful state is just nifty and sweet?

Fine.  If you think it's an expose of corruption and fraud, 
please prevent a jury question.  Don't just reassert your 
opening statement.

>. . . 	
>>For those in the dark, I wrote to Teel's sysadmin noting that a) he
>>wastes bandwidth by posting identical messages (long ones) to several
>>newsgroups independently (instead of cross-posting), and b) he has
>>improperly used his posts to advertise goods for sale.  
>	A) I was requested to post to those groups
>	and they were getting deleted... By whom?
>	B) The "goods for sale" was a method of showing the
>	source and obtaining further info...
>	And the message in question was retrieved in its entirety
>	from the net. I simply reposted it from one year ago.

>	Would there be a complaint if I had posted an article from
>	"Newsweek" then posted the address and subscription price?
>	How about the subscription info for the American Law Review?
>	Bit of a double standard? Yeah... think so...

No indication that was what happened until now.  Editing down is 
always possible.

>. . .  
>>Readers more careful than A.J. will note that the complaint (appended
>>below) expressly disclaims any wish to suppress Teel's postings merely
>>because they are infantile, irrational, and tedious.
>	More name calling, Mark? Is that your best shot?
>	Oh, I see. The reason for your sending that letter
>	had nothing to do with your opinion of my information...
>	Right. Clearly your motivations were the best interest
>	of all of those poor users who could not speak for themselves.
>	If we weren't talking about attempted censorship(sp?), it
>	would be funny...

>	Further, your "perception" (for want of a better term) is not
>	the feedback that I have been getting via email and others.
>	 The "keep it up!"'s outnumber the "Go away!"'s at least 20 to 1.

It would be interesting to hear who the responding parties are.

>	I, for one, have no intention of being a slave. You may
>	be so if you like. Just remember where you heard that
>	on Tribute Day (April 15). I am not a 14th Amendment
>	taxpayer/slave/SSN holder/etc. Are you?

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY:

Don't let the IRS see this, Mr. Teel.

>. . . .
>	And by the way, the reference to UCC 1-207 is made
>	in pari materia with my Common-Law Rights. 1-207
>	is the recourse and 1-103 is the remedy.

And, as has been noted more times than we care to count, about as 
likely to stand up in court as the twenty-seven eight by ten 
color glossy pictures the Stockbridge, Mass., police, took for 
use as evidence against Arlo Guthrie.  (As anyone who knows 
Alice's Restaurant is aware, he pleaded guilty to littering, was 
fined $50, and told to pick up the garbage.)

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 176996
From: bernard@sirius.gte.com (Bernard Silver)
Subject: Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter

In article <1993Apr3.231858.27507@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
   In article <1993Apr3.223215.20655@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:
   >	Well, the two nifty letters giving concrete proof that the
   >Income Tax is voluntary and giving specific procedures for stopping
   >withholding, et cetera have been out there for a while now.
   >	There has been no refutation to date. Have the nay-sayers
   >finally given up as defeated? Sure would like to hear there reasons
   >for disbelief at this point.

   Probably because you have yet to respond to the refutation I've posted.
   Teel, it's bad enough you post this bs, it's even worse that you don't
   even try to defend it when it gets torn to pieces, but then posting
   that no one's looked at it and gloating when all facts point to the
   contrary point to a severely deluded mind.

What I found interesting about Conklin's letter is the 
6 cases he has won against the IRS.  Now, assuming that
these cases really exist and were one by him (anyone checked?)
they may have nothing to do with his major tax claim.  The IRS fought
one of his deductions.   Defending your deductions seems puny when
you believe that there is no need to file in the first place!

--
				Bernard Silver
				GTE Laboratories
				bsilver@gte.com
				(617) 466-2663

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177000
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15218@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#Yet, when a law was proposed for Virginia that extended this 
#philosophy to cigarette smokers (so that people who smoked away
#from the work couldn't be discriminated against by employers),
#the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't
#give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power
#play.

Of course Clayton ignores the fact that employers pay health
insurance, and insurance for smokers is more expensive than for
non-smokers. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177001
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Hilter and homosexuals

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

><ericsC4x1K9.Apz@netcom.com>, erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:

>> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
 
># #Are you saying that:
># 
># #(1) People voted for Hitler, and he became Reich Chancellor, in good
># #part because he used bully boys to attack communists,
 
># Hitler did not become become Reich Chancellor because people voted for
># him. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that or not, but I just thought
># I'd bring that up.

>Hitler became Chancellor because people voted for his political
>party.  That's not a huge difference in a parliamentary system.

Your statement is a common misconception, but it just isn't true. In the
German Weimar system, the Chancellor was not necessarily the leader of the
largest Reichstag party; the Chancellor was appointed by the President and
generally was the leader of a coalition of parties who could form an effective
majority in the Reichstag. Beyond that, the implication that Hitler rose to
the Chancellorship because a majority of Germans wanted Nazi rule is false
as well. Before President Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in January
1933, the German people did not show a particular desire to be led either by
Hitler or by the Nazi party. These are the results of the March 1932 election
for President, the closest Hitler ever came to direct election: Hindenburg
49.6%, Hitler 30.1%, Thaelmann 13.2%, Duesterberg 6.8%. In the runoff election
in April the results were: Hindenburg 53%, Hitler 36.8%, Thaelmann 10.2%.
So we can see that Hitler personally was supported by only about a third of
German voters.

Similarly, the Nazi party never received more than 37% of the vote in
Reichstag elections. That occurred in July 1932. In the November 1932 election
the Nazis *lost* two million votes and 34 seats, down from 230 to 196 out of
the 608 in the Reichstag. Comparitively, the Socialists had 121 and the
Communists 100. The Communists had gained 11 seats, and the German National
party, which had supported the previous government, had picked up a million
of the Nazis' lost votes to gain 15 seats (up to 52). I think the other large
party was the Catholic Center party (I don't know how many seats they had but
I think they were declining), and there were numerous other small parties.
Thus the Nazi vote was on the decline at the time Hitler was appointed
Chancellor.

What brought Hitler to power was *not* the demand of the German people for
Hitler or the Nazis to run things, but the inability of the other parties to
put their differences behind them in favor of forming an effective government
for the country. Germany did not have an enduring democratic tradition, and
their parliamentary system lacked effective center parties that favored the
interests of the majority of the population. Instead what they had was a
number of small parties who were unable to put aside their own specific
objectives in order to combine against the Nazis, who were out to end the
democratic process. In fact, part of the problem was that some of the other
parties with substantial representation, like the Communists, were also
out to end the democratic process, but with different results in mind, and
generally didn't mind seeing parliamentary democracy go under.

Germany had already had a non-Nazi Chancellor with a majority coalition
for five months while the Nazis had been the largest Reichstag party, and
there certainly was no danger of a revolution in favor of the Nazis.
If anything the Nazis were starting to get desperate because they had failed
to get enough support to make Hitler President and their popular vote had
begun to decline.

Hitler was not Hindenburg's first choice to be Chancellor, not even his
second choice. First, von Papen had been Chancellor since June 1932. After
the November election when the Nazis *lost* seats, Hindenburg first prevailed
on von Papen to remain as Chancellor. But there were intrigues behind his back
and support for him was lacking. So then Hindenburg turned to von Schleicher,
who became Chancellor for two months. Eventually he too was unable to hold
together a working coalition of parties to oppose the Nazis, who refused to
participate in any government that was not led by a Nazi Chancellor. Some of
the Nazi leadership, particularly Gregor Strasser who was the #2 man in the
party at the time, wanted to participate in a coalition government. But others,
knowing the party's support was waning, figured that their best hope to gain
power lay in undermining the democratic process. Nevertheless, the country
was governed for seven months by Chancellors who were not Nazis, even though
the Nazis were the largest Reichstag party. The failure of these men to
achieve a working coalition was due to the inability of their coalition
parties to work together.

Here's how William Shirer puts it in _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_:

   The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their
   failure to unite against it. At the crest of their popular strength,
   in July 1932, the National Socialists had attained but 37 percent of
   the vote. But the 63 percent of the German people who expressed their
   opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine
   against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm
   them unless they united, however temporarily, to stamp it out.

True, the German people supported Hitler after he became Chancellor. But
that doesn't change the fact that there was not overwhelming support for him
*before* he was in power. The German people were not crying out for Hitler to
take over, no matter how bad economic conditions were. The leftist parties
(Socialists/Communists) probably had more support in total than the Nazis.
Hitler used the fact that others were passively or actively willing to see
the government paralyzed as a means to taking it over.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@netcom.com
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177002
From: kme@node_17aa4.bnr.ca (Ken Michael Edwards)
Subject: Re: Economic Stimulus or Pork?


In article <1993Apr2.201514.20021@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: 
|> 
|> In fact, no one has such a list.  The Clinton package as presently proposed
|> includes a variety of recommended spending areas and dollar amounts.  It 
|> does not include a line-by-line list of every project that would be funded.
|> (Congress may include such line items in the bill when it passes.
|> Likewise, it may prohibit spending for specific projects as amendments to
|> the bill.  Such amendments, positive and negative, are often pointed to
|> by those who propose a "line item veto" or "enhanced recision" power for
|> the President.) 
|> 
|> Some of the $16 billion package is in the form of "block grants" to states
|> and localities.  

This is why I asked to be 'enlightened'.  You are making claims about what
'is' or 'is not' part of this program.  But if the "block grants" go to states
and cities, the mayors list is VERY relivent.
  
|> 
|> I'd suggest contacting your local officials, reading a newspaper with
|> good coverage of Congress (Washington Post, NY Times), or if you're 
|> serious about paying attention to these issues, get copies of Congressional
|> Quarterly at your library or have your representative put you on the 
|> mailing list for the Congressional Record.  (It's free.)  But be prepared
|> to invest more time in the effort than it takes to watch the evening
|> news or read your local paper.

Okay scarasm does deserve sacrasm, but I already contact my local officals, my
congress rep., senators, Watch evening news, news programs, and C-SPAN.
  
|> 
|> In addition to the cherry picking that went on with the Mayors' wish list,
|> Congressional Republicans selected wish list projects from a variety of
|> Federal agencies, based apparently upon how silly the names of the projects
|> sounded.  I'm not even sure if they bothered to correlate a potential
|> expenditure of an agency in Clinton's bill with a potential project from
|> the same agency, but it is clear that the effort was to make Clinton's
|> potential expenditures appear to be linked to projects with absurd 
|> names.  (Not to be taken seriously any more than equivalent tactics by
|> Democrats would have been in the Reagan/Bush era.)


The fact is that Primetime (TM of ABC) has had numberous reposts on such waste
programs that already exist.  Again, if we are truely intrested in eliminating
the DEBT, we must REMOVE the DEFICIT, and do away with ALL PORK !!!  
|> 
|> I realize that it is tempting to believe that government is in the hands
|> of clowns who are dishonest at best.  But such simplistic analysis does
|> little to advance the cause of public education.

There have been several books written on gov. waste, network news programs 
from time to time devote segments to this, and there have been bills proposed
that significantly reduces expenditures without touching external programs by 
changing the way 'congress does business' (and make it more efficent).

True, blame is easy, but also is spending someone else's money.  

Clinton ran on a platform that he would '...not raise taxes on the middle class
to pay for these (his) programs'.  He has proposed a program that is not 
specific, that counts on tax hikes to pay for.

-- 
======================================================================

Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
(919) 481-8476 email: cnc23a@bnr.ca    Ham: N4ZBB

All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of
my employer or co-workers, family, friends, congress, or president.

"You'd better call my dad...My mom's pretty busy."
             - Chelsea Clinton 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177003
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <1993Apr4.163015.10438@highlite.uucp>, croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis
A. Ney) says:
 [of who else but President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton.]
>It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after
>watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down
>the toilet.

Tsk. Surely you don't wish for the Democrats to destroy our beloved country
just so your party can get some trivial political advantage? That's rather
a petty way to think. (Not that this pettiness doesn't extend all the way
to the U.S. Senate, I've noticed...)

While Bush was president, I kept hoping and praying that he'd wise up. I
couldn't stand the man, but I wish he'd done a decent job; if so, we might
not be in the mess we are now, and that would be a small price to pay for
suffering through another term of Republican control. Similarily, YOU should
be hoping and praying that Clinton does a good job. Even if you're certain
he won't.

   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177004
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians

In article <C51qr5.Duu@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>I suggest you
>>listen very carefully to the stuff Yeltsin and his people are saying
>>and compare that with the very anti-West slogans coming from his
>>opponents in the Russian congress.  I sure know who I want to back.
>
>Could we back him without forcing others to back him at the point of a
>gun?

If we had backed him strongly early on I doubt there would be the
problem there is now.  Many Russians became disillusioned with democracy
and reforms when they felt, rightly IMO, that the West didn't care.

Yeltsin was virtually promised massive aid (once Bush got over his
Gorby-mania.)  This probably kept him from dismantling the congress
and calling for new elections.  Well, the aid didn't come through
and we didn't make sure it went to the proper places and now the
anti-reformers are gaining strength where before they were in
hiding.

>
>Have you considered a non-interventionist policy?  If market reform does
>happen, Russia will certainly get *private* capital at *private* risk to
>help their economy.  They will even have incentive to do so for the same
>reason.  If they don't reform, then our government will probably
>consider them enemies anyway and rather spend money to hurt rather than help
>them.

If they don't reform I don't believe in giving them money.  However,
I think this is too important to take a non-interventionist approach.
This is what really bugs me about Libertarianism -- it sounds like
'it'll all be the same in a hundred years time.  no need to do
anything.'
>
>
>>How does this affect us?  Well, we are on the same planet and if
>>vast tracks of Europe are blown away I think we'd feel something.
>>A massive breakup of a country that spans 1/6th the planet is
>>bound to have affects here.  (Of course, there is also the
>>humanitarian argument that democracies should help other
>>democracies (or struggling democracies).)
>
>If a $1.6 billion gift was that important to our well being, couldn't it
>be raised voluntarilly?  People already give over $100 billion a year to
>charity.

Despite the wishes of Libertarians, this society is a far way, and getting
farther, from being Libertarian.  Perhaps voluntary gifts would work if
we had the proper framework but we do not have it.  We have to face the
problem *now*, not in X years when we have a Libertarian dream society.

Right now there are huge stumbling blocks to trade, let alone charity.
There are still limitations to high-tech exports.  NASA can't buy
Proton launch vehicles from them.  Sure, the market may be able to
help a great deal but it can't right now.  There are too many obstacles.
Instead of fighting against the aid you should be fighting to 
tear down the obstacles the market and charities have to face.
>
>>Seriously.  Everyone has different opinions on what is stupid.
>>My two "causes" are aid to Russia and a strong space program.
>>Someone else will champion welfare or education or doing studies
>>of drunken goldfish.  That is why we have a republic and not a
>>true democracy.  Instead of gridlock on a massive scale, we
>>only have gridlock on a congressional scale.
>
>It seems instead of gridlock on any scale, we have aid to Russia,
>expensive space programs, national charity that doesn't help the poor,
>and probably, studies of drunken goldfish.  I think *limited* government
>is more key than how democratic it is.

Well, I think limited government is primarily democratic due
to it being limited.  But the main question is how do you transform
a state-run economy and monolithic government into something that
even remotely looks like ours?  (BTW, sometimes it seems that our government 
is trying to go the opposite direction)  It is not going to be
painless and not going to be easy.  We simply cannot wait to
help when they *have* the 'proper' government.  They'll never
get there without the aid.  It may be too late already.

>
>>BTW, who is to decide 'stupid?'  This is just like those who
>>want to impose their 'morals' on others -- just the sort of
>>thing I thought Libertarians were against.
>
>That was an opinion, and libertarians are very big on free speech.

And I'm just excercising mine.

>
>>Actually, my politics are pretty Libertarian except on this one issue 
>>and this is why it is impossible for me to join the party.  It seems
>>that Libertarians want to withdraw from the rest of the world and
>>let it sink or swim.
>
>If you are pretty libertarian except on this one issue then you should
>be VERY libertarian.  Consider it a compromise.  How much money would
>your fellow Russia-aiders have to give to Russia if those you oppose
>weren't using the same government machine to steal money from you
>and your group for causes you don't support?

As I also said above, another problem I have is with *transformation*.
A Libertarian society is not going to happen painlessly or overnight.
I have seen nothing about how to take our current government and
society and turn it into a minimal government and a responsible
self-sufficient populace.  

>
>>We could do that 100 years ago but not now.
>
>People have been saying that for hundreds of years.

They didn't have nuclear weapons 100 years ago.  Nor instantaneous
communications nor travel to virtually anyplace on the earth in
less than a day.

>
>>Like it or not we are in the beginnings of a global economy and
>>global decision making. 
>
>All the more reason to depend on the free market which can more
>efficiently process information, than to depend on rulers for decisions
>on complex issues.

Yes, depend on the rulers of the free market and the businesses.  Rulers
do emerge *somewhere* and they will never represent the opinions of
every person on the planet.  

There must be checks and balances.  Checks on the government when
it gets out of bounds and checks on industry when it gets out of
bounds.  Putting all your hopes on the benevolence of the market
is, to me, just like putting all your hopes on the benevolence of
government.  
>

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177005
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
># 
># Having completely
># dived into the abyss of believing that there are no queers in the world
># who think differently from the child-molestation-advocating minority on
># soc.motss, he doesn't even notice that he's starting a sentence with
># "They believe" when the referent of that "they" is millions of people.
># "...so few as to be irrelevant..."
>
>If you don't want to be lumped together as a group, stop insisting
>on being treated as a member of a group.

Please point out where I have said I even _was_ a member of that group,
much less asked to be treated as such, much less insisted upon it.

>Sexual orientation is not defined by the anti-discrimination law
>that was passed last year.  Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation?

Wait a minute.  You've been claiming for quite a while now that
pedophilia, according to CA state law, is a sexual orientation.  Now
your position is that the law doesn't specifically exclude it?

You know damn well what's going to happen.  Some guy in a NAMBLA
T-shirt's going to apply at a day-care, they're going to turn him down,
he's going to take it to court, and the court's going to rule that
sexual orientation is defined as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or
bisexuality.

Unless and until that court decides that pedophilia is a sexual
orientation, you have no business saying so.

># "Silence = Death" pin or something.  They turn me down because of
># that.
>
>I wholeheartedly support their right to take this action.  I wouldn't
>do it myself, unless it was something like the NAMBLA T-shirt.

Despite the fact that all homosexuals are lying bastards?

># How about:  a black man applies for a job at a bank.  The bank decides,
># based on statistics, a black person would be more likely to steal
># money, and denies the man the job.  Would you support the bank's right
># to this freedom?
>
>I support their right to do so [deletia] but [deletia]

Ah.

So, for example, you are opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

>Here's the law that was passed and signed by the governor:
>
>     The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
>
> 1       SECTION 1.  The purpose of this act is to codify
> 2  existing case law as determined in Gay Law Students v.
> 3  Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 24 Cal. 3d 458 (1979)
> 4  and Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 235 Cal. App. 3d 654
> 5  (1991) prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
> 6  orientation.
> 7       SEC. 2.  Section 1102. is added to the Labor Code, to
> 8  read:
> 9       1102.1.  (a) Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit
>10  discrimination or disparate treatment in any of the terms
>11  and conditions of employment based on actual or
>12  perceived sexual orientation.
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>13       (b)  This section shall not apply to a religious
>14  association or corporation not organized for private
>15  profit, whether incorporated as a religious or public
>16  benefit corporation.

There's no "for purposes of this act, the term 'sexual orientation' will
be defined as" section?  No definitions anywhere?  Did they run this
through the state Congress on an accelerated schedule or something?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy		Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177006
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

In article <eZ0J2B3w165w@unkaphaed.jpunix.com> popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
-> croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:
-> 
-> > Besides which, we don't *want* Clinton assasinated, because that would make h
-> > a martyr a la JFK.
-> > 
-> > It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after
-> > watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down t
-> > toilet.
-> > 
-> > Assuming, of course, that the riots a fortnight from now don't do it for him.
-> 
-> 
-> He'd have to go a far ways to run things down as bad as Reagan and Bush 
-> did.  We didn't have riots but Bush got dumped out on his spotty Behind.
-> 
-> 
-> We'll see in 4 years.
-> 
-> 
-> Pope Charles Slack in our time!
-> 
-> ?s

	You need to stop watching TV and start reading some history.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177007
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Who be Conservative on this.....

In article <1993Apr5.005204.29158@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr2.155820.16998@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>The SC allows restrictions after 'viability' (a term never medically defined) 
>>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Any physician who can't make a reasonable stab at determining whether a given
>>fetus is viable or not is not qualified to perform an abortion. 
>
>Kebbin shows that he does not know the difference between determining
>the viability of an *individual* fetus, and providing the "universally
>accepted medical definition[s] of viability" 

I was not discussing "universal" definitions in this post, Mark. Please
refrain from dragging in irrelevancies.

Do you agree with my statement above about physicians being unqualified if
they can't determine viability?

>>Since we know
>>that there are SOME physicians out there who are qualified to perform 
>>abortions, then obviously SOME medical definition of "viability" is being 
>>employed. 
>
>On an case by case basis, viability is relatively easy to determine.

And that's good enough for the law, Mark. So why do you keep whining that
viability "isn't defined"? What purpose does your whining serve?

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177008
Subject: Re: CBS NY Times Poll on Health Care Alternatives
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)

In article <1993Apr6.175543.19590@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> Thought others on the net might be interested in a selection of findings
|> from the New York Times/CBS News poll on national health care.  I'll leave
|> it to Doug Fierro to enter the entire article if he chooses.  What follows
|> is a selection of the findings.  (Paraphrased without permission.  Any
|> errors are mine, not the Times.  The NY Times doesn't make mistakes.)
|> 
|> [poll results deleted]

The economic and political ignorance of most Americans can be truly scary.
Price controls and government intervention.  The surest route to
disaster.  It's amazing, people never seem to learn from history (or
common sense).  Price controls do not, and cannot work.  I would have
thought our last experiment in the 70's would have been enough to 
dampen the belief that price controls can actually work.  As for
government intervention, people never seem to get the irony of what
the are saying.  We are told that entitlements are the biggest portion
of the budget and they must be 'controlled'.  We are presented with
horror stories of waste and fraud in almost all government agencies.
We are shown stories about the miserable treatment our veterans get
in our government run hospitals.  We are just now seeing stories about
how Social Security isn't going to cut it in the future (as if that
should come as any surprise).  And yet, people choose to ignore all
of that and believe in the fairy tale of the government coming to
the rescue.  Simply amazing.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177010
From: wiggins@cecer.army.mil (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Responses to Ed's Top Ten Lists

>>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler)
>>so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?

"...a la Chrysler"??  Okay kids, to the nearest thousand, how many
dollars did the government spend to "bail out" Chrysler?  More than zero
you say?  

Bzzzzzzzzzt.  Wrong answer.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177011
From: stromer@eyore.unet.com (Philip H. Stromer)
Subject: Re: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...

If the heading is true, Mr. Frank should be ashamed of himself.

Nothing makes me gag more than people who don't respect the
rights of others to voice their opinions.  My idol Lenny Bruce
once commented about "that asshole Time Magazine" when they
advocated censorship of his material.  Time actually sided
with the cops' and their arresting of Bruce at his shows,
whereby he routinely would say "cocksucker", then the cops
would rush the stage to arrest him.  My, how the times haven't
changed...

I can't help but think of how Lenny would be received in today's
politically correct arena.  Heck, I even support the right of
neo nazis to speak their opinions and march down the streets.

And before Mr. Frank or anyone else makes any wisecracks about
anti-Semitism...I'm Jewish, a longtime member of AIPAC and the JNF,
and have contributed over $1000 apiece to these fine groups.  I'm
a regular contributor to every pro-Israel group I can find, but I
still support the right of people like Arf to speak up and vomit
his propaganda.

I want to know just WHO these people are !!!

I'm basing all this on the assumption that Mr. Frank did indeed
write to some sysadmin requesting Mr. Teel to be admonished.  If
this is not the case, I hereby retract these nasties directed
toward him.  If not, I stand against Mr. Frank and his trashing
of the First Amendment.

Philip Stromer

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177012
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Supply Side-revenue

In <9460@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar) writes:

|In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> 
|> The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
|> ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.

|Which, considering the amount Bush&congress added to it, would be a
|not-inconsiderable achievement.

|While we're on the subject, I also believe that the supply-side claim that
|reducing taxes raised revenue is also false, because they typically factor in

You need to hop over to talk.politics.misc. Wee have been chewing on this gem
for awhile. The challenge has been made to name a single supply sider who
ever said this. For the last three weeks the challenge has gone unmet.
I issue the same challenge to you.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177013
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

In <C50sJG.3Eu@voder.nsc.com> matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes:

>In article 164633 in talk.politics.misc, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>>>And Ms. Regard, please don't give us the trite "you can't legislate 
>>>>morality" nonsense again: there is little else that is legislated, 
>>>>including the moral concept of "rights".

>>Really? Pure Socialism had this belief, and fell flat on its ass by
>>attempting to follow such reasoning. Suppose you pass a law that
>>states that I must love my neighbour, regardless of race, religion,
>>etc. How exactly do you plan to enforce such a law? Better yet, how
>>do you plan to measure compliance? And even if you overcome those
>>two obstacles, how will you ever know if I have become *more moral*
>>or not?

>You either missed the point or are being somewhat disingenuous;  I have
>never heard anyone suggest that you can legislate what people think.
>Laws are based on either expediency (i.e. traffic laws) or morality (i.e.
>human rights), as far as I can tell, and the majority are based on the
>latter.

Once more around the racetrack. See the original statement that it is
nonsense to believe that you cannot legislate morality. I simply stated
that they can pass all the laws they want but not a single one of them
will make you or I more moral people. They may make us act in a moral
manner, but our actions are only a reflection of the unwillingness to
risk punishment. They say nothing about whether we have become more
moral or not. Perhaps the distinction is too fine.



>Matt Freivald

TOG

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>               "I'm not a feminist -- I'm for equal rights!"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one!
>              If you don't believe in slavery, don't own one!
>             If you don't believe in murder, don't commit one!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   Pro CHILD. Pro FAMILY. Pro LIFE.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177015
From: tk@pssparc2.mitek.com (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )

In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>details that you are seeking, is that the Grahm-Rudman budget controls
>were working.  In fact, they were working so well that unless the feds
>did something, they were going to have to start cutting pork. So Bush
>and the Democrats got together in a Budget Summit and replaced
>Grahm-Rudman with the now historic Grand Compromise in which Bush

Yea, it turned out that Gramm-Rudman was a sham to fool the voters
into accepting the borrow-and-spend policies of the last 12 years.



>As it turned out, the taxes killed the Reagan expansion and the caps
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anyone can expand the economy by chargeing $3 trillion on their credit
cards.   Big deal.  Deficit spending only expands the economy in the short
term.  In the long term it shrinks the economy for numerous reasons. I would 
have MUCH preferred that the taxpayers had that $3 trillion instead.


>The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level 
>ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office.
>
>Chew on that awhile.


If Reagan had kept his campaign PROMISE to balance the budget by 1983,
there would have been no need for Bush or Clinton to raise taxes.  And
all Reagan had to do was balance that puny Carter deficit.

Chew on that awhile.

-- 
Tom Kimball 	OpenConnect Systems	
          	2711 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800
tk@oc.com      	Dallas, TX  75006	

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177016
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <philC51D4F.G2J@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
-> In article <1993Apr5.193616.14521@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
->     >Now let me get this straight. After a nice, long rant about
->     >how people need to take personal responsibility for their
->     >economic and social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals
->     >(such as me, I guess) are responsible for poor people's
->     >lifestyles? Tell me how that works--or do you think that poor
->     >people are just too dumb to think for themselves?
->     >
->     >There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family
->     >and support systems in general among this nation's poor.
->     >Somehow I don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at
->     >the top of any sane person's list.
->     >
->     >You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural
->     >revolution for a lasting change for the worse, try so-called
->     >"relevant" or "values" education. Hey, it seemed like a good
->     >idea at the time. How were we to know you needed a real
->     >education first--I mean, we took that for granted.
-> 
-> The 1960's generation were the most spoiled and irresponsible.
-> 
-> The Depression had create mothers and fathers that were determined that their
-> kids would not want for anything -- going overboard and creating a nation of
-> brats.
-> 
-> Consider the contrast between two famous events in July of 1969.
-> 
-> Apollo 11 and Woodstock.
-> 
-> Which group had large numbers of people that could not feed themselves and
-> reverted to the cultural level of primitives (defecation in public etc.).
-> 
-> And which group assembled, took care of itself, and dispersed with no damage,
-> no deaths, no large numbers of drug problems ....
-> 

	Wasn't Woodstock also called the biggest parking lot in
history?  They rejected society and went back to nature in their
parent's cars.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177018
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In <1993Apr5.170349.10700@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <1993Apr2.230831.18332@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>># sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>># >We already kill people (death penalty), and that costs even more
>># >money, so you could as well complain about this extremely barbaric
>># >way of justice.
>>#
>># But the death penalty is right.
>>#
>># And how expensive can an execution be? I mean, I think rope, cyanide
>># (for the gas), or the rifles and ammunition to arm firing squads are
>># affordable.
>>#
>># Now, perhaps lethal injection might be expensive, in that case, let's
>># return to the more efficient methods employed in the past.
>>
>>Oh, sure, the death *penalty* is fairly inexpensive, but the trial and
>>sentencing can run millions.

>>
>>--strychnine	unless you wanna cut costs by skipping the trial and
>> sentencing... you murderous little rat-bastard

>  Why as a matter of fact, I was thinking of that as a way to make
>the system more efficient.  And the only murderous rat-bastards are
>aboritionists.

Yeah, Simon's no rat-bastard, he's the Head Attack Puppy :-)


>Simon


TOG


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177019
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In <1993Apr5.172920.11779@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <bob1.734020014@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <1993Apr2.230831.18332@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>>
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>># sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>># >We already kill people (death penalty), and that costs even more
>>># >money, so you could as well complain about this extremely barbaric
>>># >way of justice.
>>>#
>>># But the death penalty is right.
>>>#
>>># And how expensive can an execution be? I mean, I think rope, cyanide
>>># (for the gas), or the rifles and ammunition to arm firing squads are
>>># affordable.
>>>#
>>># Now, perhaps lethal injection might be expensive, in that case, let's
>>># return to the more efficient methods employed in the past.
>>
>>>Oh, sure, the death *penalty* is fairly inexpensive, but the trial and
>>>sentencing can run millions.
>>
>>That's assuming our attack puppy is willing to grant people trials in
>>his new order.

>And why the hell would I waste my time doing that??

>(to a convicted criminal getting a death sentence)

>'Go directly to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200'
>(judge laughing)

Hey puppy, you are getting further around the bend every day. But
I wouldn't miss your adolescent ravings for the world, everyone
needs a good laugh now and then. :-)

>Simon

 TOG





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177020
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com
>(Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>>...
>>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>
>>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by
>>   assault laws.  
>
>So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a
>straight?  Silly me, thinking that the issue was that we are all people, to be
>treated equally.  Thanks for straightening me out.
------------------------------
Wrong, if a bunch of faggots from the tenderloin decide to go straight
bashing and they selectively target a heterosexual man and beat the bloody
fuck out of him, they would get charged as well under all the federal laws
that exist about violation of civils rights. The focus of their intent is
his sexual orientation, and so the law applies to them as well. The
national government retains the right to make any laws necessary to
sufficiently deter and punish any crime against someone's civil rights
until that behavior becomes so well punished that nobody even tries it!
The fact is, that at last count, gays were not beating straights for their
sexual orientation. Thus, the law is getting applied only to the straights
who indulge themselves. The federal government or judiciary has the right
to enforce the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under law even
if it takes 1000 possible charges against people who would violate them. Go
read your constitutional law. We broke the back of the KKK's harrassment
campaign with the same strategy in the early 1900's. So many went to jail
and for so long that it cut the heart out of the KKK. 
-RSW

>>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple
>>   charges and multiple crimes.
>
>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US
>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple
>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single
>act should never merit more than on charge.  That's almost like if four cops
>got acquitted from cruel and unusual punishment charges, and the country went
>and tried them again and again until they... oh.... never mind.
----------------------------------------
This "mutation" as you call it, protects your little butt too, if you
happen to be somewhere where you're the wrong "shade" for somebody else's
taste. If it can be shown that the motive for the assault on you was
racially motivated, then the full power of these extra laws that bring more
charges and punishments will come against those who harmed you. The first
use of such laws was well over a hundred years ago, and constitutional
scholars of all conviction recognize that this right reserved to the
federal government is well established and not just some short-lived
peculiarity, too! Go read some constitutional law for awhile. Maybe you'll
get it.
-RSW

>Douglas C. Meier
>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
--------------------------



-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177021
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <1993Apr5.000007.27707@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbond@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mimi) writes:
>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.n
>u.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1pkmo9INNg7@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.ed
>
>>(William December Starr) writes:
>>>
>>>And what difference does it make?  If homosexuals should not be treated
>>>as equals with heterosexuals in the eyes of the law then it doesn't
>>>matter if they comprise an overwhelming majority of the population, and
>>>if they should then it doesn't matter if, numerically, they're only an
>>>infinitesimal minority, right?
>>>
>>And if it makes no difference, then shoving a false number down my throa
>
>>shouldn't be a high priority.  After all, why should a minority group ne
>d to
>>inflate their numbers in order to justify the rights they claim they des
>rve
>>i.e. extra privileges they ask for?  
>>
>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Douglas C. Meier		|  This Space for Rent
>>Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  
>>This University is too Commie-	|  
>>Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
>
>
>You know, I have thought about the issue of if someone beats up a
>homosexual, or a black person, etc., should the crime be specified
>as something special.  Shit, beating up anybody, regardless of race
>and sexual orientation should be a very serious crime.  If you
>pick out those crimes which are committed against the opposite sex,
>different race, or a different sexual orientation, is this a form
>of favoring those groups over other groups.  Hmm..  I mean, I think
>that a crime committed against all people should be treated the
>same.  But, I know that there are many people out there who are
>very prejudice against people who are different than they are.  And
>perhaps hate crimes laws are the only way to punish the bastards 
>appropriately.  But, why should a person who commits a crime against
>a wealthy protestant white by a wealthy protestant white be treated
>on a lower level.  Isn't this discrimination against the wealthy
>white person.  
>
>Hmm..  Any input out there?  As a black person, I here about all
>sorts of stories where fellow blacks are persecuted and beat up
>because of their race.  This really tears me up.  But, a crime
>against a white by a white should also be treated as a heinous
>crime.  
>
>Please respond.  I would like to hear what other views are out ther.
>
>Ciao'
>Mimi
---------------------------
The federal government has used such laws to allow mutliple charges in
order to prevent more crimes than would nromally occur just from two people
being pissed off at each other. The federal government has an interest in
the intent of the perpetrators in the pursuit of preventing violations of
civil rights. It's the way they broke the back of the Klan, by putting a
lot of people away for a very long time for harrassing blacks specifically.
It is a principle that has been well recognized as constitutionally valid
since over 100 years ago. It has been used whenever a select group was
getting bashed or harrassed more than any other person would just for being
part of a minority. It is the only way we made the defeat of the south
stick after the Civil War. People who harrassed free blacks, when normally
they wouldn't find themselves harrassing just anyone walking around were
expeditiously tried and jailed for 5 to 8 years until nobody wanted to try
it anymore. Now with the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under
the law, the law can use multiple crime and severe penalty involving intent
as much as is needed to protect even one human that is a hated minority to
somebody. They can call out the national guard just for them, as they did
the school girls in Alabama during desegregation in the 1950's, and the
president can nationalize the state militia and turn the guns of the
militia that were being used to bar blacks right around to point at the
thousands in the crowd with an order to shoot that they would have to obey
or face possible death by firing squad under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for failing to obey a direct order while under arms! And by god,
they did! Those southern boys turned right around an fixed bayonets! And
the governor was left standing and was arrested by the federal marshalls
that had brought the order to nationalize the guard. And that's why we need
such an ability in federal jurisdiction.
-RSW

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177022
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: New Environmental Group Launches.


*Teddy O'Neill-Creature with furry Hobbit feet from Bath UK*,
a sentimental fool, posts:
 
     With the force of a world-wide youth movement, it ought to
     be possible to establish a coordinated global program to
     accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the
     internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty year period.

Evidently there are no open questions, either scientific or about
how people prefer to live.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177023
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: ProLifer Or Terrorist Threat

In <1993Apr5.204531.9006@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>In article <C4zA0H.IHD@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes:
>>In article 1pamhpINN7d3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
>>>I'm prepared to instruct individuals in the proper use and 
>>>handling of firearms.  

>>>As a Desert Storm vet with six years in the National Guard, I have a
>>>great deal of experience in handling weapons and tactical training. 


>>ps: anyone up for a discussion of counter sniper operations?
>>Security drills, Your Friend the Counter Terrorist Operation.....


>If twit promises to train them in tactics and weapons handlings, I doubt
>any of them will last long enough to become terrorists. Look for a sudden
>rise in firearms accidents among the Fiends of the Fetus, though.

Bless you, Nadja, we needed a name for these Attack Puppies. Friends
of the Fetus, or FOOF for short. :-)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 177024
From: batwood@SU1AB.Harris-ATD.com (Brett Atwood)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed

|> [ debate deleted ]

		I guess it is allowed.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178293
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting



	     	  


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 13, 1993     

	     
                      REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT,
               SECRETARY OF EDUCATION RICHARD RILEY AND
                   SECRETARY OF LABOR ROBERT REICH  IN 
                GOALS 2000 SATELLITE TOWN HALL MEETING
	     
                     Chamber of Commerce Building
                           Washington, D.C.   



8:30 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Good evening and welcome to all of you 
in the thousands of communities around the country that are taking 
part in this satellite town meeting for the month of April.
	     
	     You know, today is April 13th.  In 1743, Thomas 
Jefferson was born, 250 years ago.  I think that's appropriate to 
mention at the beginning of this meeting because since that time he 
has been, of course, a person who has been one that we've all 
followed in terms of our democracy and the importance of education 
here in this great country.  The success of our democracy according 
to Jefferson really depends upon the success of our educational 
system.
	     
	     His philosophy of government, his belief in the 
importance of education is also very meaningful to our special guest 
here this evening.  Tonight we're so pleased to have with us 
President Clinton.  He's come over from the White House to join us in 
the Chamber of Commerce studios.  
	     
	     Mr. President, it's good to have you.  We thank you for 
taking the time to visit with these communities here on the satellite 
network and we welcome you here this evening.
	     
	     Also we have with us Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.  
And, Bob, it's certainly pleasant to have you with us this evening 
also.
	     
	     I have some questions for our two guests, and I'm sure 
many of you do, too.  So please call us if there's something that 
you'd like to ask.  The number is 1/800/368-5781 or 5782.  In 
Washington, D.C. the number is 202/463-3170 or 3171.
	     
	     I believe the President has a few words that he might 
want to share with us.  And, Mr. President, I'll ask you to do that 
at this time.  It's great to have you.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
	     
	     I'm glad to be here with my friends, Dick Riley and Bob 
Reich -- also members of my Cabinet -- at the headquarters of the 
Chamber of Commerce to support the effort that the Chamber is making, 
along with its Center for Work Force Preparation, to help to examine 
tonight the whole critical question of how to move our young people 
from school to the work place.
	     
	     I want to compliment the Chamber on all their efforts, 
recognizing that without an educated work force we can't grow this 
economy or remain competitive, and recognizing that we all have to 
work together -- business and government, labor and educators -- to 
make things happen.
	     
	     This satellite town meeting is a good example of that 
kind of working together.  And if you'll forgive me a little home 
state pride, I want to say a special word of thanks to the Wal-Mart 
Corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, for providing 
several hundred of the sites for this town meeting tonight.  I 
appreciate that a lot, as well as the sites that are provided for all 
the rest of you.
	     
	     I have tried as hard as I could to move toward 
constructive change for this country.  Secretary Riley talked about 
this being Thomas Jefferson's 250th birthday.  If Thomas Jefferson 
believed in anything, he believed in these three things:  first, in 
education; second, in real personal liberty, freedom of religion, 
freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press; and 
third, in the absolute imperative of changing as times change.  
	     
	     If you go to the Jefferson Memorial here in this 
beautiful city, which is now bedecked with all of its wonderful 
cherry blossoms, you will see Jefferson saying that we have to change 
with changing times.
	     
	     For us here in America, that means reducing our deficit 
and increasing our investment and putting our people first so that we 
can compete in the world.  We're here to talk about that tonight --
about what we can do to educate and train our people better.  Unless 
we do that, none of the efforts that all the rest of us make in 
government, even to bring the budget into balance, even to increase 
our investment in other things which will grow jobs, will last in the 
long run.
	     
	     We also have to have people who can carry their load.  
And in a world where the average young person will change jobs seven 
or eight times in a lifetime, that begins with the education system 
and continues into the work force where education must go on for a 
lifetime.  It's not just important what you know, but what you can 
learn.
	     
	     And if I might, I'd like to close just by emphasizing 
we're doing our best to try to have the most innovative partnership 
between the Labor Department and the Education Department and the 
private sector to build a good school-to-work transition.  And we're 
trying to get off to a good start this summer with a program that 
would create more than 700,000 new summer jobs, including many 
thousands that have a strong education component so our young people 
can be learning and working at the same time.
	     
	     Dick, I think I ought to stop there.  That's a good 
place we can begin, I think, the discussion.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you so much, Mr. President.
	     
	     Each month we get together and talk about ways that all 
citizens can work towards reaching the national education goals.  And 
tonight, we'll focus on goal five, and how communities such as yours 
can prepare students for this world of work.
	     
	     This week, the Education Department and the Labor 
Department are hosting a conference here in Washington, D.C. called 
Summer Challenge, a program of work and learning, to America's youth.  
The aim is to use some special funds from President Clinton's 
proposed economic stimulus package to provide educationally-enriched 
jobs and summer school programs for young people in disadvantaged 
areas of the country.  
	     
	     Mr. President, let's talk a minute -- you alluded to it 
somewhat -- about the  Summer Youth Challenge.  Your program calls 
for more educational enrichment in the summer jobs.  And why in your 
words is that so important?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think it's important for two reasons.  
First of all, a lot of the young people we're trying to reach may 
have had trouble adjusting to school and learning.  And while we want 
them to have a good experience with a real job, we also want them to 
continue to learn during the summer because we know from a lot of 
research that a lot of kids that have trouble learning in school may 
forget as much as 30 percent of what they learned the previous year 
over the summertime.  And that is a very unproductive thing for 
schools to have to take up a lot of time teaching what they already 
taught before.
	     
	     Secondly, we want to help these young people progress, 
not only in terms of work, but in terms of learning.  We want to 
abolish the artificial dividing line between what is work and what is 
learning because we think that the best and most productive workers 
will have to be lifetime learners.  And we think that this experience 
could maybe drive that point home and prepare these young people to 
succeed in school, or at work, or in college as they go on.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, I think the fact that these are 
disadvantaged kids -- that gap, that lag you mentioned as they go 
into the next year, is really even greater.  
	     
	     Secretary Reich, of course, you have training programs 
throughout the year.  And I wonder is you have any comment about this 
educational component of training.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, what we've learned, Mr. 
Secretary, is that for many young people, whether it's for the summer 
or for the year, actually on-the-job work experience combined with 
education is one of the best ways of learning.  Many young people, 
for example, have a lot -- they have a difficult time learning 
geometry.  But when they actually are there building something or 
working on something, and they can see the exact and direct 
application of geometry, they understand what it's used for.  And a 
lot of young people -- just that sense of connection between 
education and the world of work is terribly, terribly important.  
It's important during the summer, but it's important for a lot of 
young people even beyond the summer.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you.  
	     
	     Mr. President, you've called for a youth apprenticeship 
program, school-to-work transition.  And I wonder if you would tell 
us a little bit about your concept of that and how you see it 
developing.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, let's talk about why 
it's important.  Most new jobs that will be created in this decade 
will not require a four-year college degree, but most of them will 
require some learning and skills that go well beyond what most people 
get in a high school diploma.  
	     
	     If you look at the last 10 years, the average salaries 
of young people that had at least two years of good post-high school 
education was a good salary that went up over the decade.  The young 
people who had less than that tended to have lower wages that did not 
go up, and in many cases in real terms fell over the decade, because 
they weren't productive, they weren't more valuable to their 
employers.
	     
	     So we think America has a big economic interest in 
trying to ensure that all the young people who get out of high school 
but don't go on to college make a transition to work, which includes 
two years of further training either in a community college, a 
vocational setting, or perhaps on the job.  And what I have done in 
this budget, as you know, is to give you and Secretary Reich some 
funds and some incentives to try to work in partnership with states 
and with the private sector to build these programs state-by-state in 
a way that would be customized essentially by the business community, 
based on the needs of the economy in any given area.  It could 
revolutionize long-term the quality of the American work force and 
the earnings of American workers.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  I should add, Mr. President -- I think 
you know this from your experience in Arkansas -- and many of the 
people watching this program -- that the business community and 
educators, labor groups are already in many of our communities, many 
of our states, building a school-to-work transition program.  In 
fact, there's an awful lot of ferment, a lot of excitement.  The 
people watching this program probably are the ones who are most 
directly involved in that.  And more power to them.  Secretary Riley 
and I are going to do everything we can to build on the successes 
already out there.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Bob, we're going to be talking tonight 
about youth apprenticeship and tech prep, the co-op learning  
career academies.  And what features all those programs that deal 
with this subject -- what are some of the features that every one of 
these school-to-work programs might have that   are important?
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, one thing that we've seen -- and 
you and I have been working at this for a long time, and you much 
longer than I -- we've seen that active involvement of the business 
community is absolutely essential.  And I'm so delighted that we're 
doing this in the headquarters of the Chamber of Commerce.  The 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States is committed to doing these 
kinds of programs -- training, education, retraining -- and we've 
aimed to work very closely with the Chamber.
	     
	     The business community is going to be actively engaged 
in developing almost an audit of the kind of jobs that are needed and 
helping the educators, community colleges, technical institutions 
develop curricula that are relevant for the jobs of the future.
	     
	     Communities have got to come together.  I mean, this is 
one of the most important things.  You've got to have all of these 
players in a community come together and work together and cooperate 
together.  You know, too often we have the educators over here and 
the business leaders over here, labor groups over here and everybody 
is talking, but they're not really working together in a common 
strategy.
	     
	     And the third and final ingredient I would say, Dick, 
would be a commitment to excellence -- a commitment both to academic 
excellence and also to skills development excellence.  This is not a 
tracking program we're talking about for kids who are not going to 
make it.  This is a program that every young person ought to be 
eligible for.  If they want to go on beyond that to four-year 
college, that's fine.  That ought to be permissible.  But we're 
talking about the foundation of learning about jobs, the foundation 
skills for on-the-job learning.
	     
	     And again, those are the critical components.  It's 
already being done.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think -- if I might just interject one 
point based on my personal experience at home -- the business 
community has a critical role to play, not simply in saying here are 
the job skills that are needed and here's what ought to be taught, 
but also in monitoring that excellence.  If you have the right sort 
of partnership there, the people who are paying the taxes and who are 
going to then be hiring the workers are not going to permit the 
second-rate programs to survive if they have any way to shape and 
influence them.  So I think that's very important.
	     
	     And when we try to, if you will, fill in the blanks at 
the federal level, trying to set some standards and provide some 
funds, one of the things that we want to be sure and do is to make 
sure that the employer has a heavy amount of influence over the 
quality of these programs, because that's really what's going to 
determine whether the whole thing is worthwhile.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  That's great.  We've been talking, of 
course, about school-to-work and also the jobs and economic recovery 
program for this summer and fall.  But let's talk just a moment about 
long-term school reform.  It's something especially close to me.  Mr. 
President, I wonder if you would give us some of your ideas for the 
communities out here on Goals 2000 legislation that I think will be 
coming forth before too long.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as you know, back when you and I 
were both governors, we spent a lot of time working on our public 
schools and we tried to be very candid with our people in saying that 
a lot of these things were going to take some time to materialize.  
	     
	     I had a hand in writing the National Education Goals 
that the governors drafted, along with representatives of President 
Bush's administration back in 1989.  And what we're going to try to 
do this year with your leadership is to introduce legislation in 
Congress that will actually define the things that the national 
government ought to do to try to help the local schools and the 
children of this country and the adult learners, too, meet those 
goals -- making sure that when -- by 2000, people show up for school 
ready to learn; that we get a 90 percent on-time high school 
graduation rate; that children at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades are 
confident in the subjects they're supposed to know; that they are 
second to none in math and science; that are schools are safe, 
disciplined, and drug-free.  And, of course, the fifth goal --I took 
them out of line to say this the last -- is that we have a system of 
life-long learning in this country.
	     
	     And each one of those goals there's a national role, a 
state role, a school role, school district role, and a private sector 
role.  And what you've attempted to do in this bill you're going to 
introduce with me in the next few weeks is to define what our job is; 
and then to give the rest of America a way of defining what their job 
is and seeing whether we're actually meeting the standards of quality 
that we need to meet.
	     
	     It's very exciting.  So far as I know, nothing quite 
like it has ever been done in the form of federal legislation before.  
Not mandating and telling people what they have to do with their 
money, but actually setting up a framework for excellence and 
partnerships so that we can do our job.  I'm really excited about it.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, I am, too.  And I think really 
it will be an entirely new role for the federal government in terms 
of its relationship with states, serving as a partner really to 
support and facilitate and to help out in these education reform 
efforts, all driven by high standards.  That's the point.
	     
	     Bob, let me ask you one question, and then we'll get to 
the telephone calls.  It's about the same subject.  We have, of 
course, skills standards that are going to be part of Goals 2000, and 
I wonder if you would comment on that.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, you know, we have 75 percent of 
our young people who don't graduate from college.  Very often they 
don't have very many alternatives.  They do have a wonderful system 
of community colleges and technical institutions, but if we had 
national skill standards to which they could aspire and which 
employers would understand as a national credential, many of these 
young people would actually find that they were much more eligible 
for jobs.
	     
	     Everybody doesn't have to go to college.  Other 
countries you have smaller proportions of their population going to 
college, but you have a whole level of people who have certain 
technical, preprofessional skills.  We can do it in this country.  If 
you don't go to four-year college you're not a loser.  And we want to 
develop those national skill standards.  We're going to be working 
with the states, with the Education Department, with a lot of private 
industry in developing those standards.  And I think they will be the 
kinds of things that enable our vocational and technical and other 
institutions to rally around, as well as our business community.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, that's great.  Why don't we go 
ahead and go to the telephone.  We have a call, I see -- Mayor Bruce 
Todd of Austin, Texas.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, Mr. President and Mr. Secretary Reich and 
Riley, we certainly appreciate the opportunity to join you today.  We 
have some dedicated professionals and volunteers here in Austin who 
have heard what you have said and are very appreciative.  Let me 
simply say, amen to some of the comments made already.  We agree with 
much of the tone that the Clinton administration has taken, and are 
very supportive.  
	     
	     We have been successful here in Austin of tripling our 
summer employment program over the last four years.  We expect to 
have over 2,000 employed this year in the summertime; perhaps as much 
as 3,500 with the federal assistance.  
	     
	     Much of the question that we had designed you have 
answered in your opening comments, so we must be thinking alike.  But 
the question essentially involved what initiatives after Labor Day 
would be appropriate.  We know summertime is important.  Year-round 
is even more important.  And what kind of initiatives at the federal 
level might be proposed to meet the needs of the youth on a year-
round basis?  And perhaps more importantly, how can families and the 
local community be more involved using the federal initiative? That's 
something that we believe is very important to success in this 
effort.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Mr. President.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think I'll give everybody a chance to 
answer the question, Bruce, but let me first thank you for calling, 
and thank you for all the great work that you're doing in Austin.  
I've seen some of it and I've always been very impressed.  
	     
	     First, with regard to the summer program, we hope we can 
structure it in a way that will enable us to continue the summer 
program and that will move a lot of these young people back into 
schools under circumstances that might allow them to do some work in 
the private sector, too.  We hope that -- Secretary Reich is going to 
try to set up a system where we create a lot of private sector jobs 
to be matched with the public sector jobs this summer.  And we're 
working on that.
	     
	     Secondly, in the program that I have presented to the 
Congress over the next five years, what we are attempting to do is to 
build in an amount of investment that's quite substantial for job 
training programs, for school-to-work programs, all of which give 
heavy, heavy weight to local community input -- just the question you 
asked -- but do provide some federal investment dollars, which we 
hope you can put with local dollars to keep people working and being 
trained on a year-round basis.
	     
	     And I will say again, to echo what Secretary Reich said 
a moment ago, to try to break down the barrier between what is seen 
as work and what is seen as learning.  An awful lot of young people 
actually have quite high IQs, but actually learn so much better when 
they're doing than when they're reading or just listening.  So we 
hope that the community involvement part of it will be permanent, and 
we hope that if the whole budget passes -- and we do have 200 budget 
cuts and more than 200, actually, in the budget -- and some revenue 
raisers, and some new money for education and training, that we'll be 
able to do just what you seem to want based on your question.
	     
	     Bob, do you want to say anything?
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, you took most of the words out 
of my mouth, Mr. President, as usual.  But let me just add one thing, 
and that is that one of the most important aspects of post-high 
school for a lot of young people who are not going on to college, in 
addition to the school-to-work program, simply is the availability of 
jobs.  And we've got to get this economy moving again, obviously.  
It's terribly important to get this recovery program, to get the 
economy back on track.  That's sort of the prerequisite to everything 
else.  If we don't get the economy back on track -- we have -- I 
think this is the 16th -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. President -- I 
think is the 16th month we have had seven percent unemployment or 
greater.  This is a jobless recovery.  A lot of those kids are going 
to be getting out of school in June.  And even if we did everything 
right, they would have a very, very hard time getting jobs.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you both.  Of course, Goals 2000 
will be a permanent, long-term thing that will certainly reach into 
next year.  It will involve, if passed -- and we certainly hope it 
will be -- action plans with every state where we can be working 
together to reach for the goals in a number of different ways.  And 
then the state, with all the various school districts, a very 
important part of that will be citizen and parent involvement.  And I 
think everybody will see a great energy out there, once we get that 
moving.
	     
	     The next call is Dr. Harry Heinemann, New York.  
	     
	     Doctor?
	     
	     Q	  Good evening, Mr. Secretary.  It is a pleasure to 
be on with you this evening.  As you may know, bridging the school 
and work has been central to La Guardia's educational program since 
its inception in the 1970s, and that includes the college, the two 
alternative high schools that operate on our campus, and the linkages 
we have forged with the local schools.  We have found this to be an 
extremely effective learning strategy.
	     
	     And over the years, we've come to believe that there are 
several principles that are very important in bridging the school and 
work.  And these include integrating theory in the classroom with 
practice in the workplace, with providing all students early exposure 
to careers, as well as providing opportunities for them to reflect 
upon these experiences while they strengthen their skills; and 
lastly, the critical role of the liberal arts, particularly in the 
development of high performance competencies.  
	     
	     My question, then is:  How can the general education 
faculty and the academic curriculum be more closely integrated with 
transition to work experience?  And what mechanisms and strategies 
can you suggest to achieve this integration?
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Well, thank you very much.  I think -- 
and we'll get a response from you all on that, and very interesting 
work going on there.  We're going to have three people, our next 
guests on the program this evening, that will be some specialists   
in that area that you're speaking, and I'll certainly pass that on to 
them and we can discuss it later.
	     
	     You all care to comment -- any comments you might have?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'd just like to say, if I might, one 
thing.  I want to reemphasize this and I don't think I'm being as 
clear about it as I'd like, although I think at least one of the 
people who will be on the second panel will be able to say it more 
explicitly than I.  I think this whole concept of applied academics 
is very important.  And I think that we have to basically abolish 
what I consider to be a very artificial distinction between what is 
vocational learning and what is academic learning.
	     
	     I think we should keep the liberal arts going.  I think 
we should have a strong component for people who are in the 
vocational program.
	     
	     SECRETARY REICH:  It seems to me that we also need to 
rethink our entire tracking system, because a lot of these school and 
work combinations are important for mainstream students.  They're 
important for all students.  It's not just a special group of 
students that needs them.
	     
	     Some of the experiments that I've seen around the United 
States -- Dick, I'm sure you've seen them as well -- are mainstream 
experiments.  They're mainstreaming all the students.  At 11th and 
12th grades they're giving them a combined work and school experience 
and then a transition program.  And again, the kids can either go on 
to college if they want; they can go on to technical community; they 
can go on to an entirely -- a large variety of possibilities and 
career directions.
	     
	     But we have to get away from the stigmatizing that often 
goes on with young people who simply are doing job-related or work-
related work within the classroom, within our schools.
	     
	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Thank you, very much.  I think that's 
going to be the last call that we have time for.  Mr. President, I 
think you've got to move on to another matter, and I want to thank 
you and Secretary Reich for being here.  We appreciate your time and 
your ideas, and it's been a tremendous help to us.  

                                 END9:00 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178296
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting


In a previous article, Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) says:

>	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
>	     
>kind of working together.  And if you'll forgive me a little home 
>state pride, I want to say a special word of thanks to the Wal-Mart 
>Corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, for providing 
>several hundred of the sites for this town meeting tonight.  I 



         When did Bill start doing endorsements?

         Will he do the "Remington Shaver" ad?

         Tune in next week.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178298
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Law and Economics


[Procedural note: Ted directed followups to misc.legal only.  While I
respect his right to do so, my own opinions are that (1) "Followup-To"
fields are mere suggestions, not mandatory commands and (2) this issue
is of sufficient (a) general political relevance and (b) civil liberties
interest to warrant keeping it active in t.p.m and a.s.c-l as well, at
least for this round.]

In article <1993Apr11.155955.23346@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> Uh, no.  That's not what happened in _Boomer_.  What happened in
> _Boomer_ was that the judge didn't allow the plaintiffs to blackmail
> the cement plant by demanding a multi-million dollar plant to be shut
> down over $185,000 in damages, and required the plant to pay the
> plaintiffs the $185,000 to make them whole.  The plant would never
> have been shut down-- the plaintiff's lawyers would have just
> negotiated a windfall settlement, because the plaintiffs would prefer
> an amount greater than $185K to having the plant shut down, while the
> plant would prefer any amount less than the value of the plant to have
> the plant continue in operation.  Everyone's property rights were
> protected; the plaintiffs were made whole; unnecessary settlement
> costs were avoided.

Okay, now here's my interpretation of _Boomer_, based on the facts as
presented in the New York Court of Appeals<*> holding (_Boomer v.

<*>Note: The New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in New York
   State.  While the United States and 48 of the fifty states call their
   highest court "Supreme Court," "Supreme Judicial Court" or "Supreme
   Court of Appeals," Maryland and New York call theirs simply the
   "Court of Appeals."  To make matters worse, New York also calls its
   _second-highest_ court the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division"...

Atlantic Cement Co._, 26 N.Y.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 870 (1970)):

Oscar H. Boomer, et al., owned land near the Atlantic Cement company's
plant near Albany, N.Y.  (The fact pattern gives no information as to
which came first, the plaintiff's acquisition of the land or he
defendant's start of production at their cement plant.)  In the course
of its regular operations, the cement plant did injury to the
plaintiffs' property via dirt, smoke and vibrations emanating from the
plant.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief -- that is, they asked
the court to order Atlantic Cement to stop damaging their property.

(Commentary: this seems entirely reasonable to me.  Boomer at al owned
their property and, presumably, a right to quiet enjoyment of it.
Atlantic Cement's actions were depriving Boomer et al of that right.)

Instead of granting the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, the court
ordered them to accept the damage being done to their property, provided
that Atlantic Cement paid them $185,000 in compensatory damages.  In
other words, the court granted Atlantic Cement Co., a private party, the
power and authority to _take_ the plaintiffs rights to quiet enjoyment
of their property by eminent domain.  A taking by eminent domain is
always problematical even when it's done by the state; allowing a
private firm to do it is, in my opinion, totally wrong.

(Yes, I know, the _Boomer_ court didn't call it eminent domain.  But if
it walks like eminent domain and swims like eminent domain and quacks
like eminent domain...)

Let me take issue with the way you've presented the case... you say that
"What happened in _Boomer_ was that the judge didn't allow the
plaintiffs to blackmail the cement plant by demanding a multi-million
dollar plant to be shut down over $185,000 in damages."  Blackmail?

    (Pulls out Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged 5th Edition....
    "Blackmail: Unlawful demand of money or property under threat to
    do bodily harm, to injure property, to accuse of crime, or to expose
    disgraceful defects.  This crime is commonly included under
    extortion statutes.")

How do you define as "blackmail" one party's act of demanding the right
to set its own sale price for a unique piece of property which it owns
and which another party has expressed an interest in buying?  Or of
demanding the right not to sell that property at any price?  As I see
it, Boomer et al, having found themselves in the fortunate position of
owning something which Atlantic Cement had to purchase if it wanted to
stay in business, had every right in the world to set whatever price
they wanted.  There isn't, or at least shouldn't be, any law that says
that you have to be a nice guy in your private business dealings.

You go on to say: "The plant would never have been shut down -- the
plaintiff's lawyers would have just negotiated a windfall settlement,
because the plaintiffs would prefer an amount greater than $185K to
having the plant shut down, while the plant would prefer any amount less
than the value of the plant to have the plant continue in operation."

If so, so what?  Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
business of preventing parties from reaping windfall settlements from
other parties when those settlements arise from wrongful acts by those
other parties?  If Atlantic Cement didn't want to have to face a choice
between paying a windfall settlement or going out of business, well,
shouldn't Atlantic Cement have thought of that before going _into_
business?  (I note that as far as the facts show Boomer et al were _not_
the parties responsible for bringing about this situation -- that was
Atlantic Cement's own fault for choosing to build and operate the type
of plant they did where and when they did.)

And then you say: "Everyone's property rights were protected; the
plaintiffs were made whole; unnecessary settlement costs were avoided."
As above, I dispute your claim that the plaintiffs were "made whole."
They were, in fact, by court action deprived of their rights as owners
of property to choose to sell or not sell that property at a price
acceptable to them.  And for that deprivation they were _not_ made
whole.  And again I ask: Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
business of ensuring that "unnecessary" settlement costs are avoided?
(If so, I've been miseducated -- I always thought that the courts were
supposed to be in the business of ensuring that justice is done.)

> Is _Boomer_ really being taught as "infamous?"  That's really sad if
> it is, because I fail to see how it's less than completely sensible.
> You should read the law and economics stuff first-hand instead of
> filtered through teachers who clearly don't like it, for whatever
> inexplicable reasons.

(1) _Boomer_ is not being taught as "infamous," at least not at my
school.

(Aside: Northeastern Law usually does a very good job of hiring for
their first-year, mandatory classes (such as Torts, where I first
encountered _Boomer_) instructors who, regardless of their personal
opinions, can and do teach the law neutrally.  When the students get
into their second and third years, in which the students (a) can pick
and choose which courses to take (except for the mandatory Professional
Responsibility, of course) and (b) are presumed to be a bit more worldly
and self-confident, less likely to be consciously or sub-consciously
intimidated by Law School Professors and able to learn from openly
biased instructors rather than be indoctrinated by them, the instructors
tend to be more open in expressing their own opinions.  This is
especially true of part-time instructors who, in real life, are
practicing attorneys or sitting judges... this can be _very_
educational, sometimes far more so than being taught by a somewhat
cloistered scholar.  End of aside.)

I called it infamous because that's my opinion of it.  For the reasons
I've stated above, I believe it to be a triumph of something that I can
only call "economic correctness" over justice.

(2) It is "completely sensible" only if you believe that the alleged
right of the owners of Atlantic Cement to stay in business and avoid
losing a lot of their own money due to their own wrongful act, and
the alleged right of several hundred Atlantic Cement employees to
not have their jobs disappear, should trump the rights of people who
own property which was damaged by Atlantic Cement's wrongful acts.
(And if you believe that it is correct for the courts (or any other
branch of government) to grant to private parties the right to take
other people's property by eminent domain.)

> You'd like Posner, Bill.  He's a libertarian.

Really?  I didn't know that... what, if anything, has he had to say
about cases like _Boomer_?

> Of course, he has too much of a paper trail to ever be nominated by a
> president, Democrat (won't like his antitrust stance) or Republican
> (won't like his support of gay marriage), and if bright law students
> "shiver" at what they don't understand, it's easy to imagine how the
> press will play it up as baby-selling.  (I've seen Mike Godwin claim
> that Posner asserts that law and economics is applicable to everything
> and is the end-all and be-all, when Posner says precisely the
> opposite.)  So it goes.

I've admitted that my understanding of the field generally referred to
as "law and economics" is weak.  If it advocates the use of economical
analysis as one of many "tie-breaker" factors which courts may use to
help them reach decisions in cases in which the dispute, as measured by
the scale of "justice", is evenly balanced, fine.  But as illustrated by
_Boomer_, it is _not_ fine when the courts start viewing the economics
of a case as being more important than the justice of a case.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178299
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
> his so called stimulus package.
> It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
> immunizations for poor kids.
> So now Clinton is claiming that the republicans are holding the health of
> poor kids hostage for blatantly political gains.
> 
> Aside from the merits (or lack thereof) of another free immunization program,
> just what is such a program doing in a bill that is supposedly about
> creating jobs.

Jobs?  What the hell have jobs to do with it?  It's another touchy-feely 
program from the new, vapid administration.  The fact is, the major claim
made for "universal" immunization -- that "all children will be immunized" --
has absolutely no validity.  Several states already have U.I. programs, have
had these programs for _years_. The result: on average, their success rates
are no better than the national average.  It seems that the gummint hasn't
yet figured out a way to MAKE parents bring their kids in.  Yet another case
of shameless demagoguery from the "new" Democrats, the "agents of change." 
 
> If Clinton is so hot to get this immunization program, why doesn't he and
> the democrats just introduce it as a stand alone bill. Isn't it possible
> that Clinton is the one doing the blatant political (read pork) manipulations
> here. He is telling the republicans, pass my muti-billion dollar package,
> or I will go to the people and tell them that you are opposed to
> immunizing poor kids.

What?  Clinton using this issue for _partisan gain_?  Do tell.
 
> I have never thought highly of Clinton, but stunts like this lower my
> opinion of him even further.
> 
> I thought one of Clinton's campaign themes was that he was going to be
> a new kind of politician. This kind of manuevering would have made LBJ
> proud.

All together now... c'mon, you know the words... "Meet the new boss! Same as 
the old boss!"  And the chorus: "We won't get fooled again!"

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178300
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?)
Subject: Recent News

	In the hopes of adding a little life to, what seems to be, the
same old debates, I would like to add a few bits of info and ask for
comments.

1) A couple days ago the headlines were splashed with stories of proof
   that the North Vietnamese had held U.S. hostages after the war ended.
	Way back in today's newspaper (Page A7 of San Francisco Chronicle)
   there is an article about the document that held the proof.
	[used without permission]

	"The document, which was discovered in the archives of the Soviet
    Communist Party in Moscow, is a Russian translation of what is described
    as a September 1972 report prepared for the Vietnam Politburo by General
    Tran Van Quang, who is identified as the deputy chief of staff of the
    North Vietnamese army."
         [later on in the article after it talks about the claim of 1,205
           Americans in North Vietnamese prisons]
	"Phong said the easiest way to prove that the document is a 
    fabrication is to review Quang's career. In 1972, he said, Quang was 
    not deputy chief of staff; he was the army commander in Military Region 4
    in central Vietnam."

2) I heard on the radio that the Church of Scientology has filed for 
   bankrupcy becuase the employees of Cocolat , owned by CoS, filed a 
   class action suit against them for requiring the employees to pay dues
   to become members of the Church. Anyone heard more about this?

3) Micheal Jackson went into business with Micheal Milken. No lie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178301
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

Dov Bai-MSI Visitor (bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <C5FG7t.6At@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:

: >True, man did not invent the need for food, shelter, warmth and the ilk,
: >but man did invent the property laws and the laws of trespass.   
: But how do you think property is generated ? Does it grow automatically
: on trees when we wish so, or someone has to produce it ?

Some say it was generated by God or Goddess; some say it was the result of
the coalescence of billions of tons of interstellar debris.  In either case,
the property of which Xavier speaks has been around for millions of years.


:     It all follows from the fact that Mother Nature does not
: provide us automatically with our needs,

Oh?  When did She *stop*?  Mother Nature has been automatically providing
us with her bounty ever since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.  It
is not "produced": it produces itself, year after year.  Last night, for
example, I saw four deer crossing the road (pretty sight, too); in an
earlier time, one of them would have been dinner.

: There are 2 ways to go with produced things: the first is to 
: _trade_ it with the the person(s) who produced it. 
: The other one is to take it with a gun from the person who produced
: it. The first way is the civilized method, the second is how savages
: arrange their affairs.

The American Indians had no concept of ownership of property, and often
freely gave of their supplies to neighboring tribes, trading food and
clothing for weapons or services.  The Native Hawaiians, like their
Polynesian ancestors, also could not conceive of that idea, and shared
many things with the other Islanders.  In fact, "hi'ipoi", the Hawaiian
word for "cherish" means "sharing food".  The Great Mahele, in which
the Islands were divided up more-or-less evenly between the rich and
the poor, was a white man's idea.  In Africa, villagers will often
share tools, crops, and clothing with other members of their own village
and neighboring villages.  Every anthropologist who has ever been to
Africa has at least one tale of the difficulties arising from the so-
called "theft" of the scientists possessions -- two concepts of which,
until the visitors came along, the natives had no understanding.

These are the people we call "savages".

On the other hand, car-jackings and muggings are up from last year.

Dov, before you make further comment on this thread, I think it would
behoove you to study *all* of the facts.


-garison

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178302
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>>> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>>> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
>>
>>  Yes.
>> 
>>> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
>>> legality.
>>
>>  Why not?
>
>Where do they get these people?!  I really don't want to waste time in
>here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  

You asked a question, and now you don't want people to answer?  I believe
a legitimate question was asked.  Why shouldn't cost and safety be used
(at least in part) to determine legality?

I'd like to see you *prove* that drug legalization is an idiotic idea.
Seems to me the evidence from Great Britain is pretty convincing that 
drug legalization is a good idea.  Even such a noted conservative as
William F. Buckley supports it.
>
>My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just
>because it will be safer and cheaper.
> 
>A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all
>funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. -
>this would surely make my taxes decrease.

Your examples (except for prostitution) fail miserably to meet both criteria
(safer AND cheaper).  Obviously, killing people is not "safe".  As for
prostitution, why shouldn't it be legal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178304
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Was Re: Top Ten Tricks...)

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:

>>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

># #Can you provide some evidence that the slave states regarded slaves as
># #not humans?  They were "outside our society" and similar phrases that
># #basically meant that they didn't have to recognized as having the same
># #rights as a free person, but they were never considered "not human" to
># #my knowledge.
 
># 	Isn't the fact that slaves were "purchased" as opposed to
># 	"hired" enough evidence that they were not thought as humans?
># 	Didn't the Bill of Rights provide basic freedoms to humans
># 	that were not available to slaves?

>Not necessarily.  Distinctions were made between "citizens" and
>"persons" throughout the U.S. and various state constitutions.
>For example, free blacks had some rights of citizens, but not all
>the rights of citizens.  I'm curious if there was an additional
>level of distinction made by the slave states to rationalize their
>treatment of slaves, or if they just ignored the theoretical
>problems of slave ownership.

The Bill of Rights, as far as I can see, does not once refer to "citizens",
but it makes several references to "people". For example, Article IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated"; Article V: "no person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by
a Grand Jury ...  nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law"; Article VIII: "excessive bail
shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted".

Now I've never heard that Constitutional rights apply only to citizens;
aren't they meant to apply equally to all *persons* living in the U.S.?
Whether slaves were considered "not human" I don't know, but it seems
that a case could be made that they weren't treated as "people" as defined
in the Bill of Rights. And since the nation is nominally based on the
Declaration of Independence which states that "all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness",
it would also seem that slaves would not follow under this definition
of humanity.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@netcom.com
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178307
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Reserve officers say demographics ignored in nominations to close naval, marine reserve centers

Here is a press release from the Reserve Officers Association.

 Reserve Officers Say Demographics Ignored in Nominations to
Close Naval, Marine Reserve Centers
 To: National Desk, Defense Writer
 Contact: Herbert M. Hart of the Reserve Officers Association of
          the United States, 202-479-2258

   WASHINGTON, April 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Reserve Officers
Association of the United States has alerted the Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Commission that the services failed to give
sufficient weight to demographics in recommendations made to close
56 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve centers.
   In letters to the closure commission and to all 86 members of
Congress with affected locations in their constituencies, including
Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, ROA charged that the developers of the Navy-Marine list
ignored demographics of the civilian population, particularly prior
service personnel.
   ROA's executive director, Maj. Gen. Evan L. Hultman, AUS (Ret.),
suggested "concern that the only plausible alternative is that they
are intentionally attempting to foreclose the Naval Reserve
components from maintaining even today's relatively low level of
participation in their parent service's Total Force of the future."
   He asked the commission "to remove from consideration all
locations without sufficient and convincing demographic data to
warrant approval of the requested action."
   "Only a few of the 56 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
installations on this list are large enough to have a significant
impact on the community, if closed," wrote Hultman.  "The major
issue is the cumulative impact of moving or closing such a large
percentage of the existing locations."
   Hultman reminded the commission, "The fact that the vast
majority of the Reserve installations on this list do not come
close to meeting the minimal requirements for consideration in this
process certainly supports the thesis" that these actions are
simply an attempt to foreclose a substantial role for the Navy and
Marine Corps Reserve.
   ROA also noted "that at the end of the 1960s, when the number of
Naval Reservists was approximately the same as today, there were 480
Naval Reserve facilities.  If the Navy recommendations are
approved, there will be less than 200 Naval Reserve facilities."
   Facilities on the list include seven Naval Air Stations ranging
from South Weymouth, Mass., to Alameda, Calif., 28 Naval
Reserve Centers in Macon, Ga., and Parkersburg, W.Va., to
Missoula and Great Falls. Mont.  Naval/Marine Corps Reserve
Centers include four in San Francisco, Fort Wayne, Ind.,
Billings, Mont., and Abilene, Texas.
   A major Marine Reserve Center on the list is that at El
Toro, Calif., plus six others.
 -30-
-- 
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    ndallen@r-node.hub.org

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178308
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President Names Officials at Transp., Comm., Defen., OPIC



                         THE WHITE HOUSE


                  Office of the Press Secretary

                                                                  
For Immediate Release                             April 14, 1993



                  PRESIDENT NAMES OFFICIALS AT 
           TRANSPORTATION, COMMERCE, DEFENSE, AND OPIC



(Washington, DC)    President Clinton announced his intention 
today to nominate Albert Herberger to be Administrator of the 
Federal Maritime Administration, Loretta Dunn to be Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, and Christopher 
Finn to be Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation.  

     Additionally, he has approved the appointments of Joan Yim 
to be Deputy Administrator of the Federal Maritime 
Administration, Alice Maroni to be Principal Deputy Comptroller 
of the Department of Defense, and Deborah Castelman to be Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, and 
Communications.

     "We are continuing to move forward with putting together a 
government of excellent, diverse Americans who share my 
commitment to changing the way that Washington works," said the 
President.  "These six people I am naming today fit that bill."

     Biographical sketches of the nominees are attached.



                               ###

                BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF NOMINEES
                          April 14, 1993


     Albert Herberger, a thirty-five year Navy veteran who 
retired with the rank of Vice Admiral, is the Vice President of 
the International Planning and Analysis Center (IPAC).  Among the 
positions he held during his naval service were Deputy Commander-
in-Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, Director of 
Logistics on Staff for the Atlantic Fleet Commander-in-Chief, and 
Director of the Military Personnel Policy Division for the Office 
of Naval Operations.  A surface warfare expert and a merchant 
marine officer with over eighteen years operational experience, 
Herberger is also Vice Chairman of the National Defense 
Transportation Association's Sealift Committee.  He is a graduate 
of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and the Naval Postgraduate 
School.

     Loretta Dunn has served on the staff of the Senate Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation since 1979.  Since 1983 
she has been the Committee's Senior Trade Counsel, responsible 
for drafting trade legislation and reports, planning and 
conducting hearings, managing legislation on the Senate floor and 
in conferences with the House, overseeing a variety of executive 
branch agencies, including the Department of Commerce.  She was 
previously a Staff Counsel for the Committee.  Dunn holds a B.A. 
in History from the University of Kentucky, a J.D. from the 
University of Kentucky College of Law, and an L.M. from the 
Georgetown University Law Center.

     Christopher Finn is the Executive Vice President of Equities 
for the American Stock Exchange.  Previous positions he has held 
have included Senior Vice President of the Air and Water 
Technologies Corporation, Chief of Staff to Senator Daniel P. 
Moynihan, Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of 
Economic Development, and Chief Legislative Aide to Congressman 
James R. Jones.  Finn is a graduate of Harvard College.

     Joan Yim is a professional planner with over 17 years 
experience in community based planning, policy analysis, project 
design and management, inter-agency coordination and government 
affairs.  From 1975-92, she was with the Hawaii Office of State 
Planning as a planner on issues relating to natural resource and 
coastal zone management and public infrastructure financing, 
among other issues. Currently, she is Supervising Planner with 
the Honolulu firm of Parsons Brinckerhogg Quade & Douglas.  
Before going to work for the state, she was Executive 
Neighborhood Commission Secretary for the City and County of 
Honolulu, and Chair on the Kaneohe Community Planning Committee.  
A Democratic National committeewoman, Yim holds a B.A. from 
Connecticut College and pursued graduate studies at the 
University of Hawaii.

                              (more)

April 14, 1993
page two


     Alice Maroni is a professional staff member of the House 
Armed Services Committee specializing in defense budget issues.   
She previously worked as a national defense specialist in the 
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division of the 
Congressional Research Service, and as an international risk 
analyst for Rockwell International.  She has written extensively 
on defense budget related topics.  Maroni received her B.A. from 
Mount Holyoke College, and an M.A. from the Fletcher School of 
Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.  She has also completed 
the senior service program at the National War College and 
Harvard's Program for Senior Executives in National and 
International Security.

     Deborah Castleman is currently on leave from RAND, where she 
is a Space and Defense Policy Analyst.  She was an advisor to the 
Clinton/Gore campaign on space, science and technology, and 
national security issues.  Prior to joining RAND in 1989, 
Castleman held engineering positions with the Hughes Space and 
Communications Group, General Dynamics, and Electrac, Inc.  She 
served as an Avionics Technician in the Air Force from 1974-77.  
Castleman holds a B.S. in Electrical and Electronic Engineering 
from California State Polytechnic University, M.S. in Electrical 
Engineering from the California Institute of Technology, and M.A. 
in International Studies from Claremont Graduate School.

                               ###




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178309
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting

In article <1qia48INNgta@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:
>	     
>	     
>	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Good evening and welcome to all of you 
>in the thousands of communities around the country that are taking 
>part in this satellite town meeting for the month of April.
>	     
>	     You know, today is April 13th.  In 1743, Thomas 
>Jefferson was born, 250 years ago.  I think that's appropriate to 
>mention at the beginning of this meeting because since that time he 
>has been, of course, a person who has been one that we've all 
>followed in terms of our democracy and the importance of education 
>here in this great country.  The success of our democracy according 
>to Jefferson really depends upon the success of our educational 
>system.

       I wonder if he realizes the irony of a Federal Secretary
invoking a rabid anti-federalist in support of federal education
programs?
	     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178310
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject

In article <1993Apr13.174636.15142@ads.com>, henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) wrote: 
# -#	Just curious (don't have to answer if you feel uncomfortable):
# -#	how many times have YOU had sex with boys?
# 
# why do you care?  if a total stranger asked you how often you had sex,
# would you answer?
# 
# # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com#

This is so typical of homosexuals -- constantly making excuses for
child molesters.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178311
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade

In article <lsm2fjINNlnf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> >> In article <15230@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## #I remain pro-choice, but when pro-choicers compare abortion in a
# ## #clinic to a religious ritual in a church, you have to start wondering
# ## #a bit if the pro-life criticism of abortion as modern human sacrifice
# ## #doesn't have a grain of truth to it.
# 
# #In article <ls8ruoINN54b@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM#, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
# ## 
# ## Ah, Clayton, so I see that you have found someone new to bash.  Tell
# ## me, how many pro-choicers have compared abortion in a clinic to a
# ## religious ritual in a church?  I'll bet that you've seen "overwhelming
# ## support" for this opinion in some newsgroup or another.
# 
# In article <15313@optilink.COM# cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #No, but I've seen the comparison drawn by pro-choicers in ca.politics.
# #It is worrisome to me.  But not to you?
# 
# 1. I've been reading ca.politics for a while now, and I don't recall
#    seeing such a comparison.

You don't read *my* postings very carefully; I'm not surprised.  It
was pretty shocking, and is part of why my sympathy (though not
agreement) with the pro-lifers is increasing.

# 2. A handful of lunatic opinions expressed in ca.politics does not
#    make me think that the opinion is widely held.

When did I say that it was?

# Clayton, I wish I knew what made you tick.  Your math sucks, and you
# take single instances of fringe opinions and proclaim the existence of
# a pernicious trend.  There's about a quarter billion people living in
# this country -- some small number of them are almost guaranteed to
# hold opinions that you (and I) find positively repellent.  As long as
# the small number is truly a small number, and as long as they're not
# my neighbor (highly likely), I'm not worried about it.

When they hold high public office, you should worry.

# By the way, when you cite experts, remember that Carl Sagan and Paul
# Ehrlich [sp?] are experts, too.  If I've never heard of your experts,
# I'll consider the source (you, a man who is clearly unable to master
# elementary statistics and uses of statistical inference) and ignore
# them.
# 
# David Chase

You mean, I don't come to the conclusions that your emotional
state requires.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178312
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Professors Whining About Pay

In article <1qf2kqINNrkd@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
> In article <15320@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |>In article <1q4k3bINNe6k@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
> |>> In article <15307@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# |## |#2. Professors get summers off; industry employees don't.
# |## 
# |## What professor gets the summer off ?  The primary purpose of a professor
# |## at a university is to publish.  Teaching is secondary.  The summer
# |## is when professors are able to do the research required for their
# |## papers.
# |#
# |#I'm told by my advisor that only at some universities is publishing
# |#the primary emphasis; many professors in the Cal State University
# |#system don't publish at all.  Those that prefer teaching are under
# |#no pressure to publish.
# |#
# 
# When discussing and issue, it helps that all participants use the same
# definitions, although this rarely occurs on Usenet.
# 
# When I use the term "university", I think of an organization that has
# a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD program.  I believe that Cal State schools
# do not.  I call them colleges.  UC schools are universities.  At a univeristy
# the number one goal is to publish.

Cal State University system offers bachlors and masters degrees.  The
Ph.D. is not offered, because of opposition from UC.

# At the Cal State schools, do the professors you speak of have PhDs?  At

Nearly all the professors have PhDs.  I haven't had a professor who didn't,
though my wife has had a couple of professors with just an M.A.  A friend
had an instructor who didn't have a degree at all, but because he had
been Minister of Culture for the Black Panthers, he was teaching anyway.
He had a bad habit of usually not showing up to teach the class, and
finally quit in disgust at the racism of a university that expected him
to show up to teach.

# a university you have professors with PhDs and then Teaching Assistants (TAs).
# TAs were the slave labor, graduate students who got their tuition paid, and
# a few hundred a month for living expenses in exchange for doing all the grunt
# work.  The professors taught the lectures, with 100 to 500 students per class,
# then the TAs taught the labs, with 20 to 30 per class.
# 
# Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)

At Sonoma State University, typical class size is 20 to 30 per class.
Teaching is definitely more the goal, and sometimes, it actually happens.
The best professors at Sonoma State U. are equivalent to the best 
professors I had at UCLA and USC.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178313
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Summer Jobs Conference 4.14.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 14, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                      AT SUMMER JOBS CONFERENCE

	     	  
                            Hyatt Regency
                        Crystal City, Virginia  


11:22 A.M. EDT

	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  The speech that 
Octavius gave says more than anything I will be able to say today 
about why it's important to give all of our young people a chance to 
get a work experience and to continue to learn, to merge the nature 
of learning and work; why it's important to honor the efforts of 
people like Jerry Levin and Nancye Combs and Pat Irving and all of 
those who are here.  
	     
	     I want to thank the Secretaries of Labor and Education 
and all the people who work with them for sponsoring this; and my 
good friend, Governor Wilder, for being here and for speaking; and 
all of the business and local community leaders from the city and 
county and state level from around America who are here. 
	     
	     This has been a pretty fun day.  (Laughter.)  I loved 
hearing the young people sing.  It was music to my ears because it is 
their future that we are really struggling about.  (Applause.)  A 
year and a half ago I began the quest to seek the presidency because 
I was concerned about their future.  Because I believe that our 
country, which had always been a beacon of hope for the young, had 
too little opportunity, was too divided among ourselves across lines 
of income and race and region and other ways, without a vision to 
take us into the future.  
	     
	     I entered with the hope that together we could create 
more opportunity and insist on much more responsibility from all of 
our people.  But in the process we might recreate the best of 
America's community, knowing that together we could always to more 
than we could individually and that we might secure our future.
	     
	     All of you here today are committed to that.  The 1,000 
jobs that Jerry Levin has committed Time-Warner to is symbolic of the 
commitments made by many of the private sector people who are here, 
and those who are around the country.  The work that Nancye Combs 
does, and the successes of all the young people like those on this 
stage, and especially the eloquent statement Octavius Jeffers -- all 
those things show that together we know what we need to do, and we're 
on the right track.
	     
	     Last July when I was traveling across America's 
heartland in my luxurious bus, I visited Seneca High School in 
Louisville, Kentucky.  And there I met young people and business 
people who were participating in the Louisville Education and 
Employment Partnership.  I saw what Nancye Combs talked about today.  
I saw how the young people were making an extra effort to succeed 
both in school and at work.  I saw, as I have seen many times in my 
own state, the principle illustrated that Octavius has talked about 
-- that for millions of American young people it is really an 
impediment to both their learning and their ability to be good 
workers to draw a sharp dividing line between what is work and what 
is learning.
	     
	     In the world in which we are living, the average young 
person will change the nature of work seven or eight times in a 
lifetime.  We must learn to merge the work world and the learning 
world much better.  And we must determine that all of our young 
people see the opportunities that some of them have had showcased 
here today.  
	     
	     Whether you're in business or in government or in 
education, you know that we have a big job to do when it comes to 
building a future that really, honestly includes opportunity for all 
of our people.  There are still a lot of people who say, well, things 
are pretty good here in Washington and everything's fine; the best 
thing we can do about this whole thing is nothing.  They all have 
jobs.  (Laughter.)  All the people who say that.  (Applause.)  
	     
	     They all have health insurance.  They all have a pretty 
good education.  And they all have a pretty secure knowledge that 
they'll be okay no matter what happens.  I say that not to be either 
political or unduly critical, but to point out that one of the great 
challenges of this age for every advanced nation -- everyone -- is to 
fully develop the capacities of all of its people, and then find work 
for them to do.
	     
	     All the European countries have higher unemployment 
rates than we do, but also stronger support systems for the 
unemployed.  The Japanese unemployment rate has been going up.  
They're going to adopt a stimulus that, even if you count it in its 
most rigorous terms, is three or four times bigger than the one that 
I have proposed to create jobs. 
	     
	     In West Germany alone, the unemployment rate is now 
about as high as ours.  This is a big problem for advanced nations.  
It costs a lot of money to add an extra employee, with a lot of 
pressure from low-wage producers in other countries that are growing 
their own economies and trying to provide new opportunity for their 
people.  
	     
	     But it is especially important for America for two 
reasons:  One is, we have a whole lot of folks who, unless we move 
aggressively, will not have the education and skills we need to be 
competitive and productive in a nation like this.  The second is, 
even if we educate them all, if there aren't jobs they will be robbed 
of the fruits of their educational labors.  People need to be able to 
work in this country.  (Applause.)
	     
	     We have always had some unemployment; and, indeed, some 
of it is normal.  You've always got some people leaving jobs and 
moving around the country and doing first one thing and another.  We 
have now, at this moment in our history, the necessity for all big 
organizations, including the government, to reexamine the way they 
are organized and who ask whether there are too many people working 
at some kinds of jobs.  But in the whole, we must still be able to 
create jobs in a country like America, to provide people with the 
chance to work.  
	     
	     It's going to be difficult for me to make the welfare 
reform proposals that I will make to Congress in the next couple of 
months -- it's going to be hard for me to make those work if, at the 
end of all this work, to get off welfare there isn't a job.  
(Applause.)
	     
	     So we have two tasks.  One is to develop the capacity of 
the American people to perform without regard to race or income or 
the circumstances of their birth.  The other is to make sure that 
there are some opportunities for them to bring to bear for their 
talent and to be rewarded with a paycheck.  It is a great challenge.  
I do not pretend that all of the answers are simple.  But I know if 
you want to ask the American people, all of them, to be more 
responsible, if you want to recreate a sense of community in this 
country that bridges the lines of race and income and region, you 
have got to have opportunity in that mix. 
	     
	     A part of our vision for America has to be a future for 
every young person in this country who's willing to play by the rules 
and work hard and strive for the end of the rainbow.  There has to be 
something at the end of that rainbow.  And that is what we are 
basically here to talk about today:  What can we all do as partners, 
recognizing none of us can do it alone, to develop the capacities of 
our people to succeed wherever they live and whatever their 
background.  And then, what can we do to make sure that there's 
something there for them to do?

	     The summer jobs program we're discussing today is an 
integral part of that plan, because it will promote the values of 
work and opportunity and fairness, community.  It will put the people 
first, and it does have a partnership between the public and private 
sector.
	     
	     I said when I addressed the United States Congress in 
February on this program that I would seek to create about 700,000 
extra summer jobs from government sources and then challenge the 
American business community to meet that target so that we can create  
more than a million new summer jobs over and above what had been 
created before.
	     
	     Many, many people have responded to that challenge.  And 
Jerry is just a shining example of that which has been replicated in 
this room and around the country -- people who are going to do more 
than they otherwise would in the private sector to give young people 
a work experience.  And it is terribly important.
	     
	     I want to emphasize that this summer jobs program is 
part of an overall commitment to increase the capacity of the 
American people -- from retraining defense workers who lose their 
jobs and other adults who need to acquire new skills; to improving 
the transition from school to work for young people who don't go to 
college but do need at least two years of post-high school training 
either on the job or in a community college or a vocational setting, 
so that they can be competitive workers, making it possible for more 
people to go on to college who do want to go.
	     
	     All these things are part and parcel of a comprehensive 
plan.  It's also important, as I said, that we create more jobs.  The 
emergency jobs program that I asked the Congress to adopt would 
create a half a million extra jobs over the next year and a half, and 
that would reduce the unemployment rate by a half a percent.  It 
would also enable us to absorb more young people coming into the work 
force in jobs that otherwise will not be created.
	     
	      It also will help a lot of cities and counties to 
invest in things that need to be done at the grass-roots level --
projects long delayed, water projects, sewer projects, park projects, 
new industries and particularly in small and medium-size communities 
-- a whole range of things that will improve the economy and improve 
the environment.  
	     
	     The summer jobs program is an important part of that 
because we have tried for the first time, through the work of the 
Labor Department and the Education Department and through reaching 
out to people like you, to make this more than just a one-shot summer 
jobs program; to integrate it with private sector efforts; to 
hopefully replicate it in each coming summer; to move these young 
people into further educational opportunities and to further job 
opportunities; and to have a strong, meaningful education component 
to these summer jobs -- something that the United States government 
has never fully emphasized before.  
	     
	     A lot of these young people, as you well know, because 
they come from difficult backgrounds, because they go to school in 
difficult and challenging circumstances, need extra help in building 
their basic skills in math and language, reasoning and in other 
areas.  And a lot of educational studies show that young people who 
have difficulty in school often forget as much as 30 percent of what 
they learn over the summer and then that has to be repeated the next 
year.  
	     
	     What we are trying to do here is to give people the 
opportunity to learn good work habits and to reinforce their learning 
skills and to put them together; and then, hopefully, over the next 
couple of years, if our entire program passes, to give every school 
in this country the opportunity to have a good work and learning 
environment.  
	     
	     There will be more applied academics, more opportunities 
for people to learn and work during the school year, so that this 
will not simply be an isolated moment for these young folks, but will 
be a part of building a whole new educational experience, a whole new 
work experience, and moving on a pathway to a better future.
	     
	     The summer jobs programs are not designed to be make-
work jobs.  They're designed to make a future for the people holding 
the job.  And that's what they will do.  In the process, they'll help 
to build local communities, to strengthen local economies, to solve 
local problems.  Real jobs -- renovating housing, repairing public 
buildings, doing clerical work, providing nursing assistance in 
hospitals, supervising and training children at child care centers, 
and learning all the way.  Challenging young people to learn while 
they earn, but letting them earn.
	     
	     You know, it's very difficult to make a case to people 
who have never seen opportunity on their own street that they should 
do this, that, or the other thing if there's no evidence of the 
opportunity that's at the end of the effort.  I have not been sparing 
in going for the last year-and-a-half into places where it isn't 
exactly popular to say it, and say I wanted to reform the welfare 
system; I wanted to toughen child support; I wanted to require people 
to work; I was sick and tired of people being irresponsible in the 
use of guns on the streets, and I wanted to change all that.  But if 
you're going to summon people to greater responsibility, you have to 
reward them when they do the right thing with opportunity.  
(Applause.)
	     
	     The young people we propose to put to work under our 
program will spend 90 hours learning basic skills, such as math, 
reading, writing -- either on the job in the classroom.  They will 
stretch their minds as well as work up a sweat.  They will have a 
sense of accomplishment.  It will literally be a summer challenge, 
but a challenge that will take them into a different life.
	     
	     So I want to ask all of you to support this effort even 
as I, as your President, support your effort.  At the end of the 
summer we will evaluate all the young people who participate.  We'll 
see whether they, instead of falling behind over the summer 
academically as too many young people do, they stayed even or moved 
ahead.  I suspect that they will.  
	     
	     This summer, Secretary Reich and Secretary Riley and I 
will be visiting many of your communities.  We'll really try to learn 
from you which of these efforts are working, what we should do next 
summer, how we can build it in to what goes on during the school 
year, how we can build in our job training efforts and the works that 
we do with your companies to make sense of this whole thing -- so 
that we maximize the impact of the taxpayer dollar and your private 
investments as well. 
	     
	     We want to honor the companies and the communities, the 
business leaders and the young people who do the very best jobs this 
summer.  And, again, I want to say to all of you in private business 
who have matched our effort, I thank you.  And to all of you who 
haven't, and those across the country who may listen or learn about 
this event today, I want to implore other private employers to 
stretch a little bit to give other young people a chance to work this 
summer.  I'm telling you, we cannot go through another 10 years when 
we don't give these children anything to say yes to.  If we exhort 
them to do right, we've got to be able to reward them.  (Applause.)
	     
	     When the other speakers were talking, I was sitting up 
here on the platform, listening and reveling.  And they got talking 
about work, and I got to thinking about all the different things I've 
done to make a living in my life.  When I was 13, I made a very 
foolish short-term business investment:  I set up a comic book stand 
and sold two trunks full of comic books.  Made more money than I had 
ever had in my life.  But if I had saved those trunks, they'd be 
worth $100,000 today.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     That does not mean young people should not be 
entrepreneurial.  It just means that you can't foresee a generation 
ahead.  I have mowed yards and cleared land and built houses and 
worked in body shops and the parts departments of a car dealership.  
And I've done a lot of different things for a living.  Some 
people say I got into politics to escape work.  (Laughter.)  
	     
	     I learned something from every job I ever had.  But I 
grew up in a generation where I literally did not know a living soul 
without regard to race or income who wanted to work who didn't have a 
job.  I grew up in a generation when all you had to really say to 
people is, get an education and you'll be all right.  You'll get a 
job and you'll make more money next year than you did this year.  Now 
I live in a generation full of people, most of whom don't make any 
more money in real dollars than they did 10 years ago and they're 
working longer hours and they're paying more for the basics of life.  
And we are now wondering whether we can create the jobs that these 
young people want.
	     
	     Now, I want to close by reemphasizing these two things:  
It doesn't matter what kind of economic policies this administration 
pursues, or how much productivity increases there are in the private 
sector, if young Americans don't get a good education, don't learn 
how to work and can't be productive, those jobs will not be created 
in this country.  Machines will do the work or the work will be done 
off-shore by people who have the same skill levels and can work for a 
third or a fourth or a fifth the wages.  So nothing we can do 
economically will matter unless we build the skills and capacities of 
America's work force.  And anybody that pretends otherwise is just 
kidding.  
	     
	     On the other hand, we need to be honest.  Every wealthy 
country in the world, including the United States, is having 
difficulty creating jobs.  If I knew everything that needs to be done 
I'd be glad to tell you and we   could just call off the whole 
deliberations of Congress and everything else.  I don't have all the 
answers.  But I know this:  Doing nothing is not the answer.  
(Applause.)
	     
	     And so the jobs program that I have presented to 
Congress, with the summer jobs, with the money for the cities and the 
counties, through the Community Development Program, with the 
infrastructure money, is a small part of a big budget.  It is an 
attempt to engage in an experiment to see whether or not, with the 
economy recovering in terms of corporate profit, we can give a little 
boost to it, give opportunities to young people, create a half a 
million jobs and maybe get the engine going again.
	     
	     Most of the jobs in this program are going to be jobs in 
the private sector, not government jobs, even though it's government 
money.  And the lion's share of the work in rebuilding the American 
economy obviously will come from the private sector.  That's the kind 
of system we have and it works pretty well.  
	     
	     But this is the challenge we have.  So I ask all of you 
here today to support the summer jobs program, to ask your friends 
and neighbors to support it, to go back home and ask your employers 
to make a little extra effort; to do what you can to help me pass the 
funds to create the 700,000 jobs that the United States government 
should create this summer, so that together we can have this 
partnership.  Because more than anything else, we have to give a 
future -- a future that our young people can believe in.  
	     
	     We need to send them a message that here in America if 
you study hard and work hard, if you obey the law and contribute 
something to your community, you will be rewarded by your country.  
You can build a future from you own dreams. 
	     
	     That has always been the promise of America.  Together 
that's what this summer of challenge needs to be:  a reaffirmation of 
the promise of America for so many young people to whom that promise 
has been an illusion.  We can make it a reality.
	     
	     Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

                                 END11:45 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178314
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.14.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 14, 1993



                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS


                          The Briefing Room


12:40 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I guess I'm just prepared to take 
questions today.
	     
	     Q	  George, Bob Dole says that the Clinton 
administration's policy on Bosnia is a failure and that he wants the 
United States to take the lead in lifting the arms embargo so that 
the Bosnian Muslims can defend themselves.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know, President Clinton has 
said that that suggestion is under active consideration.  Obviously, 
this is a tragic situation in Bosnia.  And if the Bosnian Serbs don't 
come to the negotiating table in a constructive way, we'll look 
seriously at pressing for lifting the arms embargo.  In the meantime, 
we're going to continue to press for a tough sanctions resolution in 
the U.N.  We're going to continue to work on the Serbs to come to the 
negotiating table.  But the prospect of an arms embargo is something 
the President certainly will consider if the Serbs don't come to the 
table.
	     
	     Q	  How much longer are you going to give them to come 
to the table, George?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're working on that right now.
	     
	     Q	  It's been a long time.
	     
	     Q	  On February 19th, the President mentioned the value 
added tax in Ohio.  And when he was asked about it later by 
reporters, he said -- quote -- "That is a radical change in the tax 
system of the United States.  It's something I think we may have to 
look at in the years ahead."  Questioned again about it later he 
says, "It is not something that is now under consideration.  If we 
start considering it, I'll tell you."  It wasn't a trial balloon or 
anything, he said.  I was just discussing the tax response to a 
question.  Donna Shalala, quoted in USA Today this morning -- quote -
- "Certainly we're looking at a VAT."  What's gone on?
	     
	     Q	  The same with Alice Rivlin this morning.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The health care task force is 
reviewing a number of options.  They haven't made any decisions yet.  
And as I have said from this podium time and time again, we're not 
going to comment on decisions that haven't been made.
	     
	     Q	  But you have also said from this podium time and 
time again --
	     
	     Q	  Wait a minute.  Whoa, Nelly.  Whoa.  
	     
	     Q	     that that was not under consideration.
	     
	     Q	  Yes.  Clinton says, "It is not something that is 
now under consideration."  Is that no longer true?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe the working group, as Ms. 
Shalala says, has looked at this prospect, but no decisions have been 
made of any kind.
	     
	     Q	  Well, I know.  But he said he'd tell us about it if 
it was ever under consideration.  I take it that now he is and he 
didn't tell us about it or --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Did he say if it was under 
consideration or if it was something to be proposed?
	     
	     Q	  "If we start considering I'll tell you."
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  If it's something to be proposed?
	     
	     Q	  "If we start considering it, I'll tell you."  
That's a direct quote.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The task force has looked at a 
number of different options.  They have not made any decisions yet.  
The President has not made any decisions yet.  This is -- one of the 
proposals under consideration by the task force was to go out and 
cast as wide a net as possible for different ideas on how to reform 
the health care system.  They have cast a very wide net.  They have 
looked at hundreds of different proposals -- probably thousands of 
different proposals.  But the President has not made any decisions.
	     
	     Q	  Well, is the President aware of their consideration 
of this option?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if he's been briefed 
on any preliminary conclusions or anything like that from the task 
force on this specific proposal of any kind.  I don't know that 
that's gotten to his level.  He started yesterday to go through with 
the task force a very wide range of decisions and I don't believe 
that that's been presented to him, no.
	     
	     Q	  Well, he's not relying on the USA Today to tell him 
what his task force is considering in the way of taxes.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he's going through it in a very 
deliberate fashion.  There are a number of decisions that have to be 
made.  I don't know that this proposal has reached that decision-
making point.
	     
	     Q	  If this is still under consideration, that's a 
change, at least from what we've been told by Dee Dee, I think about 
three weeks ago or so.  She said, that is not an option, talking 
about the -- had a big argument with somebody over this, so I 
remember it specifically -- and said it not once, but twice.  Is that 
not the case?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know if this has 
been presented to the President as something that is being looked at 
at some level in the task force.
	     
	     Q	  It was ruled it out, though.  I mean, unlike other 
options that you've kept in the mix, this one specifically was ruled 
out.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, this is something that is 
being looked at, but no decision has been made of any kind.  I mean, 
it doesn't -- it's not necessarily material until you get to the 
decision-making phase.  The working groups are looking at hundreds of 
different options.
	     
	     Q	  If it was ruled out before and it's not ruled out 
now, then something has changed, George.  Yes, no?
	     
	     Q	  When a guy says in February --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the working groups are 
looking at the widest possible range of options.
	     
	     Q	  So something's changed.  They weren't looking at it 
before; they're looking at it now.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I don't know if the working 
groups have gotten to that point yet.  They are casting a very wide 
net.
	     
	     Q	  How was it possible that you and Dee Dee were able 
to sell -- definitively rule it out as an option previously and now 
are saying that, in fact, it is being considered?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, the working groups are 
looking at a wide range of options.  They have not --
	     
	     Q	  Do you deny that you and Dee Dee ruled it -- flatly 
ruled it out on several occasions in the past month?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't deny that -- I mean, those 
are the President's words.  Those are very clear.
	     
	     Q	  Subsequent to the President's words, do you deny 
that within the last month you and Dee Dee have both publicly ruled 
it out?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about the timing.  I 
think what we did was refer back to the President's words and say 
they stand.
	     
	     Q	  So don't they stand any longer?
	     
	     Q	  March 25th, Clinton said for the next four to five 
years it was ruled out.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, those words -- the President 
did say that in February.  The working groups are on a separate 
track, and as I said, I don't believe --
	     
	     Q	  Separate from the President?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe this has been 
presented to the President.
	     
	     Q	  Are they considering something that the President 
--
	     
	     Q	  Has ruled out?
	     
	     Q	     has ruled out?  I mean, will the President 
consider a VAT tax?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, the working groups have not 
presented this to the President.  They have looked at a wide range of 
options.  I suppose that if an argument is made, he will clearly 
listen to it.  That does not mean he has decided to do it.
	     
	     Q	  Can we put this another way?  In his answer in 
Ohio, he looked at the VAT in terms of restructuring the whole tax 
system.  Under those -- that was the circumstance that he said it 
might be considered at some future point.  Is that no longer the 
case, or is that the only way that he can see a VAT emerging?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I guess I'm not sure exactly what 
you're asking.
	     
	     Q	  He talked about the VAT in the context of a 
restructured tax system, not as a specific way to finance health 
care, for example.
	     
	     Q	  Or anything else.
	     
	     Q	  Or anything else.
	     
	     Q	  It was always in the context of substituting for 
other taxes at a time of a dramatic overhaul of the whole tax system.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.
	     
	     Q	  Has that change, too?
	     
	     Q	  Is that still his view?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I haven't spoken about those 
specific comments.  I think -- I can just go back to it -- are the 
working groups -- have they examined the possibility of a VAT?  Yes, 
they have.
	     
	     Q	  Certainly we're looking at a VAT, she said.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They have examined the possibility 
of a VAT.  Has it been presented to the President?  Has he made a 
decision?  No, he has not.
	     
	     Q	  What kind of a deal do you have when you've got the 
President's appointed task force, obviously not oblivious to his 
ruling something out except in the context of some huge down the line 
reform, goes ahead on its own and considers a tax which he has 
specifically ruled out in any context other than much later, and then 
goes ahead and announces that that's what they're looking at?  Is the 
President concerned about that sort of thing?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that the President's 
concern is to make sure he gets the best health care proposal 
possible.  He's concerned with making sure that they have the most 
thorough process for examining all the possible alternatives, all the 
different alternatives.  If a decision is made to go forward with 
something like that it's certainly something the President will 
explain and justify.  But no decision has been made along those 
lines.
	     
	     Q	  What does it mean exactly, though, when the 
President rules something out?  Does it mean it can get back on the 
table later if a more persuasive argument is made?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's just -- that's indisputably 
true.  If you -- but, at the same time, he has not ruled it in.  He 
has not made a proposal.
	     
	     Q	  What makes him open to it now when he wasn't open 
to it before?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's certainly willing to listen to 
the argument.
	     
	     Q	  Was he willing to listen to the argument for a 
short-term tax this year, and he wasn't willing to listen to it in 
Chilicothe?  He's now open to it --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The context of his comments was 
that it was not something -- he wanted to be clear that this is not 
something he was proposing, not something he was floating.
	     
	     Q	  Not something he was considering.  Those are his 
words -- "It's not something that's now under consideration.  If we 
start considering it, I'll tell you."  You're now acknowledging, are 
you not, that it is under consideration and --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm acknowledging that the task 
force has studied this proposal.  I am also stating that the 
President has not made a decision on it.
	     
	     Q	  But the door is open for the President to 
reconsider including this as part of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Obviously, the working groups are 
looking at it.  Again, but the President has not made a decision.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if they will make a presentation on 
behalf of the VAT to him?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that.  I assume that 
if -- I don't know what stage they are it in proposing.  I don't know 
that they're going to make the conclusion that this is something they 
should present to him.  I know this is something the working groups 
are looking at.
	     
	     Q	  Do you understand, George, that none of us are 
asking these questions in context of a decision that the President 
has made, only about what the President is considering?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I understand that, and I am 
acknowledging that the working groups have examined the issue of a 
VAT.
	     
	     Q	  And the President will consider it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I assume that he will consider the 
argument if it is presented to him.
	     
	     Q	  Does that mean the President -- that working groups 
think that when the President says no, he means maybe?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that means that the working 
groups are trying to do the most thorough job possible.
	     
	     Q	  George, can I ask you another question about 
Bosnia?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  No, he wants us to stay on this.
	     
	     Q	  Let's do gays in the military.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  No, he got out of that swamp.
	     
	     Q	  I think we've gotten the bottom line on that VAT.  
Reggie Bartholomew, your Special Ambassador in Belgrade, today said 
that if the Serbs do not accept the agreement that has been worked 
out -- quote -- "We will do our part to pursue the lifting of the 
arms embargo together with our allies."  That seems to go a bit 
further than what you've just said --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sounds almost exactly what I just 
said.
	     
	     Q	  Well, do you accept -- in other words, you accept 
what Reggie --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the President has said that 
this is something that's under consideration.  It is something he 
will consider if the current actions don't bring the Serbs to the 
table.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't there some kind of timetable here?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, there is a timetable.  There's 
going to be a vote on the U.N. resolution in about 10 days.
	     
	     Q	  That's on sanctions, that's on tightening the 
sanctions.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's right, that's sanctions.  
And we believe that that will ratchet up the pressure, and we hope 
that that will bring the Serbs to the table.  As you know, Mr. 
Bartholomew also met with Mr. Churkin of Russia, and they are also 
working on ways to bring the Serbs to the table.  We will continue to 
pressure them in many different ways and this is one possible option 
as well.
	     
	     Q	  The question is whether there's a timetable for 
consideration or a vote on a decision on lifting the arms embargo, 
not the sanctions.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The next vote in the U.N. is on 
sanctions.  As far as I know, there are no votes scheduled on lifting 
the arms embargo.  But it is something that we have discussed both 
internally and with our allies.
	     
	     Q	  Why did Reggie Bartholomew tell the Serbs that the 
U.S. would do that?  What was the point of his telling them that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, clearly, I mean, this is 
something that's under consideration, and this is something that we 
take quite seriously if they do not come to the table.  They should 
know the consequences of failing to come to the table.
	     
	     Q	  Have they been given a deadline?
	     
	     Q	  Warren Christopher has been saying the same thing 
and it hasn't seemed to change the Serbs' behavior in the least.  Why 
should the Serbs take any heed of a threat to lift the arms embargo 
when so far everything that's been done has had no effect on the 
fighting in Bosnia?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't accept the premise of 
your question.  It has had an effect; the embargo is having an 
effect.  
	     
	     Q	  What effect?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  If the Serbians choose not to heed 
our warnings, then they will face the consequences.
	     
	     Q	  What effect has it had in Bosnia?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the effect that it has had on 
the Serbians, it has tightened up -- they are not getting their 
shipments through.  We can brief more fully --
	     
	     Q	  In Bosnia, George.  In Bosnia what effect has it 
had?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, it's hard to say if it's 
stopped the aggression to date.  That is why we're continuing to 
press for the Serbians to stop.  But we believe that over time we 
will continue to weaken the Serbs and that will have   an effect.  
I'm not saying it's going to happen overnight; it clearly hasn't 
happened overnight.  But we believe that over time the sanctions can 
weaken the Serbs.  If it fails to work and if the Serbs fail to come 
to the negotiating table, we'll move forward with the embargo.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't there a working deadline, George, of the 24th 
-- the same date as the U.N. -- the scheduled U.N. vote?  Hasn't the 
United States said, along with many of the other NATO allies, that if 
the Serbs aren't willing to sign on to the peace accord by then, that 
we'll seek -- haven't we said that we will seek --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We've said continually we're going 
to --
	     
	     Q	  But on that deadline?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't have a specific date, but 
we're going to move forward with the resolution, the U.N. resolution, 
by around that time.  And if that fails to take effect, if that fails 
to bring the Serbs to the table, we will clearly consider other 
actions.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't this awfully incremental?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're taking a step-by-step 
approach.  We're ratcheting up the pressure and we're going to 
continue to do that.
	     
	     Q	  Is there a possibility, George, that by the time 
all these incremental steps are taken the Serbs will have achieved 
their goals and then what's the purpose?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the purpose is to get the 
Serbs to stop the aggression.  We are pursuing that goal on many 
different fronts.  We are pursuing it through the U.N.; we're 
pursuing it through direct talks; we are pursuing it through 
tightening the sanctions.  And we will consider lifting the arms 
embargo.  We are turning the screws up on the Serbs and we will 
continue to do that.
	     
	     Q	  But if the efforts have been unsuccessful in 
getting the Serbs to stop the aggression how effective will any 
campaign be to have the Serbs give back what they've gained?  I mean, 
once they're entrenched --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't speculate on that.  We're 
going to continue to press for them to come to the table now.  We're 
going to continue to find ways to stop the aggression.  But I can't 
see into the future.
	     
	     Q	  George, on the stimulus package, House Republicans 
say they're going to hold a series of town meetings on Saturday to 
try and explain the details of your package.  They cite polls which 
show that the more people learn about it, the less they like it.  
What's your strategy to counter that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The strategy we have is the one 
we're going to continue.  As you saw, the President today pointed up 
the very real benefits of the summer jobs program that this package 
will provide:  700,000 new summer jobs this summer for kids in inner 
cities and suburbs to do productive work.  We are also going to point 
out the benefits of the highway money, the investments in highways.  
We're going to point up the benefits of immunization.  We're going to 
point up the benefits of Head Start.  We are going to say that the 
Republicans have a choice:  they can take action to create jobs or 
they can perpetuate the gridlock of the last four years. 
	     
	     Q	  Does it concern you, though, that the House now, 
the House Republicans are after you as well as the Senate?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The House Republicans voted against 
it before.  They made a mistake then; they're making a mistake now.
	     
	     Q	  George, does it strike anybody in the 
administration that it's a bit strong to describe, as the President 
did this morning, the summer jobs program as -- quote -- "a 
reaffirmation of a promise of America"?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I think it's the 
promise of America to give kids a chance to reach their full 
potential. 
	     
	     Q	  Government-funded jobs?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  To give people a chance to work?  
Absolutely.  That is the promise of America.
	     
	     Q	  I want to follow up on something I asked yesterday 
-- where does 700,000 summer jobs, where does that figure come from?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That is on top of.  I did look at 
it.  There are currently 600,000 summer jobs in the pipeline.  This 
will be on top of the 600,000, so it will be a total of 1.3 million.
	     
	     Q	  The 700,000 would be created by the stimulus 
package?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Where does that number come from?  Because we've 
been told all along that the stimulus package would create 500,000 
new jobs.  And according to Panetta, that breaks down to something 
like 200,000 full-time jobs and 150,000 summer jobs.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, but the summer -- that's when 
you do their full-time equivalence.  I mean, 700,000 individuals will 
receive jobs this summer.  When you calculate it for the full-time 
job effect, you have to do -- I don't know what the exact formula is.
	     
	     Q	  Seven hundred thousand part-time jobs --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- 150,000 or --
	     
	     Q	  One to four because it's three months.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Thank you.
	     
	     Q	  Can I follow up on that?  Did the President 
misspeak this morning when he said that some of the government money 
for these summer jobs will pay for private -- for kids to work in the 
private sector?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not necessarily.  I mean, I think 
that there will be grants available.  That's one of the ways that you 
pay for the jobs.  At the same time, he's also issued a challenge to 
the private sector to hire kids on their own as well.  
	     
	     Q	  Tax dollars, for instance, would pay for kids to 
work at Time-Warner?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the Time-Warner is actually 
somebody coming forward and actually doing a grant.  That's going to 
be the bulk of it.  There could be isolated instances, though, where 
there would be grants to businesses.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President spoken with any Senate 
Republicans this week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  
No, but there's been a lot of contact with Senate Republicans in the 
White House.
	     
	     Q	  At a lower level.  But the President hasn't?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has not, no.
	     
	     Q	  Getting any closer to get the votes?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're continuing to work on it. 
	     
	     Q	  Anybody leaning your way?
	     
	     Q	  On Haiti, The New York Times seems to be reporting 
something of a breakthrough in Aristide's attitude towards the coup 
leaders.  Can you confirm that there has been this change, and what 
impact will it have on the process?  And what did Pezzullo have to 
say yesterday in his report?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Pezzullo did brief the principals.  
I can't confirm what's actually happening in the talks.  I would 
leave that to the negotiators themselves.  But Mr. Caputo has 
returned to Haiti.  We have received a briefing here at the White 
House from Ambassador Pezzullo.  And as we have said time and time 
again, we believe that assurances of security are important to a 
final resolution to a broader political settlement.
	     
	     Q	  George, yesterday you offered some selective 
breakdowns of how the stimulus would impact some states and cities.  
Can we get a complete breakdown by state of how these jobs would be 
impacted?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we have it for most states, 
yes.  And I think we can get it out.
	     
	     Q	  Could you make that generally available?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe we can.
	     
	     Q	  And could you do it by the component of the 
stimulus?  In other words --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if we can do -- I know 
that we can do it by summer jobs and other jobs.  I don't know how 
deeply it can be broken down.  But clearly, we can break it down into 
summer jobs and other jobs.
	     
	     Q	  And can I follow up?  Is this the information that 
Jeff Eller and the rest of the White House is using in the ads in the 
states?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they're ads, but 
they're press releases.
	     
	     Q	  Can you describe what those press releases contain?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  All we're doing is pointing out the 
benefits of this package to various states.  For instance, I know 
that today Senator Dole is heading up to Vermont and New Hampshire.  
And I would point out that the stimulus package, the jobs package 
creates 1,000 jobs in Vermont.  It creates 2,000 jobs in New 
Hampshire.  And the people of those states should remind him that 
this is important. 
	     
	     Q	  Where are the releases going?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They go to the states.
	     
	     Q	  To whom?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We can get them.  It's no problem.
	     
	     Q	  Can we get it?
	     
	     Q	  Why don't you put them out here as well?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we can.
	     
	     Q	  This afternoon?  Would that be possible?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'll have to check.  I don't know.  
But as soon as we can.
	     
	     Q	  Are you focusing these press releases on states 
where there are moderate or pragmatic Republican senators?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we're trying to get as many 
as we can.  It's actually quite difficult to pull this together and 
we're doing our best.  We're putting them out as we get them.
	     
	     Q	  Why are you so closely tracking Senator Dole's 
schedule?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I was just following it. 
	     
	     Q	  Are press releases going along to states where he's 
visiting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure.  I think that 
probably there are press releases going to Vermont.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Will there be a man in a chicken suit waiting?  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  George, as the President goes about the business of 
defending what's in his stimulus package, he doesn't address what 
seems to be the Republicans' main point, that you're funding it with 
deficit spending rather than "if it's so important, why not come up 
with the funding for it" seems to be the Republican argument.  And 
how do you answer that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  What was answer is, we are paying 
for it over time.  And if you look at our budget, we pay for this 
package over time.  We believe right now the economy needs a jump-
start for jobs.
	     
	     Q	  You're not claiming, are you, that that doesn't add 
to the deficit this year?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm saying we're paying for it over 
time.  I didn't say that.
	     
	     Q	  I know that, George.  But I mean, from the 
beginning, the question -- we do have annual budgets and things --
deficit spending will pay for that this year, will it not?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  This year they clearly will.  But 
over time our budget fully pays for this program.
	     
	     Q	  What you're saying is that there are savings that 
would cover this if it were this year in future years?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  That's exactly what I 
said.
	     
	     Q	  I know that, but there is going to be outstanding 
debt, it will add to the national debt from this year --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, we're reducing the deficit by 
$500 billion -- $514 billion over the next four years.
	     
	     Q	  You mean you're reducing it below what it would 
have been?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Exactly.
	     
	     Q	  In fact, you're adding a very large amount to the 
national debt over the period of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  But we're reducing it far more from 
what it would have been.  That's true.  
	     
	     Q	  Washington-type reduction.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  You're getting to be a grumpy old man.
	     
	     Q	  George, has any decision been made about the White 
House or the President's participation in the gay rights march coming 
up in a week and a half?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're working on the President's 
schedule now.  I believe he's going to be at the Senate Democratic 
retreat in Jamestown that weekend.
	     
	     Q	  Will he address it by phone?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about that.  It's a 
little far out, but I believe he's going to be in the Senate retreat.
	     
	     Q	  So will he have the leaders in a day or two before 
the speech?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  I would expect that 
at some point he would meet with the leaders of some of these groups.  
I don't know the schedule on it, though.
	     
	     Q	  Will there be an AIDS czar appointed prior to or in 
conjunction with the event?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.
	     
	     Q	  April 22nd is Earth Day.  What is the President 
going to do to mark that, and is it the case that he is going to sign 
the biodiversity treaty that day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I know there's been some work on 
the biodiversity treaty.  I don't know about signing it that day, but 
I would expect he'll have a statement on Earth Day or right around 
then.
	     
	     Q	  Where is the work on the biodiversity treaty?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'd have to check with Katie 
McGinty.  I just know that there's been some work done, but I don't 
know exactly what.
	     
	     Q	  When is Earth Day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The 22nd, I think.
	     
	     Q	  Why is it you know that he is going to have a 
statement on Earth Day but you don't know if he's going to have a 
statement on the gay rights march?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I said I don't know if he's going 
to meet or when he's going to meet.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have a statement on the gay rights march?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't, actually, no.  I wouldn't 
be surprised if he did, though.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have some details on the Miyazawa visit?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's a working visit on Friday and 
the President is looking forward to that in discussing a number of 
issues including Russian aid and the Japanese stimulus package and 
the trade issues between the two countries.
	     
	     Q	  There was some expectations that a second aid 
package to Russia was going to be unveiled at the G-7 meeting and, if 
I understand, it hasn't happened.  Why is that or what's the status 
on that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The G-7 meeting is still going on 
and, as you know, Secretaries Bentsen and Christopher have talked 
about the outlines of a possible package.  But we're going to 
continue to consult with Congress and our G-7 allies on that.
	     
	     Q?	    We will not then make any kind of announcement 
during the two-day meeting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The meeting's not over yet.  
	     
	     Q	  Is that when you're going to make one?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not ruling out the possibility.
	     
	     Q	     the President's going to announce it tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Bentsen said that.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, Bentsen said it would be tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  So did Christopher.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'd have to look at that, but I 
believe it is more likely that the announcement will come out of 
Tokyo.
	     
	     Q	  George, has there been further consideration here 
about going to -- sending the President out to Los Angeles?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that there's -- it's 
not something we've ruled out.  We don't have a date set for it.
	     
	     Q	  George, you all have a position or do you support 
Immigration's plan to settle 4,000 Iraqi prisoners in the United 
States?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's the first I've heard of it.
	     
	     Q	  George, there was a report today about the --
	     
	     Q	  Fortunately.  (Laughter.) 
	     
	     Q	     about the pace of appointments and says that 
President Clinton is behind President Bush in the number of positions 
that people have been nominated for.  Are you going to speed up the 
pace of nominations or where do you stand with it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We filled 814 of the President's 
appointments.  And it's broken down -- we have 384 Schedule C; 147 
noncareer SES; 213 PAS full-time.  I'm not sure what that means --
(laughter) -- 70 PA full-time.  And this is about the same -- it's 
about the same pace of President Bush.  Obviously, as you move along 
farther, once you -- each level of appointment actually has a 
multiplier effect and frees up far more appointments.  So we expect 
the process to speed up.  But we're at the pace of Bush.  Obviously 
we'd like to get these done as quickly as possible.  
	     
	     I would point out that the FBI background checks and the 
background check is far more comprehensive and it takes more time 
than our predecessors, and that is part of the holdup.  But we're 
working on it.
	     
	     Q	  Is that because of Nannygate?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's an awful big part of 
it, yes.
	     
	     Q	  In the story this morning, you were at 
approximately the same pace as Bush in making appointments, but way 
behind in winning confirmations.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's where the background checks 
comes into play.  That's the problem.
	     
	     Q	  That's the background checks problem?  Because I 
mean, you have a Democratic Senate --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, that's not the -- you make the 
appointments, and then it takes quite a bit of time to fill out all 
the forms and have the background checks done.  That's exactly where 
the problem is.
	     
	     Q	  What's the President doing this afternoon, and 
what's on the plan for tomorrow?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's got some meetings -- just 
office meetings this afternoon for the most part, on a variety of 
issues that -- probably a half-dozen different issues.  And then 
he'll be -- tomorrow we'll have an event, probably again focused on 
the stimulus and jobs package out of here at the White House.  And 
Friday is the Miyazawa meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Will you be releasing his tax return tomorrow, 
George?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Either tomorrow or Friday.
	     
	     Q	  Is there going to be a pre-briefing regarding the 
Japanese Prime Minister's visit tomorrow?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about tomorrow, but 
we'll probably get something done, as we usually do, for these 
visits.
	     
	     Q	  Was Reverend Jackson here this morning and do you 
know what that was about?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He was here.  He met with a group 
of us here at the White House, including Mack McLarty.
	     
	     Q	  Who?
	     
	     Q	  Reverend Jackson.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Reverend Jackson.  Mack McLarty, 
me, Gene Sperling, Bruce Reed, Jeff Watson, Mark Gearan. 
	     
	     Q	  Talking about Haiti?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We talked about general urban 
policy.  He is about to go to Los Angeles.  He was just back from 
Mississippi, where we had a good victory last night; and he's going 
on to Los Angeles.
	     
	     Q	  Did he request the meeting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Actually, no.  He's in continual 
contact with the President.  He had written a letter on a variety of 
issues, and so we asked him to come in and talk about it.
	     
	     Q	  George, Dole is having a fundraiser for Jeffords 
tonight in Vermont.  Have you guys been  in contact with Jeffords at 
all on this?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's been some contact, 
sure.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us about the contacts?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure -- 
	     
	     Q	  Do you know who contacted him or what was said?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I know that Howard Paster talked to 
him and they just has a general talk about the package.
	     
	     Q	  And did he express his support for it now, or is he 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't divulge the details of the 
conversation, but there have been conversations.
	     
	     Q	  The L.A. Times is reporting that abortion --
elective abortions is likely to be included in the basic health care 
package.  Is this something the President is considering?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again --
	     
	     Q	  Along with the VAT?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's certainly something that's 
been looked at, but no decisions have been made.
	     
	     Q	  What was the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The L.A. Times story on whether 
abortions will be covered by the President's health plan.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President in his meeting -- did you in your 
meeting with Reverend Jackson ask his advice, solicit his advice 
about what kind of stance the White House should take in the wake of 
the verdict in L.A.?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, we certainly talked about the 
situation in Los Angeles and the long-term prospects for economic 
development and other issues.
	     
	     Q	  For instance, did you discuss whether it would be 
helpful for the President to go there or not?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, we discussed a wide range of 
issues related to Los Angeles.  That was certainly one of them.
	     
	     Q	  Letting you perhaps go out on the way you came in, 
I need to go back to Bosnia just for a second and ask --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, good.
	     
	     Q	     your reaction to Margaret Thatcher's comments 
that you're just sitting by and watching a massacre.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, we've been pushing very hard 
on a number of fronts for more aggressive action.  We will continue 
to do that.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us if you've made any progress in your 
talks on the stimulus package getting a compromise?  I mean, we don't 
have any feel except talks are ongoing.  Have you talked to like 20 
people or --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know the numbers.  We've 
talked to several people and we've had wide-ranging sessions.  
	     
	     Q	  Anyone leaning your way?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't get into that.  We're just 
going to keep working through Tuesday.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END                    1:10 P.M. EDT
	     
#56-04/14
	     




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178316
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
> >> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
> >> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
> >
> >  Yes.
> > 
> >> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
> >> legality.
> >
> >  Why not?
> 
> 
> Where do they get these people?!  

  What, pray tell, does this mean? Just who exactly is *they*?
You mean "they" as in people who do not blindly swallow every
piece of propoganda they are given? Or "they" as in NOKD (not
our kind, dear). Or "they" as in an appeal to some audience
that is supposed to implicitly know and understand?

> I really don't want to waste time in
> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  

  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
not eager to make a fool of myself.
 
> My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just
> because it will be safer and cheaper.

  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification
if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize
alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from
anything other than the pragmatic standpoint, I'd be happy to hear 
about it. The fact is that it wasn't.

> A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all
> funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. -
> this would surely make my taxes decrease.

  Only the first one make any sense. There is nothing to "legalize"
about all the rest. Just in case you haven't made the connection 
(which I expect you haven't) the connecting theme in this thread is
a persons autonomy over their life and body. Vice statutes serve
only to make it more expensive for the rich and more dangerous
for the poor, as Tim so eloquently put it. People will, however,
take autonomy over their lives, regardless of what the government
says.
  And why, pray tell, is AIDS "victim" in snear quotes? Are you of
the revisionist sort that thinks there is no such thing as the AIDS
plauge? Or do they just deserve it?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178319
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Public Schedule 4.15.93



                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                                                                  
For Immediate Release                              March 14, 1993


          PUBLIC EVENTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE FOR
          THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1993
     	     
     10:20 am EST   The President meets with Leadership of Law 	  
               enforcement organizations -- The Rose           	  
     Garden
     	       	    	 
     	       	    	      OPEN PRESS

     3:00 AM EDT    The President meets with the National      	  
     	  Ambassador for the March of Dimes Birth      	    	 
     Defects Foundation -- The Oval Office
     	  
     	       	    	 TV POOL, OPEN STILL PHOTO, WRITING POOL
     
     3:15 AM EDT    The President meets with Mosaic Minstrels of 
     	       	    New York, NY -- The Rose Garden

     	       	    	 OPEN PHOTO, WRITING POOL

     3:30 AM EDT    The President meets with the Berwick, PA, 	  
     	       High School Bulldogs, AAA State Football      	  
     	  Champions -- The South Lawn

     	       	    	 OPEN PHOTO, WRITING POOL

     	       	               UPCOMING EVENTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S 
SCHEDULE

     	       	    	 
     	       
     	       April 16, 1993      The President meets with 	 
     	       	    	      Japanese Prime Minister  	    	 
     	       	    	 Miyazawa, The White House

     	       April 26, 1993      President Clinton meets with   
     	       	    	      President Amato of Italy, The 	 
     	       	    	      White House

                            -30-30-30



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178320
From: New Liberation News Service <nlns@igc.apc.org>
Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face


From: New Liberation News Service <nlns>
Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face

/* Written  8:33 pm  Apr 14, 1993 by nlns@igc.apc.org in igc:nlns.news */
/* ---------- "NLNS Packet 3.11 *** 4-14-93" ---------- */

Fascism with a Friendly Face: Does Rush Limbaugh Remind You of 
Anyone?
Daevid Bornhuetter-Machen, The Madison Edge

"The main difference between Adolf Hitler and Rush Limbaugh is that 
Hitler was original and showed initiative." 
--Mort Sahl on The Tom Snyder Radio Show, ABC Radio Network, 
October 27, 1992.

(NLNS)--Believe it or not, I was planning this comparative review of 
Mein Kampf and Limbaugh's transcribed rant, The Way Things Ought to 
Be before Sahl issued his comparative review. As usual, Sahl's was 
independent and sharp as a scalpel.
	My effort can only dream of comparing favorably to Mort's. At 
least it has a fairly popular orginating premise; everyone I'd mention the 
idea to thought it was either divinely inspired or at least past due for 
delivery.
	Those reactions are based on parallels that should be obvious to the 
most peripheral observer of the Acts of those False Prophets. Both are 
noted for their galvanizing oratorical skills, which they both used with 
passion to generate a political cult of massive numerical proportions (in 
fact, Limbaugh claims to have an audience of just over 12 million, almost 
identical to the number of votes cast for Hitler in the April 1932 German 
election). Both used a myopic social perspective to build the cult, and 
enthusiastically amputated facts from the record to fabricate their 
ideological quilt.
	The last point is glaringly documented by passages in the opening 
pages of both books. Hitler's example is when, on page 5, he claims the 
German nationalist terrorist Leo Schlageter (he bombed part of a railway 
line between Dusseldorf and Duisburg, being caught in the act, in 1923) 
was "betrayed to France by a representative of his government" when 
there has never been any factual foundation for such a statement.
	In fact, the governments of both the Reich and Prussia, as well as 
the Vatican, actively intervened to save him from execution, and almost 
succeeded. Limbaugh follows suit by making the hysterically sarcastic 
claim in his introduction that "in a school or during a commencement 
ceremony or many other public places... God is unconstitutional." Of 
course, it's not God but the official imposition of particular concepts of 
God against an individual's will that's unconstitutional. But Limbaugh is 
too gleeful in his talent for distortion to want you to know that.
	Of course, one would assume that, by comparing the two books, 
my main point would be that The Way Things Ought to Be is the modern 
American Mein Kampf. Not really. At the time of the first German version 
of Mein Kampf, Hitler was just four months out of prison (June, 1925), 
and trying to reorganize the Nazis. He used the book to build his dozen 
million followers. Limbaugh, on the other hand, came up with his book 
after building his dozen million. Twelve million went a longer way in 
Weimar Germany that it does in the Republicrat United States.
	Thus, the more accurate parallels would be that Limbaugh's daily 
three-hour radio show is the American Mein Kampf, the primary 
propoganda tool used to pump up the angry volume; and that The Way 
Things Ought to Be is actually the American Triumph of the Will, a 
translation of the same fascist message into a different medium. Also, the 
printed word was the more important medium in Weimar Germany, since 
radio was still being thought of by impoverished Germans as a medium of 
luxury in 1925. Today, on the other hand, Americans are more likely to 
spend a few seconds to tune a radio dial at no monetary charge than drop 
$22 for 304 pages of transcripts of the same words.
	But, as Mort Sahl also observed on the radio the other night, some 
cloutmeister of the radical right wants Limbaugh to be a focal point of 
their propoganda. (And remember, Sahl is an Al Haig conservative these 
days.)
	Mort might not know exactly who Rush's equivalent of Rodolf 
Hess is (the book itself suggests Ed McLaughlin, the former president of 
ABC radio and now Limbaugh's partner in EFM Media, the radio 
program's production company). But Mort himself is a veteran of the talk 
show, having hosted them in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. He 
knows what evil lurks in the hearts of major market media men. He knows 
that Limbaugh could not have collected his audience had not the 
opportunity been placed on a silver platter and handed to him. Limbaugh 
earns his money just as honestly as Al Capone did; it's almost worthy of a 
RICO indictment.
	On questions of social issues, there is an overabundance of 
material in the Limbaugh book that seems to echo Hitler's venom. For 
example:

On Their Own Qualifications to Control Society
	Hitler: "Out of the host of sometimes millions of people, who 
individually more or less clearly and distinctly guess the truth, partly 
perhaps understand it, one man [author's emphasis] must step forward in 
order to form, with apodeictic force, out of the wavering world of 
imagination of the great masses, granite principles, and to take up the fight 
for their sole correctness, until out of the playing waves of a free world of 
thought a brazen rock of uniform combination of form and will arises" 
(page 577).
	Limbaugh: "Who needs the media when they've got me? ... The 
show is devoted exclusively to what I think ... [the phrase "with half my 
brain tied behind my back to make it even"] denotes the egress of mental 
aptitude I require to engage and demolish liberals and others who disagree 
with me ... It might take four or five years, but I'm convinced The Media 
will slowly and reluctantly come around to my way of thinking, kicking 
and screaming all the way." (pages 266, 21, 299 and 273, respectively.)

On Religion as the Basis of a Nation
	Hitler: "In this world human culture and civilization are 
inseperably bound up with the existence of the Aryan. His dying-off or his 
decline would again lower upon this earth the dark veils of a time without 
culture ... He who dares to lay hand upon the highest image of the Lord 
sins against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and helps in the 
expulsion from Paradise." (Page 581.)
	Limbaugh: "America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country ... 
But our intellectual and political elites are often either hostile or 
ambivalent toward religion ... People for whom belief in God is at best a 
charming superstition have managed to ban prayer from the public schools 
for the last thirty years. Is it only a coincidence that the quality of 
American education has declined ever since?" (pages 274-5.)

On Popular Culture as a Reason for Social Collapse
	Hitler: "The fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in ... 
One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses, vaudevilles and 
theatres; and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food ... 
Theatre, art, literature, movies, the press, billposters and window displays 
must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the 
service of a moral idea of State and culture." (pages 346 and 348.)
	Limbaugh: "Today, Hollywood is in trouble. The reason [is] that 
Hollywood has forgotten who its audience is ... They make fun of people 
who believe in God. They ridicule the traditional family, heterosexuality 
and monagamy. They disparage American heroes." (page 254.)

On the News Meida
	Hitler: "The activity of the so-called liberal press was the work of 
gravediggers for the German people and the German Reich. One can pass 
by in silence the Marxist papers of lies ... it's task is only to break the 
people's folkish and national spine, in order to make it ripe for the yoke of 
slavery of international capital and its masters, the Jews." (Page 331.)
	Limbaugh: "Elements of The Media have jumped on the 
bandwagon of leftist causes. The cynical journalist of the past has been 
replaced in many cases by an enthusiastic cheerleader for causes ... During 
the Gulf war, CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw [said] CNN is a global 
network. We can't take sides. Cant take sides? --- --- ---! ... If they don't 
realize that their freedom lies in the United States of America and that 
therefore they should defend this nation, they are hopelessly misguided 
and, may I suggest, flirting with megalomania." (pages 270 and 268.)

*     *     *
	
To continue these comparative excerpts is certainly possible, but 
ultimately too depressing to take in one reading.
	After putting these books down, there is one undeniable fact that 
haunts me. In the 1920s, Adolf Hitler fed depressed and frightened 
Germans the opiate of hatred of those around them; in turn, it allowed 
Germans to hand their collective national power to the Nazis. In the 1990s, 
Rush Limbaugh is doing the very same thing: distributing hatred to 
depressed and frightened Americans; in turn, it is helping the American 
radical right to maintain its power base as the 12-year nightmare of the 
Reagan-Bush era comes to an end, hoping to rebuild it into their hopes for 
The Fascist States of America.
	And if Limbaugh is not as repellant a Hitler, it is only because the 
radical right utilizes Limbaugh as its own gateway opiate. One can only 
wonder what the ultimate drug is they plan to hook America on.

The Madison Edge can be reached at PO Box 845, Madison, WI 53701-
0845; (608) 255-4460.

--- 30 ---



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178323
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Is LA burning yet?

In article <4892@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:

> I hear the jury reached a verdict.

Where did you hear this?  I seem to have missed it.

> Is LA burning yet?

No.  Will L.A. burn?  No.  (Regardless of the verdict.)

> I'm not near a radio.

Count your blessings.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178325
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: War Powers Resolution on Bosnia 4.14.93



                          THE WHITE HOUSE
  
                    Office of the Press Secretary
  
  _______________________________________________________________
  
  For Immediate Release	   	     	           April 14, 1993
  
  
                 TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
                        TO THE SPEAKER OF THE
                    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
               THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
  
  
                           April 13, 1993
  
  
  Dear Mr. Speaker:      (Dear Mr. President:)
  
  As part of my continuing effort to keep the Congress fully 
  informed, I am providing this report, consistent with section 4 
  of the War Powers Resolution, to advise you of actions that I 
  have ordered in support of the United Nations efforts in 
  Bosnia-Herzegovina.
  
  Beginning with U.N. Security Council Resolution 713 of 
  September 25, 1991, the United Nations has been actively 
  addressing the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.  The Security 
  Council acted in Resolution 781 to establish a ban on all 
  unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina.  There 
  have, however, been blatant violations of the ban, and villages 
  in Bosnia have been bombed.
  
  In response to these violations, the Security Council decided, 
  in Resolution 816 of March 31, 1993, to extend the ban to all 
  unauthorized flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina and to authorize 
  Member States, acting nationally or through regional organi-
  zations, to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance.  
  NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC) agreed to provide NATO air 
  enforcement for the no-fly zone.  The U.N. Secretary General 
  was notified of NATO's decision to proceed with Operation DENY 
  FLIGHT, and an activation order was delivered to participating 
  allies.
  
  The United States actively supported these decisions.  At my 
  direction, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent an execute order to 
  all U.S. forces participating in the NATO force, for the conduct 
  of phased air operations to prevent flights not authorized by 
  the United Nations over Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The U.S. forces 
  initially assigned to this operation consist of 13 F-15 and 
  12 F-18A fighter aircraft and supporting tanker aircraft.  
  These aircraft commenced enforcement operations at 8:00 a.m. 
  e.d.t. on April 12, 1993.  The fighter aircraft are equipped for 
  combat to accomplish their mission and for self-defense.
  
  NATO has positioned forces and has established combat air 
  patrol (CAP) stations within the control of Airborne Early 
  Warning (AEW) aircraft.  The U.S. CAP aircraft will normally 
  operate from bases in Italy and from an aircraft carrier in the 
  Adriatic Sea.  Unauthorized aircraft entering or approaching 
  the no-fly zone will be identified, interrogated, intercepted, 
  escorted/monitored, and turned away (in that order).  If these 
  steps do not result in compliance with the no-fly zone, such 
  aircraft may be engaged on the basis of proper authorization by 
  NATO military authorities and in accordance with the approved 
  
                                more
  
       	    	      	   	     	       	    (OVER)

                                  2
  
  rules of engagement, although we do not expect such action will 
  be necessary.  The Commander of UNPROFOR (the United Nations 
  Protection Force currently operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina) was 
  consulted to ensure that his concerns for his force were fully 
  considered before the rules of engagement were approved.
  
  It is not possible to predict at this time how long such 
  operations will be necessary.  I have directed U.S. armed forces 
  to participate in these operations pursuant to my constitutional 
  authority as Commander in Chief.  I am grateful for the con-
  tinuing support that the Congress has given to this effort, and 
  I look forward to continued cooperation as we move forward 
  toward attainment of our goals in this region.
  
       	    	      	   	Sincerely,
  
  
  
  
       	    	      	   	WILLIAM J. CLINTON
  
  
  
  
                               #  #  #
  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178326
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...
>>Along with normalized relations with the PRC.
>
>"Normalizing relations" with Cambodia? You must be joking. We sponsored
>the OVERTHROW of the Cambodian government. After repeated failed attempts
>of course. 

PRC = People's Republic of China != Cambodia.  Go play.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
Brain damage was what we were after.  The chromosome damage was just gravy.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178327
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the Religious Left.
>
>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them aren't. And the
>natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man-made ones.
>
>Most of your so-called disasters (Love Canal, Times Beach, TMI) aren't disasters
>at all.
>
>So look, if you want to worship trees (or owls or snails or whatever), fine, do
>so. But DON'T try to push the scaredness of YOUR religious off onto me.
>
If you want to see environmental disasters, go to eastern Europe or some
parts of the FSU (former Soviet Union).  This is because they had no
environmental protection laws and were trying to increase productivity
at any expense to justify their political systems.  Luckily for us, some
of our politicians with vision passed some environmental laws.  That
isn't to say that they shouldn't be modified, but all I ever hear from
you is that the environmental laws were dreamed up by a bunch of
left-wing tree-huggers intent on putting us back on horseback.  Yes,
there are some of those, but a lot of us simply want to procede with
caution.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
-- 
               NetNews userid for nntpserver.chevron.com

- Who said "No News is good news" ?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178329
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <SLAGLE.93Apr15000157@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr13.215245.2916@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Apr13.083449.1058@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>
>>>... the point is that this law protects no one but the
>>>established car dealers or people with enough money to start a
>>>fairly big operation all at once.  Protecting these folks from
>>>competition protects the rest of us from low prices and high
>>>quality.
>
>> An excellent point.  But you seem to be missing a more subtle
>> point.  It is not "the government" that should be the recipient
>> of your displeasure, but the established business interests
>> that influence and direct government action in this case.
>
>It is the government that is preventing entry to the market.  The
>desire of those running established businesses to prevent or
>restrict the entry of competitors is an understandable, though
>generally unpleasant, human failing.  But without a means to act
>on this desire, without a government with sufficient power to
>restrict the options of the potential competitor, the
>anti-competitive desire remains just an unpleasant wish.  The
>government is the linchpin, so we seek to disengage it so we
>don't get the shaft.

Once again, Mark, you don't specify the means through which the government
is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a 
left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as
you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto
dealers.  

But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms,
to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws,
and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a 
particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special
interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly
designed to accomplish the opposite.

jsh
>
>=Mark
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178331
From: carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <15377@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>I'm sick of it.  This continual effort to inflame the passions
>of Americans by playing every trial as completely sexist, racist, 
>or gay-bashing, when the realities are seldom this simple.  This
>is what happens when a society becomes tied up in ideologies.

	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.

	In a not so subtle way they are preparing their audience for the
	worst and even going so far as to want SOMETHING to happen for
	their viewers with all their commercials and their "we are ready
	for anything so watch US" messages...

carlos.

	
"I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
 assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178332
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Gore throws out the first ball. And media coverage of it

In article <1993Apr13.122543.1682@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <C5E2JA.849@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>> This past Thursday VP GOre threw out the first ball at the home opener for
>> the Atlanta Braves. According to the news reports he was quite loudly booed.
>> (No, Dr. Norman, these were not your typical beer swilling red-necks.)
>> 
>> Personally I wouldn't have paid any more attention to the incident except
>> that the evening news when describing the event, went on to comment that
>> being booed was nothing unusual since it was normal for audiences to
>> boo at this point since the celebrity was delaying the start of the game.
>> 
>> What a bunch of crock. I have never heard of any incident in which the
>> thrower of the ceremonial ball has been booed before.
> 
> Dan Quayle got roundly booed in Milwaulkee last year.  (I was listening 
> on the radio).  This was the game that Quayle told the Brewers players that
> he would like to see them play the Orioles in the ALCS.

It's come to this, has it?  Defending Al Gore by comparing him to Dan Quayle?
I'd say that about says it all... back to the pit with ye, back to alt.fan.
dan-quayle!  Begone!

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178333
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President to Nominate Carter for Nuclear Security Post

In article <1qgbljINNn4o@life.ai.mit.edu>, Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:
> 
>                          THE WHITE HOUSE
>                      Office of the President
> For Immediate Release                             April 13, 1993
> 
>      PRESIDENT TO NOMINATE CARTER FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY 

No, no, no!  Bill, please, don't nominate ANYone who pronounces it
"noo-q-lar"!  Jimmy always used to drive everyone nuts when he did that! 
And don't let Amy anywhere near!  And...

> (Washington, DC)    The President announced today that he intends 
> to nominate Ashton Carter, the Director of Harvard's Center for 
> Science and International Affairs, to be Assistant Secretary of 
> Defense for Nuclear Security and Counter-Proliferation.

{Emily Litella voice}

...never mind.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178336
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5HF6r.CG3@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <C5FG7t.6At@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>|I have to disagree.   You do not take your logic far enough.
>
>|True, man did not invent the need for food, shelter, warmth and the ilk,
>|but man did invent the property laws and the laws of trespass.
>
>I guess Xavier has never heard of territoriality in animals. Many animals,
>especially preditors will stake out a territory and chase of any members of
>the same species that tries to invade their territory.


Yes, I have!  Wasn't there a case of a single lion ruling all the land
from South Africa up to Egypt across to the congo?  If my memory serves
me correctly there was enough game to feed some 100,000 or more lions but he
wouldn't let the other lions hunt as he wanted it all himself.

He died of a heart attack brought on by being overweight.

Good thing too as he had designs on Europe, America (north and south),
and the Falkland Islands.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com



Xavier.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178338
From: c115184@cs.UAlberta.CA (Merth Eric William)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Red Army Fraction (RAF) communique


>In article <C4vBM1.Gs0@NCoast.ORG>, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>|>As quoted from <C4vCtB.J1H@dscomsa.desy.de> by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
>|>
>|>> Isn't it wonderfull the way people can make the sadistic and indescriminate
>|>> murder of the Bader-Meinhof gang sound like altruism?
>|>
>|>Gee Phil, I'd remember where you are and that these people are monitoring the
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>net.  I'd also remember that they have about as much sense of humor as Ed
   ^^^

Damn. It isn't Big Brother after all? And all this time I thought that all
those revolutionaries, while blowing things up and killing the odd
innocent person in the process, really did love all us proles. ('cause
_everybody knows_ that dialectical materialism will save you [even
if it has to get you killed first]).
What a fool I've been. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178340
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>: 
>: As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>: is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>: tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>: 
>: Believe it or not, we "liberals" are frequently as opposed to
>: anti-competitive measures as you "conservatives."  We don't believe,
>: however, that competition will necessarily be protected by the actions 
>: of business interests in a "free-market."  After all, in the example
>: you cite, it was not "liberals" that pressed for such regulations, but
>: good staunch conservative businessmen.
>: 
>: As Adam Smith so eloquently demonstrated, the "free-market" is not 
>: something that capitalists seek to protect when they can profit from 
>: its elimination.  The same point was made by Marx -- a point of agreement 
>: between the two theorists that should tell us something.
>
>I do not want the government to become a tool of private interests.
>Limited government cannot insure that private interests will not use
>this government for their own agenda.  

Agreed.  

>But this is not a failure of libertarianism.  It is the fact that 
>"Utopia is not an option."  There is no single system where everything 
>is perfect.  

It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
condition.

>So it is wise to look
>for the best solution.  If you  compare countries to see which ones
>people would rather live in, which ones have less starvation, hunger,
>poverty, and misery, you will find that they have a more limitted
>government than countries with alot of poverty, misery and suffering.
>No, limitted government cannot "insure" anything, but it sure is better
>than the alternative (big government.)

This is a strawman argument and fails on several grounds.  In this case,
"limited" and "big" government are not defined.  I would point out that
Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia are by some definitions nations
with "limited" government, while the US, Canada, and nations in Western 
Europe (where "people would rather live") are often pointed out as 
nations with "big government" from a libertarian point of view.  

The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those
who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe
government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and
those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical 
grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.

jsh
>-- 
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178341
From: DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

>>In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>>In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>>>> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>>>> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
>>>
>>>  Yes.
>>>
>>>> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
>>>> legality.
>>>
>>>  Why not?
>>
>>Where do they get these people?!  I really don't want to waste time in
>>here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>>can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!
 
You think that you all have it bad....here at good ol' Southwest Missouri
State U., we have 2 parties running for student body president.  There's the
token sorority/fraternity faces, and then there's the president and vice
president of NORML.  They campaigned by handing out condoms and listing
their qualifications as,"I listen really well."  It makes me sick to have
a party established on many of the things that are ruining this country like
they are.  I think I'll run next year.:(
 
      Darin J Keener, dak988s@vma.smsu.edu
      PC-the idea that catering to splinter groups is the way to go.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178342
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
writes:
>>I would be upset that, although abortions would continue, they would be
>>a lot more expensive for the rich, and a lot less safe for the poor.
>
>So now things are supposed to be legal just to keep their cost down
>and the safety factor high??  

In the case of victimless crimes yes, I think so.

Think about it.  If I rob or beat up or rape or kill someone, it's very
clear to anyone not a sociopath that I've done something immoral.  On the
other hand, if I smoke grass or have sex with a consenting adult in a
manner illegal in that state, the morality or immorality of that act is
merely a lifestyle choice; it doesn;t clearly hurt anyone else.  IMO, if
such an act doesn;t hurt another person it should not be interfered with.

>Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>the cost and definitely make them safer to use.

I think so.  And I don't use drugs, outside of the legal ones (alcohol
and coffee).

   don

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178343
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Polls (was Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati)

In article <2680@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
-> : 	According to a ``CNN Poll'' to key reason for Clinton's low
-> : approval rating is people are angry about him not moving fast enough
-> : on gays in the military.  I just burst out laughing when I heard this;
-> : what planet do these CNN people live on anyway?
-> : --
-> : Jason C. Austin
-> : j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov       
-> 
-> Dunno, man... that sounds pretty damned unlikely to me, too,
-> although it's certainly one of the reasons I'm pissed off at him.
-> Maybe the sample was taken entirely from my fellow memebers of the
-> Cultural Elite?
-> 
-> Jason, can you quote some of these poll questions?
-> 
-> Thanks,
-> Bill
-> v

	I've never seen CNN give out the poll questions on the air.
If you sent them a letter asking for them, you might get them.  Here's
my guess of how part of a session might look:

Question: Do you approve of Clinton's performance?
Answer: No
Questions: Do you disapprove due to the gays in the military issue?
Answer: Yes

Conclusion: Clinton has a low approval rating because he's not moving
fast enough on gays in the military.


	I think any group truly dedicated to reporting the news would
not use manufactured news like polls.

						-Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178345
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved  Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over}

In article <15APR199303031064@reg.triumf.ca> vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes:
>In article <C5HwA1.EBp@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu 
>(Brent Irvine) writes...
>` 
>`	"54-40" or fight was about a territorial dispute with
>`	British Canada, again OLD STUFF. 
>
>Uh, not quite. The 54/40' boundary dispute is still unresolved,
>and Canadian and US Coast Guard vessels regularly if infrequently
>detain each other's fish boats in the disputed waters off Dixon
>Entrance. The only reason you don't hear more about it is that
>it's in neither country's interest to aggravate the quarrel. 
>That doesn't mean that either country is prepared to back down,
>especially the local political representatives whose constituents
>are all fishermen.

Fishing rights are disputed.  Between 2 nations, no matter *how* 
friendly, there is ALWAYS fishing disputes.

What I was getting at was the 54 40' or fight slogan is OLD STUFF
dealing with the LAND dispute.  No one is saying 54 40' or fight 
about fishing rights.  The territorial dispute about the Oregon
Territory (we called it) is LONG resolved.

Fishing rights...small potatoes.


-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178346
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: The state of justice

	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
from the fire.

	Thoughts?

	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
to the previous ruling appear.

	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178347
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>>> In article <1qd1snINNr79@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>>> >I would be upset that, although abortions would continue, they would be
>>> >a lot more expensive for the rich, and a lot less safe for the poor.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So now things are supposed to be legal just to keep their cost down
>>> and the safety factor high??  
>>> 
>>> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
>>> the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
>>
>>  Yes.
>> 
>>> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine
>>> legality.
>>
>>  Why not?
>
>
>Where do they get these people?!  I really don't want to waste time in
>here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  

Go for it.  I have yet to see anybody justify the
prohibition on drugs and the ensuing War On Drugs.  In the world of
*.politics here on Usenet, it is YOU that is crazy.  ANYBODY--who gives
the matter any thought beyond reading headlines---cannot justify this
atrocity, this all out war on individual rights.

Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!

>
>My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just
>because it will be safer and cheaper.
> 

Once again, in chorus: WHY is this "stupid"?

>
>A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all
>funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. -
>this would surely make my taxes decrease.

The above paragraph is gibberish--that all I can make of it...


-- 
_______
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178348
From: tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <C5HFr2.CpA@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.

I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
sufficient.

			Tom

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178349
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.164605.8439@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> In article <SLAGLE.93Apr15000157@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
|> >It is the government that is preventing entry to the market.  The
|> >desire of those running established businesses to prevent or
|> >restrict the entry of competitors is an understandable, though
|> >generally unpleasant, human failing.  But without a means to act
|> >on this desire, without a government with sufficient power to
|> >restrict the options of the potential competitor, the
|> >anti-competitive desire remains just an unpleasant wish.  The
|> >government is the linchpin, so we seek to disengage it so we
|> >don't get the shaft.
|> 
|> Once again, Mark, you don't specify the means through which the government
|> is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a 
|> left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as
|> you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto
|> dealers.  
|> 
|> But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms,
|> to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws,
|> and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a 
|> particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special
|> interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly
|> designed to accomplish the opposite.

This is similar to my saying that Clinton's timber summit does little to
fix the health care problem.  Look at the whole picture, not just
randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to
use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.

The means to reaching such a restricted government is another topic
which I'll address briefly.  It certainly won't happen until
libertarianism is the dominate philosophy.  What means do we have to
make libertarianism the dominate philosophy?  Statists run the education
monopoly, so we have to be creative.  The Advocates for Self-Government
reports 85% of their Seminar 1 participants "embrace" libertarianism.
That's the best means I've seen yet.  We should lobby for compulsory
Seminar 1 attendance. :) [in jest!]

Roger Collins

It's amazing to me that governments around the world will try every
aspect of government control before, as a final last resort after
everything else fails, they will try individual liberty.
	-- Andre Marrou, Libertarian candidate for President '92

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178353
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) writes:
>
>Here's a question:  what if, instead of a true VAT, the federal 
>government imposed a sales tax of say 2-3%?  The tax would only
>be paid on retail sales (thus not building up at all levels of
>production costs that are just passed on to consumers anyway),
>and would only go to reducing the deficit.  (I know that this 
>would never happen, but it seems a lot more palettable than
>a VAT).

Canada's GST is collected as a sales tax and is considered a VAT.
Funnily, the previous hidden wholesale tax that it replaces was
never referred to as a tax (or, people never paid mind to it,
thus the uproar when it was brought up front as the GST --- 
one party has actually campaigned on hiding the tax again).

The stated intent of the Tories was to use the GST to write down
our deficit.  Unfortunately, their legislation didn't include any
mechanism for disbursing the collected funds in such a manner and
the money is now sitting in escrow.  I don't know what is involved
in releasing the funds, but one dilemna is that the Tories are not
fiscal conservatives themselves though while taxing and spending,
they've made moves to apply the breaks to a runaway locomotive by
the end of this time --- the end of their second term (~9 years).
While they do have chances of getting a third term, catching up
in the polls to their more moderate/slightly leftish pro-business
rivals, the Liberals (as in Euro/UK), the Tories' heir-apparent 
for the leaders' mantle has been termed a clone of Hillary 
Clinton ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178354
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Representation of Territories? (Was: Re: The $11,250,000,000,000 lunch)

In article <cmi32B1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>              Does anyone have knowledge about how this was handled in
>the past, such as with the Louisiana Territory or the Northwest
>Territory?

Those areas became states.

Puerto Rico has the population needed to become a state.  But the ethnic
mix there is such that Puerto Rico will probably never become a state.

I say we cut them loose.  If they don't want to become a state, we
shouldn't continue to subsidize their existence.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
  Look up "Ponzi Scheme" in a good dictionary - it will have a picture of Joe
  Liberal Handout right next to it.  Stop federal spending.  Cut the deficit.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178355
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights

In article <C5MMEp.19n@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> 51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally
>> The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993
>> 
>>    Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets
>>    within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice.
>>    Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses
>>    or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.

> Several years ago, Justice William O. Douglas, who was
> about as libertarian as you can get about free-speech 
> and similar issues, wrote a majority opinion in which
> the Supreme Court turned down an appeal by a group of
> people who had been prohibited from demonstrating in
> front of their landlord's home.  

Do you have a cite for the case?  You don't give enough
information to be able to compare the two situations.
If the demonstrators had been blaring loud rock music 
into the landlord's home all day and night, then I could
see how the opinion would be justified.  But this court
order had prohibited abortion protesters from displaying
pictures of dead fetuses, which doesn't disrupt the privacy
of anyone inside the clinic.  

> He pointed out that
> people have a right to be free _from_ speech, 

Perhaps in the privacy of their homes, but not on public
property.  Did the Korean grocery store owner in New York
city have a right to be free from the speech of the protesters 
outside his store?  Patrons inside the store could hear the 
protesters asking them to re-consider shopping there -- how 
is that different from the abortion protesters asking women 
to re-consider getting an abortion at a clinic?  

> Harassment goes beyond
> expression to direct attack on particular persons,
> in this case the workers and clients at a clinic.
> Its purpose is clearly not to convey information or
> express an opinion, but to intimidate and do harm to
> other others.

Even if the protesters' speech could be considered
"harassment" (which it is not), hate speech laws have 
generally been struck down by the courts.  I don't see 
how the words ``don't kill your baby'' or ``abortion is 
murder'' could be considered harassment.

> Anti-abortionists have lost the battle for public
> opinion, and the more psychopathic among them have
> turned to harassment, arson, bombing and murder to
> carry on their war.  There is no reason not to 
> restrain them to protect the ordinary civil rights
> of everyone else.

Some of the protesters were arrested for simply praying
quietly on a public sidewalk.  Yeah, I could see how
that might be equivalent to "bombing" and "murder".
Uh huh.  Let us know when you get a grip on reality. 


> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178358
From: thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulu
.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> -- 
>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>
>The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

     Really?  What if it said "lentil eating" or "legume eating",
     what then? 
     And I suppose "Accept 10" is anti-Octal bigotry?
     Geez, how PC can you get!?

     Uncle Fester

--
           :     What God Wants      :  God wants gigolos          :
           :        God gets         :  God wants giraffes         :
           :     God help us all     :  God wants politics         :
           : *thester@nyx.cs.du.edu* :  God wants a good laugh     :

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178359
From: woody@cco.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

In article <1ql7tuINN8j8@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary) writes:
>
>6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!

AAAAAAAAAAAA!  RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!


>5.   Look, Canada, Europe, and Japan manage to provide health care for their
>     citizens (and, yes, basic health IS a human right which people are
>     entitled to).  If these nations aren't capitalist enough for you, then
>     I guess we've found something better than capitalism!  There is nothing
>     sacred about the capitalist system, and if something, be it socialism
>     or anything else, works better, then I say let capitalism die.

Then why are they in the process of systematically dismantling some of
their socialistic health care systems through privitization of key components?

>4.   Make love, not War!

If I hold a gun to your wife, would you respond the same way? I don't
think so. While the age of aquarius may have hit the White House, the
age of peace love and harmony hasn't hit in South Central LA nor has it
hit in former Yugoslavia. And as long as there are people in the world
who would rather see me dead than thrive, I want the protection of a
police force who will keep the peace so I *can* make love without being
shot.

>3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
>     at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
>     to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
>     them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly 
>     have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
>     discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
>     the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.

The ultimate statement for equal rights (something many of the feminazis
have forgotten) is "I do not care if you are either a man or a woman,
I do not care if you are black or white, I do not care if you are gay
or straight." Once you can honistly say "I do not care about color,
race, or gender or sexual preference", then we will truly be on the
right track.

Keep shoving differences in my face and then expect us all to get along?
Get real! So long as you try to make me care if you are black, female,
or whatever, I am going to continue to balk. It's natural human behaviour.

But the moment employers searching for employees, banks looking to lend
money, and theClinton administration looking for appointees can honistly
say "I do not care about your color, race, gender, or sexual preferences;
I instend instead to treat you as a human being," crap like last year's
riots will continue to happen.

>1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!

Barf.

You mean the same economic theorists who say things like "for the sake
of convenience in mathematical modeling we will first assume there is
no wealth creation" now get a crack at implementing their PhD thesis in
real life?

Go back to your textbooks on macroeconomic theory. Look in the first chapter
of that book, introducing the field of macroeconomic theory. Right there
in chapter 1, section 1, is a statement like the following:

	"As it is difficult to predict and model wealth creation,
	especially in an economy where wealth creation is inherently
	the province of individuals who create new inventions and
	discover new ideas, we will assume for the rest of this
	book that there is no wealth creation.

	"We do not assume the lack of weath creation in the real world,
	however the mathematical modeling of such an inherently
	unpredictable subject is impossible. Even though we assume
	no wealth creation, we do believe that for most mathematical
	economic modeling such an assumption is reasonably valid
	as it allows us to make predictions which then can be tested."

So the guys who are running the store for Clinton and company are now
assuming that wealth creation does not exists. They are (borrowing an
idea from the Hitchhiker's Guide) too advanced to think of these simple
things.

To be honist, I would rather have an engineer with years of experience
building bridges design the next bridge, rather than a theoretical
physicists with a freshly minted PhD and no experience do the same job.

					- Bill Woody

Normally I don't post (or even read most of the postings) in this newsgroup.
If you would like to reply to this message and want me to see the reply,
then I guess you will just have to reply directly to me.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178360
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: A Rational Viewpoint ---> was Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qn57cINNabv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >It is very difficult for a young person to develop and build
    >a positive view of themself when they are constantly being
    >told implicitly and explicitly that they are wrong and
    >immoral.

Yes, that is most certainly true. However, the paragrapgh reflects a value-less
position and infers that what is more important than anything else is to
have "a positive view" of one's self.

This of course, is foolish.

Should a mass murderer, a pedophile, a 10-year old pyromaniac have a "positive
view" of themselves?

Of course not.

A person that engages in behaviour that a large number of people condemn,
and IF you believe in the concept of "society", then your only choice is
to expect that person to have a negative view of themselves.


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178361
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Getting Off to an Early Start!

Patrick Townson <ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:
>So ... the Jury will be making its announcement at 7:00 AM Saturday
>morning Pacific Time .... 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Why such an ungodly
>hour?
>
>Maybe by making the announcement at 7:00 AM on the west coast,
>they figure all the rioters will be asleep, giving the troops
>time to move into place. 

Since the actual verdicts were not known by the authorities, it was
smart not to allow "Friday night for fighting" (sorry, Elton) and to
seal them for this morning.  Also, it allows for maximum daylight to
wear down and frustrate any potential troublemakers, as well as give
more preparation time.

>I guess we can look forward to a weekend of rioting, eh? 

Are you a local news intern? (-;

>The Mayor of Los Angeles, in a press conference about 3:00 AM
>Saturday morning, ...

Actually, that was 8 PM 'cos it was shown live on our 11 PM news
and cut into CNN's 11 O'clock Sports (sorry, but I didn't watch
the Devils-Islanders game!  No SportsChannel ...).

>Meanwhile, following the announcement of the jury's verdict, the
>judge, jury and assorted court personnel will be evacuated from the
>building via helicopters landing on the roof of the courthouse. They
>can't  even walk out through the front door with their heads held
>high. 

We had cutovers to LA's KNBC on our WNBC, and I didn't recall this
detail.  But I'll not comment further on that ...

>Won't the rioters have a surprise waiting for them when they wake
>up later today!

A net-contact in L.A. tells me that the alert will remain over this
weekend, as some elements may find excuse over the not-guilty verdicts
on three of five charges (the aiding-and-abetting).  Those acquittals
seem to balance out the fact that Rodney King himself was not any kind
of angel that night, speeding and fleeing et al.  However ...  Another
consideration is any street celebrations over the two convictions on
the excessive force charges (Koons for incompetance, and Powell for
overreacting --- both guilty as heck even from the view of NYPD cops
interviewed) that might get out of hand. )-;  Also, some elements
may take the acquittals as an excuse to challenge the cops (a dumb
move, obviously).  And, Koreans are still scared and certain people
are really mad over how they have armed themselves in the last year.

A Commander from Nassau, Long Island was questioned about how his
people would have handled Rodney King, and he said "We'd have let
him roll around in the dirt 'til he got tired, then handcuff him".

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178362
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr17.013559.17391@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
    >>I see you are a total ignorant asshole as well.
    >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It's the sign of a small mind to use filthy
    >language when he can't articulate his point.

Oh, no, not in this case. I've noticed that you conveniently edited out your
stupid comment that the PRC stands for Cambodia. When we're arguing the
Vietnam war and about Cambodia, and you toss in a boner like that (along
with your other boners), you are an ignorant asshole.

Oh, and even the Vietnamese agree that they did far more damage to
Cambodia than we ever did.




-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178363
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
    >It seems that conservatives are putting a lot of effort into
    >showing up the 10% figure, but that really doesn't make a
    >difference. Like I said, who cares how many there are? Would
    >the fact that they're only 1% of the population justify
    >discrimination against them? I don't think so.
    
Uh, well, Golly Gee Whiz. Let me see, when the new President, as his first
big "policy act" tries to force homosexuals (acceptance thereof) on the
military, despite polls showing a consistent 75%+ against it, and the
minority is only 1%, well, gee, I sure think that is newsworthy.

Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178364
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'

In article <1993Apr17.111713.4063@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
    >In article <philC5LsD9.Ms3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Libertarians want the State out of our lives.
    >>
    >>NAMBLA members want to fuck little boys.
    >>
    >>NOW do you get it?
    >>
    >I see! Libertarians want to have the right to fuck little
    >children of either sex, and want to make sure everyone else
    >has this right too. NAMBLA just wants to have the right to
    >fuck little boys.
    >
    >>Or are you just a secret member of NAMBLA?
    >>
    >You're the one who suddenly seems to be defending the right
    >to fuck children. How many little girls have you raped today,
    >Phil?
    >
    >If wanting to abolish the age of consent is not repectable,
    >it is not respectable for anyone.

Hmm, you still don't get it. Then again, I'm not posting from a  University
where the hue and cry was raised against "Jewish physics".

Tell me, committed any anti-semitic acts today? What kind of boots do you
wear?

And still -- Libertarians want the State out of their lives. Parents are very
capable of protecting their children against the predations of pedophiles,
which, BTW, you still haven't disassociated yourself from.

Are you, or are you not, a member of NAMBLA?



-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178365
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <C5M2F9.GEB@news.iastate.edu> atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) writes:
>
>If the VAT will be done in the same way that state and local sales 
>taxes are done, nothing will be on the sticker.  The cleark ringing
>up your purchase (gum, gas, car, etc.) will hit a button to add 
>another 5% on top of the state and local sales taxes (and that won't
>include any of the VAT from previous levels of sales).
>

There is no need to include the VAT from previous levels because
the VAT is a "difference" tax...if the VAT is X%, than the amount
of tax the government receives through all the levels is X% of
the purchase price of the end consumer.  At the intervening levels,
only the difference between the VAT paid out and the VAT received
is remitted to the government.

>Here's a question:  what if, instead of a true VAT, the federal 
>government imposed a sales tax of say 2-3%?  The tax would only
>be paid on retail sales (thus not building up at all levels of
>production costs that are just passed on to consumers anyway),
>and would only go to reducing the deficit.  (I know that this 
>would never happen, but it seems a lot more palettable than
>a VAT).

A VAT is infinitely preferable to a retail sails tax...

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178367
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re : BillaryKlintonKligue Illegal War

      The operation going on in Somalia is a peacekeeping/peaceenforcement
      operation where force may be used.  It is not a war.  It is also legal
      under international law, which is higher than US law.  The operation
      is occuring under the ageis of the United Nations.  Can't get a higher
      authority than that on this earth.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178368
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Karadzic on Bosnia peace plan

      What does anyone think that Judge Wopner would do if Karadzic was
      on trial before him?  (Nevah happen, but just a thought...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178369
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Most recent U.N. members?

   # 179 Czech Republic  # 180 Republic of Slovakia  They were admitted early
      this year.  Liechenstein was also recently admitted.  Also San Marino.
       Both within the last 12 months.  Incredible what passes for a nation-sta
           state nowadays.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178370
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: UNITED NATIONS : Gettin' busy

    Chapter 7 operation in Somlia.  Almost Chapter 7 in Cambodia and Yugo.
    'Bout time the UN started using force to make the peace happen.
    Hopefully, they will soon be doing the same with world economics.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178371
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Model United Nations

    Just observed at the National Model United Nations here in NYC.
    Just one word on it : AWSOME.
                                 Peace, matt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178372
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>       How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
                                                               ^^^^^
>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  

I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178373
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: The lessons of the NAZIs Re: David Irving - Scholastic fraud


In responding to the post below I have considered issues far outside the
scope of revisionism and principally have considered the political
implications of a racist ideology and its inevitable outcome. Thus it
is tangentially relevant to soc.history and alt.revisionism but I have directed
followups to t.p.m since it is principally consideration of the political
lessons to be drawn from the history of the NAZI party that I deal with.


In article <1993Apr14.121823.21851@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

|>As Dawidowicz points out, in "The Holocaust and the Historians," (Harvard 
|>University Press, 34-38):
|>
|>"...the nadir in Hitlerology is reached by David Irving's "Hitler's
|>War."<34> An amateur historian, whose reputation as a German apologist and
|>as a writer without regard for accuracy or truth won him a measure of
|>notoriety, <35> Irving produced a 926-page work intended to show that Hitler
|>was kind to his animals and to his secretaries, that he was "probably the
|>weakest _leader_ Germany has known in this century," and that he did not
|>murder the Jews or even wish to do so, but that the murder was committed
|>behind his back, without his knowledge or consent." 

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this was indeed the case? Does
this mean that Hilter would have been in any way less guilty of mass murder
because he aquiesced rather than participated as an active and ardent
supporter?

One of the important things to realise about the NAZIs is that the system
was far more evil than any single member. Once created the NAZI party
itself was a murder machine that would inevitably commit genocide, there was
noone within it strong enough to prevent it. Remember that Hitler did not
originaly lead the NAZI party nor was he particularly powerful within it
until his oratory allowed the party to come to power. Had Hitler reneged
upon the emotiaonal expectations which he had created within the ranks of 
his supporters he would have been replaced as he had himself replaced the
old guard who he beleived were unable to grasp the intellectual implications
of their rhetoric. 

This is why all parties that espouse NAZI style race supremacy ideologies must
be considered as dangerous and as evil as the NAZIs. The idea that one "race"
of people is inherently superior to another and that the greatest goal of
humanity is to achieve racial perfection has only one logical outcome,
the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

The NAZI party is not simply the tale of a supremely evil single man who
lead an entire country astray, beyond the evil of individuals there was the
evil of the system itself which was self generating and self perpetuating.
Hitler was an extreemly evil person who built his party arround an ego
cult centered on the demonstration of his own power, this does not however
mean that he was as entirely free from political constraints as he and
his propagandists worked so hard to assert. The myth that racism can
produce a strong government that can cure a nations ills must be 
emphatically rejected. In the same way we must accept a distinction between
a govenrment that demonstrates its strength and one that is able to 
govern decisively in the manner it beleives is best. I would accept only the
latter as a "strong" government since most displays of strength are made
necessary by an essential weakness.

It is important to understand that the NAZIs were not stupid nor were they
amoral in the sense that they lacked moral scruples. They acted in the
same manner as the Spanish Inquisition - murder and torture in the cause
of morality. The fault of the NAZIs lies in their axioms, not in their
logic nor in their implementation of those axioms. Thus all such parties
such as the National Front or David Dukes Klu Klux Klan front who assert
the truth of those axioms must be considered for what they are, advocates
of a system that would commit genocide. 

The conclusion that Hitler was not only responsible but imensely evil is
inescapable from the historical record. It is important though to not let
the conclusion be reached that the NAZIs espoused a set of ideas that
were basically correct but had an unfortunate proponent. The evils of
the concept of race supremacy are primary. Although this most emphaticaly
does not excuse individual culpability this is nevertheless secondary.

No matter what the promises made by a racist, supremacist party upon 
election those promises will be broken as soon as circumstances permit.
If this requires the replacement of the leaders that originally made
the pledges, that will occur. Hatred is a supreme justifier. It also creates
a dynamic of its own when those in government allow it reign. For many
in government politics is a method of providing a justification for
their own existence through a demonstration of their importance. A 
rhetoric of hatred inevitably develops the question of action since the
continued existence of an object of hatred is inevitably a reminder of the
essential impotence of the politician. Thus we have the US raid on Tripoli
which has little purpose beyond a demonstration of power. It is important
to realise that there is no quantum jump between the politics of the right
and those of the extreeme right but a progression from the reinforcement
of popular predjudice to action being taken on the basis of that predjudice.
In the same way the extreeme left trace their route to despotism through
their assertion of the subjugation of the individual to ideology.

It is important though that in attempting to understand the dynamics
of political systems that this is not used to excuse the participants. The
leaders of a nation take on a supreme moral burden but not only do
so voluntarily are required to stive to do so. Thus to take on such a 
task without a fundamental examination of the logical progression of
ones set of axioms to its conclusion in itself is a moral crime. Furthermore
in taking on such a duty one is obliged to put the interest of the whole
before personal concerns, even of personal security.

Although it was inevitable that a party such as the NAZIs, based upon hatred
and an idolisation of the symbols of power should have saught to commit
genocide it was not inevitable that they should succeeded. Each member of
the system had an ability to create a change within it that had a possibility
of changing the dynamic. Realising that the individual cannot hope to 
control a system does not mean accepting that the individual cannot 
affect the system.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178374
From: acunerbb@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (B. Bilal Acuner)
Subject: Turkish Preisident Turgut Ozal passed away

Turkish president Turgur Ozal has passed away today after a heart  attack in Ankara at 11:00 am GMT .
Mr. Ozal was 66 years old.

BahadIr Acuner
acunerbb@csugrad.cs.vt.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178375
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense

In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu (David Smith) writes:
>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will improve these kids' chances
>of getting another job in the future, but what inner city kid would want to hold
>down just one more minimum wage job when there is so much more money to be made
>dealing drugs?  

What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so
much more money to be made dealing drugs?

Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner
city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids
are incapable of doing legitimate work?
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178376
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Getting Off to an Early Start!

In article <04.17.93b@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson <ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:
>So ... the Jury will be making its announcement at 7:00 AM Saturday
>morning Pacific Time .... 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Why such an ungodly
>hour?
>
>I guess its because the news is not what the government wanted to hear;
>Either the police officers have been found innocent - or - after a week, 
>the jury is hung ... neither good news from the government's point of 
>view, as they desparately needed some scapegoats in Los Angeles.

Wrong on both accounts.

>Maybe by making the announcement at 7:00 AM on the west coast, they
>figure all the rioters will be asleep, giving the troops time to move
>into place. 

No one is a "rioter" until they participate in a "riot", which is 
unlikely to happen, now.

Most of the *people* in L.A. are likely to have gotten up early to 
listen to the court announcement.

>I guess we can look forward to a weekend of rioting, eh? 

Sorry to disappoint you, but this seems unlikely.

>The Mayor of
>Los Angeles, in a press conference about 3:00 AM Saturday morning, in
>announcing that the jury would give its verdict later this morning
>(just an hour away as I write this) would not say what that verdict
>is, but I think he was told ... in his press conference he said
>"anyone rioting will be stopped dead in their tracks ..."

I don't think he was told.
However, his statement was still appropriate.

>Meanwhile, following the announcement of the jury's verdict, the
>judge, jury and assorted court personnel will be evacuated from the
>building via helicopters landing on the roof of the courthouse. They
>can't  even walk out through the front door with their heads held
>high. 

Jury duty is a solemn duty to be taken seriously.  It is not meant 
to be a source of pride or instant fame.

>Won't the rioters have a surprise waiting for them when they wake up
>later today!

Well, the many *people* who got up early to go to the court to hear 
the verdict found that justice was served.  Given your dire and 
cynical predictions, I imagine that it is you who will be surprised.  :-)

>
>
>Patrick Townson


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178377
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15407@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
#There is a big difference between running one's business
#affairs, and actively ripping people off.

And charging homosexuals more becuase people think that AIDS is a "gay
disease" is actively ripping people off. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178378
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15416@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#That describes some straights -- and nearly all homosexual males.

Can you provide any evidence that doesn't ahve massive selection
effects?

No, I thought not.

Just slander on your part.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178379
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5L4rp.EBM@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>>  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification
>>if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize
>>alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from
>
>Making you look bad is too damn easy.  The vast social and historical
>differences between alcohol and other drugs make this comparison
>worthless.

This meaningless statement makes YOU look bad.


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178380
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

Theodore A. Kaldis writes:
#> Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
#> they are not prostitutes.
#No, I suppose they must be sluts.

Nope. They both are very nice women, whom I'm good friends with. 

Or do you think its ok to rape anyone when you don't like the way they
dress?

#> Gee, Both Clayton and Kaldis engaging in ad hominem arguments.
#Where?

Calling someone names, as you did. Are you ignorant of what an ad
hominem argument is?

#You provided absolutely no evidence, chump.

I provided a quote from the judge. What else do you want?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178381
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car

In article <1993Apr14.195912.16613@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:

>In article 734629856@misty, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>
>>]I'm not.  I'm in Canada.  We have far fewer shootings like this.  We have
>>]had, I believe, one mass murder in the last twenty years.
>>
>>]I'm not going to say we don't have our gun problems.  But we do have the
>>]world's largest undefended boarder with one of the most gun-happy countries 
>>]in the world.  I think Canada illustrates that gun control does have an 
>>]effect.  In fact, it's suprising that there is any difference considering
>>]how easy it is to smuggle a gun from the U.S.
>>
>>Yes, it's amazing, isn't it. In fact, it should tell you that gun control
>>is NOT the reason your crime rate is low, since any idiot can smuggle guns
>>into Canada from the US at any time.
>
>I think Paul was trying to make the point that "any idiot" doesn't.  There are
>surely some idiots who do smuggle guns, but Paul seems to feel that the exis-
>tence of stricter gun control laws has had a deterrent effect.  

       This seems a strange argument to make considering that Canada's
violent crime rate in general is far lower than that of the U.S.  (Our
non-gun crime rate is greater than their *entire* crime rate).  It
would seem strange to suggest that it, to, were the result of gun
control laws.

       I think if we looked we'd find very specific (cultural and
enforcement) reasons why the non-gun rate is low as well, and then
that reasons could be applied to the with-gun rates as easily.

>Given that most
>criminally used guns are either legally purchased or stolen from those who
>purchase them legally, having more restrictions on legal possession does 
>seem to have the effect of reducing gun-related crimes.  

       Aside from the fact that I find the idea of being punished
because somebody might steal something from me and go and commit a
crime with it a silly solution, it still doesn't address the
question of Canada.  (Which is now, by the way, blaming their rising
gun-crime rate on the U.S.  Strange that the border used to "magically"
keep the guns out, but now isn't.)

>It certainly makes
>sense that it would.  (Well, it makes sense to some of us, anyway.  ;-)

       The other side of the coin, of course, is that far "illegal drugs"
are purchases legally or stolen from people who purchase them legally. 
I've still not been convinced that guns, a commodity which criminals
have shown their perfectly willing to pay for from illegal sources
(stolen either from police, military, or civilian) we wouldn't simply
see South American sources from which drugs come start smuggling guns as
well, since there's a thriving gun manufacturing industry down there.

>>If you would just look a little closer at the crime statistics, you would
>>realize that:
>>  -our non-gun crime rate is also very high, so guns per se are not the issue
>
>Directly contradicted by the NEJM study that compared crime in Seattle and
>Vancouver, B.C.  The non-gun rates were roughly the same for both cities.  The
>difference in violent crime rates was almost totally gun-related.  

        And as was not pointed out in the study, but in critiques
of it, (two seperate articles by James Wright and David Kopel come
to mind) it was pointed out that the difference was *also* almost
entirely minority related.  That is, the gun crime rate skyrocketed
for poor minorities (Blacks and Hispanics primarily) while when you
compared the white majority they were virutally identical.

        The problem with the NEJM study was they compared minority vs.
non-minority percentages but failed to take into account the relative
conditions of those minorities.  That there was an eqaul percentage of
nomn-whites was about as far as they went.  They failed to take into
account that the non-whites in either city were not living in the
same conditions.

        If the situation was entirely based on availability of guns,
then we'd expect that the white rates, the two groups which are
arguably fairly comparative in the two cities, would have a far
higher rate in Seattle.  Yet the majority in Seattle is not only
not significantly higher when the minorities are excluded, but slightly
lower.

>>  -violent crime is highly concentrated in the inner city
>
>Surprise.  Pick the area with the highest incidence of poverty, drug use, disease,
>etc.  Since rates are lower in suburbia, us middle class folks can ignore the
>problem.


       The point is, of course, that many of the U.S. "inner-city"
problems are not mirrored in Canada.  As such  if there is a condition
which is significantly different in Canada from the U.S., and violent
crime is highly correlated to that area, suggesting that gun control
is the source of Canada's low rate is highly questionable.  (As one
Canadian pointed out on talk.politics.guns, Canada's major gun control
in 1978 did not result in either a reduction or a slowing of an increase
in violent crime rates, which have been rising steadily since.  Apparently
they didn't even mirror the U.S.s very large drop of violent crime in
the early eighties.

>>  -most violent crime occurs in areas with strict gun control already
>
>Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Those areas implemented gun control because of
>the high rates.  

       True only to a certain extent.  Take Washington D.C., where
gun control was instituted while it had crime problems true, but that
crime proceeded to explode afterwards.  Similarly for New York.

       The question is not simply a point in time where crime was high
or low.  Did the gun control significantly and positively impact
violent crime.  Since it's gone up in those areas, often faster than it
was going up before, you can't simply dismiss the high crime rate by
saying gun control was caused by it.  Yes, gun control may be instituted
to deal with high crime.  But if the crime is not positively impacted, you
can't continually say that that crime rate was entirely a cause of
that gun control, since much of that crime rate increased after gun control
was implemented, just as happened in Canada.

>Similar or worse rates exist in cities with poor gun control.

       As would be expected if violent crime was generally independent
of gun control.

>And the jury is still out on the question of whether recent tough laws in 
>Washington D.C. may have alleviated violence and suicide rates there.

       Would this be the laws which made manufacturers liable for what
others did with their guns, and suddenly the police found nobody would
sell to them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178382
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5n4wH.Izv@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr15.213436.1164@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>|>>
>|>>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>|>>
>|>>Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
>|>>difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. 
>|>
>|>       There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want
>|>you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think
>|>will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think
>|>what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."
>|>
>|>       You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.
>
>The point is that they did not make pains to point out where the consitution
>may have been aginst the new yorker's interests. Also they did not want
>to raise opposition by basing their advocacy on unpopular principles.

       Horrors, appealing to popular principles.  Can we perhaps as the
question of whether the Constitution might have been written to appeal
to the principles, rather than, as you appear to believe, it was written
with something else in mind and "propoganda" put out by its supporters.

       But let's be honest about something, here.  When was the last time
you brought up all the valid points against your own arguments?

       Or are they simply propogranda?  We can't know what Phill *really*
means because he's obviously using arguments designed to convince.

>|>       Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and 
>|>probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules.
>|>But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions
>|>on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the
>|>government?
>
>I don't propose that any means exists for determining their true opinions.
>Thus their true opinions died with them and are of little help today.
>
>Their opinions have not the slightest bearing on the matter though, only their
>arguments. These are true or false regardless of who said them or why. 

       If they're true or false, regardles of why they were said, why
on earth did you make a point of calling them "propogranda?"  That
would seem to be irrelevent.

>The
>difficulty that most US posters seem to have is in considering that their
>arguments may have been flawed or no longer apply to modern societies. 

       Oh, I have no argument with questioning them.  I don't believe
they no longer apply, but that's because I think most of them were
good arguments.  I'm not entirely happy about the situation, because
they were obviously only applied to a minority of the time, but I don't
think that alone is sufficient to invalidate them.

>If they were alive today the one opinion we could count upon these men to
>express is that a careful study of the mechanisms of government is necessary
>and that an ongoing improvement of the same is required. They gave their 
>opinions in certain areas and have been proved right. In other areas they
>got it wrong. They ensured that there was a mechanism to adapt and improve
>the consititution. this can only happen if there is a willingness to accept that
>the structural problems within the US political system may require
>constitutional change as a solution. 

       Since the U.S. constitution is the basis for the U.S. political
system, most changes in it would require Constitutional change.  In this
particular case, however the fillibuster is a matter of procedure
and tradition.  It only *should* have been made part of the Constitution. :-)

>|>       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
>|>we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
>|>(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
>|>greater power than did the American system).       
>
>In principle no, in practice yes. 

        In principle no?  That they had less power of that they should have
had less power?

>The British government today is theoreticaly
>dependent on the will of the Monarch. By convention any monarch seeking to
>exercise that power is deposed. The subtly is that the Prime Minister is
>not able to identify their politics with the national interest in the same
>manner that US Presidents regularly do.

        Phill, we're discusing the power of legislative houses.  While
the Prime Minister *is* member of Parliament, he is more analgous (although
badly) to the U.S. President.

        Now, please explain to me how the U.S. House of Representatives
is "in principle" more powerful than the House of Lords (or the Senate)
but in practice is less.  Are you suggesting that the writers of the
Constitution *really* intended for them to be more powerful, but gosh
darn the thing was ratified before they realized they'd forgotten to put
those extra restrictions on the Senate in?

>|>       I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to
>|>handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington
>|>put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city
>|>council."
>
>One reason for that is that at every level the government is rendered unable
>to come to decisions. These decisions are pushed up to the next higher level
>instead. 

      Not at all.  As any entry level political science course will tell
you, people who want laws implemented will always choose the level of
government to "attack" which presents them with the best chance of
getting what they want.  With national "interest groups" it is simply
a very rational thing to do to want the Federal government to enact a
law rather than the states.  Less people to persuade, and less 
"contributions" to make.  

      Why do those concerned about abortion primarily concentrate at
the Federal level?  Simply because if they win that battle all the little
state battlefields are won by extension.  The same extends to insurance,
medicine, and most other questions.

      Local government has not "failed" in that it hasn't done what it
should, but that it is dominated by local interests.  Thus non-local
interests who want localities to abide by their rules can't get their
rules past the local government.  Thus, since they've got more clout,
only in the wrong place, they appeal to the next higher level because
it can impose its will on the lower.

      I mean, let's get real here.  Do we *really* need the Congres
of the United States deciding that x traffice light should be on thus-
and such pattern?  Or that *carjacking* needs to be a federal as opposed
to a local crime?

      The more people want the more Congress will take power to "sell"
it to them for their votes.  I don't think the rise of "special interests"
is coincidence with the increased power of Congress.

>|>       Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than
>|>enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its
>|>original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.
>
>If they were to start from a social welfare model instead of the current 
>"no state subsidy motto" they would be better placed. As it is there is
>plenty of state money being handed out. The problem is that it is
>distributed on the basis of power in congress and not on the basis of
>actual need. 

       Bingo.  The higher up the governmental ladder the less actual
need matters, because political power can be concentrated at higher
levels, while people with less cloud only find themselves reduced to
in effectiveness.

>In order to set up a school project in New York state you have to pay off the
>other 49 states with pork - defense contracts, agricultural subsidies etc.
>Or to be precise 30 of the states since you need 60 to beat the filibuster.

       Then why not simply leave New York's education to New York?  I
remain unconcinved that there is any state in the Union which is not capable
of educating its own children if that's what they want to do.  And if
you leave it to them, you only have to worry about the "pork" in that
state.  And since industries can't concentrate their political power
and wealth, rather they must divide it among the states to try and get
what they want, individual voices have more relative impact.

       The problem with the fillibuster is not that you must "buy off"
states, but that the Congress has acquired too much power to sell pork.

>|>       It is not a case of the system of government they created failing,
>|>but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically
>|>wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem
>|>then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either
>|>House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is
>|>a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more
>|>sense to make more decisions at a local level.
>
>No, you have to break the machine free of seizure before you can redirect it.

       But why on earth should we want to redirect it?  You said yourself 
that you have to sell pork to get things through Congress.  If Congres
has less authority to sell pork and retains its authority to enact
national legislation within its granted jurisdiction, the pork problem
is significantly reduced.

>The current blocks on power simply absolve congress of any responsibility
>to come to a decision. 

       The current blocks essentially state that inaction is preferable
to action, thus it the system is weighted against action.  Considering
the government the usually the institution with the sole power to
enforce its decisions by force, I consider bias against making those
decisions a good thing.

>Pushing the decisions lower in the pyramid won't
>work unless the lower levels are less corrupt. In most cases they are worse,
>not better.

       The difference with the lower pyramid is that a) they have
more legal, legitimate authority in most matters under our Constitution
than the federal government, and b) at those lower levels power is
harder to concentrate.  And c) you get the benefit of not imposing
new deicisons on everybody at once.  You get to see them tried out
without a national decision.  Congressional action usually treats the
entire country as a whole, yet even with similar problems in different
areas, different solutions may be called for.

       And while I often don't agree with the decisions my local
and state reps make, at least I have a better option of going to
the city council and shooting my mouth off.  I'd much rather the
majority of laws be made by accessible people who hang around and end
up having to put up with them rather than somebody far off in
Washington with half a million or more constituents.

       I'm curious what you base your assumption that lower levels
are more corrupt.  

>|>       I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were
>|>placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means
>|>to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's
>|>opinion) policies.  
>
>Since we were arguing from the Federalist papers I would point to them. 

       Phill, *you* brought up the Federalist papers.  We were
arguing the fillibuster and whether or not a minority of Senators
should be allowed to hold up a bill.  You claimed the Senate was
suppose to be a far less powerful House, and I contended there was
nothing in the Constitution or other writings which indicated this.
Which was when you brought up that we can't decide what the founders
wanted based on the Federalist papers.  You argued against them,
I never argued from them.  I have primarily referred to the Constitution,
which places only very small restrictions on the Senate than for
the House.

>The 
>US constitution gives almost no reasoning as to how it should work. The
>only part where a reason is given is the right to bear arms ammendment where 
>the well regulated militia justification is ambiguous.

       The U.S. Constitution is a nuts-and-bolts document.  The Delcaration
of Independence was the high-brow reasoning.  (There are a couple of other
examples, though, such as the reasoning for the power to tax, and the
reasoning for the power to grant permits, both in Article I, Section 8.)

>That the veto was meant to be an exceptional measure follows from the 
>fact of the senate. If the President was meant to revise legislation then
>there would be three chambers of the legislature, not two. Furthermore
>the separation of powers would have been much less distinct. 

       To a certain extend I do believe the veto has become something
it wasn't intended.  However, I also believe it is inevitable considering
the Congress' own abuse of their power to make bills say whatever they
want them to say.  Unlike most people I think we shouldn't be worrying
about the veto, which is fine, but of the problem in Congress which
almost necessitates its abuse.

>|>       There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power
>|>regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto
>|>for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their
>|>agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President
>|>who abused vetos.
>
>He has the record for vetos. 

       *BUSH?*  Phill, that's absurd.  Bush had *37* vetos, one of
which was over-ridden.  Go read up on FDR if you think that's
anything resembling a record.

>|>       Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators
>|>is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators
>|>feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and 
>|>fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question
>|>as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?
>
>Up to a point, the fact is though that when the majority are opposed by
>a minority the minority should not be allowed to win by default.

       Why not?  What is inherently wrong with biasing the system
against action?  Historically governemnt action in the U.S. when
dealing with issues with a bare minority and a large minority have
not been successful.  When you're in a position of imposing federal
power on diverse people, why should the federal government not have to
got through something more than a bare majority

>|>       Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which
>|>covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living
>|>in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority
>|>be required?
>
>Because the bill at issue is a money bill relating to a short term proposal.

       Now we're switching from a general question of a fillibuster
to a specific bill.  I don't see how it make a difference.

>It is not a change in the law where a presupposition in favour of the 
>status quo is arguable. 

       Sure it's arguable.  Theyr'e *arguing* it.  However, requiring
60% to bring it to a vote ensures that they'll have to have a *good*
argument.  Something that isn't based solely on party lines.

>|>       Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power
>|>to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not
>|>see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans
>|>are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate
>|>objections to the legislation in question.
>
>So instead you consider a system under which the minority automatically win
>to be superior?

       No, I am completely happy with a system which requires a minority
for *action*.  Since U.S. history is a history of carving up population
groups and implementing piece-meal on minorities, I feel minorities
should have sufficent clout to prevent action they feel strongly enough
about.  And 41% is hardly a tiny minority.  I don't advocate the minority
being capable of initiating actionm but I see no problem with biasing
the *federal* system against action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178383
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense

In article <1993Apr17.201310.13693@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu (
David Smith) writes:>>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will 
improve these kids' chances>>of getting another job in the future, but what 
inner city kid would want to hold>>down just one more minimum wage job when 
there is so much more money to be made>>dealing drugs?  
>
>What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so
>much more money to be made dealing drugs?
>
>Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner
>city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids
>are incapable of doing legitimate work?

I suppose the correct answer is not "family values"?

S'pose not.  Never mind.  Sorry.

--King "Sparky" Banaian                 |"It's almost as though young
kbanaian@pitzer.claremont.edu           |white guys get up in the
Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College      |morning and have a big smile
Latest 1993 GDP forecast:  2.4%         |on their face ... because,
                                        |you know, Homer wrote the
                                        |_Iliad_."  -- D'Souza

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178384
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: The verdict is in (Rodney King)

  The federal civil rights trial against the four LA police
officers accused of violating Rodney King's civil rights is
now history:

  Lawrence Powell:	guilty
  Stacey Coons:		guilty
  Theodore Brazenio:	innocent
  Timothy Wind:		innocent

  Sentencing slated for mid August, appeals expected.

  So far, all is calm in LA...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178385
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
#Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....

Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178387
From: william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

In article <1993Apr15.215747.17331@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>
>  - Dave Borden
>    borden@m5.harvard.edu


You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice somthing
for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ? To bad.
What is immoral is: people like you and the current president who don't
have any idea why this country still exists after 200+ years.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178388
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On Sat, 17 Apr 1993 20:42:58 GMT, Greg Hennessy observed:
: In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
: #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....

: Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 

Is that what they called it when Truman forced integration of the
armed forces, despite the opposition of Congress and most of the
American public at that time?

--
Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

   "Tilting at windmills hurts you more than the windmills." -- Lazarus Long

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178389
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:


>> 1) So what?

>So this bolsters the contention that many homosexuals are liars.

This statement is just so blatantly disgusting and free of any implicit
neural activity that I will almost completely ignore it.


>> -- 
>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .

>The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

Sigh.  It's so amusing to watch bigots point fingers at what they imagine to
be other bigots.  I do believe this person meant "bean *counting*".  And are
you trying to suggest that only Hispanics eat beans?  Or that they even have
a monopoly on eating beans?  Or that this person is seriously promoting what
is obviously a tongue-in-cheek .sig?

You must have a brain somewhere, if you can cause your fingers to type.  Use
it.

Drywid
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178390
From: dowdy@tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu (Dowdy Jackson)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense

In article <kbanaian.488.735081194@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu> kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.201310.13693@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu (
>David Smith) writes:>>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will 
>improve these kids' chances>>of getting another job in the future, but what 
>inner city kid would want to hold>>down just one more minimum wage job when 
>there is so much more money to be made>>dealing drugs?  
>>
>>What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so
>>much more money to be made dealing drugs?
>>
>>Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner
>>city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids
>>are incapable of doing legitimate work?
>
>I suppose the correct answer is not "family values"?
>
>S'pose not.  Never mind.  Sorry.
>
Are you assuming that families in the inner city don't have family values ?
I sure hope not.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178391
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:

>brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:

>(No axe to grind here I'm just a scientist and I hate to see statistics abused.)

Pity you didn't say something about the use of statistics to justify
targeting and persecuting a minority, then.

>>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three 
>>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.

>I am a hetero man and have had sex with one woman in my life (my wife).  It is 
>very pleasing to me to be able to say that.  I hope you have the same feeling
>as I do.  I also wish that you could (if you wanted) experience the joys and
>trials of being committed to someone for life (there is something about marriage
>that makes the commitment much greater than one might expect).

What in the Tree makes you think we queers CAN'T experience that commitment? 
What's stopping us from committing to one partner for the rest of our lives? 
I have every intention of doing so, once I find the right person...and
whether that person is male or female, I seriously doubt that a church
ceremony/public vow/licence will make any difference whatsoever in the sort
of commitment I experience with that person.  You have no conception of the
difference marriage makes since you have never known any other way.


>>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...

>Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
>homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
>of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
>to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
>put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
>community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays 
>are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
>just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?" 

You're getting to the right idea here...just be careful of making statements
like the above, and you'll be part of the solution and not the problem.

>Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)

No flames necessary. :)

Drywid
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178392
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>       How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>                                                               ^^^^^
>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  

>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.


     I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
different news groups, including something along the lines of alt.discrimination  Look Rodney King is black and large.  I have several large black male friends,and they are referred to as being large black men ( to their faces, and by
themselves ).  You know, Ted, I have a large number of adjectives for you,
but I will spare you most of them because I try not to get into personal
flame wars.  Let me just say that I think your action of cross posting this
was total BS, and you're trying to start some crap.  Hopefully, others will
see through your trite little game and not play along.  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178393
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:


>>1) So what?

>So there are less gays, then the gays claim.

>>Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>>

>I was wondering why I wasn't getting laid.

Your bad English?  (See quote above.)


>Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
>because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
>with social pressures, probably would at least try.

You'd lose that wager, if the supporting argument were part of it.

>Did you know that is is a fact that homosexuality was comparatively high in 
>Hitler's storm troopers (SA) before he came to power.  I wonder if they got to 
>put the triangles on themselves......

Did you know that Hitler himself was a devout Christian?  And heterosexual?

--Drywid
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178394
From: mdouglas@netcom.com (Hokh'Ton)
Subject: Re: race and violence

In <1993Apr13.212441.26562@gtx.com> al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) writes:

>Even though this city (Phoenix) has a relatively small black
>population, black people seem to be responsible for a disproportionate
>amount of violent crime.  yesterday, black men robbed a cafeteria, beat
>the employees for no apparent reason, and shot one dead, even though
>they were being cooperative.  a few days ago, a car full of black men
>opened fire on a car containing a young white couple and their baby,
>possibly because they didn't like the way the man was driving.  the
>baby was slightly injured.  These incidents are not even unusual.

>even if a white person starts out without racial prejudice (as, after
>all, we all do) and no one "teaches" them to be prejudiced, it's
>sometimes hard to see how they can avoid becoming so, based on their
>own observations and instinct for self-preservation.  We always taught
>our children that racial prejudice is wrong (not only bad, but also
>mistaken), but how do you counteract the effect of these kinds of
>incidents?

>what's the answer? how can we work against racial prejudice when
>incidents like this keep fanning the flames?  what can we say to deny
>that racial prejudice is a rational response to our environment?  is
>it? should we?  Since the 60's, I have thought the only hope is through
>integration based on ignoring race and treating each person as an
>individual, but so many either preach divisiveness by emphasizing race
>or validate racism by their actions. where does it lead?


>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ( Alan Filipski,  GTX Corp,  2390 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix, AZ 85016, USA )
> ( INTERNET: al@gtx.com      UUCP: uunet!gtx!al         PHONE: (602)224-8742 )
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Alan, you can start by teaching your children that the perpetrators
of crimes no more represent the "Black community" than racist hateful Whites
represent the majority culture (although there are many ethnic minorities
who have fallen into the very trap that you are struggling with, and believe
otherwise). The trap is the easy way out.
	For yourself, I think it would be a good idea to realize that the
demographics related to the crimes you speak of have less to do with race,
and much to do with socioeconomic status and disenfranchisement. You're
going to find higher crime within *any* community comprised of *any* ethnic
group or subgroup that has become dysfunctional, whatever the factors
leading to that dysfunction. With ethnic minorities it is more usually than
not, as I said, socioeconomic disenfranchisement.
	If, for example, you lived in an area where there were very few
Blacks, but quite a few poor-for-generations Whites, you'd see the crime
statistics reflecting the dysfunction of those White people. Would you then
worry about whther your children would begin to see Whites as undesireable
or whatever? The trap springs into action when our innate compunction to
define "us" and "other" raises its little voice. The trap becomes dangerous
when we stop to listen to that little voice and stop thinking like rational
humans.
	It's interesting that Blacks are traditionally seen as *the* or the
*most* criminal element in many of our urban areas. I don't know the racial
makeup of Phoenix, so I can't speak to your situation. However, I live in
San Francisco, a city that loves to tout its "ethnic diversity". Here, we
have Black gangs, Hispanic gangs, Asian (yes, the "model minority") gangs,
and even a few White gangs. The Asian gangs have become a particularly
troublesome element for law enforcement here, mainly due (I think) to their
propensity for engaging in organized criminal activities. But ask people on
the street and they'll, 8-out-of-10 times, tell you that Black gangs and
crime are what they most fear. During the "disturbance" in Los Angeles last
year many of the rioters and looters were not Black. Some were even White! I
remember being amazed at  television news scenes that showed looting mobs
where there were maybe one or two Blacks at most! My perceptions, gleaned
from TV news, were further corroborated by numerous friends and relatives
that live in Los Angeles. This may have been the country's first truly
multi-ethnic riot. Yet I know from face-to-face and online discussion that
in the minds of America the popular perception is that it was a *Black*
riot!
	In closing, I'd like to say that you raise some interesting points
that really need discussion. Our country has spent too long ignoring the
racism (and its attendant ills) that is very much a part of our culture. As
a people, we are afraid to face up to some hurtful truths, and the problem
becomes compounded *daily*. We cannot afford to do it much longer. I truly
believe that the  well-being of ALL OF US depends on changing our current
course of denial and repression.
	I wish you and your children, and all other people, of *all* colors,
luck in avoiding the "trap". 
	Peace, my brother.
			m.
-- 




	Hokh'Ton	:	The Crystal Wind is the Storm,
  mdouglas@netcom.com	:	 and the Storm is Data,
Michael Douglas-Llyr	:	  and the Data is Life.
			:		---Player's Litany (The Long Run)
	


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178395
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5LI9y.C1v@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>In article <1993Apr16.171354.3127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>
>>However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to be
>>bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.
>
>I don't find this silly at all.  I find it silly (black humor) that we're
>spending billions of dollars and risking the lives and freedoms of every
>American to save a bunch of by-choice druggies...
>
>Could you please tell us WHY you find this silly.  That's, WHY, letters
>"W", "H" and "Y", rather than arguments like "oh, _everbody_ thinks such and
>such is true".

First, the only drug that could possibly be put in drug stations are marijuana 
or its derivitives.  Every other drug that I can think of can kill you if you 
take to much.  (By the very nature of these drugs, your decision making skills 
aren't up to par.  That is how it differs from asprin, flinstone vitamins, etc.
We don't even allow penicilin to be sold over the counter.)

Second, we already have a big enough drunk driving and alchoholic problem in 
this country.  If marijuana were legal, undoubtedly more people would use it, 
and that IS a problem.  People use it, get stupid, and hurt other people.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178396
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5LM2E.Fx8@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>In article <C5L69C.Fxp@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
writes:
>>In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) w
rites:
>>>  Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
>>>  being screwed up in the head, given that example!
>>>
>>>(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
>>>get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
>>>drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He
's
>>>not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is a
n
>>>immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
>>>THIS to THAT!).
>>
>>Hello, is there anybody in there?  You think you have to pay for this idiot's
>>problem now, who's going to pay for the ballooning number of addicts and
>>all of the associated problems with them.  I don't even want to think about
>>it with Hillary in the White House and an administration that "feels our
>>pain".
>
>Look, if you were truly for lower taxation and less government, you would not
>be advocating the WOD.  Ever wonder why the WOD is a BI-partisan issue?
>
>>
>>No harm but to himself?  What about when he drives his school bus full
>>of kids into a train.  When he gets stoned and drives up on a sidewalk
>>and kills 5 people.  When he lives off me on Welfare for the rest of his
>>life.
>
>Ridiculous.  I can't imagine anyone this stupid.  Forgive me for flaming,
>but this is sooooooo obvious!
>
>Tell me why any of the above cases cannot be caused be a legal drug, viz.
>alcohol, or are you for having a War on That, too?
>
>Now I'll tell you: more people are killed by alcohol-related accidents
>than all other drugs combined.  BY FAR.
>

Probably because more people have access to alchohol.  It IS LEGAL you know.


>>
>>The problem with the WOD is that it has no bite.  Sending the slimy
>>bastards to the chair for selling drugs to kids, now there's some bit.
>>
>
>Yeah, that's it, send a kid from the inner-city, who has no other viable
>means to make money and turns to selling drugs, to an over-crowded federal
>prison where he learns to do Real Crime.
>

Of course, this kid would be much better off selling crack to his neighborhood 
and helping in its demise.

>Without drug money being pumped into these blights from the (affluent)
>outside, there would be no crime (who would they steal from, each other?).
>Drugs bring money into the community just like any other business would,
>except that, since drugs are illegal, the economy is an underground one.

And if those drugs were legal, the neighborhood could legally go to hell.

>A self-sustaining underground economy can only proliferate by a constant
>willful infusion of money from the outside.  If you take away drug laws,
>you put an end to the underground economy, and therefore to large-scale
>crime.
>

And if we made murder legal, we would put an end to murder as a crime.

>Kids in the inner-cities are faced with a very tough life growing up
>there, or selling drugs and having everything at their fingertips instantly.
>Many kids choose selling drugs.  They sell products to people who want to
>buy them.  They make money off of rich white kids from the suburbs.  Then
>they go to prison.  Then they become hardened criminals, and learn that
>you're much better off stealing car-stereos in the suburbs because all
>the police forces are spending all their money in the inner city saving
>people from themselves.

What??????

>
>You can bring up all the examples you want about crack-babies and whathaveyou.
>The solution never has anything to do with the laws (crack is illegal).
>

So you are saying crack babies who are that way legally are okay?

>No social problem, however great, is worth destroying the freedom in America.
>The destruction of freedom is never an answer to any social problem.

You can't even walk down the street at night alone in America because of drugs.
Freedom my ass.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178397
From: jar2e@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Virginia's Gentleman)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

In regard to Woody's post, I thought I would remind him of something in
the midst of his tirade against academia:
As a member of the generation likely to pay for the crap Reagan and his cronies started with the deficit according to the brilliant Laffer curve (NOT!) I
think we need to look with open minds upon any ideas which will allow us
to directly address the problems of the gigantic federal deficit and debt and
continue to allow our economy to expand--and I don't remember Woody and co.
complaining about academia while Laffer implemented his policy, Stockman
approved it while being fully aware the numbers not adding up, and Reagan
completing the largest con job of the century which my generation and I will now have to pay for. 

Jesse

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178398
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)

In article <1qpakjINNiq2@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Wil
liam December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr16.171354.3127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) said:
>
>> However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
>> be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never
>> heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal
>> meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine"
>> cigarettes, pot and heroin.
>
>Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea
>that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply
>decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why
>the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes"
>is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...
>

Yeah, Cancer is pretty cool, isn't it.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178401
From: gardinal@alishaw (Paolo Gardinali)
Subject: Re: New <bullshit> Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:


>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:

>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low

>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

                          etc. etc.....


>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
     ^^^^^^

***Sure!!! And what's .3 of a woman??? Any hypothesis??

   How can you trust a report from people that have *no idea*
   of what a MEDIAN is?

   The same bullshit article reported that 22,5% of all the men have
   sex 10 times or more a week (Elf, how many times did you fill
   one of those questionnaires?) and had other statistics that took
   in no consideration different class backgrounds, marital status
   etc.  No information on sampling were given.

>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for

Do you think you can compare so lightly secondary data from 2 very
different (and discutible) surveys???

>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.

It just shows how dramatically ignorant are press release writers and
most pople that read them.....


PAolo


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178402
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Z Magazine: Health Care Reform (March 93)

{Sorry, Harel et al, but our doctors and most hospitals are still
private in Canada as well as in much of Western Europe.}

harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai - Grad - Brown) writes:
>		 =================================== 
>		 H e a l t h   C a r e   R e f o r m 
>			 By Camille Colatosti 
>		 Z magazine (see bottom), March 1993 
>		 =================================== 
>...
>The single-payer model, sometimes called national health insurance, 
>eliminates private insurance companies and removes health care from 
>employment. The government provides free health care to all U.S. 
>residents. And there are no out-of-pocket costs. 

Wrong.  In better EC countries that use pure (but public) health
insurance (like we use in Canada) rather than self-enclosed HMO-like
socialized medicine, 30% of our costs comes from private supplementary
insurance and/or copayments.  France Magazine's Summer 1992 edition
has a fantastic presentation of their basic insurance coverage,
including a sample chart of copayment percentages.  For 1-30 days,
you're covered for 80% of the public hospital rate, 100% afterward.
With extra private insurance, you can get into a private hospital and
be covered for any differences beyond the public hospital rate.  The
public insurance covers 100% beyond 30 days, or the same cash amount
for a private hospital and the difference is paid out-of-pocket or
according to your supplementary private insurance.  Over 2/3rds of
French have some form of extra private insurance.  So, 30% of health
costs in Europe are out of private funds and not gleaned from other
taxes.  The GDP figures are combined public and private expenditures
for total outlay using the same methods that yield the 13-14% figure
for the U.S.

That the French had deductibles and copayments in their insurance fund
is to their credit ... I am in the minority for advocating such back
in Canada (to make the Canadian insurance look more like real health
insurance -- which actually it is).  The new Reform Party, a breakoff
of traditionalists from the Conservatives with a mildly "libertarian"
faction, hold our public health insurance as an untouchable but that
just a few people have to be reminded that it's not free (the average
Canadian/European is more fiscally naive than their American
counterparts on issues like these).

I'm one of the few people who favour copayments (forget about
leftists, even our conservatives attack me for it on the Canadian
newsgroups) to make it look more like real insurance, 'cos the 100%
insurance payment is hidden (unlike in France) and if you didn't know
it, you'd believe it actually is socialized medicine (American
conservatives/libertarians and Canadian leftists are the only ones who
seriously call it that).  Canadians aren't worried about the
Americans, who spend 14%; we're worried about the French and Germans
who spend 7% to our 9% ... so the insurance is looking at things that
shouldn't be paid for out of general funds like physicals for
insurance policies, sick notes, electrolysis, etc.  The reason that
the Canadian health insurance hasn't spiralled out of control despite
being open and universal is that unlike Americans, there is no urge to
spend all of your benefits' worth, and more if you can ... we're a
different culture.

>Like the play or pay model, managed competition leaves in place two 
>elements of the current health care system that reformers most often 
>criticize: the private, for-profit insurance industry; and the 
>employer-based system of coverage. Managed competition compels 
>employers to enroll their workers in large pools of health insurance 
>customers. Entire industries may, for example, sponsor a pool or 
>network. Insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and other health 
>care providers then bid for the pool's business, competing- in 
>theory- on the basis of price and quality. 

"Managed Care" relies on HMO's, which are unknown in most western
nations that use only public health insurance like Canada, France
and Germany (I'm Canadian, and my German father-in-law-to-be says
of HMO/NHS approaches, "We left that behind with East Germany!").
Sure, HMO/NHS controls costs because you have managers strangling
doctors with budget strings.

In Canada, we use the public health insurance approach as in France
and Germany, with all private doctors and both private and public
hospitals.  It is all pure insurance without HMO's.  The divisions
are different, with the Germans using a couple hundred interlinked
"sickness funds" over a century old while Canada divides by their
provinces (who run the insurance fund and set local fees with the
doctors monopoly; federal funds cover the fees disbursed.)

With such an open-ended system, it's no surprise that Canada is #2 to
the U.S. in costs; all-insurance is the most expensive way to go. The
French and Germans use the same approach but have larger populations
in more compact geography to improve scales of economy.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178403
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>F<O>CUS/HEALTH: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)
>
>    An office visit that's $52 in Seattle is $18 in Vancouver
>    (Canada).  That's because, among other things, they've given their
>    government power to bargain with doctors and hospitals over fees.

The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.

Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
in Canada (along with France and Germany) without HMO's --- the NYT
has admitted that malpractice insurance fees are an order of magnitude
lower in Canada but doctors take-home pay is almost equal to American
doctors; also, minimal bureaucracy 'cos the system is so-o-o simple
(early March).

Part of the deal for using the all-insurance approach like the French
and Germans do (hey, why don't they criticize France and Germany?  Is
it because too many people take French and German in college to make
the accusations stick? (-;) was to preserve the doctors independance.
Since the provincial wings of the CMA are the ones that go to bat when
the fee schedule hikes are presented, the politically-bent doctors
were just cackling when they realized the CMA would grow in strength
rather than diminish, especially when unopposed unlike in socialized
medicine approaches like Britain's National Health Service.

>"`You've got to remember, you've got a waiting list as well, but it's  
>not as obvious. If you're poor and you don't have insurance, you don't  
>    go to a surgeon. In the States you ration by ability to pay.'"  

For non-life threatening things, market arguments adequately cover why
certain procedures are in scarcer demand.  I have MD friends who can't
make a living as specialists back in Manitoba not due to the insurance
rates but because they won't get enough customers -- the CMA medical
monopoly's grip on doctors licencing (as in the US) aside -- so they
must move to larger places.  However, this does not refute debunking
of waiting lines for urgent AND routine care, as has been done in the
U.S. by Consumers Reports, health policy studies cited by Prof. Dennis
E. Shea on USENET, CNN, NYT, etc.

Doug Fierro has posted a NYT article from 3 weeks ago about Canada's
health insurance approach, on Talk.politics.medicine.  There is one
small error in the article: not all of our hospitals are private.

>WOULDN'T NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MEAN THAT AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW  
>FULLY INSURED MIGHT HAVE TO SETTLE FOR LESS?  
>
>In Canada, provincial insurance covers all health costs except dental  
>care, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, ambulance service, and private  
>hospital rooms, -- so many Canadians do end up buying some private  
>insurance. A policy to cover all of these things runs about #40 to $40  
>a month.  

Of course, the one thing to note is that in the Canada/France/Germany
case, private insurance *offloaded* the basic coverage to the public
sector.  They realized they were keeping low-risk/high-profit extra
insurance for things like private/semi-private rooms (vs. ward
accomodation), dental, glasses, etc. for corporate or personal
benefits, they'll have nothing to do with you if you want to be
covered for basic care.

At that point, they wouldn't even consider a "voucher" approach
to broker the universal coverage and sell policies to make up
the difference in the federal guidelines and market stuff.

>******************************************************************  
>
>WOULDN'T FREE CARE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO RUN TO THE DOCTOR FOR EVERY  
>ACHE AND PAIN?  
>
>People who get free treatment *do* go to the doctor and hospital about  
>a third more often than those who have to pay a share of their medical  
>bills.  
>
>Still, Canadians -- who pay nothing at the doctor's -- have a lower  
>per-person health bill than we do.

It is "free" in that there are no deductibles nor copayments (two
things which I advocate to make the Canadian insurance look more like
real health insurance -- which actually it is).  I know that when
working in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, I was aware that I was paying
for health insurance - e.g., in Toronto, OHIP fees were listed on my
pay stub; Manitoba did not collect at paycheque time, but only
annually at income tax time (built into the tax rate).  Only fiscal
naifs will proclaim that it's free, along with the Canadian Left for
that is part of their brainwashing agenda.

The French do have copayments, though.  France Magazine's Summer 
1992 edition has a fantastic presentation of their basic insurance
coverage, including a sample chart of copayment percentages.  For 
1-30 days, you're covered for 80% of the public hospital rate, 100%
afterward.  With extra private insurance, you can get into a private
hospital and be covered for any differences beyond the public hospital
rate.  The public insurance covers 100% beyond 30 days, or the same
cash amount for a private hospital and the difference is paid
out-of-pocket or according to your supplementary private insurance.
Over 2/3rds of French have some form of extra private insurance.  So,
the other 30% of health costs in Europe are out of private funds, not
gleaned from other taxes.  The GDP figures are combined public and
private expenditures for total outlay using the same methods that
yield the 13-14% figure for the U.S.

>ISN'T THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY JUST TOO BIG  
>AND POWERFUL TO KILL?  
>
>Dismantling the health segment of our insurance industry would be  
>"politically thorny," in the quiet words of one advocate for a  
>national plan. Some 1,200 firms now sell more than $192 billion in  
>health insurance. They'd put up a hard fight. Not only has the industry  
>grown eightfold since Canada shut down its own health insurers, but 
>our government leaves politicians more open to lobbyists than does  
>Canada's parliamentary system.

Health insurance does exist in Canada and in Western Europe, its
just that it doesn't cover basic care.  You can opt out in Canada
and Germany, but you'll have to go uninsured as a result because
there are too few other people that do so --- i.e., no market.

When private insurance realized how much money they'd make without the
risks involved in basic insurance (e.g., neurosurgery) versus deluxe
amenities (e.g., having to call Granada TV to replace a rental set on
the fritz in someone's private hospital room), they started to pat
themselves on the back for their social responsibility.  In Quebec
last spring, a consortium of private insurers publicly warned against
any thoughts of privatizing routine, low cost parts of that province's
public health insurance plan.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178404
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: ONE PAYER SYSTEM B.S.

UJSNYDER%MSUVX2%MEMSTVX1.BITNET@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu writes:
>
>There is never any mention of how much working Canadians have to 
>pay in taxes for their "free" health care system.  

Oh, *really*???

>I know that more than 50% of an average daily worker's salary goes
>towards taxes in Canada mainly because of this "free" health care.
>It looks like we are pretty lucky so far.

I know that when working in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, I was aware
that I was paying for health insurance - e.g., in Toronto, OHIP fees
were listed seperately on my pay stub.

While I'm not the only Canadian who favours lower taxes and cutbacks
in spending, health insurance isn't on the table.  See our polls ...
A better one might be the July 1st polls conducted for Macleans (our
major English newsmagazine) by Decima Research ... Decima president
Allen Gregg is considered one of the world's top poll researchers,
and Mulroney's Conservatives have relied on him to keep in power in
the face of impossible election situations.  I haven't had a chance
to see this year's version due to our library, but previous ones
before the Americans started their assault and disinformation had
shown satisfaction at 97% and switching to an American all-private
system had support within statistical noise.  The Decima polls are
considered definitive.  Even the new Reform Party, a breakoff of
traditionalists from the Conservatives with a mildly "libertarian"
faction, hold our public health insurance as an untouchable but that
just a few people have to be reminded that it's not free (the average
Canadian/European is more fiscally naive than their American
counterparts on issues like these).

Personally, I feel that the universal health insurance approach used
in Canada, France and Germany -- paying to private health providers in
a nominally free market not unlike America's, minus HMO's -- depends a
lot on values in those societies different from the U.S.  The basic
health needs for life are not viewed as market, but the insurance does
allow the market to address that -- basic health care is not viewed on
the level of ownership of a VCR as Americans would see it.  Plenty of
room is left for expenditure of private funds as extra insurance or as

>Lastly, there were noises about how the Canadian system was not
>containing costs, but, in fact, their system is currently bankrupt.

Please explain this one, hopefully in a way that Canadian readers
besides myself can understand and concur ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178405
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Radio Interview in Pittsburgh 4.17.93





                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                    (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                         April 17, 1993     

	     
                    INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
                      BY MICHAEL WHITELY OF
                    KDKA-AM RADIO, PITTSBURGH
	     
                 Pittsburgh International Airport
                     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania    



10:40 A.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     Q	  For everyone listening on KDKA Radio, I'm Mike 
Whitely, KDKA Radio News.  We're here at the Pittsburgh 
International Airport and with me is the President of the United 
States Bill Clinton.
	     
	     And I'd like to welcome you to the area and to KDKA.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Mike.  Glad to be here.
	     
	     Q	  There are a lot of things we'd like to talk 
about in the brief amount of time we have, but some news is just 
breaking from Los Angeles.  I guess the entire country has been 
kind of holding their breath, wondering what's going to happen in 
the trial of the four Los Angeles police officers.  We just heard 
that two of those officers, the sergeant, Sergeant Koon and 
Officer Powell have been found guilty, and two officers have been 
found not guilty.
	     
	     It's a situation that's been building for over a 
year since the first trial and now this trial and this verdict.  
And I wonder what your thoughts are this morning on how you see 
the situation in Los Angeles in connection with your 
administration and what you're trying to do.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I think the 
American people should know that this trial, in my judgment, is a 
tribute to the work and judgment of the jury, as well as to the 
efforts of the federal government in developing the case.
	     
	     The law under which the officers were tried is a 
complex one; the standards of proof are complicated.  The jury 
decided that they would convict the sergeant who was responsible 
for supervising the officers and the officer who on the film did 
most of the beating.  The jury acquitted an officer who kicked 
Rodney King, but also plainly tried to shield him from some 
blows, and another officer who was a rookie.
	     
	     No one knows exactly why they did what they did, but 
it appears that they really tried to do justice here.  They 
acknowledged that his civil rights were violated.  And I think 
that the American people should take a lot of pride in that.  But 
I hope now we can begin to look ahead and focus on three things:  
first of all, the importance of trying to bring this country 
together and not violate the civil rights of any American; 
secondly, the importance of renewing our fight against crime.  
	     
	     I think it's important to recognize that in the 
poorest areas of Los Angeles and many other cities in this 
country, people may be worried about police abuse, but they're 
even more worried about crime.  It's time that we renewed our 
efforts to go to community policing -- put 100,000 more police 
officers on the street; pass the Brady Bill that would require a 
waiting period before people could buy a handgun, and do some 
other things to reduce the vulnerability of our people to 
violence and drugs.
	     
	     And the last point I'd like to make is it seems to 
me that we have got to rededicate ourselves to the economic 
revitalization of our cities and other economically-distressed 
areas.  If you just think about it -- if everybody in Los Angeles 
who wanted a job had one, I don't think we'd have quite as many 
problems as we do.  
	     
	     And I laid out a very ambitious program in the 
campaign to try to bring private investment and public investment 
to bear in our cities.  I have dispatched the Commerce Secretary, 
Ron Brown, to California to try to come up with some strategies 
for that state, because it's our biggest state with our highest 
unemployment rate -- which could then be applied around the 
country.  I want to talk to him and to the Attorney General, to 
the new head of the NAACP, to Reverend Jackson, and to several 
other people, and then I'll decide where to go from here with 
regard to Los Angeles and the other cities of the country.
	     
	     Q	  Let's talk about what brings you to the 
Pittsburgh area today.  There have been -- I guess there's been a 
lot of discussion on Capitol Hill about your stimulus package.  
You've been locked in a battle with the GOP.  Yesterday, as you 
said earlier in your radio address, you made some moves to break 
that gridlock.  What brings you to Pittsburgh, in particular to 
Allegheny County, in particular to Pennsylvania, with that 
battle?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there are two reasons.  First 
of all, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County and Pennsylvania supported 
me in the last election because they wanted a new direction in 
economic policy.  We have passed our overall economic plan; it 
gives the country a very different budget for the next five years 
than we've had in the previous 12.  We reduced the deficit and, 
at the same time, increased investment in jobs and education and 
health care, in the things that will make us a stronger country.
	     
	     But in addition to that, I asked the Congress in the 
short run to spend a little more money, a modest amount of money 
to create another half-million jobs in the next year and a half; 
to try to cut the unemployment rate by a half a percent; but also 
to try to spark job creation in the private sector more.  The 
plan passed the House.  It has the support of a majority of the 
Senate.  At the present time, all the Republican   senators as a 
bloc are filibustering the bill.  That is, they won't let it come 
to a vote.
	     
	     I believe that Senator Specter would like to vote 
for the bill.  And I believe that Senator Dole, the Republican 
leader, has put a lot of pressure on a lot of the Republicans to 
stay hitched.  And they're all saying that this bill increases 
the deficit.  It doesn't.  This bill is well below the spending 
targets that Congress approved, including the Republicans, for 
this year.  This bill is paid for by budget cuts in the next five 
years.  This bill is designed to give a jump-start to the 
economy.  And I must say, a lot of the Republican senators that 
are holding it up, when Mr. Bush was President, voted for 
billions of dollars of emergency spending of just this kind --
much of it was totally unrelated to creating jobs.
	     
	     So what I'm trying to do is to break this logjam.  
I've held out an olive branch, I've offered a compromise.  But I 
think that we ought to try to put some more Americans to work 
right now to show that we're changing the direction of the 
country.  And that's the purpose of the bill.
	     
	     Q	  Have you been in touch with Senator Specter or 
his office lately?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we've been trying to talk 
regularly to -- through my White House Congressional Liaison 
operation to the senators that we think are open to this --
Senator Specter, Senator D'Amato from New York, Senator Jeffords 
from Vermont, Senator Hatfield from Oregon, and five or six 
others whom we believe know we need more jobs in this economy and 
know that we are paying for this with budget cuts over the life 
of the budget I presented.
	     
	     You know, it has a lot of appeal to say, well, we've 
got a big deficit, we shouldn't increase it more.  But the truth 
is that we are paying for this with budget cuts in the whole life 
of the budget over the next few years.  And more importantly, we 
have this program well below the spending targets that Congress 
has already approved for this year.  And they've done this for 
years, with the Republicans voting for it -- many Republicans 
voting for it -- for things that weren't nearly as important as 
putting the American people back to work.  
	     
	     So I just hope that this doesn't become a political 
issue.  It ought to just be about the people of this country and 
the need for jobs.
	     
	     Q	  I have some questions from people who supported 
you, and some people who are skeptical about your administration.  
It has to do with their hopes, and also with their fears.  A lot 
of people who supported you and voted for you in Pennsylvania --I 
think some of them are now saying, we're glad we got him in the 
White House, but now look at this incredible process he has to go 
through.  Look at these problems.  Look at this gridlock.  And 
they're beginning to wonder, is this going to work; can you pull 
it off?  And, of course, your skeptics are saying, well, I knew 
it was going to be like this.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what I would -- I'd ask 
people, first of all, to remember that we are, frankly, moving 
very fast.  The budget resolution that the Congress passed is the 
fastest they have ever passed a budget resolution -- ever -- in 
history, setting out the next five-year budget targets.  So we 
are moving really rapidly.  And we've got them working on 
political reform, welfare reform, health care reform, a whole 
wide range of things.  
	     
	     But it's a big operation.  You can't expect to turn 
it around overnight.  It took 12 years to produce the conditions 
which led to the victory I received from the people in November, 
and we can't turn it around in 90 days.  But I think we're making 
real, real progress.  
	     
	     I would urge the people not to get discouraged.  
We're not going to win every battle, and not everything is going 
to happen overnight.  But we are definitely moving and changing 
things.
	     
	     Q	  Thank you very much.  
	     
	     The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, 
here live at Pittsburgh International Airport.  I'm Mike Whitely, 
KDKA News.

                               END10:31 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178406
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Radio Address 4.17.93



                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                   (Pittsburgh, Pennslyvania)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                         April 17, 1993     

             
                  RADIO ADDRESS TO THE NATION 
                        BY THE PRESIDENT
             
                Pittsburgh International Airport
                    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
             
             
10:06 A.M. EDT
             
             
             THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  My voice is coming to
you this morning through the facilities of the oldest radio
station in America, KDKA in Pittsburgh.  I'm visiting the city to
meet personally with citizens here to discuss my plans for jobs,
health care and the economy.  But I wanted first to do my weekly
broadcast with the American people. 
             
             I'm told this station first broadcast in 1920 when
it reported that year's presidential elections.  Over the past
seven decades presidents have found ways to keep in touch with
the people, from whistle-stop tours to fire-side chats to the bus
tour that I adopted, along with Vice President Gore, in last
year's campaign.
             
             Every Saturday morning I take this time to talk with
you, my fellow Americans, about the problems on your minds and
what I'm doing to try and solve them.  It's my way of reporting
to you and of giving you a way to hold me accountable.
             
             You sent me to Washington to get our government and
economy moving after years of paralysis and policy and a bad
experiment with trickle-down economics.  You know how important
it is for us to make bold, comprehensive changes in the way we do
business.  
             
             We live in a competitive global economy.  Nations
rise and fall on the skills of their workers, the competitiveness
of their companies, the imagination of their industries, and the
cooperative experience and spirit that exists between business,
labor and government.  Although many of the economies of the
industrialized world are now suffering from slow growth, they've
made many of the smart investments and the tough choices which
our government has for too long ignored.  That's why many of them
have been moving ahead and too many of our people have been
falling behind.
             
             We have an economy today that even when it grows is
not producing new jobs.  We've increased the debt of our nation
by four times over the last 12 years, and we don't have much to
show for it.  We know that wages of most working people have
stopped rising, that most people are working longer work weeks
and that too many families can no longer afford the escalating
cost of health care.
             
             But we also know that, given the right tools, the
right incentives and the right encouragement, our workers and
businesses can make the kinds of products and profits our economy
needs to expand opportunity and to make our communities better
places to live.
             
             In many critical products today Americans are the
low cost, high quality producers.  Our task is to make sure that
we create more of those kinds of jobs.
             
             Just two months ago I gave Congress my plan for
long-term jobs and economic growth.  It changes the old
priorities in Washington and puts our emphasis where it needs to
be -- on people's real needs, on increasing investments and jobs
and education, on cutting the federal deficit, on stopping the
waste which pays no dividends, and redirecting our precious
resources toward investment that creates jobs now and lays the
groundwork for robust economic growth in the future.
             
             These new directions passed the Congress in record
time and created a new sense of hope and opportunity in our
country.  Then the jobs plan I presented to Congress, which would
create hundreds of thousands of jobs, most of them in the private
sector in 1993 and 1994, passed the House of Representatives.  It
now has the support of a majority of the United States Senate. 
But it's been held up by a filibuster of a minority in the
Senate, just 43 senators.  They blocked a vote that they know
would result in the passage of our bill and the creation of jobs.
             
             The issue isn't politics; the issue is people. 
Millions of Americans are waiting for this legislation and
counting on it, counting on us in Washington.  But the jobs bill
has been grounded by gridlock.  
             
             I know the American people are tired of business as
usual and politics as usual.  I know they don't want us to spin
or wheels.  They want the recovery to get moving.  So I have
taken a first step to break this gridlock and gone the extra
mile.  Yesterday I offered to cut the size of this plan by 25
percent -- from $16 billion to $12 billion.  
             
             It's not what I'd hoped for.  With 16 million
Americans looking for full-time work, I simply can't let the bill
languish when I know that even a compromise bill will mean
hundreds of thousands of jobs for our people.  The mandate is to
act to achieve change and move the country forward.  By taking
this initiative in the face of an unrelenting Senate talkathon, I
think we can respond to your mandate and achieve a significant
portion of our original goals.
             
             First, we want to keep the programs as much as
possible that are needed to generate jobs and meet human needs,
including highway and road construction, summer jobs for young
people, immunization for children, construction of waste water
sites, and aid to small businesses.  We also want to keep funding
for extended unemployment compensation benefits, for people who
have been unemployed for a long time because the economy isn't
creating jobs.
             
             Second, I've recommended that all the other programs
in the bill be cut across-the-board by a little more than 40
percent.
             
             And third, I've recommended a new element in this
program to help us immediately start our attempt to fight against
crime by providing $200 million for cities and towns to rehire
police officers who lost their jobs during the recession and put
them back to work protecting our people.  I'm also going to fight
for a tough crime bill because the people of this country need it
and deserve it.
             
             Now, the people who are filibustering this bill --
the Republican senators -- say they won't vote for it because it
increases deficit spending, because there's extra spending this
year that hasn't already been approved.  That sounds reasonable,
doesn't it?  Here's what they don't say.  This program is more
than paid for by budget cuts over my five-year budget, and this
budget is well within the spending limits already approved by the
Congress this year.
             
             It's amazing to me that many of these same senators
who are filibustering the bill voted during the previous
administration for billions of dollars of the same kind of
emergency spending, and much of it was not designed to put the
American people to work.  
             
             This is not about deficit spending.  We have offered
a plan to cut the deficit.  This is about where your priorities
are -- on people or on politics.  
             
             Keep in mind that our jobs bill is paid for dollar
for dollar.  It is paid for by budget cuts.  And it's the
soundest investment we can now make for ourselves and our
children.  I urge all Americans to take another look at this jobs
and investment program; to consider again the benefits for all of
us when we've helped make more American partners working to
ensure the future of our nation and the strength of our economy.
             
             You know, if every American who wanted a job had
one, we wouldn't have a lot of the other problems we have in this
country today.  This bill is not a miracle, it's a modest first
step to try to set off a job creation explosion in this country
again.  But it's a step we ought to take.  And it is fully paid
for over the life of our budget.
             
             Tell your lawmakers what you think.  Tell them how
important the bill is.  If it passes, we'll all be winners.
             
             Good morning, and thank you for listening.

                               END                 10:11 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178407
From: redekop@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Tzoq Mrekazh)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.16.20.34.50.1993.6677@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>So, one
>should properly write "Who's promiscuous?"  The answer is: "Many
>homosexuals are."

 Not quite.  The answer is:  Many homosexuals, heterosexual, and bisexuals are,
but then, many are not.

 Or, more simply: Lots of people are.


-- 
    o-  Tzoq    "I am a good speller, I am -- C-A-T, dog...           ^ ^
 O   o- tzoq@uwo.ca                           B-A-T, Rhode Island..." `v'
    o-  redekop@obelix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca                 -- Junyer Bear  ^  
= Bernoulli would have been content to die, had he but known such a^2 cos 2phi =

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178408
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Help fight the Clinton Administration's invasion of your privacy

In article <9308@blue.cis.pitt.edu> cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch) writes:
>The Clinton Administration wants to "manage" your use of digital
>encryption. This includes a proposal which would limit your use of
>encryption to a standard developed by the NSA, the technical details of 
>which would remain classified with the government.
>
>This cannot be allowed to happen.
>

It is a bit unfair to call blame the Clinton Administration alone...this
initiative was underway under the Bush Administration...it is basically
a bipartisan effort of the establishment Demopublicans and
Republicrats...the same bipartisan effort that brought the S&L scandal,
and BCCI, etc.

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178409
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
> 
> In article <C5G1su.K27@wolves.Durham.NC.US>, wolfe@wolves.Durham.NC.US (G. Wo
> > A sad day for civil rights.  But typical of NC (unfortunately.)
> 
> If it is typical for the principle of reasonable doubt to be upheld in
> North Carolina, then I would count that in the state's favor. 
> 
Reasonable doubt dates back to Human Rights. We are now in the time of
Civil Rights. Civil Rights are issued by the State with whatever strings
attached they choose as the Grantor of said rights. And if that means that 
verdicts are determined by the needs of the state rather than by guilt or 
innocence in a traditional sense, so be it. Being subjective rather than 
objective may make it harder to anticipate what is right, and you may be 
sacrificed for being wrong inadvertantly once in a while, but that really is a 
small price to pay for the common good don't you think?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178410
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>
>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (La
>wrence C. Foard) writes:
>>In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>>
>>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>>
>>>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>>>
>>>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>>
>>1) So what?
>
>So there are less gays, then the gays claim.

Last I checked I was one person, I haven't even been elected
as a representative for "gaydom". Should I ascribe every thing
you say as representing every member of the straight community?

>>2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>>   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>>   us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>>
>
>Dream on.  Abortion and African-American Civil rights rallies don't even bring
>in half of that.

Thats the point. If there are several million queers in DC you had better
start wondering about the validity of the study.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178411
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>> 1) So what?
>
>So this bolsters the contention that many homosexuals are liars.

So if this study is proved wrong then it proves that heterosexuals
are liars? Unlike the propaganda spouted by the far right the ten
percent figure was backed up by the best study available at the time.
Its hardly certain that this new study is correct since it hasn't
even been out for enough time for any double checking to happen.

>The Alan Guttmacher Institute, btw, is funded by Planned Parenthood,
>so it hardly qualifies as a bastion of conservatism, or of "family
>values".

Of course if they had found 10% then it would be invalid because it
was funded by planned parenthood :)

>> 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>>    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>>    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>
>This preassumes that 2.5 million queers will show up on April 25th.
>There won't be anywhere near that many.  Go ahead -- make my day --
>promote that number.  That way, it will surely be a much greater
>embarrassment and slap in the face to homosexual activists when the
>crowds are much smaller.

Even if its "only" one million the point still stands. Even getting
1/6th of a given population in one place would be unprecidented. 
If even 1 million show up in DC it will raise serious doubts about
this study, or indicate a resolve unprecidented in human history.

>BTW, have you noticed that even Slick Willie isn't going to be in town
>that day?

He isn't the target of the march, nor do presidents often speak at
civil rights marchs (of course it would have been nice). However
the republicans and conservative democrats would do well to take
notice.


>> -- 
>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>
>The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

This is quite amusing. Obviously you know nothing about the history
of math.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178413
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <16APR199317110543@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>
>> 
>:This is a strawman argument and fails on several grounds.  In this case,
>:"limited" and "big" government are not defined.  I would point out that
>:Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia are by some definitions nations
>:with "limited" government, while the US, Canada, and nations in Western 
>:Europe (where "people would rather live") are often pointed out as 
>:nations with "big government" from a libertarian point of view.  
>
>Well, let me help by explaining the difference between a linited government
>and a failed government.  A limited government has its powers clearly
>circumscribed,  but is fully capable of enforcing its decisions within
>those circumscribed areas.  A failed government is incapable of
>enforcing its decisions except sporadicly.  Two completely different beasts.

Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government
power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the 
interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using 
government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little 
conundrum...

It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
that never seems to occur?...
>
>> 
>:The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those
>:who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe
>:government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and
>:those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical 
>:grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.
>
>
>..."regulation" is such a vauge word...  

I wouldn't call it "vague."  I'd call it elastic.  All "regulation" is 
not necessarily the same.  By opposing all government regulation, some 
libertarians treat every system from a command economy to those that
regulate relatively free markets as identical.  That's one reason
many of the rest of us find their analysis to be simplistic. 

jsh
>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178416
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <16APR199317391664@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.124824.29405@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>
>> 
>:On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
>:is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
>:for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
>:kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of 
>:difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic, 
>:to say the least.
>>
>
>I assume you mean that analyzing the cost/benefit ratio of government
>regulation on a case by case basis is worthwhile.  Let me suggest that
>this is not an option.  Regulators regulate,  it's what they do.

I'm not sure why you don't consider it an option.  No one suggests that
such analysis should be left to "regulators."  In fact, the "re-inventing
government" movement provides just such a cost/benefit approach to the
analysis of public spending.  Libertarians would do well to learn more
about it. 

>
>	It might be possible to pass an amendment which would prevent
>any liscensing laws from being valid,  assuming you could convince people that
>it would overall be a good idea.  Eliminating the liscensing laws which
>serve no good purpose (the vast majority of them) while maintaining the
>worthwhile ones (assuming there are any) is not  feasible.

Sorry, but it strikes me that it is the only "feasible" approach.  What is
not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and 
licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent
tasks.

>
>:I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education, 
>:national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
>:a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
>:than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
>:exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile 
>:analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.  
>: 
>:jsh
>
>I note that the above examples tend to be among the few government areas 
>likely to win some approval among libertarians anyway.  

Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as 
generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense.
(It is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to
be to a principle of non-coercion, the only areas of public spending
that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns....hmmm...)

>The most objectionable government expenditures are entitlements,  which
>also are the biggest.  Certain individuals will suggest that these should be
>considered defense on the grounds that they are a sort of Danegeld to
>would-be revolutionaries,  but I personally don't feel we have much to fear
>from an alliance of geezers and unwed mothers.  Maybe I've led too
>sheltered a life.

Perhaps you have.  May I suggest that you consider that revolutionaries
frequently generate support by acting as protectors of "geezers," 
mothers and children.  Governments that ignore such people on the grounds
that "we don't have much to fear" from them do so at their own peril.

jsh
>
>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178417
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Propaganda Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5otox.BJI@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <VEAL.740.735074621@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>In article <C5n4wH.Izv@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>|>>
>|>       Or are they simply propogranda?  We can't know what Phill *really*
>|>means because he's obviously using arguments designed to convince.
>
>I make no secret of what I am up to, I have stated explicitly in posts
>that I am a political propagandist on numerous occasions. Anyone posting
>to this group who is not probably has the wrong group.
>
>For example I have on numerous occasions stated quite clearly that I
>beleive that certain factions of the gun lobby are the worst possible
>advocates of their cause and I am prepared to do anything in my power
>to provide them with a platform because they can convince people far
>better than I could hope that many people with a fixation on lethal
>weapons are dangerous and derranged. 

       If you happen to know a political position which does not
have people advocating it who do more harm than good, please point it
out.
       
>Some people have even accused me of inventing such advocates purely 
>for the purpose of having them trash a set of political views. In 
>fact this would be a futile tactic because I could never hope to
>invent a character as dangerous as sybok.athena.edu, a man who I
>quite seriously believe to be mentaly ill and a potential psychopath.
>Unfortunately the local sherifs office have informed me that they
>are unable to act untill he attacks someone.

       One of the advantages and draw-backs of requiring proof
on the part of the government before they may take action against
citizens.  (and part of the reason some of us believe weapons should
be available.)

>So if you were to ask me what is the point that I am trying to make
>from this current argument on the absolute sanctity of the US 
>constitution what would I answer?

       We are not arguing the absolute sanctity of the U.S.
Constitution.  In fact, the fillibuster we're talking about isn't
*in* the Constitution.  I objected to your suggestion that the Senate
wasn't intended to exercise the power it was clearly given.

>Firstly I see that the current US political scene like the UK political
>scene has become tied to special interests. Rather than chase the
>convenient caricatures put about by the media and polititians themselves
>for this - Gay rights cmapaigners, environmentalists, zionists (i.e.
>Jews), "foreign lobbyists" - whatever voting power they have etc. I
>sugest that you look at who is really benefiting. The inevitable conclusion
>is that it is the major corporations owned by the ultra-wealthy that
>have benefited. Regan and Bush created what can only be described as a
>welfare state for the rich. 

       I'll point out again that Reagan only had a Republican Majority
in the Senate during his first term, and his coalition in the House
came apart at about the same time.  Bush never had any real support in
Congress.

       The real point is that everybody, *everywhere* got their pork,
from the big corporations to the guy I saw last night leaving a
convenience store with an armful of junk-food he'd bought with
food stamps.  (He spent more in food stamps on junk than I *make* in a week
and I'm not on government assitance.)

>Money was diverted from programs addressing
>social needs and poured into the weapons industry in the form of cost
>plus profits contracts. 

       Lessee, let's pull out the old Almanac.

       In 1980, total U.S. government budget outlays were 590.9 billion
dollars.  In 1992 (est) they were 1.4754 trillion dollars, an increase of
approx. 884 billion dollars.

       In 1980, National Defense cost 133.9 billion dollars.  In
192 it was 307 billion dollars, and increase of 174 billion dollars.
That leaves an increase of 710 billion dollars unaccounted
for.  (This represented an increase of 230%)

       In 1980, Income Security (which includes retirement programs,
Housing Assitance, and unemployment benefits, and I believe welfare)
cost 86.5 billion dollars.  In 1992 it was 198 billion dollars, or
more than national defense started.  (This represented an increase
of 230%)

       In 1980, the Federal Government spent 32 billion dollars on
Medicare.  In 1992 they spent 118 billion dollars.  (an increase of
368%)

       In 1980, the Feds spent 9 billion dollars on housing
credits and subsidies of that like.  In 1992 it was 87 billion.

       In 1980, Health care services and research was 23 billion
dollars.  In 1992, it was 94 billion dollars.

       Agriculture, up 9 billion to 17 billion.

       Science, up 11 billion to 16 billion.

       Resource conservation up 7 billion to 20 billion.

       Education up 14 billion to 45 billion.

       Veteran benefits up 12 billion to 33 billion.

       Trasnportation up 13 billion to 34 billion.
     
       About the only things I see which was seriously decreased was under 
the Energy category, primarily under "Supply," and "Community Development,"
in the area of "disaster relief," and between the two of them
represent a loss of less than 11 billion dollars.

       Where *was* this huge diversion?

>In order to rectify this situation there must
>be constitutional revision.

       Not that's a stretch.  If the current government was pushed by
the President to create this mess, wouldn't one expect it to begin to
equalize once the pressure is gone?

>Secondly the form of this revision must take account of the changed 
>circumsatnces of the role of the Federal government. 

       Only assuming that the new role is a positive role we want
to continue. I see very little positive about it.

>The constitution
>cannot be used to frustrate the democratic process. 

       The Constitution was *designed* to frustrate the democratic
process, so that the voters could be absolutely sure they were getting
what they wanted by the time it happened.  Nor do I see putting the
brakes on the "democratic process" an inherently bad thing.  Califronia's
riding the edge and every time they pull their ballot initiative nonsense
it gets worse.

>If the peoplr want
>to have welfare spending by the federal government they will have
>it.

       Sometimes, or perhaps most of the time, the people should be
told, "no," and pointed to their local government.       

>Attempting to prevent this through constitutional trickery only
>leads to the constitution being brought into disrepute. 

       Phill, would you do me the very great favor of repeating that
in talk.politics.guns?

>Methods will
>always be found to bypass such provisions and once the government gets
>used to bypassing those provisions they will bypass the others up to 
>the first ammendment. 

       Cute.  We can eliminate violations of the law by eliminating
the law.

>This is a major reason why the right to own 
>guns should be excluded, the implication that this right is equal to
>the right to free speech is dangerous. 

       Free speech alone is dangerous, Phill.

>People know that mass ownership
>of lethal weapons causes thousands of murders a year, the dangerous
>conclusion they may reach is that the first ammendment may also be
>the same dangerous mistake. 

       OK, Phill.  All you gotta show me is a clear pattern of
*reduction* in homicide rates across several countries and that'll
be it.  (Not current, mind, you, reduction.)

>Note however that this is not the slippery
>slope argument. It is because the right freedom of speech has been
>chained to the privilege to own weaponry that the danger arises. The
>advocates of this pivilege must not be allowed to chain freedom of
>speech to their cause such that if they fall freedom of speech falls
>as well. Such actions are not the actions of people genuinely interested
>in freedom.


        Who's chaining anything to freedom of speech?  By *calling*
it a freedom?  

>Thirdly and most importantly I want to discover a mechanism wherby I can
>engender intellectual debate as opposed to totemic debate. I consider
>the grave threat to civilisation to be the loss of the ability to
>reason about the political debate at anything other than the superficial
>level. The objection I raise to your basing your case entirely on the
>assertion of the supremacy of the US constitution is that the currency
>of your argument is limited to the currency of the totem upon which it
>is based. The danger of totems is that they can be reinterpreted in
>different ways by different people. 

       Phill, you're a master of subtly changing the subject.  I haven't
*based* my argument against raw democracy on the Constitution.  I've
tried to explain why it isn't a good idea.  The only time I've referred
to the Constitution is to point out it doesn't contain the restrictions
on the veto and the Senate you appear to believe were "meant," but
just didn't make it in there.
     
       The Constitution doesn't *contain* the 41% fillibuster rule.
I only believe that the rule is a good idea.  You cn't dismiss that
as venerating the Constitution because it isn't *in* the Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178418
From: alaramor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron C Laramore)
Subject: Re: race and violence

Joe,

     As usual, this issue of dysfunction, of bad values, of messed up culture 
is easily embraced by non african americans when it comes to explaining
problems in our community. From your post, you apparently find the idea that
something is wrong with African Americans, value-wise, culture wise or
something, very appealing. I never cease to be amazed at how eager non african
americans are to embrace theories about our problems which basically assert
that something is wrong with us. The socio-economic factors which we know help 
to produce high crime levels, like poverty, which exists among us in large 
proportion, I mean when it comes to discussion of african american problems, we
somehow become exempt from all these types of factors, and the problem is 
laid at the doorstep of some neboulous dysfunction we supposedly have. But 
nobody attributes crime amongst white americans to dysfunction. No, that has 
socioeconomic factors to it, but for africa americans, its gotta be a 
dysfunction.

Basically, I think this tendency for non african americans to believe that
something is wrong with us exists because non african americans don't want to
deal with the possiblility that the society is deeply biased against african
americans, and that this is about 80% of the problem. It could not possible be
that the society is so deeply racist and structured against us, that this has
a very effective negative effect on us. No, something is wrong with us.
Non african americans are quick to disregard what we have to say, because they 
are so busy trying to find something wrong with us, instead of taking a good 
hard look at the thing we say are doing us damage. I would get angry if it 
werent' so damn typical.

Peace - Aaron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178419
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
> 
:Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government
:power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the 
:interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using 
:government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little 
:conundrum...
> 
	Without having a complete answer to this question,  I should think
it obvious that the first step should be to convince people this would be
a desirable result.  There are still quite a lot of people who feel that
the command economies of eastern Europe failed due to corruption rather than
essential weaknesses of caommand economies,  and you still have a majority
in this nation that favors keeping unenforced and unenforcible laws on
the books in order to "send a signal".


:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
:that never seems to occur?...


I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant
combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also,
they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable
society anyway. 


>>..."regulation" is such a vauge word...  
> 
:I wouldn't call it "vague."  I'd call it elastic.  All "regulation" is 
:not necessarily the same.  By opposing all government regulation, some 
:libertarians treat every system from a command economy to those that
:regulate relatively free markets as identical.  That's one reason
:many of the rest of us find their analysis to be simplistic. 
> 

Umm, is there any distinction between "vague" and "elastic" in this
context aside from one having a more positive connotation than the other?

At any rate,  we've been through all this before.

:Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
:"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
: the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Incidentally,  this is a libertarian newsgroup,  you can get away with
saying,  "bullshit" here.   You're welcome,


Mr. Grinch

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178420
From: dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu (Douglas Young)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <philC5Ls4A.MEA@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <612@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russ) writes:
>    >In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
>    >Ronzone) writes:
>    >
>    >>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the
>    >>Religious Left.
>    >>
>    >Not at all. I am not a member of the Religious Left, Right,
>    >or even Center. In fact I don't consider myself very
>    >religious at all [ this will probably result in flames now :)
>    >]. In fact Phil, you should leave religion out of it. It just
>    >clouds the issue.
>
>The religous left worships trees, rivers, the planet, and hates people.

And the religious right worships engines, smokestacks, landfills,
and hates people.

What does this name-calling have to do with anything you are claiming about
the truth of environmental disaster?  Nothing that I have read in this
thread, nor heard from anyone I have talked to, would suggest to me that 
people fit the definition you give of the religious left.  Come off it, Phil.
A prime motivation for protecting our environment is so that we, 
people, can continue to live in it healthily.  We just disagree on what
is necessary to maintaining a healthy environment FOR PEOPLE.

>    >>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them
>    >>aren't. And the natural disasters we have had individually
>    >>far outweigh the man-made ones.

      [Russ's response deleted to save space]

>I guess you missed the newspaper articles this week about Exxon presenting
>evidnce (through the ASTM) on the issue of the Valdez incident. Seems
>that Valdez is mostly recovered, despite the Religious Left's cries of
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"hundreds of years".

What!? They have already repaired that old hulk!!!?  WOW!!! ;-)

I suppose you *mean* the Alaskan shores that were devastated by the
Valdez accident?  I haven't seen the articles.  What do they say exactly?
Has [mostly] all the ocean and shore life returned?  The sands are [mostly]
as clean as they were before?  The microbial samples are [mostly] back to 
a normal balance? The fish and fowl populations have [mostly] returned?  What?

>Then again, the Relgious Left claimed it would take 20 yearsb to put out
>the Kuwait oil fires...
[...]
>                          You should face the facts. Love Canal
>was not, and is  not, an environmental disaster, nor even a problem.
>
>Nor is Times Beach and TMI and acid rain killing trees and ....

Not a problem?  Would you move to Three Mile Island?  I would imagine 
there is some cheap property available!  

The naturally occurring catastrophic events [disasters] that destroy 
property (ie: hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes) do not usually leave 
toxic wastes that prevent people from re-building their lives there.  
The man-made disasters (oil spills, toxic dumping, radioactive waste 
dispersions) cause death and make an area unliveable far beyond the 
initial event.

>-- 
>There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
>environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)


-- 
---)----------                                                ----------(---
   Douglas Young         (dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu)  
   I don't know why, but I seem to expect a serious discussion on the net.
---)----------                                                ----------(---

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178422
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5ovFr.C0u@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <VEAL.740.735074621@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>>|>       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
>|>>|>we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
>|>>|>(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
>|>>|>greater power than did the American system).       
>|>>
>|>>In principle no, in practice yes. 
>|>
>|>        In principle no?  That they had less power of that they should have
>|>had less power?
>
>The British parliament in principle has absolute power. So does the Monarch.
>Much of the stability of the system rests on what is not defined clearly.
>In the case of a clear abuse by one side or the other the other side
>can act to remedy the situation.

      Two institutions with absolute power.  Cute.

      Let's talk practicality, shall we?  If the Monarch tried to
do something, what would happen?
  
>|>>If they were to start from a social welfare model instead of the current 
>|>>"no state subsidy motto" they would be better placed. As it is there is
>|>>plenty of state money being handed out. The problem is that it is
>|>>distributed on the basis of power in congress and not on the basis of
>|>>actual need. 
>|>
>|>       Bingo.  The higher up the governmental ladder the less actual
>|>need matters, because political power can be concentrated at higher
>|>levels, while people with less cloud only find themselves reduced to
>|>in effectiveness.
>
>That was not my point. 

       But you illustrated the problem very well.

>|>>In order to set up a school project in New York state you have to pay off the
>|>>other 49 states with pork - defense contracts, agricultural subsidies etc.
>|>>Or to be precise 30 of the states since you need 60 to beat the filibuster.
>|>
>|>       Then why not simply leave New York's education to New York?  I
>|>remain unconcinved that there is any state in the Union which is not capable
>|>of educating its own children if that's what they want to do.  
>
>The point is of redistribution of cash from the poor areas of the ecconomy
>to the rich ones. 

       I am contending that there is no state in the Union which does
not have ample wealth, if they choose to spend it, to run a perfectly
acceptable Education system.  (I further contend that the amount of money
being spent now is more then sufficient, but is being spent badly.)

>Or vice versa if you aren't a Republican. 

       So, tell me Phill.  Were the Republicans also responsible for some
of the *huge* increases in social programs?  Or were they *only* 
responsible for what you don't like.  (I contend it is Congress which
is to blame.  Democrat and Republican alike.)

>If society
>simply writes off any areas of the country that is ecconomically weak you
>end up with a basket case ecconomy. There are inevitable cycles in any
>business. Some of these act in phase to produce the "business cycle".
>Others are countercyclic. Localities can experience boom to bust cycles
>outside the national trend. To produce a strong ecconomy you need to
>ensure that the bust areas do not fall bellow the level where they
>cannot be ecconomically rebuilt. 

       Most of our worst areas are still better off than most of Europe.
In any case, we're talking about *education*.  

>If the industry in an area collapses
>the US as a whole still has a responsibility to ensure that the children
>in that area get a good education. In some areas of the US schools are closing
>halfway through the year for lack of money.

       Yes, I live in once such area.  You're woefully ignorant of the
situation.

       At the same time some of Tennessee's school districts are closing
down, the Governor asked for 7.5 million dollars for bicentenntial
celebration license plats.  In almost the same breath he wanted to raise
unemployment compensation and reduce taxes which paid into it.
 
       I don't know about the rest of the country, but *our* education
problems stem directly from two problems, neither of which are a lack
of money in the state.  (BTW, Tennessee is considered a "tax heaven"
and our economy is one of the strongest in the country.  *I* see
a correlation.)  1)  What money we spend goes primarly to administration.
The average administrator makes two and a half times what the average
teacher makes, and sucks up an enormous amount of revenue.  And 2)
the Governor is making a concerted effort to create an "Education crisis"
in order to push for his pet income tax.  Some of the most idiotic
programs get funded (like State funds for new art in the county seat)
while schools are closing.  It's not a lack of funds.  It's an
unwillingness to spend them on what is more appropriate.  Education
is *the* parental hot-button.  Education is *always* the first to
but cut, because it's easier to get people to pay for their children
than ugly art.

>|>       The U.S. Constitution is a nuts-and-bolts document.  The Delcaration
>|>of Independence was the high-brow reasoning.  (There are a couple of other
>|>examples, though, such as the reasoning for the power to tax, and the
>|>reasoning for the power to grant permits, both in Article I, Section 8.)
>
>The Declaration on independence cam a decade earlier and has not a line
>of justification for the US constitution. You could argue that it went
>into the broad concepts but little more. 

      It spoke very eloquently on government being based on the
consent of the governed.  

>In fact it is little more than
>a protracted whinge. More to do with the price of tea than the design of 
>a government. It would be a pretty daft idea for a bunch of guys to
>sit arround designing the structure of the new government while the little
>matter of the British army remained to be settled. 

      They did it anyway.  The Continental Congress had its own set of
bylaws.  It wasn't quite a government, but a means of making decisions
had to be created.  (However low George Washington's opinion of them were.)

>|>       To a certain extend I do believe the veto has become something
>|>it wasn't intended.  However, I also believe it is inevitable considering
>|>the Congress' own abuse of their power to make bills say whatever they
>|>want them to say.  Unlike most people I think we shouldn't be worrying
>|>about the veto, which is fine, but of the problem in Congress which
>|>almost necessitates its abuse.
>
>The Congress is the most democratic body in the whole system. 

      Allow me again to speak heresy against the Holy Democratic Orders.
So what?  The government was built with a very non-democratic Presidency
with fairly broad powers, including the veto.

>It has not only
>the fairest system of election but the two year term means that the
>members have always got a recent mandate.

      Yes, and the Senate was intended to act as a balance to this.
Too much democracy was intentionally avoided.  It was considered a good
thing to place non-democratic blocks to impulsive action.

>On the other hand if the period of election were to be made 4 years in
>antiphase to the Presidential cycle there would be much less dependence
>on fund raising from special interests than there is at present.

      So long as Congress has something to sell, people will pay for
it.  Most congressmen rake in more money than they need.

>|>       Why not?  What is inherently wrong with biasing the system
>|>against action?  Historically governemnt action in the U.S. when
>|>dealing with issues with a bare minority and a large minority have
>|>not been successful.  When you're in a position of imposing federal
>|>power on diverse people, why should the federal government not have to
>|>got through something more than a bare majority
>
>In other words David thinks that the reactionaries should need only 41
>votes while progressives should need 61.

       No, if the "progressives" don't want the "reactionaries" to move
backward, they get the same benefit.  41% of the states is a *lot* of
people.  And historically laws with that sort of minority arent'
very effective, especially since it is usually geographically
concentrated.
       When wielding the Federal Big Stick I don't see why they shouldn't
have to make a better argument than, "more people than not," agree.
       
>Now we know why nobody calls the Republicans democrats.

       I'm not a Republican.  I'm a republican.  :-)
       
       And no, I'm neither a Democrat nor a democrat.
       
       Now, I've asked several times, and all you've done is answer
"It isn't democratic," which I knew before I said it.  Why *should*
it be democratic?  We don't have a true direct democracy, and few
people advocate one.  Why, then, is this other modification of
democracy to bias it against action so much worse?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178423
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Diplomat License Plates

In article <1993Apr13.123404.18191@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
|
|Automobiles belonging to personnel associated with the embassies from various
|nations have diplomatic license plates.  They are red, white, and blue and
|read DLL #### where "L" is a letter and the #'s are numbers.  The "D" means
>diplomatic and the "L"s indicate which country.  A few years ago the

actually,  teh D means the registered driver has diplomatic immunity.
That means they can do as they damn well please on the roads, and you
have only God as your protection.   

The state Department Issues Saa-XXX  plates for personnel  who work
at the embassies but haven't been granted  immunity.  Most embassies
have restricted parking for embassy personell  street side.  

The S plates allow them to use  those parking areas as well as the
restricted lots at National and State dept,  without a lot of crap.

pat



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178425
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

In article <1993Apr18.001116.19872@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.
> 
>Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then why do we really need national health insurance then? Wouldn't it just make
more sense to find some way to cut down on the cost of malpractice insurance?

And maybe that's not such a good thing. I also read somewhere that it is next to
impossible in Canada to litigate against the health system-class action suits
are nearly impossible, and you can't sue the provincial health officials at all.

> 
>Part of the deal for using the all-insurance approach like the French
>and Germans do (hey, why don't they criticize France and Germany?  Is
>it because too many people take French and German in college to make
>the accusations stick? (-;) was to preserve the doctors independance.
>Since the provincial wings of the CMA are the ones that go to bat when
>the fee schedule hikes are presented, the politically-bent doctors
>were just cackling when they realized the CMA would grow in strength
>rather than diminish, especially when unopposed unlike in socialized
>medicine approaches like Britain's National Health Service.

Oh no. Don't let the AMA know about this. They have enough power as it is. Ask
most Americans whether they'd like the doctors' lobby to get more powerful.

>For non-life threatening things, market arguments adequately cover why
>certain procedures are in scarcer demand.  I have MD friends who can't
>make a living as specialists back in Manitoba not due to the insurance
>rates but because they won't get enough customers -- the CMA medical
>monopoly's grip on doctors licencing (as in the US) aside -- so they
>must move to larger places.  However, this does not refute debunking
>of waiting lines for urgent AND routine care, as has been done in the
>U.S. by Consumers Reports, health policy studies cited by Prof. Dennis
>E. Shea on USENET, CNN, NYT, etc.

Well, yeah, tell us about the National Defense Medical Centre outside Ottawa.
Theoretically it's limited to service personnel, but some studies I've heard
about have suggested that about half the patients there are civilians who not
only have connections but aren't "urgent" at all.

The problem is, in a system where hospitals' annual budgets are approved by the
government, how do you keep political considerations out of medical decisions?
I bet that if you're an MP or MPP, or good friends with one, you're put on any
hospital's "urgent" care list no matter how minor your problem. Which is OK 
unless you're someone who gets bumped off the list for some bigshot.

>>WOULDN'T NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MEAN THAT AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW  
>>FULLY INSURED MIGHT HAVE TO SETTLE FOR LESS?  
>>
>>In Canada, provincial insurance covers all health costs except dental  
>>care, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, ambulance service, and private  
>>hospital rooms, -- so many Canadians do end up buying some private  
>>insurance. A policy to cover all of these things runs about #40 to $40  
>>a month.  

Hmm. How much difference would it make in the figure of percentage of GNP spent
on health care if dentistry and optometry were included in the accounting? 
Maybe Canada spends proportionately just as much on health care as we do.

> 
>Of course, the one thing to note is that in the Canada/France/Germany
>case, private insurance *offloaded* the basic coverage to the public
>sector.  They realized they were keeping low-risk/high-profit extra
>insurance for things like private/semi-private rooms (vs. ward
>accomodation), dental, glasses, etc. for corporate or personal
>benefits, they'll have nothing to do with you if you want to be
>covered for basic care.
> 
>At that point, they wouldn't even consider a "voucher" approach
>to broker the universal coverage and sell policies to make up
>the difference in the federal guidelines and market stuff.

So what happens if the health care systems financially collapse. Bob Rae, the
second least popular man in Ontario, warned Ontarians a few years ago that if
they didn't stop cross-border shopping in such huge numbers, "the services they
expect from the province just won't be there in a few years" (Fortunately for
them (and less fortunately for the retailers here in Western New York) the 
Canadian dollar went back to a more realistic value). He didn't say so, but I
knew he meant the OHIP. What would happen if his warning turned out to be the 
truth? Would the private insurers take up the slack? They'd be under no 
obligation to. Of course, they could eventually make money again, but if what
you say is true, they'd be loathe to do so (and out of practice in handling 
such basic services, too).

> 
>>******************************************************************  
>>
>>WOULDN'T FREE CARE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO RUN TO THE DOCTOR FOR EVERY  
>>ACHE AND PAIN?  
>>
>>People who get free treatment *do* go to the doctor and hospital about  
>>a third more often than those who have to pay a share of their medical  
>>bills.  
>>
>>Still, Canadians -- who pay nothing at the doctor's -- have a lower  
>>per-person health bill than we do.
> 
>It is "free" in that there are no deductibles nor copayments (two
>things which I advocate to make the Canadian insurance look more like
>real health insurance -- which actually it is).  I know that when
>working in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, I was aware that I was paying
>for health insurance - e.g., in Toronto, OHIP fees were listed on my
>pay stub; Manitoba did not collect at paycheque time, but only
>annually at income tax time (built into the tax rate).  Only fiscal
>naifs will proclaim that it's free, along with the Canadian Left for
>that is part of their brainwashing agenda.

Would that it were free. Americans would start another revolution if they had
to pay taxes at Canadian rates.

>>ISN'T THE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY JUST TOO BIG  
>>AND POWERFUL TO KILL?  
>>
>>Dismantling the health segment of our insurance industry would be  
>>"politically thorny," in the quiet words of one advocate for a  
>>national plan. Some 1,200 firms now sell more than $192 billion in  
>>health insurance. They'd put up a hard fight. Not only has the industry  
>>grown eightfold since Canada shut down its own health insurers, but 
>>our government leaves politicians more open to lobbyists than does  
>>Canada's parliamentary system.
> 
>Health insurance does exist in Canada and in Western Europe, its
>just that it doesn't cover basic care.  You can opt out in Canada
>and Germany, but you'll have to go uninsured as a result because
>there are too few other people that do so --- i.e., no market.
> 
>When private insurance realized how much money they'd make without the
>risks involved in basic insurance (e.g., neurosurgery) versus deluxe
>amenities (e.g., having to call Granada TV to replace a rental set on
>the fritz in someone's private hospital room), they started to pat
>themselves on the back for their social responsibility.  In Quebec
>last spring, a consortium of private insurers publicly warned against
>any thoughts of privatizing routine, low cost parts of that province's
>public health insurance plan.

Again, I doubt Americans would like giving the insurance companies that much
power. I half wonder if the Canadian health insurers didn't go along with the
provinces and the federal government years ago because they knew that there was
a good chance of the public system going bust in the long run, and then 
afterwards they could clean up (Okay, this sort of contradicts what I said
higher up. But it's another possibility). They'd have an added bonus when 
arguing against government involvement in their industry-as they could then 
point to its failure instead of just citing theoretical principles.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178427
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu writes:
: In article <1993Apr15.215747.17331@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
: >The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
: >draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
: >and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
: >with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
: >on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
: >Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
: >Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
: >Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
: >
: >
: >  - Dave Borden
: >    borden@m5.harvard.edu
: 
: 
: You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice somthing
: for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ? To bad.
: What is immoral is: people like you and the current president who don't
: have any idea why this country still exists after 200+ years.
					
					This country still exists after 200+ years
					because the 
					people have to be forced by the government to
					fight in foreign wars?
					I don't think so...
					
					Bill
					.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178428
From: mdouglas@netcom.com (Hokh'Ton)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In <1qqfam$ogh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:


>In a previous article, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) says:

>>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>
>>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>>       How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>
>>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>>
>>     I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
>>different news groups, including something along the lines of alt.discrimination  Look Rodney King is black and large.  I have several large black male friends,and they are referred to as being large black men ( to their faces, and by
>>themselves ).  You know, Ted, I have a large number of adjectives for you,
>>but I will spare you most of them because I try not to get into personal
>>flame wars.  Let me just say that I think your action of cross posting this
>>was total BS, and you're trying to start some crap.  Hopefully, others will
>>see through your trite little game and not play along.  

>      You still haven't addressed Ted's statement.  We're waiting.

	Yeah, I'm also curious as to why you felt compelled to remind us of the
guy's race. BTW, I don't mean to imply that you're clueless or anything, but
the statement was *hardly* "benign". 
-- 




	Hokh'Ton	:	The Crystal Wind is the Storm,
  mdouglas@netcom.com	:	 and the Storm is Data,
Michael Douglas-Llyr	:	  and the Data is Life.
			:		---Player's Litany (The Long Run)
	


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178429
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

In article <1993Apr13.210503.11099@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) writes:
>I didn't see your post so I can't comment on it. My $.02 on high
>speed rail is, I like it. I like it alot. It would be too bad to
>see it tainted by corruption. that's all.

The speed limit on commuter tracks in the northeast is 120MPH.  We
already have something that resembles high speed rail in this
country and it requires massive government subsidies.  We don't need
another government boondoggle.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
  Look up "Ponzi Scheme" in a good dictionary - it will have a picture of Joe
  Liberal Handout right next to it.  Stop federal spending.  Cut the deficit.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178430
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you

In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
>
>
>In article <1993Mar24.235606.15959@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>Ouch, now that really hurts.  I'm being accused of no breadth nor depth
>to my historical knowledge because I'm unwilling to agree that economic
>inequality leads to poverty and from there to "social and political
>instability".  You go read your history again.  POVERTY is the main
>engine of social instability (in this context, we'll put aside religious
>turmoil, mass migrations, etc.).  

Well, the fact of the matter is that poverty is imperfectly related to 
social and political instability, while economic inequality is much more
strongly related.  In virtually all major revolutions including
England (the Puritan revolution), France, Russia and China, the 
revolutions occurred as economies were undergoing substantial long term 
growth and poverty was declining.  What sets off revolutions is massive
inequality coupled with a perception on the part of those at the bottom
that social change is possible.

If "poverty (were) the main engine of social instability," this typical
historical pattern would not hold.  In fact, revolutions would have been
far more typical before the nineteenth century than since that time.

[Much deleted...]

>|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to...
>|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
>|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I
>|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.
>
>You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your
>own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted
>but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not
>a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That 
>poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages 
>in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who
>think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you
>really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting
>the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?

Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general
welfare" in another portion of the constitution.

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL
WELFARE of the United States..."

I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they
said in the preamble.

>Just to make sure you've got the point, let's do a little experiment.  What
>if the constitution read as follows?
>
>Preamble: We the people, to promote the general Welfare, do ordain
>          and establish this Constitution for the United States of
>          America.
>
>Constitution:  The Federal Government shall have one function and one
>               function only - to provide for the defense of the nation.
>

But as noted above, the constitution doesn't say that, does it?

>The government would not then have two functions: defense and Welfare.  

But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense
in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional
functions.  Right?

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178431
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr17.145045.12449@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>: In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>: 
>: It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>: reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  
>
>...Society would collapse if most people were evil most of the time."
>			-- David Bergland
Agreed.
>
>"If people are basically evil, the last thing you'd want is a big
>government staffed by those evil folks exercising control over you."
>			-- David Bergland
Agreed.

>"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
>leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Agreed.

>: The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those
>: who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe
>: government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and
>: those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical 
>: grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.
>
>Good summary...  Selling your labor or goods so that you can eat 
>and buy a house is essential so that you can excercise your 
>personal freedoms.
>-- 
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President

And this demonstrates, I assume, that you're a liberal. :-).
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178432
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <18APR199314034390@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>> 
>:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
>:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
>:that never seems to occur?...
>
>
>I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant
>combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also,
>they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable
>society anyway. 

And the reason that the Soviet Union couldn't achieve the ideal of pure
communism was the hostility of surrounding capitalist nations...Uh huh.
Somehow, this all sounds familiar.  Once again, utopian dreams are 
confronted by the real world...

>
>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178433
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.
>> 
>>Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>And maybe that's not such a good thing. I also read somewhere that
>it is next to impossible in Canada to litigate against the health 
>system-class action suits are nearly impossible, and you can't sue
>the provincial health officials at all.

Since our doctors are private and the "system" is just an insurance
plan, litigation would not involve the insurance fund.  Our lawyers
do not work on contingency, so that if you were to sue for malpractice
then you'd better be sure of winning to cover your fees ... likewise,
if you were a doctor and subject of a suit, it's time to sweat.

>>Since the provincial wings of the CMA are the ones that go to bat when
>>the fee schedule hikes are presented, the politically-bent doctors
>>were just cackling when they realized the CMA would grow in strength
>>rather than diminish, especially when unopposed unlike in socialized
>>medicine approaches like Britain's National Health Service.
>
>Oh no. Don't let the AMA know about this. They have enough power as it 
>is. Ask most Americans whether they'd like the doctors' lobby to get 
>more powerful.

A few weeks ago, the president of the Canadian MA wrote a letter to
the NYT to decry a lobbyist's advert repeating the same old trash.
This is significant because the AMA and the CMA are interlinked
organizations and he would not have done it without the approval 
of his AMA cronies.

>Well, yeah, tell us about the National Defense Medical Centre outside
>Ottawa.  Theoretically it's limited to service personnel, but some
>studies I've heard about have suggested that about half the patients
>there are civilians who not only have connections but aren't "urgent"
>at all.

It serves the same purpose as the Bethesda Naval Hospital ... since
not all hospitals can provide everything, maybe they have some stuff
that others don't?  (Ottawa's population is only a quarter million,
if you include the surrounding counties.)

>The problem is, in a system where hospitals' annual budgets are
>>approved by the government, how do you keep political considerations
>out of medical decisions?  I bet that if you're an MP or MPP, or good
>friends with one, you're put on any hospital's "urgent" care list no
>matter how minor your problem. Which is OK unless you're someone who
>gets bumped off the list for some bigshot.

People of influence will get their way in any system, American or
European.  It's the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the
rules. (-;

As for annual budgets, those are actually annual grants for facilities
(e.g., mops, pans, etc.) given to hospitals of which most are private
nonprofit foundations (btw, I have no problem with having aggressive
for-profit hospitals like the French, who use our approach ... but in
the Paris region they have almost as many people as Canada does so
their market is much more diverse).  The rest has to be made up for
by billings from patients who use their services.

>>>WOULDN'T NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MEAN THAT AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW  
>>>FULLY INSURED MIGHT HAVE TO SETTLE FOR LESS?  
>>>
>>>In Canada, provincial insurance covers all health costs except dental  
>>>care, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, ambulance service, and private  
>>>hospital rooms, -- so many Canadians do end up buying some private  
>>>insurance. A policy to cover all of these things runs about #40 to $40  
>>>a month.  
>
>Hmm. How much difference would it make in the figure of percentage 
>of GNP spent on health care if dentistry and optometry were included 
>in the accounting?   Maybe Canada spends proportionately just as much 
>on health care as we do.

The GDP figures are combined public and private expenditures for total
outlay, and  are compiled use the same methods by the OECD that yield 
the 13-14% figure for the U.S.

>So what happens if the health care systems financially collapse.

How?  They are collecting premiums ... and I'm an advocate of having
copayments like the French do in their system in order to make it look
more like the real insurance that it is.  The private doctors and 
hospitals will still be there after the insurance (hypothically)
disappears, as they were there before it appeared.

>Bob Rae, the second least popular man in Ontario, warned Ontarians a
>few years ago that if they didn't stop cross-border shopping in such
>huge numbers, "the services they expect from the province just won't
>be there in a few years"

For one thing, I think that Bob Rae is an idiot ...

>He didn't say so, but I knew he meant the OHIP.

Most of OHIP comes from separate premiums on your paycheck if you are
a player ...  he wants to spend our money on other things than the
health insurance.  Our high taxes are high for other spending but
health insurance, which is separate and optional, and it is being 
spent in a nonpartisan manner by every party. )-;

OHIP is just a health insurance plan; it does not provide any kind
of health care, that is up to you and your private doctors.

>Would the private insurers take up the slack? They'd be under no
>obligation to. Of course, they could eventually make money again, 
>but if what you say is true, they'd be loathe to do so (and out of
>practice in handling such basic services, too).

Some of the companies providing extra insurance are subsidiaries of
American companies, and their parents provide full insurance down
here.  Regardless, all firms up north can easily turn on cable TV
to see how well the American firms are doing by being involved in
basic coverage.  The private firms are making too much money after
having gotten rid of basic coverage.  They run around patting them-
selves on the back for their own cooperation in providing extras 
for those people who "deserve it".

>>When private insurance realized how much money they'd make without the
>>risks involved in basic insurance (e.g., neurosurgery) versus deluxe
>>amenities (e.g., having to call Granada TV to replace a rental set on
>>the fritz in someone's private hospital room), they started to pat
>>themselves on the back for their social responsibility.  In Quebec
>>last spring, a consortium of private insurers publicly warned against
>>any thoughts of privatizing routine, low cost parts of that province's
>>public health insurance plan.
>
>Again, I doubt Americans would like giving the insurance companies that
>much power. I half wonder if the Canadian health insurers didn't go 
>along with the provinces and the federal government years ago because
>they knew that there was a good chance of the public system going bust
>in the long run, and then afterwards they could clean up (Okay, this 
>sort of contradicts what I said higher up. But it's another possibility).
>They'd have an added bonus when arguing against government
>involvement in their industry-as they could then point to its failure
>instead of just citing theoretical principles.

I agree ... they were in a win-win situation.  But right now, it seems
that they have won bigger, when you look at how full their coffers
are.  Friends from my sisters' MBA class were still being flown out
for job interviews individually with insurance firms in London, ON,
(Canada's insurance capitol a la Hartford) along with generous expense
privileges this year despite the ongoing post-recession blues.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178434
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)


In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> In article <16APR199317110543@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
|> >In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
|> [.....]
|> Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government
|> power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the 
|> interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using 
|> government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little 
|> conundrum...


This is a difficult problem for which there is no obviously good
solution.  One approach is simply to try and move political opinion
and hope a new more libertarian consensus lasts for a while.  Another
approach is to try and amend the constitution.  The original
constitution restrained the U.S. government from economic intervention
for 100 to 150 years, depending on just how one wants to count it.
The First Amendment, though weakened in many ways, still restrains
government (particularly state and local), even though on many
particular issues the majority is in favor of censorship.  I think
libertarians would be happy with another 100 years of restraint via
an amendment or two (not that I think that's likely to happen).

Not necessarily Mr. Hendricks, but other posters seem to see this as
a problem with libertarianism, that it cannot be stable.  That might
be true, but it is not an objection to libertarianism per se.  If
a libertarian political consensus forms for a decade or two and then
falls apart again, we would just be back where we are now.  This is
unlike the case for socialism where a socialist consensus that held
for a while and then fell apart would not leave us where we are now,
but instead with lots of bureaucracy that would be hard to get rid of,
if not tyranny as the end condition of a strong socialist consensus.
-- 
Ervan Darnell                                        ervan@cs.rice.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178435
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Malpractice Not the Issue (Was Re: 8 MYTHS about National Health...)

In article <C5p0Hx.39E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.001116.19872@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees.
>> 
>>Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Then why do we really need national health insurance then? 
>Wouldn't it just make more sense to find some way to cut down 
>on the cost of malpractice insurance?

It would if malpractice and "defensive medicine" were the main
factors in explaining spiralling US health care costs, but they aren't.

Although Gary is correct in noting that malpractice-related problems are
greater in the US than Canada, they by no means account for the overall
difference in health care costs.  (They do account for a somewhat larger
portion of the difference in physicians' gross income in the two countries.)

Some facts.  Malpractice insurance and awards account for less than 1% of
total health care costs in the US.  In 1991, according to a survey of 
physicians conducted by a national medical journal physicians averaged
paying 3.7% of their practice receipts in malpractice insurance.  
Malpractice insurance premiums and malpractice awards peaked in 1985;
they've declined significantly since then.  At the same time, health
care costs have increased more than any period in history.

As far as "defensive medicine" is concerned, the AMA estimates that its
total impact is about $7 billion per year.  That's about 8% of the total
current INCREASE in health care costs -- and the estimate is from a group
that could be expected to overestimate the impacts of defensive medicine
on health care.

As small a problem as this is in the overall scheme of things, however,
Clinton has been on record for a long time favoring an indemnification
of MD's against malpractice suits if they follow procedures set by their
specialties.  This would eliminate most, if not all frivolous suits
while retaining the ability to sue for true malpractice.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178436
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <C5nH58.Hp4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>
>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>
>I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
>different news groups, including something along the lines of 
>alt.discrimination.  

Exsqueeze me?  I saw *your* original post in alt.discrimination.
Your post was cross-posted to three groups.  My followup was cross-posted
to two of those three (omitting soc.motss).

Now, instead of engaging in meta-discussion off the topic, could you answer 
the question posed?  If your statement is so "beign"(!?), you should have no
trouble politely responding to a polite query.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178438
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

OK Phil, you're right. So far the "evidence" suggests that Nixon was a victim
of overzealous underlings and Kennedy was a womanizing disgust-o-blob with
a dash of megalomania. After crushing the CIA and FBI who's to say Kennedy 
wouldn't have created his own version of American Friendly Fascism?

Unfortunately however, we don't have all the evidence. So far this nation's
citizens have been privy to about 12 hours of the total 4,000 hours of Nixon's
tapes. What's on the rest of those babies? Some archivists have alluded that
there is "evidence" to suggest that Nixon and his cronies, including George
Bush, were aware of the plot to murder Kennedy before he was shot in Dallas.

Ask your local D.A. what the charges are for the above crime.


And so I must ask you, Phil me putz, when all this shit finally comes out
when you and I are old men, I would appreciate the privilege of sticking a pole
up your ass and parading you down Main Street with a sign on your chest:

"I was an Apologist for the American Fascist Regime circa 1944 -- 2010"

(How's that for a lovely Brecht-ian image:-)


There, that ought to get a reaction. Unless I'm in his killfile this week...

								        MPA



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178439
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <15413@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>What they broke in the DNC for is still open to serious question.

Some tape archivists suggest what they were after had something to do with
the Kennedy assasination. Let's hear all of the tapes real soon, shall we?
 

									MPA



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178440
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE


Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.

	More "gridlock" talk from another relic of the past.  The
Selective Service system creates jobs and is an investment in 
the future of america......and whats wrong with that?

	We need jobs because at this point in the recovery, the economy
should have generated 10 billion jobs and since it has not, the
government has to step in and help.  Shutting down selective service
would cost "good jobs" and we can't do that.  

	What we really need is to involve selective service in a more
closely directed manner.  We need the selective service involved
in environmental protection, high-speed rail, commuter aircraft, 
civil rights, national service and health care.  Every dollar
we put into selective service now will get us $10 less spending
in future.

	I really believe now to think about it that selective service
is long-past due for the creation of a cabinet position.


	Your not beyond hope, just get back on america's side and
start doing your part for change.  What Bill needs from you
now is support for the economic stimulus and health care reform.
You need to devote all your energies to fighting gridlock and
supporting change.  Get on the team.  After all, the evil has
been banished from washington and the time for complaint 
is past being neccessary.

	And remember, Bill Clinton cares.  He may someday even have
a town meeting in your city.  If your an appropriate sort of 
person, if you phrase your questions properly and show the
proper respect and awe, you might have the chance to ask Mr,
President your question in person.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178443
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence

   I am glad that you recognize that people should not engage in denial
and repression, and should acknowledge such. The United States, with
its people, have recognized that repression has taken place, with the
loss and outright abrogation of civil liberties and constitutional
protections of citizens. This recognition has taken the form of the
civil rights law (let's just discuss the federal level for now), such
as 18 USC 241 et. seq., 42 USC 1981 et. seq, et. al.
   With this recognition of repression, at times manifested in the
form of collective guilt, I want people to recognize denial. 
Though it can be said that white people numerically commit more
crimes in the United States, because white people are a majority,
it can also be said that black people commit a disproportionate
amount of crime in the United States, in their relation to their
numbers in population.
   My views are out of experiences when I was a police officer
in a large metropolitan area, and of a citizen. Unless people
account for their behavior, and for the behavior of their immediate
community, nothing will improve.

Regards, 

Neal







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178445
From: hampton@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <2671@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>shapiro@sofbas.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>: 
>: Oh, and BTW, its William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
>
>No, it's not- and I really fail to understand the use of that name
>as an insult.  Do you feel that being adopted implies some sort of
>moral failing?

No, it's a sign of aristocrtic out-of-touchness with the middle
class.  You ask George Herbert Walker Bush about that.

And that's not his full name?  What, then, is it?

---
"Even Quayle had his honeymoon period.  It lasted a full 48 hours 
after he was chosen as Bush's running mate."

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik          | 
Vaporware Engineer 2nd class |    "This 'contribution' the President wants 
E-mail: hampton@ais.org      |     us to make... is it tax deductible?"
CompuServe: 71460,3602       |                             -- Larry Wright

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178446
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr18.200255.13012@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>In article <18APR199314034390@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>>> 
:>:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
:>:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
:>:that never seems to occur?...
:>
:>
:>I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant
:>combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also,
:>they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable
:>society anyway. 
: 
:And the reason that the Soviet Union couldn't achieve the ideal of pure
:communism was the hostility of surrounding capitalist nations...Uh huh.
:Somehow, this all sounds familiar.  Once again, utopian dreams are 
:confronted by the real world...
>Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   



Steve,  you're the one who suggested that a failed government should be an 
ideal proving ground,  I never felt that way in the first place.  Quite the 
contrary,  I think a better proving ground would be someplace that already
had a governemnt that would prevent outright acts of agression,  yet had a
strong spirit of individualism and initiative.  Someplace like... Texas :-)

Mr. Grinch  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178447
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <C5nH58.Hp4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>
>>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>>
>>I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several
>>different news groups, including something along the lines of 
>>alt.discrimination.  

>Exsqueeze me?  I saw *your* original post in alt.discrimination.
>Your post was cross-posted to three groups.  My followup was cross-posted
>to two of those three (omitting soc.motss).

>Now, instead of engaging in meta-discussion off the topic, could you answer 
>the question posed?  If your statement is so "beign"(!?), you should have no
>trouble politely responding to a polite query.

       Well, I don't think your query was exactly polite, but I will TRY to
give you a polite responce.  Something atypical of the net, but here it goes.

       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many
of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective      
is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about
the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that
Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this
ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a 
descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have
used it in the past.


      The entire second trial was about race, Ted.  I don't feel compelled to
discuss Mr. King's racial background, but had Mr. King been white there would
not have been a second trial.  You probably are saying that the beating would
not have occurred if he were white, but that is an extremely difficult call
to make.  It is possible the case, but not definately.  

      I still think your actions are crap, Ted.  They are far more divisive than
me using the adjective 'black' in a non-derogenory manner.  Would you have
been happier if I had used 'African-american' ?  If so, then you really are
lost in the world of PC.  You have already been instrumental in getting one
persons net access revoked, and I wonder if you have sent a copy of my 
message to my sys admin with a plea that I am not worthy of posting.

     The way you went about this 'polite' inquiry makes me believe it was 
anything but.
 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178448
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in facts?  Here's a few

Oops, I forgot to set read permission.  It's fixed now.

ftp netcom.com
login: anonymous
password: your@email.address
cd pub/mvp
binary
get clinton.zip

You need pkzip 2.x or the latest net.zip to un-"deflate" this.

Economic stats since Day One, plus all of the myriad ways Slick Willie
and the Gang of 535 are preparing to do it to us.  From Ron Brown's
desk, so any distortion is pro-Democrat, can you believe it?
-- 
Let's face it, when it comes to utilities,  Microsoft has | Mike Van Pelt
performed about as well as a savings and loan.  These are | mvp@netcom.com 
the guys,  remember,  who put BACKUP and RESTORE - not to | mvp@lsil.com     
mention EDLIN - on your hard disk.  - Lincoln Spector     +----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178449
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr18.174237.11229@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
> 
:I'm not sure why you don't consider it an option.  No one suggests that
:such analysis should be left to "regulators."  In fact, the "re-inventing
:government" movement provides just such a cost/benefit approach to the
:analysis of public spending.  Libertarians would do well to learn more
:about it. 



Okay,  let me try to explain this.

When one votes for such a creature as a Senator or,  worse yet,  a President,
one votes not for specific policies but for a general package which must cover
all issues for 4 or 6 years.  As such,  one's influence is highly diluted.
I might add that,  even if one were free to vote on individual regulations,
the vast amount of time required for considering a particular regulation,
combined with the very small chance of one's vote making a difference,  would
make it unreasonable to expect the voter to make an intelligent decision
with respect to specific regulations.     
> 
> 
:Sorry, but it strikes me that it is the only "feasible" approach.  What is
:not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and 
:licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent
:tasks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "feasible" in this case.  Do you mean that
[] are impossible in priciple,  or merely that it would be undesirable in
fact?


:Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as 
:generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense.

2 of the four you saw fit to  mention,  and education of minors is always
another possibility,  since minors are generally considered not to be
responsible to make their own decisions as adults are.

:(It is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to
:be to a principle of non-coercion, the only areas of public spending
:that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns....hmmm...)

You say this as if it were surprising,  yet in fact a necessary consequence
of libertarian philosophy.  All non-coersive functions should be dealt 
with privately,  therefore it follows that the only functions remaining to
the state are the coersive ones.

> 
:Perhaps you have.  May I suggest that you consider that revolutionaries
:frequently generate support by acting as protectors of "geezers," 
:mothers and children.  Governments that ignore such people on the grounds
:that "we don't have much to fear" from them do so at their own peril.

Much more likely it's drunken teenagers.  The groups in questionare more 
likely
to be worse off during and after a revolution than before.  In the unlikely
event that you missed my earlier sarcasm,  let me say this directly:
The idea that such programs as Social Security or AFDC should be considered
"defense" (an idea which has been advanced in ths and other newsgroups) is
so absurd a lie as to be unworthy of consideration.  Do you seriously
dispute this?


	I don't want to seem patronizing,  but you still seem to be laboring
under the delusion that under a socialized economic system it is reasonably
intelligent and honest persons (like yourself) who make the decisions.
I feel any third party added to a transaction is every bit as likely to be
ignorant or corrupt as the buyer or seller.  I don't expect you to agree
with me,  but you explain why you feel I'm wrong?


Mr. Grinch

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178450
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <1qp5juINNgu5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> In article <1993Apr14.135948.3024@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, 
> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) said:
> 
>> A good case? A F**KING GOOD CASE? The defense lawyer asked the victim
>> questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate
>> in?"  and you think he made a good case?????
> 
> Speaking as someone who's only about six weeks and a $6,900 tuition bill
> away from becoming an unemployed slob with a law degree, I'd really like
> to see a transcript of this trial.  I'd especially like to know what
> happened immediately after the defense attorney asked that question
> (assuming that the reports that he did so are accurate... I'm not
> accusing Tom Farrell of making anything up, but this _is_ the sort of
> case that spawns garbled misquotes, false rumors and urban legends like
> tribbles).  It'd be nice to think that the prosecutor objected
> (irrelevant, prejudicial, inflammatory... take your pick) and that the
> judge upheld the objection.
>
I did hear this question asked during a radio news update of the case.  (They
were talking about the ongoing trial and had some audio clips).  Immediately
after the defense attorney asked the question, there was an "Objection!" heard
in the background.  The clip ended at that point so I don't know if the
objection was upheld.  I can't imagine NC is *that* bad. 

>> The arresting officer said the bastards told him they did it on
>> purpose and hoped the victim would die, and you think the defense made
>> a good case????? No wonder we're losing!  We're aparently not trying
>> to win!
> 
> Again, I'd like to see the transcript... I'd read the latter bit of that
> in the news media (the arresting officer testifying that one of the
> defendants calmly asked him about the condition of the "homo" and said
> that he hoped he'd die) but this is the first I've heard of the officer
> testifying that one of the defendants actually said that he did anything
> at all, let alone that he did it on purpose.
>
This I didn't hear as an audio clip but heard it reported a number of times on
news stories both during and after the trial.  Now the "we did it on purpose"
thing is stretching, I think it was something more like--he had it coming.  If
somebody else remebers better than I on this second point, feel free to
clarify.  
        
Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank R. Chloupek 
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University) 

"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:  
somebody else's place."
							--P.J. O'Rourke



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178451
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Didn't the new study asked "have you engaged in homosexual intercourse
within the last two years" whereas Kinsey asked "have you ever engaged
or thought about engaging in homosexual activity".  Sort of like the 
difference between "did you have yogurt this morning" and "are you 
allergic to lactose".

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178452
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill...giving out pubic hairs?!  Oh please!  PROVE IT!!

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>In article <1993Mar20.161551.4638@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will S
>eeves) writes:

>[J. Lani Herrmann:]

>>>> We are wondering why the Clinton administration is having so much
>>>> trouble finding a suitable nominee for the post of Attorney General,
>>>> when there is an obviously superior candidate:...

>>>> We refer, of course, to Prof. Anita Hill.

>[Michael Friedman:]

>>> Probably because if they pick her the Republicans will investigate
>>> the rumors that she sometimes returned papers to her students with
>>> a couple of pubic hairs inserted between the pages.

>> While I'm hardly one of Prof. Hill's biggest fans, I find *this* hard
>> to believe.

>> Could you please supply (with a post, preferably) some proof of this,
>> ie., newspaper articles documenting such allegations, etc.?

>Well, your ignorance about this is unsurprising, given you're a
>Canadian.  And I'm at a complete loss at to why you should be so
>interested in this, given that it is an American issue which should
>properly be of absolutely no concern to you at all.

Actually, my interest in gender issues is not limited to international
boundaries.  Indeed, I often exchange information with Americans about
issues which concern us, in both countries.


>In any event, in
>answer to your question, the following is taken from David Brock's
>article, "The Real Anita Hill", published in the March 1992 issue of
>_The_American_Spectator_.  [This is taken from page 27.]
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah...someone had mentioned this journal, but gave no further information.


>     But the most bizarre incident is alleged to have happened in the
>   school year 1983-84 at Oral Roberts [University], according to a
>   sworn affidavit, dated October 13, 1991, and filed with the Senate
>   Judiciary Committee, in which Lawrence Shiles, now a lawyer in
>   Tulsa, recounted the following:

>     Shortly after the class had begun, Professor Hill gave us a
>     written assignment which I completed and duly turned in.  When
>     this assignment was passed out to the class after having been
>     marked by [the] professor, sitting next to me were fellow
>     students Jeffrey Londoff and Mark Stewart.  Upon opening the
>     assignments and reviewing our grades and comments made by Anita
>     Hill, I found ten to twelve short black pubic hairs in the pages
>     of my assignment.  I glanced over at Jeff Londoff's assignment
>     and saw similar pubic hairs in his work.  At the time I made the
>     statement to Londoff that either she had a low opinion of our
>     work or she had graded our assignment in the bathroom.  Mark
>     Stewart overheard the conversation and said that he had similar
>     pubic hairs in his assignment also.  This became the standing
>     joke among many students for the remainder of the year in
>     classes.

>     Other students in that class confirmed the story.  Londoff says
>   he couldn't be certain that the hairs were pubic, but he said he
>   thought it was unlikely that they could have come from Hill's head,
>   since they were short, coarse, and curly, and Hill had had the hair
>   on her head straightened.  Another student who saw the hair, but
>   did not want to be identified, said of its origins: "You just know
>   when you see it."

>Does this satisfy you,

Yes, thank you, though I am really curious as to why this never came out
(at least not in what I saw, up here in Canada, or on CNN, which is sent
up here) during the Thomas nomination hearings.  Surely, one would think
that her claim to having been sexually harassed, would have a great deal
less credibility if it could be shown that she had herself been guilty of it.


>or do you regard sworn statements given to a
>U.S. Senate committee as equivalent to toilet paper?

Ahemmm....  It depends.  :-)

(For instance, if it were the "sworn statements" at the Warren Commission,
then yes, I _would_ say that the statements were no better than toilet
paper, used at that :-), but in most cases, the answer would be "no").

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Solve Patriarchy, Install Peterarchy"
   - Peter J. Hanus, B.A. (UPEI)

 * SLMR 2.1a * Scott me up, Beamy.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178453
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <18APR199320091677@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.174237.11229@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>> 
>
>Okay,  let me try to explain this.
>
>When one votes for such a creature as a Senator or,  worse yet,  a President,
>one votes not for specific policies but for a general package which must cover
>all issues for 4 or 6 years.  As such,  one's influence is highly diluted.
>I might add that,  even if one were free to vote on individual regulations,
>the vast amount of time required for considering a particular regulation,
>combined with the very small chance of one's vote making a difference,  would
>make it unreasonable to expect the voter to make an intelligent decision
>with respect to specific regulations.     

I'm afraid that I've lost the thread here.  I didn't suggest that all 
government regulations be subject to referenda.  So I don't follow the 
comments above.

>> 
>> 
>:Sorry, but it strikes me that it is the only "feasible" approach.  What is
>:not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and 
>:licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent
>:tasks.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "feasible" in this case.  Do you mean that
>[] are impossible in priciple,  or merely that it would be undesirable in
>fact?

I mean that an ideology that treats all government regulation as equally
undesirable and seeks to abolish all regulations is unlikely to draw
support among more than a miniscule portion of the electorate.

Furthermore, I am suggesting that such a plan is not feasible in an
industrial society because the weight of litigation and/or misery it
would produce would effectively crush productive effort.
>
>
>:Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as 
>:generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense.
>:(It is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to
>:be to a principle of non-coercion, the only areas of public spending
>:that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns....hmmm...)
>
>You say this as if it were surprising,  yet in fact a necessary consequence
>of libertarian philosophy.  All non-coersive functions should be dealt 
>with privately,  therefore it follows that the only functions remaining to
>the state are the coersive ones.

No, I'm not surprised.  I just think it's interesting that on one hand
libertarians assume a limited government can be decreed, yet on the other
posit an entire government made up of people who carry guns.  (I realize
that many libertarians assume that such a government will be 
counterbalanced by a fully armed citizenry, but it is worth noting that
widespread civilian ownership of guns does not necessarily prevent the
establishment of totalitarian government, e.g. Iraq.)
>
>> 
>:Perhaps you have.  May I suggest that you consider that revolutionaries
>:frequently generate support by acting as protectors of "geezers," 
>:mothers and children.  Governments that ignore such people on the grounds
>:that "we don't have much to fear" from them do so at their own peril.
>
>Much more likely it's drunken teenagers.  The groups in questionare more 
>likely to be worse off during and after a revolution than before.  
>In the unlikely
>event that you missed my earlier sarcasm,  let me say this directly:
>The idea that such programs as Social Security or AFDC should be considered
>"defense" (an idea which has been advanced in ths and other newsgroups) is
>so absurd a lie as to be unworthy of consideration.  Do you seriously
>dispute this?

Yup, sure do.  But since I also support the constitutional requirement
that the government provide for the general welfare (Article I section 8),
I'm willing to justify such programs on that basis.
>
>
>	I don't want to seem patronizing,  but you still seem to be laboring
>under the delusion that under a socialized economic system it is reasonably
>intelligent and honest persons (like yourself) who make the decisions.
>I feel any third party added to a transaction is every bit as likely to be
>ignorant or corrupt as the buyer or seller.  I don't expect you to agree
>with me,  but you explain why you feel I'm wrong?

Well, in the first place, I don't support a "socialized economic system."
I think within limits that capitalism is a fine idea.  But it is not
the case that "any third party...is...as likely to be ignorant or corrupt
as the buyer or seller."  There are multitudes of examples where such a
statement is demonstrably false.  Regulation of stock market transactions
that provide a reasonable basis for buyers to avoid fraud is only one
example.

jsh

>Mr. Grinch
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178454
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Bush's WI (was Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative


In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) says:

>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes...
>I guess your strength isn't in math. Clinton hasn't been president for
>6 months. In other words, it's BUSH'S Wiretapping Initiative.
>> 

     You're right, I bailed out in Diff Eq.  Nevertheless, I would 
     suggest to YOU that there is a difference between a "proposed BILL,
     stalled in Congress" and a "executive order, crammed down OUR 
     THROATS".   Do you disagree?


>>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
>>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
>>	you are still able.
>> 
>Have you?

        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in.

        My savings have already been converted.

 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178455
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence


In article <C5ovG2.J24@magpie.linknet.com>, 
neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal) said:

> My views are out of experiences when I was a police officer in a large
> metropolitan area, and of a citizen. Unless people account for their
> behavior, and for the behavior of their immediate community, nothing
> will improve.

Wait a minute.  I agree with you that people have to take responsibility
for their own behavior (I assume that's what you meant by the word
"account"), but also for "the behavior of their immediate community"?

First of all, how "immediate" are you talking about, and secondly, I
have a lot of trouble with any theory of social behavior or justice
which charges anyone with the duty of taking responsibility for or
accounting for the actions of a different person...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178456
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
     rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:

>Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
>because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
>with social pressures, probably would at least try.

   Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months*
ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show,
up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must
be an even *larger* percentage of people who have had homosexual erotic
fantasies.  But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we
say about these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated
gay potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or,
more accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social
sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.

   Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.

   These people are the ones who are so hung up on "choice."
Obviously, since *they chose*, everyone must have, and homosexuals are
just flaunting their "perversion" by choosing not to go along with what
society has dictated.

   Of course, I'm that most awful of perverts.  I chose, I gleefully
admit that I was heterosexual until I met the right man and *chose* to
indulge in my homoerotic potential.  Take that!

      Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

   "The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure
reasoning, and inhibit clarity.  With a little pratice, writing can be
an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"  - Bill Watterson's Calvin.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178457
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE


In article <1qpvj2$dfp@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>, 
william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu said in response to Dave Borden:

> You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice
> somthing for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ?
> To bad.  What is immoral is: people like you and the current president
> who don't have any idea why this country still exists after 200+
> years.

William: If the reason that this country still stands after 200+ years
is that it uses military conscription to force young men to fight for
causes that they don't believe in strongly enough to volunteer for
military service in support of, then perhaps the fact that the country
is still standing is not good news...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178458
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative


In a previous article, helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) says:

>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>
>>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
>                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>>
>>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	bill.
>
>What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be


     What kind of brainless clod doesn't understand the difference 
     between a "PROPOSED BILL, BLOCKED IN CONGRESS" and an "EXECUTIVE
     ORDER, ISSUED BY CLINTON, AND CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS".

     
  Here, let me give a remedial course in thinking:

     In order to create the appearance of low interest rates, Uncle Sam
     has shifted his debt from long-term to short-term securities.

     In effect, Uncle Sam has transformed the Federal Goverment into
     one giant S&L, waiting to blow.

     Short-term rates rise --->  Interest payments on Deficit rise --->
     Uncle Sammy has to borrow more ---->  Causing Short-term rates to rise.

     Uncle Sammy gets caught in a positive feedback loop.  His options:

       i) Raise taxes a truly unimaginable amount
       ii)  Make truly unimaginable spending cuts

    Results of i):  large numbers of pissed-off citizens
    Results of ii): large numbers of pissed-off citizens


    Uncle Sammy has thoughtfully taken the initiative to pre-empt the use
    of communication newtworks to foster a nation-wide, grassroots
    uprising.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178459
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>>
>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>
>       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many
>of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective      
>is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about
>the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that
>Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this
>ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a 
>descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have
>used it in the past.

No one is questioning whether Mr. King is black.  The question arises
whether King's race should make police officers "afraid as hell."  Your
statement seems to imply that cops should have a different standard for
large black guys than for just large guys in general.  

That two posts later you don't understand why anyone pointed out your use
of the adjective is almost as informative as your original use.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178460
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: History, Its Dangerous

In article AJv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, mrynders@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Maurice Rynders) writes:
>In article <1993Apr12.143224.23273@alleg.edu> meyerj (Jon Meyer) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr5.073813.5246@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter  
>>D. Hampe) writes:
>>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>> 
>>> >pps: Why is there Still NO CALL to end Clinton's Illegal
>>> >war in Somalia????? 
>>> 
>>> Hold on there tex - it's not his war.  Everybody knows that
>>> its Part of the ReaganBushLegacy.
>                   ^^^^^^?
>>
>>Yeah, sure.  They created the starvation there.  They put the warlords  
>>there.  Yep.  Sure.  Been brainwashed by the media, haven't you?
>
>He probably is. By the way: what has Reagan to do with this any way? I
>bet most people had never even heard of Somalia, during the Reagan
>administration!

Ok boys and girls,

"What was the 'Ogadan War'????"

The Money Raised in Band-Aid covered How Much of
the Cost of Which Soviet Client State to replace what
catagory of weapon system lost in the aforementioned war?

Why was the Joke: "We arm the World." Really Not that funny?

Gonzo Station is the designation for WHICH USN Op Area?
and the primary threat targets in the Area Were:.....

ciao
drieux



---
"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178464
From: al976@yfn.ysu.edu (Franklin Kadell Jordan)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?


     I am so tired about all this debate on how many gays there
are!  Such arguments are basically worthless, imho.  Would it 
really matter if it were millions of people who are regularly
denied access to housing, employment, and personal security or
even only one?  
    As for death threats, I happen to know from personal
experience that gay people are far more likely to receive
them based on political veiws or even personal philosophies
related to the issue of sexual orientation than are heterosex
uals. Not a week goes by that I personally or one of my friends
is not physically or verbally harrassed for even appearing to
be gay.  
     Everyone is garaunteed certain unalienable rights under
our current form of government in theory, yet every day 
gay people are victimized by their local governments, by
the police force, and by (for the most part) an uninformed
and ignorant public. Is this democracy? I don't think so.
   A society's sense of justice is judged on the basis of
the treatment of the people who make up that society.
All of those people. And yes, that includes gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals whose "crimes" have no victims, and who
are as varied and diverse as the society of wich they are
a part.
-- 
Frank Jordan                                                [D[D[D[C[C[C
              Gay Arab Bassoonists UNITE!!!


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178465
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5nwnn.49t@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>In article <1993Apr18.001338.21323@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>>No social problem, however great, is worth destroying the freedom in America
.
>>>The destruction of freedom is never an answer to any social problem.
>>
>>You can't even walk down the street at night alone in America because of drug
s.
>>Freedom my ass.
>>
>>Ryan
>
>Why exactely can't you walk down the street safely?  It it because somebody
>will jump out from behind a shadow, and, SELL YOU DRUGS?  Hardly.

Or mug me.
>  On the
>other hand, it's certainly possible that you are walking down the steet of
>a bustling lawless part of your metropolitan area.  Lawless and bustling: read
>underground economy.

Why must you pursue this fantasy that all crime is derived from "underground 
economies".

>  There, it may not be a very safe place to be at all.
>Unless of course you're there to buy some drugs...
>
>I explained how the WOD is a major cause of large-scale crime in America.  The
>head of the Guardian Angles agrees with me: legalize drugs and watch violent
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Haaahaaaahaaaa

>crimes significantly decrease.
>
>As for me, well, I think I'll go take a walk tonight--alone.  I feel safe.  I
>just hope the FDA/FBI/DEA/BATF isn't back at my apartment confiscating all my
>property because they found my phone number written on a phone booth that was
>also used by a drug dealer. 

Yeah buddy, this happens all the time.  Tell me, HAS IT EVERY REALLY HAPPENED 
TO YOU?   That's what I thought.

> In that sense, I don't feel safe.  I'm an honest,
>law-abiding citizen (drug laws included, FTM), why is it that I fear the
>government more than I fear criminals?
>

Your foolish.

>Freedom MY ass.  This is NOT what the founding fathers (some of whom would be
>thrown in prison under today's drug laws) had in mind.  All of these problems
>you come up with pale in comparison to the fact that the very fiber of our
>country--the US Constitution--is being destroyed.  What good would it do
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Must I ask again, what part?

>even IF the WOD actually reduced crime: we just created a new class of
>criminals, headed up the gang's current leader: Bill Clinton.  The DEA, etc.
>are private armies that answer directly to the president.  They possess
>advanced weapons and survailance technology.  Does this sound familiar to
>anybody?
>
>Do you support "Mein Furher Clinton"?  Hmmmmmm?  You seem to have come out
>against the current adminstration: why are you eager to endow it with
>even MORE power?  (Power of the most dangerous kind, too).
>

All I ask is that drugs stay illegal.  I don't think it's too much to ask.


Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178466
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?

In article <1qrohrINNipe@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Wil
liam December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr18.003848.21571@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) said:
>
>>>> However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
>>>> be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  [Ryan C Scharfy]
>>>
>>> Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican
>>> idea that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and
>>> simply decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please
>>> explain why the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like
>>> cigarettes" is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for
>>> nicotine...  [wdstarr]
>>
>> Yeah, Cancer is pretty cool, isn't it.
>
>Ryan, please explain how the "coolness" or lack thereof of cancer is
>relevant to a discussion of the legalization of currently illegal
>recreational drugs.  For that matter, please explain how it's even
>relevant to a discussion of currently _legal_ recreational drugs such as
>tobacco. [wdstarr]

You said it worked so well with tobacco.  I was being fascisious(I can't spell 
worth a damn)

Look, this is getting ridiculous, first, I think tobacco should be legal.  
Anybody who can't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana has got to 
be high.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178467
From: system@garlic.sbs.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
> 
>>Funny, but I've seen a LOT more than 10 or 15 seconds of that video, and
>>I still think the police involved were guilty. I don't think there's any
>>excuse they could POSSIBLY come up with that would make what they did
>>OK. I don't care if Rodney King was satan himself, there's just no
>>excuse. Now, whether they did it because he was black or they did it
>>because they wanted to beat up on somebody they were arresting is
>>another entirely separate question that I have insufficient information
>>to make any kind of conclusion about.
> 
> 
>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives o
> n
> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watch
> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to
> finish.
> 
> 

I have to agree with you... the police may have carried it a bit too far
but Rodney King was no angel either. And I don't think ANY guilty
verdicts should have been returned. I'm sure you know why they handed
down guilty verdicts on two of the officers. It's quite simple really,
it was a compromise to avoid rioting in the places where minorities
think it's right to riot. I hate to say this, but I would have liked to
see them riot with everyone prepared. It would be open season if your
skin was even slightly brown.

Hey, my motto is, you don't fuck with me or my stuff and you don't get
killed. It's just that simple.

Tony

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Anthony S. Pelliccio, kd1nr/ae    // Yes, you read it right, the  //
-- system @ garlic.sbs.com          // man who went from No-Code    //
-----------------------------------// (Thhhppptt!) to Extra in     //
-- Flame Retardent Sysadmin       // exactly one year!            //
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-- This is a calm .sig! --
--------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178468
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

> > However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
> > be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never
> > heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal
> > meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine"
> > cigarettes, pot and heroin.
> 
> Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea
> that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply
> decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why
> the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes"
> is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...

I'm all in favor of drug legalization, but I do see some problems with
it. My hope is that people disposed to doing so would simply overdose
quickly, and be done with it, before making a mess of thisgs.

--
Let me get this straight: Medical treatment costs too much and is
inefficient, so we're going to let government make it better?


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178470
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: race and violence

I replied to your message, however, it is listed as a new topic with
the title: "rnitedace and violence". Possibly line noise or error
caused to post as a new topic. I see it here as #100.

Regards,

Neal


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178474
From: gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr19.140457.27718@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>In article <18APR199319273822@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>
:>Steve,  you're the one who suggested that a failed government should be an 
:>ideal proving ground,  I never felt that way in the first place.  Quite the 
:>contrary,  I think a better proving ground would be someplace that already
:>had a governemnt that would prevent outright acts of agression,  yet had a
:>strong spirit of individualism and initiative.  Someplace like... Texas :-)
:>
:>Mr. Grinch  
: 
:
: 
:And while Texas taxpayers might willingly eliminate tax-support for UT
:and TAMU, I'm not sure they'd support gutting the football programs.
:
Football can pay for itself.


:Then there's the impact on Ross Perot's fortune of eliminating the various
>state supported programs where he's made his money...

Why?  He's already made it.  Sure nodoby else will be able to bilk
the public in the same specific ways,  but why should he (or I) care?


> 
:All in all, Texas doesn't seem to be a very likely place for
:libertarianism to take hold. :-)
> 
More likely than most places.  When I was there the most "important" 
state issue was whether to have a state income tax or instead legalize
a popular vice for fund raising,  and vice won a decisive victory!

>jsh

Mr. Grinch

p.s.  Now that he's safely dead,  I expect David Koresh to become the
hero of popular folk ballads,  and the ATF to be generally equated with
Santa Anna  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178475
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment 

In article <1qqikr$sd1@morrow.stanford.edu>, XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu ( writes...
>In article <1993Apr17.033050.24901@pony.Ingres.COM>,
>garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr17.023116.23031@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian  writes...
>>>I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.  It sounds good, but in
>>>practice it too often becomes tyranny, because there are too often
>>>conflicting ideas of what constitutes "improving the human condition".
>>>Far better to let people and their organizations pursue whatever goals
>>>they think best, and let "the human condition" be improved by those who
>>>are willing to do so without coercion.
>>
>>There will always be conflicting ideas on what constitutes "improving the
>>human condition", that's humanity. You seem to believe that libertarianism
>>will improve the human condition by lifting all constraints, and that
>>people will have a better chance of improving themselves in that environment.
> 
>Let me try to put it another way.  Libertarians believe that an
>unconstrained environment provides the best chance of solving any
>problem because it maximizes creativity.  However, there is never
>any guarantee that a really good solution will ever be found to any
>particular problem.  "Utopia is not an option."

Utopia is a myth (although we can do a lot better than what we have today).
But I think that you must pitch Libertarianism as a progressive agenda
(ie You can do better under our style of system).

>>        I admire a lot of what the Libertarians stand for, but you
>>guys are some of the worst salesmen I have ever seen. And when it comes to
>>politics, you need salesmen whether you want them or not.
> 
>What we need are more people who agree with us, know something
>about marketin, and are willing to both do that marketing and teach
>others how to.  Are you in?

I'm flattered by your invitation, but I'm afraid you have the wrong person.
Although I completely agree with your civil liberties agenda, I'm not 
in support of your economic agenda. What I DO like about the Libertarian
party is that you guys are so good at shaking up the tired ideas of the
past. I encourage you guys to continue your crusade, but I'm afraid I
can't ride along. 
> 
>>>Ian Sutherland
>>>ian@eecs.nwu.edu
> 
>>"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
>> come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
> 
>/June

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
 come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
"The probability of someone watching you is proportional
to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178476
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.COM) wrote:
:    [...]     When you and the rest of the homosexual community
: pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
: hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
: my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
: to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for
the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes
(such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing
to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?

-garison


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178483
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
> 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
> 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.

   Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more
Pulitzers the same way they did last year.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178484
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:

>
>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>

A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
me how, I just have seen the results.

Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
the head.



>--
>_______
>Steve Thomas
>steveth@rossinc.com


Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178485
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: National Sales Tax, The Movie



      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
      own CNN news LOGO!

      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.

      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this 
      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching 
      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by 
      now.
      
      YEAH!  Free HEALTH CARE!   Oh, yeeaaaahhhh!

      heh heh

      " Bill makes me feel like DANCING! "

      MORE AMAZING PREDICTIONS FROM THE INCREDIBLE BROMEISTER!
      --------------------------------------------------------

      We take you back to Feburary 20th, when the INCREDIBLE 
      BROMEISTER PREDICTED:

	  " $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES "

          " A NATIONAL SALES TAX "

      Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions!

      i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996.
	   Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it.
          
	   Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.

      ii)  Unemployment will rise!

      iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase!
	    We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997!
	    Everyone will DANCE AND SING!

      Yup.  I'm gonna <glancing at watch> bail out of here
      at 1 PM, amble on down to the lake.  Hang out.  Sit
      in the sun and take it EASY!   :)   Yeah!  

      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".

      To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
      the middle class to pay for my programs "

      To paraphrase Bill Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
      the middle class to pay for my programs "


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178486
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk) writes:
> 	A few weeks ago I found out about some of the politics that
> is going on with the Texas bullet train, and was appalled at some
> of the apparent underhanded tactics to push this thing through
> without any public say whatsoever.  So, I wrote up a short 
> editorial thing and posted it, hoping to get some discussion.
> 
> I suppose editorials don't do it here.  So now I am asking for 
> the general opinion of the net about the proposed high speed 
> train.
> 
> What do you think?  I personally think it is a stupid idea, and
> that there are a few people somewhere who are going to get very
> rich from this deal.
> 

My opinion is this:  In a society whose economy is primarily based on 
capitalism, the role of government should be to provide those goods and 
services that need providing for the general public's good.  BUT government 
should supply those necessary goods and services only when it is impossible 
for a private enterprise (or individual) to make money from providing them.
I agree with some of the other posts that this train probably can not make 
money and will rely heavily on State tax dollars.  

The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train?

I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With
the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think
people in Dallas or Houston need it either.

David McGaughey
Texas Tech University

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178487
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5JH23.Eu8@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

> Look at the whole picture, not just
> randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to
> use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
> can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.

Either the government has force available to it, or it doesn't.  The
Libertarian position is that the government can use force only when someone
else uses force first -- even when that first force is not directed
against the government, but one of its citizens.  That all being true, 
what safeguards do we have against the government CLAIMING that some
initiation of force on its part is really a response?  (Like the burning
of the Maine, the Tonkin Gulf incident, or the assault on Waco?)

I ask this not to argue, but to understand.

(Followups to alt.politics.libertarian only.)
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178490
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Return of the Know Nothing Party

In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>
>>Well Actually its a case of Resolving whether one
>>Supports Biblical Literalism, and the Enerrancy of the Bible,
>>or Whether on wished to Jump On the SeXularHumanist, 
>>Detain all the True Christians in Death Camps approach
>>of the Northern Liberal Abolitionists and their EFFORTS
>>to Destroy the Bible, Corrupt the Moral Fibre of American
>>and Lead the God Fearing into the Bondage of Liberal Degeneracy.
>>
>>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible,
>>christianity and american history.....
>
>Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage,
>drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up??

So which are you advocating?

That You know Nothing About American History, 
Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible?

Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party?

ciao
drieux

ps: what WAS the "Free Negro Sailor Act" about,
and what was the Supreme Court's Ruling On it... and
More Importantly, how does this Complicate the Mythology
that all blacks were slaves????


---
"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178491
From: brow2812@mach1.wlu.ca (craig brown 9210 u)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved  Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over}

In article <C5HIu1.8A9@spss.com> gregotts@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
>In article <C5HCrw.Dn3@junior.BinTec.DE> muftix@junior.BinTec.DE (Juergen Ernst Guenther) writes:
>>
>>I never understood why Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians etc. accusing
>>US. people for imperialism though think of them as "The Americans".
>>
>>Not few Europeans think of you all as Americans (and of the US. as
>>a bunch of blasphemeous trash that GOD has to extinguish sooner or later ...;) 
>>
>> .m.
>
>It would not be surprising that a continent that produced fascism, communism, 
>and two world wars might have quite a few people who tend to think of other
>people as trash that should be extinguished sooner or later.  I seem to 
>remember a gut called  Hitler who felt the same way. One wonders what would be
>the fate of Europe if God had extinguished this nation of blasphemeous trash
>before 1917. (Not that I believe in gods.)  How many millions of people through-
>out the world would have to die because no force could stop the insane, bloody
>European imperialism? Thankfully the "imperialistic" US helped put an end to 
>these games so that the rest of the world can sleep alittle more safely. Thus, I 
>could care less what "not few Europeans" think so long as they can't do anything 
>about it.
>
>  - Greg Otts
>
>These opinions are entirely my own.
>

But remember that had God extinguished the blasphemous trash of Europe (and
Imperialism with it), the United States would not exist today to put an end
to those "games"....begs the question, which came first, the chicken or the
egg???

C.Brown
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178492
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5JH23.Eu8@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.164605.8439@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>|> ...you don't specify the means through which the government
>|> is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a 
>|> left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as
>|> you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto
>|> dealers.  
>|> 
>|> But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms,
>|> to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws,
>|> and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a 
>|> particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special
>|> interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly
>|> designed to accomplish the opposite.
>
>...If government is not allowed to
>use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
>can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.

Fine.  Libertarians and anarchists are not alone in being uncomfortable
with the use of state sponsored coercion.  The notion that coercion can
be virtually eliminated in a society (or more properly that once it is
eliminated on the part of the state it is no longer worth serious 
consideration) is a view that is peculiar to libertarians and anarchists.  

For example, does "non-initiated force" (coercion) include tax collection?
Does it include the minimal level of regulation of commerce envisioned
by Adam Smith?  Since coercion can be exercised by actors other than the
state, how is the state to deal with it?  Exclusively through after the
fact arbitration/legal compulsion?  

>
>The means to reaching such a restricted government is another topic
>which I'll address briefly.  It certainly won't happen until
>libertarianism is the dominate philosophy.  What means do we have to
>make libertarianism the dominate philosophy?  Statists run the education
>monopoly, so we have to be creative.  The Advocates for Self-Government
>reports 85% of their Seminar 1 participants "embrace" libertarianism.
>That's the best means I've seen yet.  We should lobby for compulsory
>Seminar 1 attendance. :) [in jest!]

Well, I must admit that the picture of libertarians as Amway participants
is somewhat more reassuring than the idea of them trying to govern a 
complex, conflictual, industrial society.  I'd venture to point out, 
however, that if libertarians couldn't convince at least 85% of a group 
of "seminar participants" to "embrace" their philosophy, their 
propaganda skills need to be honed.  

Frankly, however, it is no great trick to create a government for a 
society in which (almost) everyone is assumed to agree about what is a proper
government policy.  Once that is assumed, all sorts of annoying formalities
can be dispensed with, elections, police, etc.  And as Mr. Marx said,
the state will just wither away.  

On the way there, however, would you like to explain how eliminating 
virtually all policies that restrain private coercion in the 
current society will help us to live happier lives? Or is it like
socialism; just some short-term pain that we'll have to bear until 
everyone has had the benefit of "re-education" through regular 
"seminar" training?

jsh

>
>Roger Collins
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178493
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...


In article <1993Apr12.031404.25988@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

|>In article <C5Bvqy.FLD@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>
|>>|>But punishing the person for posting such a thing smacks of
|>>|>authoritarianism.
|>>
|>>It's a deliberate act of fraud intended to cause harm.
|>
|>You seem to be unclear about the legal meaning of "fraud." Mere
|>misrepresentation is not fraud.

Your comment here is meant as a put down. It fails for several reasons :

1) You have edited out the context of the action under discussion. 
2) I never brought the legal definition up. I use the English language
and not the legal dialect. The legal definition of fraud changes from
one country to another in any case. The context of the discussion is morality
of censorship.



|>>|>How does a posting from your site do any such thing? Especially if your
|>>|>site is a university? Do you know any person who believes that a 
|>>|>university endorses every comment made from a university site?
|>>
|>>That is why I refered specifically to a company.
|>
|>Good. Now, do you know any person who believes that a company endorses
|>every comment made from a university site?

You are extrapolating from the statement I made concerning a circumstance
in which such an act of censorship would be permissable to the Teel case.
If you had bothered to read the post instead of trying to prove how stupid you
thought me you would have done rather better. The mode of argument I was using
was a form of rhetoric. Argument by example, I describe a wide set of
circumstances in which an action is permisable and demonstrate that they
do not apply, thus the action is not permisable.

Obviously a company posting from a University adress would be squashed,  it
would be contrary to the internet comercial use.

|>>|>Usenet does not distribute letterhead.
|>>
|>>Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
|>
|>I suggest strongly that if you mean for this to be taken as letterhead you
|>get a better stationery designer. 

Now you are clutching at straws. In the context of the discussion it was
the fact of association between the company and the post that was important.
The typeface etc is inconsequential.


|>>There are people on the net who are openly supporting the murder of members
|>>of my family.
|>
|>Sigh.

If you are implying that I am lying I suggest you read Mark Holohan and Ulick
Staffords posts into soc.culture.british. If you are suggesting that 
advocating murder is a trivial matter I would prefer that you state it
directly. 

Certainly I oppose the right of Dr Sidiqui and the Ayatolah Khomenhi to
call for the murder of Salman Rushdie. Incitement to murder is not part
of what I consider legitimate freedom of speech.


|>>|>As for your notion that employees can argue their different political
|>>|>views "at their own expense," could you explain precisely what "expense"
|>>|>you're talking about?
|>>
|>>Internet is not free. The connection charges are quite expensive for comercial
|>>concerns.
|>
|>Could you give me a cost breakdown for the expense to your company
|>attributable to an employee's posting a political view in disagreement
|>with yours? Numbers, please.

That is irrelevant, the case is not the incremental cost but the facility
cost. If I decide that a company I am associated with should subscribe
to USEnet that usenet connection is the property of the company. It is
quite legitimate for a company to have a political or other agenda and
regulate the use of its property in accordance with its policy. For example
if a Microsoft employee were to post "Windows NT is crap don't buy it"
from a Microsoft machine I would consider it reasonable for Microsoft to
sack that employee. In the same way if a company decides that it has 
political objectives it might wish to regulate postings in a political
manner. This is no worse than Rupert Murdoch using his papers as a political
platform for his views.


|>>I was refering to the arrogance of your position, quoting the words written
|>>by slave owners at me in the cause of freedom.
|>
|>Which words written by slave owners did I quote? I don't recall quoting
|>anyone.

ah yes you did not quote them, merely refered to them.


|>>Your constitution is not
|>>considered sacrosanct in other parts of the globe. 
|>
|>Nor have I assumed it is. I don't consider the First Amendment to have
|>talismanic value.
|>
|>>You might just as well have attempted to argue from the King James bible
|>>to a Muslim. I was pointing out that your reasoning is parochial when with
|>>little effort you could have made a substantive point. 
|>
|>I made the effort; apparently you made a certain effort to misunderstand
|>me.

Your article consisted of a reference to the first ammendment, your signature
and pretty well damn all else. 


|>>|>For an example of a UK publication that understands this, try INDEX ON
|>>|>CENSORSHIP.
|>>
|>>I used to subscribe, I would still if I was not moving.
|>
|>INDEX regularly publishes opinions by non-Americans who believe the First
|>Amendment represents appropriate free-speech principles for all open
|>societies. See, e.g., the opinions of the dissenting law lords in the
|>SPYCATCHER case.

Are you refering to the initial hearings on an injunction or the judgments
on the substantive case?

The initial hearings that the government won were judged on the not unresonable
judgment that assertion by the government that the national interest might be
harmed would be grounds for prior restraint. The second set of hearings on the
substance judged that the government had no case and that the official secrets
act could not be used to suppress information in thwe public domain already.
The part that they won was over the copyright issue which is rather separate.

Here again the issue of censorship is rather different in the case that
information is divulged on the understanding that it will not be communicated
to third parties. The first ammendment certainly does not apply in this
case as the numerous prosecutions of spies in the US proves. 

The crux of the Spycatcher affair was extrateritoriality of British law.
The censorship aspect of it arose as a result of the government's
ludicrous attempts to prevent summary of the case in the book. 


|>>|>You haven't any reason to believe that anything I've said has been reached
|>>|>unquestioningly.
|>>
|>>Only most of what you write. 
|>
|>For someone who purports to be opposed to argument from assertion, you
|>certainly get by on assertions a lot.

Funny I saw that as a rejection of an assertion that you had made. Of course in
rejecting an assertion I have to make a contrary assertion, since this assertion
is unprovable I left it at that. 

So far I have not seen you demonstrate a command of the contrary opinion to your
own. You are attacking my anti-censorship view because I dare to accept the
validity of some pro-censorship arguments while rejecting their conclusions. 
Plus I am not an absolutist. I have this funny idea that the solution to this
problem was not decided in 1789 by a group of white male gentry in secret
session and sumarized in a single line. Furthermore I don't think that the
issues are half as simple as you imply.

|>>You may think that I am being anti-American in disallowing recourse to the
|>>first ammendment. It's just that this argument has no currency in the parts
|>>of the world where there is state censorship such as Iran, Kewait and Israel.
|>
|>I don't pretend to have geared my discourse for all conceivable audiences.

I don't think that you have geered your discourse to any audience save that
of proving that you are the only person wearing a white hat.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178494
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati


In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says:

>In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Broward Horne) says:
>>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it?
>
>The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not
>going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.


      HAHAHAHAHAH.  Oh, CHRIST!  Oh, HAHAHAHAH.

      whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK
      about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just
      the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.

      Holy christ! :)

        Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?

    Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! "
    Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "

   ( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )

    Broward:  " Oh, here comes a National Sales Tax "
    Clinton Supporter:  " Oh, no, Bill never said that "


    Want some more "free predictions" ?

     :)


>>     It always makes me smile, to see George Bush used to defend
>>     Bill Clinton.  Can you imagine anything sadder than to be left
>>     with GEorge Bush as a final argument?
>
>True. The Republicans did look pretty pathetic in November of '92. >:-)

       Yup.  They surely did.
       Almost as pathetic as Clinton suppoters are looking in
      April of 93. 

     Well, chumbo, I see my my watch here that my "appointment"
     at the lake is about 2 hours past due! :)

     You'll let me know who the "full-time" working thing works
     out, won't you?   I want to enjoy EVERY minute of my free
     time and FREE health care ( the ONLY reason I would have 
     gone back to working! :)  THANKS, BILL! :) )





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178495
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program


In a previous article, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) says:

>All together now... c'mon, you know the words... "Meet the new boss! Same as 
>the old boss!"  And the chorus: "We won't get fooled again!"
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Hmmm.  Can I, eh,  get a little side bet on this one?




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178496
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>his so called stimulus package.
>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>immunizations for poor kids.
>
>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.

    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
    delivered to their doorsteps.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178497
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice (GM trial)

In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?
>
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.

On the other hand, it would be kind of scary if there were *never* a final
verdict, because a party to litigation could keep saying "Oops!  I forgot
to bring up this evidence," and demand a new trial.  You get one bite at
the apple.

>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

It's up to General Motors to find those witnesses in the first litigation.
You'd be up in arms if a plaintiff suing General Motors pulled the same
stunt and made them relitigate an issue that they already lost.  It's not
as if General Motors couldn't file enough discovery motions to delay the
trial until they found all the witnesses they wanted.

>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  

Define "obvious bias."

>Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

Did GM move for a new trial on those grounds?  No?  Perhaps they had a 
reason?  
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178498
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.

       I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into
problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even
when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe
that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side-
effects, and bad reactions scares them.)  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178499
From: sents@dixie.com (Jeff Sents)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

paolucci@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:

>In article <C5Gpto.Kq0@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
>[biased and decidedly not-as-funny-as-dave stuff deleted...]

>I sure hope that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is enjoying these "lists"...
[stuff deleted]
>I'm no Clinton fan, but I'm no Ipser fan...

Then why not simply stop reading them. This isn't intended as a flame,
but your post reminds me of the old joke: 
 Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I do this."
 Doctor: "Then stop doing that."

Regards,
Jeff



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178500
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?


In article <C5GK0w.J8H@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

|>Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?
|>
|>
|>
|>Socialism may have collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Disunion
|>but it lingers on in Western Europe and the United States. It remains
|>the primary ideology in the hearts and minds of the liberal academia
|>and media. But all the political correctness they can muster may not be
|>sufficient to hold back the economic forces that threaten to spread
|>socialism's collapse from the second world to the first. Indeed, it is
|>becoming more apparent every day that socialism may not even survive
|>the turn of the century.

Ed of course has never demonstrated remarkable knowlege of socialism, 
or any other political system come to that.

|>While the Swedes have already discarded their "third way" and the
|>French have made history by turning out the Socialist Party in a 
|>record-setting defeat, it is Italy that appears most precariously
|>on the edge of its political existence.

That leaves Germany, Japan and the UK as examples of a country where the
right wing government is on the verge of collapse. Oh and of course the USA
which just elected a socialist government :-)

|>Italy, today, is a basket-case even by European standards. It has
|>introduced 17 new taxes in 5 months and public-sector revenue is at or
|>near the 50% of GDP mark. 

Etc, unfortunately you can't pin this on the left or the right, both are
to blame. Both sides are equally deep into the corruption scandal. The only 
untained party is the northern league which is a bunch of nationalist
separatists and the communist party which has collapsed.


|>In spite of this political gluteny, it has
|>an annual deficit exceeding the sum of all other EC countries and a
|>public debt 2.5 times that of Latin America. Italy is understandably
|>having serious trouble selling its treasury bonds in the markets. And
|>while Italy is an extreme case, it is anything but unique; all
|>European governments appear headed in the same direction in spite of
|>their nominally non-socialist governments.
|>
|>Unfortunately, Europeans being, well, Europeans, it is very unlikely
|>that they will discover American-style liberty. Instead, they will
|>likely lurch from socialism to fascism as quickly as they had moved
|>from fascism to socialism never pausing along the way to reasseses the
|>role of government, itself. I hope I am wrong.

Ed should take a look at the budget deficit Regan and Bush created together
before he starts to make claims about europe collapsing based on the budget
deficits here. None of them are serious on the USA scale.

And here in Europe we have zero interest in Ed-Ipser type freed thank you.
We do not want our countries to be run by a narrow elite of rich lawyers
for the benefit of the super wealthy. We are quite happy with social 
democracy and despite the fuss made in Time and Newsweek there is remarkably
little being done to reverse the social welfare reforms brought in by
socialism.

The problem with socialism is that it started with the aims of free education
and health care and provision of the welfare state. This has been achieved
across the whole of Europe, only the USA is struggling to catch up. The
problem for socialism is what to do now it has succeeded.


|>Nobody ever claimed that the collapse of socialism would be pretty.
|>The decline of the nation-state will probably lead first to anarchy
|>since politicians always cut essential services before pork. Los
|>Angeles has rampant crime and frantically waits for the next wave of
|>riots but it has a spanking new subway that nobody wants to use and
|>which, like every other public transit system in the world, will never
|>be economically viable. (If you were trying to extort tax payers,
|>which would you cut first, mass transit or police protection?)

Ed starts to discus LA, presumably he thinks that it is in Europe. On
the other hand he most probably hasn't heard of a European city.

|>Thus does the world hurtle toward chaos even as the 21st century
|>approaches.

Rather the opposite. What is happening in Italy is that the communist party
has collapsed. This has meant that the grand coalition between right and
left wing parties to keep out the communists has also collapsed. The 
magistrates have seized this opportunity to crack down hard on fraud and 
corruption and have arrested half the politicians. The fact that the socialists
are in charge this week is incidental, the right is into the corruption just
as baddly.

What looks likely to happen is the fringe parties are going to do much
better in the next election. Most of the parliamentary deputies are going
to get replaced and the parties are going to be forced to look to people
who are free of any hint of corruption. Look out for a parliament of
Pavarotti's and porn stars.


Phill Hallam-Baker


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178501
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: Return of the Know Nothing Party

In article <C5JLq3.2BL@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com                               writes...
>In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>>In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible,
>>>christianity and american history.....
>>
>>Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage,
>>drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up??
> 
>So which are you advocating?
>That You know Nothing About American History, 
>Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible?
> 
>Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party?
> 
Go easy on him drieux. It is the right of every American to
know nothing about anything. 

>ciao
>drieux

>"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
>All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
>		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178502
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3


In article <1993Apr13.234600.14061@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

|>Here is a press release from the United States Information Agency.
|>
|> Digest of Foreign Media Reaction from the United States Information
|>Agency April 12 (1 of 3)
|> To: National Desk
|> Contact: Anne Chermak of the United States Information Agency,
|>          202-619-6511
|>
|>   WASHINGTON, April 13  -- Following is part one
|>of a digest of foreign media reaction from April 1-12, compiled
|>by the United States Information Agency:
|>
|>                   TERRORISM AND WORLD INSECURITY
|>
|>   In recent editorials, Iran was universally recognized as
|>te source of the double threat of state-sponsored terrorism
|>and Islamic extremism.  But beyond this fear and condemnation,
|>journalists found little common ground that would compel both
|>North and South, and Arab and non-Arab nations to work together
|>to combat the global threat of terrorism.  For example, Egyptian
|>and Algerian papers were in the forefront in charging U.S. complicity
|>in the current instability in the Middle East.  Those commentators
|>asserted that the United States had promoted Islamic fundamentalism
|>during the Afghanistan War and had further added to regional
|>instability by alternately encouraging Iraq and Iran.

The cads! The fact that this is precisely what the US was up to of
course is not mentioned. It is a fact that Regan and Bush sold arms
to Iran, it is also a fact that they supported and armed Iraq.

Still this is state dept propaganda so none too surprizing.

|>   India's papers weighed the pros and cons of helping the West to
|>identify Pakistan's role in promoting terrorism, noting on the one
|>hand that doing so could "bring ruination to Islamabad's Kashmir
|>cause" but, on the other, could also bring India's security apparatus
|>uncomfortably close to the CIA and the Mossad.  Arab papers continued
|>to portray Iraq and Libya as being unfairly treated by the UN while
|>Israel remains unpunished for resolutions which it has violated.

In the case of Lybia there is the problem that the US only decided
that Gadffii ordered the bombing after it needed to make peace with
damascus during the gulf war. One day the US is certain that its Syria,
the next Lybia. For a strange reason the US will not provide evidence to
Lybian courts for extradition proceedings. Faced with similar demands the
USA would reject them as would any other country.


|>   Concerning Northern Ireland, President Clinton's message of
|>consolation to the victims of the Warrington bombing was seen in
|>British tabloids as signalling a tougher stance by the American
|>government against violence by the IRA.

The word is "terrorism".


The problem is that after the behaviour of George Bush the USA has an
image abroad as doing precisely what it likes and is in its own interests
then comming out with a Dysney scripted sugary justification repeating a
fitting combination of the words "freedom" "dignity" "democaracy" or
of "terrorism" "dictatorship" etc as appropriate.

The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people there are
rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who they
loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked attack. 
Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is meant to be
the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there is to be
movement it would be easier for the USA to move.

First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the
Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil
production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment 
Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would
use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.

The Iranian clerics would have an interest in seeking a raprochment 
simply because a permanent war footing is debilitating. They also need
western technology. 


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178505
From: mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...

>>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that
>>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d
>>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour.

>I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking
>and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill
>hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal
>gain like Nixon did. NOT!

Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.

Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies.

I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole,
rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers
of his office for personal gain.

You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these
events occurred.

>>Along with normalized relations with the PRC.

>"Normalizing relations" with Cambodia? You must be joking. We sponsored
>the OVERTHROW of the Cambodian government. After repeated failed attempts
>of course. 

Your sad level of historical and political knowlege is probably best
exemplified by the fact that you think PRC stands for Cambodia instead
of Red China.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178506
From: timr@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Who are The ``Rich''? (was Re: Professors Whining About Pay)



Candidate Clinton promised to tax the rich, and most folks thought that
was a pretty nifty idea.  Then President Clinton said he wanted families
who make more than $100,000 to bear 70% of the new tax burden, and many
were quick to complain that their six-figure income does not make them one
of the well-to-do.  It's particularly ironic (to me) that it's in those
traditionally liberal enclaves of the Bay Area and academia where the
wealthy are struggling so to fit themselves into the mantle of "just
regular working-class folk".

Nobody will ever admit to being rich; everybody's middle class.  So who
are The Rich?  Well, I'll throw out some stats from the 1990 Census and
let you be the judge...

Va negvpyr <mzimmersC5E1qK.Fn9@netcom.com>
mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) jevgrf:
} In article <1qcdvbINN5ti@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
} fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
} > [...]
} >that would be about $55 to 65 thousand US, and that is what tenured
} >professors can expect to make.  For a PhD with say 10 years experience,
} >$65,000 is a lot less than what he could be making in industry.  
} 
} Oh?  As a 12-year veteran of Silicon Valley, I've seen precious few
} employment ads that call for PhDs.  And $65K is hardly chump change;
} it's well above the median *household* income for the state.

Bay Area average household income is in the mid-$40,000 range.  National
average is $31,889.  The Bay Area has nearly twice the national average
of six-figure income households (9.1% vs 4.8%*).  The cost-of-living here
may be high, but I don't think it's twice the national average...

} >In Los Angeles, modest home prices can be $500,000.  

A 1,500-square-foot tract house in a Bay Area working-class neighborhood
goes for about $250,000.  I doubt that the Los Angeles market is all that
different.  It would appear that this definition of "modest" is perhaps a
bit immoderate...

} So what?  They're no cheaper for those who are gainfully employed.
} 
} >In California, $65,000 is not upper-middle-class.
} 
} It depends upon your definition; it's clearly above average.

It is more than what two-thirds of California households make.  Seems
to me that belonging to the upper one-third is not an unreasonable
definition of "upper-middle-class".  Note that if that professor's
spouse earns $35,000 they become one of Clinton's "rich" families.

Here's a breakdown of national, California, and Bay Area household incomes:

   <$30K  $30-50K   $50-100K  $100K+
------------------------------------
US  49%     24%        23%      4% * the Census Bureau did some weird
CA  41%     26%        26%      7%   rounding here...more like 5%
BA  34%     25%        31%      9%

And to add a little prespective:

A minimum wage earner working 40 hours/week makes $8,840/year.  The poverty
line for a family of four is $15,171.  If they make up to twice that, the
government considers them to be "working poor".  Say we decide to call this
the "lower-middle-class".  Then how 'bout:

$30-50K annual income is "middle-class".  $50-100K is "upper-middle-class".
$100K+ is "rich".  $1,000K+ is "filthy-rich".  and $10,000+ is "Bill Gates".

make sense? ;^)

-timr

--
There's nothing surer,
The rich get rich and the poor get poorer,
In the meantime, in between time,
Ain't we got fun.
                                                          --Raymond Egan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178507
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3

In article <C5Jv7A.7F7@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people
>there are rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who
>they loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked
>attack.  Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is
>meant to be the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there
>is to be movement it would be easier for the USA to move.
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

It is also widely stated (in non-mainstream sources) that the CIA had a
large part in the overthrow of the popular (and popularly-elected)
left-leaning Premier Mossadegh in 1953.  Is this widely recognized outside
the U.S.?  (I have never seen it mentioned at all in mainstream U.S.
media.)  How about within Iran?
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178508
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov (John Cobarruvias)
Subject: Re: Newsweek reports Clinton approval ratings...

In article <8597@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
writes:
>When I heard the latest approval rating reported for Clinton, I
>laughed so hard I forgot the exact numbers.  Maybe one of the 
>Clintonettes can refresh my memory...
>
>Has his rating dropped to 48 or 49 percent?  Ha HA HA HA HA!
>
>*snick* oh my either way, it's still the lowest rating any President
>has ever mustered in his first 100 days, since these polls started being
taken.

Hum, I guess this has some significance as opposed to having an incredible
drop during the last days in office. Unfortuantely having a loss in the
polls during the last days of office usually means no re-election. Ask
George.

>
>He was finished before he started!

Good one, Roooster. Thats hard to top.

>
>The Rooster
>
>



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178510
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The state of justice


In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
> new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
> from the fire.
> 
> 	Thoughts?
> 
> 	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
> denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
> to the previous ruling appear.

Welcome to the conservative judiciary.

> 	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
> Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

I think Scalia's point was that you get one chance.  If new information
comes out later, tough.  If the conviced want justice, they have to hope
the governor is feeling charitable.

There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite
evidence of his inocents.

> 	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
> shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
> a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
> 
> 	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

It got swept away in the Reagan Revolution...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178511
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
>tes:
>
>>
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>>
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
>me how, I just have seen the results.
>
>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
>the head.
>

I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm:

	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
	being screwed up in the head, given that example!

(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
THIS to THAT!).



-- 
_______
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178514
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?


In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
|>>} 
|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
|>>
|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
|>
|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary

Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection
effectively makes it a tax.


|>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't
|>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not
|>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from
|>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a
|>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The
|>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live
|>off the land ...
|>
|>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
|>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
|>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.

Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
has done to the country.

Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves,
thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
class.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178515
From: carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <1993Apr15.162552.5510@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>> 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
>> 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.
>
>   Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more
>Pulitzers the same way they did last year.

	I suppose ALL media want something to happen, otherwise what would
	they report: that's their job. (duhhh to me!)

	But it's not so much surprising that they want a riot as it is amazing
	how they carry that desire across in not so subtle ways (at least to
	me...)

carlos.

"I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
 assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178518
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr15.175829.22411@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman)        writes...
>In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...
>>>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that
>>>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d
>>>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour.
> 
>>I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking
>>and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill
>>hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal
>>gain like Nixon did. NOT!
> 
>Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.

Isn't name calling fun!
> 
>Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies.
>I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole,
>rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers
>of his office for personal gain.

What do you think happened at Watergate? What do you think they broke into
the building for? It wasn't to just look around. Do I have to draw you 
a picture?
> 
>You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these
>events occurred.

Whatever...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178519
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster


In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything
|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out.
|>
|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer
|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough
|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.

Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. They
certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
was not necessarily their true position.

|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
|>>set in.
|>
|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)

The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body. 


|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely
|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their 
|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed
|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act
|>as a check on the more-often elected House.

The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
a bit too slow.


|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be
|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the
|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about
|>a "veto" by the Senate.

The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
of being a check on unreasonable legislation. The veto was clearly regarded 
as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.

the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as
a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into
the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives
of the states is not a reasonable restriction. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178520
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: fillibuster


In article <C5Dsyr.325@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

|>|In article <C5BupH.FCp@dscomsa.desy.de>
|>|hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>|>The filibuster does not make sense because the senate is elected as a last
|>|>gasp assembly. It is designed to be the repository of doddery old men with
|>|>no power.
|>
|>|       Phill, I don't know which Senate you're discussing, but it ain't
|>|ours.
|>
|>Phill probably thinks that the US senate is supposed to be the equivalent
|>to the UK's House of Lords.

The status of the House of Lords today is quite different to its status 
in 1789. 


|>Which just goes to show that where the US is concerned Phill still has no
|>idea what he is talking about.

Maddison and Hamilton were both studying existing forms of government for
several years before they wrote the federalist papers. That the US system
is based to a considerable degree on the UK model is pretty widely accepted.
At the time there was no other major country with a representative body.
The French plebicite had been suppressed for 140 years and its restoration
eight years later would mark the start of the French revolution. 

After the UK system the major influences were the Dutch system and of course
the classical systems. Nobody seriously suggests that Rome or Greece were 
models though because the political systems of both countries were acknowleged
disasters. The main lesson learnt from Greece was that unless a federal
state was constructed a war would be inevitable. The Greek democracies were
always fighting amongst themselves which is how Rome managed to invade. Had
the federal consitution been rejected the new Roman empire in the shape of
Britain would quite certainly have reabsorbed much of the colonies in due
course. Moreover the states would have been at each others throats as soon
as the Louisiana purchase situation arose during the Napoleonic period.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178521
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?

How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than
unconscious?

>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.
>
>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
forgot to call all of your witnesses.

If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new
interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find
such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser
could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser
becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new
expert witnesses).

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178522
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: <None>

In article <1993Apr12.183349.23115@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

[...]

> What I see is that the media is reasonably fair, but is seen as
> 'liberal' by conservatives, and 'conservative' by liberals.

Not that I think anyone cares, but this pattern (using other examples
of course) was discussed 2,000 years ago by Aristotle in
_Nicomachean_Ethics_.   Note that you can't use this insight to reason
backwards; e.g.:  Since the conservatives see the media as liberal and
the liberals see the media as conservative, the media are fair!  (though
I've seen this "reasoning" implied)  

> Don Pajerek
> 
> Standard disclaimers apply.

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Nobody can explain everything to everybody.
opinions are my own      | G. K. Chesterton

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178523
From: bram@byron.u.washington.edu (Bram Currie)
Subject: MOW BODYCOUNT


Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at the MOW?

The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior Senator?  The King of
the motss/bi?  

	Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers 
get brought out.

	

-- 
		bram

     ----------------------------------------------------------
Bram Currie                                    bram@u.washington.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178526
From: em@hprpcd.rose.hp.com (Electronic Maintenance)
Subject: INCREDIBLE NEW B.B.S.


WOW !!!!
Did I discover a great BBS !!
It's called Sovereignty Lies In The People
BBS: 916-589-4620  14.4 k baud.  FREE and Confidential
! Fictitious names OK !  Subjects and files contained on the BBS:

* FIND OUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SCAMMING US !!!!
* State Citizenship documents and issues.
  ARE YOU A CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC CITIZEN OR A U.S. FEDERAL CITIZEN ?
  Remember there were only State Citizens before the 14th amendment!!
  One is subject to federal income tax, one isn't.
  Did you volunteer to surrender your State Citizenship when you got
  your Social Security number?  Which one are you?
* Tax laws and issues.  BEAT THE IRS
* Traffic laws and issues.  BEAT TRAFFIC TICKETS.  Can you answer this one:
  What law allows a police officer to arrest you without a warrant when
  he issues you a ticket?
* Religious truth issues.  ARE ALL RELIGIONS SCAMS ????
  ARE ALL CHRISTIAN  RELIGIONS OF THE GREAT CREATOR GOD ????
* Trust documents and issues.

The SYSOP told me that instructions to beat traffic
tickets will be on the BBS shortly.  Beat traffic
tickets without going to court!!!  The BBS is GREAT, spread the word !!!!
Also:  How come I don't hear more people talking about the
Federal Reserve Bank?  Just ask yourself these questions:

1) Why would anyone borrow money from themselves at interest?
The Federal government does * NOT * * NOT *
The Federal reserve Bank is private.  The American people are
being ripped off royally.  100% of the income tax goes to pay
on the Federal debt to the Federal Reserve Bankers.  Not one
dime goes for services.  Services like the military and
welfare come from excise taxes and the like.

2) Why do we the American people stand for this?????

** Check Out The New BBS **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178528
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster

In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything
>|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out.
>|>
>|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer
>|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough
>|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.
>
>Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
>difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. 

       There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want
you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think
will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think
what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."

       You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.

>They
>certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
>was not necessarily their true position.

       Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and 
probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules.
But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions
on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the
government?

       And is writing in support of something automatically "propoganda"
to the point we must assume it is untrue or that they are saying what
they don't believe?

>|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
>|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
>|>>set in.
>|>
>|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
>|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
>|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
>|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)
>
>The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in 
>question.

       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
greater power than did the American system).       

>|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely
>|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their 
>|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed
>|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act
>|>as a check on the more-often elected House.
>
>The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
>a bit too slow.

       I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to
handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington
put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city
council."

       Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than
enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its
original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.

       It is not a case of the system of government they created failing,
but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically
wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem
then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either
House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is
a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more
sense to make more decisions at a local level.

>|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be
>|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the
>|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about
>|>a "veto" by the Senate.
>
>The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
>in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
>of being a check on unreasonable legislation. 

       Please explain to me how Bush abused the veto in an "extraordinary"
manner.

>The veto was clearly regarded 
>as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
>preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.

       I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were
placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means
to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's
opinion) policies.  

       There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power
regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto
for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their
agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President
who abused vetos.

>the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as
>a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into
>the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives
>of the states is not a reasonable restriction.

       Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators
is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators
feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and 
fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question
as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?

       Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which
covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living
in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority
be required?

       Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power
to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not
see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans
are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate
objections to the legislation in question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178529
From: matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043)
Subject: Re: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face


Who wants to look through the bars at some reactionary Liberal conspiracy-
theory idiots and see how they rant and rave at the erosion of their populist 
support?  This is very typical of the elitist Liberal attitude that The People 
are incapable of thinking for themselves.  This elitist attitude will be the
eventual undoing of the arrogant liberal tide sweeping America, as The People
begin to realize more and more that they are being treated like errant children
and robbed of their freedoms by a bunch of Utopian arrogent socialist jerks.


In article 167077 in talk.politics.misc, New Liberation News Service 
<nlns@igc.apc.org> writes:

>Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face
>Lines: 164

>From: New Liberation News Service <nlns>
>Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face

>/* Written  8:33 pm  Apr 14, 1993 by nlns@igc.apc.org in igc:nlns.news */
>/* ---------- "NLNS Packet 3.11 *** 4-14-93" ---------- */

>Fascism with a Friendly Face: Does Rush Limbaugh Remind You of 
>Anyone?
>Daevid Bornhuetter-Machen, The Madison Edge

>"The main difference between Adolf Hitler and Rush Limbaugh is that 
>Hitler was original and showed initiative." 
>--Mort Sahl on The Tom Snyder Radio Show, ABC Radio Network, 
>October 27, 1992.

Although I find myself often disagreeing with the populist rationale
of Mr. Limbaugh, I find him entertaining and I often agree with his 
conclusions.  The fact that he sends liberal reactionaries like these
idiots through the roof makes him all the more entertaining.



>(NLNS)--Believe it or not, I was planning this comparative review of 
>Mein Kampf and Limbaugh's transcribed rant, The Way Things Ought to 
>Be before Sahl issued his comparative review. As usual, Sahl's was 
>independent and sharp as a scalpel.
>        My effort can only dream of comparing favorably to Mort's. At 
>least it has a fairly popular orginating premise; everyone I'd mention the 
>idea to thought it was either divinely inspired or at least past due for 
>delivery.
>        Those reactions are based on parallels that should be obvious to the 
>most peripheral observer of the Acts of those False Prophets. Both are 
>noted for their galvanizing oratorical skills, which they both used with 
>passion to generate a political cult of massive numerical proportions (in 
>fact, Limbaugh claims to have an audience of just over 12 million, almost 
>identical to the number of votes cast for Hitler in the April 1932 German 
>election). Both used a myopic social perspective to build the cult, and 
>enthusiastically amputated facts from the record to fabricate their 
>ideological quilt.

Actually, I find Limbaugh's oratory less than sizzling and his debating
skills sometimes lacking, even though his conclusions are often correct.

I would suggest that a bankrupt leftist ideology that hopes to use concentrated 
political power and a loaded gun to force everyone to do the "right" things
(where "right" is defined by the elitist academics who lead the movement)
is showing an acute case of "myopic social perspective", not to mention
arrogance and utter stupidity.

Limbaugh is certainly far from perfect, but his opponents in the established
body politic and the media are the ones arguing for Federal control of
virtually all aspects of the lives of the Citizenry, and for the elimination
of local control over Affairs Public.  

Perhaps Limbaugh has a following because The People are tired of being treated 
like errant children by a self-important group of arrogant controlling myopic 
people who have no understanding of how life operates outside of the "oughta-be's"
inside their own hopelessly closed minds.



>        The last point is glaringly documented by passages in the opening 
>pages of both books. Hitler's example is when, on page 5, he claims the 
>German nationalist terrorist Leo Schlageter (he bombed part of a railway 
>line between Dusseldorf and Duisburg, being caught in the act, in 1923) 
>was "betrayed to France by a representative of his government" when 
>there has never been any factual foundation for such a statement.
>        In fact, the governments of both the Reich and Prussia, as well as 
>the Vatican, actively intervened to save him from execution, and almost 
>succeeded. 

OK, let us take your word for that and work with it.  A nice specific
incident.



>Limbaugh follows suit by making the hysterically sarcastic 
>claim in his introduction that "in a school or during a commencement 
>ceremony or many other public places... God is unconstitutional." Of 
>course, it's not God but the official imposition of particular concepts of 
>God against an individual's will that's unconstitutional. But Limbaugh is 
>too gleeful in his talent for distortion to want you to know that.

Hmmm, "Congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion,
nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Liberal translation: "the
federal government (as long as it is run by Liberals) may force local
school districts to include certain iconic content in Christmas displays,
while prohibiting others."

I think Limbaugh has you on this one.  It seems to me that he is arguing
for LESS imposition of the federal government into religion.

Nice job on the specificity of that one, too.



[Analysis of historical/modern communication media deleted] 

>        But, as Mort Sahl also observed on the radio the other night, some 
>cloutmeister of the radical right wants Limbaugh to be a focal point of 
>their propoganda. (And remember, Sahl is an Al Haig conservative these 
>days.)
>        Mort might not know exactly who Rush's equivalent of Rodolf 
>Hess is (the book itself suggests Ed McLaughlin, the former president of 
>ABC radio and now Limbaugh's partner in EFM Media, the radio 
>program's production company). But Mort himself is a veteran of the talk 
>show, having hosted them in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. He 
>knows what evil lurks in the hearts of major market media men. He knows 
>that Limbaugh could not have collected his audience had not the 
>opportunity been placed on a silver platter and handed to him. Limbaugh 
>earns his money just as honestly as Al Capone did; it's almost worthy of a 
>RICO indictment.

Ah yes, it is a conspiracy of profound proportions.  Methinks that you
may be a bit resentful of Mr. Limbaugh's success because you attribute it
primarily to luck (how, after all, could anyone with profound differences
of opinion from yourself have become successful without the operation of
conspiracy or blind luck!)  Do you feel this same level of knee-jerk
resentment against lottery winners, or do you congratulate them on their
good fortune?



>        On questions of social issues, there is an overabundance of 
>material in the Limbaugh book that seems to echo Hitler's venom. For 
>example:

This should be great fun, since it is the Liberal movement in America
that is pushing the hardest for centralized fascist control of The People
and business (government/business 'partnership' indeed), and Mr. Limbaugh 
is the populist nemesis of that movement.

I have read Mr. Limbaugh's book, and although it was not the most literary
piece I have read in recent memory it certainly did not contain "venom"
at all, let alone "venom" comparable to an individual who callously murdered
millions out of racism.



>On Their Own Qualifications to Control Society
>        Hitler: "Out of the host of sometimes millions of people, who 
>individually more or less clearly and distinctly guess the truth, partly 
>perhaps understand it, one man [author's emphasis] must step forward in 
>order to form, with apodeictic force, out of the wavering world of 
>imagination of the great masses, granite principles, and to take up the fight 
>for their sole correctness, until out of the playing waves of a free world of 
>thought a brazen rock of uniform combination of form and will arises" 
>(page 577).

A very serious tone in that oratory.



>        Limbaugh: "Who needs the media when they've got me? ... The 
>show is devoted exclusively to what I think ... [the phrase "with half my 
>brain tied behind my back to make it even"] denotes the egress of mental 
>aptitude I require to engage and demolish liberals and others who disagree 
>with me ... It might take four or five years, but I'm convinced The Media 
>will slowly and reluctantly come around to my way of thinking, kicking 
>and screaming all the way." (pages 266, 21, 299 and 273, respectively.)

You neglect to mention that Mr. Limbaugh (have you ever listened to his show, 
BTW?) continuously encourages his audience to think for themselves rather
than blindly following any media icon, himself included.  You yourself mention 
that he makes no bones about his show being strictly about his own opinions.
He also adopts a rather satirical approach, and presumes his audience to be
intelligent enough to distinguish satire from seriousness (and he says as much).
This is in contrast to the average mass-media show, in which the audience is
treated as society's intellectual lowest common denominator.

I am sure that Adolf Hitler was a master of satire; I am sure he was just
kidding when he said that the Jews were the cause of Germany's problems and
needed to be exterminated.



>On Religion as the Basis of a Nation
>        Hitler: "In this world human culture and civilization are 
>inseperably bound up with the existence of the Aryan. His dying-off or his 
>decline would again lower upon this earth the dark veils of a time without 
>culture ... He who dares to lay hand upon the highest image of the Lord 
>sins against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and helps in the 
>expulsion from Paradise." (Page 581.)

This is not religion, it is clearly a perverse worship of race.  Since
Christ was a Jew, it seems quite unlikely that Hitler's characterization of
the Aryan as "the highest image of the Lord" fits with Christian doctrine.



>        Limbaugh: "America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country ... 
>But our intellectual and political elites are often either hostile or 
>ambivalent toward religion ... People for whom belief in God is at best a 
>charming superstition have managed to ban prayer from the public schools 
>for the last thirty years. Is it only a coincidence that the quality of 
>American education has declined ever since?" (pages 274-5.)

Private religious schools have a vastly better record of success than
publicly funded schools.  American history is indeed primarily Judeo-
Christian.  I suppose that Mr. Limbaugh pointing out facts is equivalent
to Adolf Hitler worshiping the Aryan race.  I think you might be reaching
just a wee bit here.



>On Popular Culture as a Reason for Social Collapse
>        Hitler: "The fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in ... 
>One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses, vaudevilles and 
>theatres; and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food ... 
>Theatre, art, literature, movies, the press, billposters and window displays 
>must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the 
>service of a moral idea of State and culture." (pages 346 and 348.)

Definite suggestion that the government should control the entertainment
industry here.


>        Limbaugh: "Today, Hollywood is in trouble. The reason [is] that 
>Hollywood has forgotten who its audience is ... They make fun of people 
>who believe in God. They ridicule the traditional family, heterosexuality 
>and monagamy. They disparage American heroes." (page 254.)

Just a guess here, but I don't think that Mr. Limbaugh would advocate
government control of Hollywood.  You should perhaps call his radio show
to confirm this.  I believe this is more a criticism of Hollywood and the
depraved moral values it espouses, not an advocation of government control 
of Hollywood.

90's Liberals, on the other hand, want to have complete government control 
of our school systems, so that the government can teach The People at an
early age the "right" way to view religion and morality.  I believe Mr. 
Limbaugh is against this, as his satirical use of the "young heads full
of mush" hyperbole indicates.



>On the News Meida
>        Hitler: "The activity of the so-called liberal press was the work of 
>gravediggers for the German people and the German Reich. One can pass 
>by in silence the Marxist papers of lies ... it's task is only to break the 
>people's folkish and national spine, in order to make it ripe for the yoke of 
>slavery of international capital and its masters, the Jews." (Page 331.)

Pretty strong conspiracy theory insinuated here, with an implicit plea for
government power to be used to break up the conspiracy.



>        Limbaugh: "Elements of The Media have jumped on the 
>bandwagon of leftist causes. The cynical journalist of the past has been 
>replaced in many cases by an enthusiastic cheerleader for causes ... During 
>the Gulf war, CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw [said] CNN is a global 
>network. We can't take sides. Cant take sides? --- --- ---! ... If they don't 
>realize that their freedom lies in the United States of America and that 
>therefore they should defend this nation, they are hopelessly misguided 
>and, may I suggest, flirting with megalomania." (pages 270 and 268.)

Indication here that "Elements of the Media" (since career is a self-selected
categorization, perhaps an inferred 'larger percentage than represented in
the populace at large') has a leftist bias.  Doesn't sound too unreasonable.
No insinuation that CNN should not report in an objective fashion, only
that for reporters to say that they do not have any personal bias in the
situation is disingenuous to megalomaniacal.

You may disagree, and it may well be exagerrated, but it is not an unreasonable 
opinion; and Mr. Limbaugh goes well out of his way to make sure that his 
audience knows that these are his opinions, unlike most other reporting that 
purports to achieve perfect objectivity but in actuality will in some degree 
or other, in a statistical sense, reflect the biases of the reporters.  Who 
is being disingenuous here, Mr. Shaw or Mr. Limbaugh?

Again, you should ask Mr. Limbaugh himself, but I expect that he would
oppose government control of the media.



>*     *     *
        
>To continue these comparative excerpts is certainly possible, but 
>ultimately too depressing to take in one reading.

It is indeed depressing to see such myopia and tiresome Liberal arrogance.
Liberals love to play games with paradigms as a way of discrediting people
who disagree with them.  Why don't you challenge conservative ideology
on an intellectual level rather than engaging in ludicrous comparisons?
Perhaps the underpinnings of your ideology are intellectual only in that
they exist in your mind, not the real world.



>        After putting these books down, there is one undeniable fact that 
>haunts me. In the 1920s, Adolf Hitler fed depressed and frightened 
>Germans the opiate of hatred of those around them; in turn, it allowed 
>Germans to hand their collective national power to the Nazis. In the 1990s, 
>Rush Limbaugh is doing the very same thing: distributing hatred to 
>depressed and frightened Americans; in turn, it is helping the American 
>radical right to maintain its power base as the 12-year nightmare of the 
>Reagan-Bush era comes to an end, hoping to rebuild it into their hopes for 
>The Fascist States of America.

Perhaps there are a few among the intellectually challenged who percieve
Rush Limbaugh as a hate-monger, but in my experience he has been spreading
laughter at the ludicrous self-importance of the Left, not hatred.

As to Mr. Bush, you may be correct about his fascist economic leanings.
Mr. Reagan, on the other hand, did his best to reverse the fascist trend
of government involvement in business.  Mr. Clinton is increasing fascism
in America through "business/government partnership" and increased levels
of taxation.  Perhaps you should not have skipped your vocabulary classes
in grade school.



>        And if Limbaugh is not as repellant a Hitler, it is only because the 
>radical right utilizes Limbaugh as its own gateway opiate. One can only 
>wonder what the ultimate drug is they plan to hook America on.

Hmmm.  Seems to me that Limbaugh is not in any way comparable to Hitler
because he has not murdered six million Jews and many, many others out of
racism.  I come from a mixed-race family, so I am quite well attuned to
racism; I don't hear any coming from Rush Limbaugh.  The only place I hear 
racism coming from these days and being taken seriously is from the Liberal 
Left.

The Liberal Left is the movement I see trying to get America hooked
on the opiates of Socialized Medicine, Socialized Transportation, Socialized
Education, etc.  The Left already has America hopelessly addicted to 
that Liberal drug, the Social Security Chain Letter.  It is quite clear
to me that while the Hitler analogy does not really apply to either Rush 
Limbaugh or William Jefferson Clinton, if one of the two is closer than 
the other it is clearly the Fascist Clinton.


>The Madison Edge can be reached at PO Box 845, Madison, WI 53701-
>0845; (608) 255-4460.
>
>--- 30 ---

This is the same address as "Idiots Anonymous", isn't it?


Matt Freivald

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178530
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at 
> the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior 
> Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?  

> Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers 
> get brought out.

Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops),
who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the
density of the crowd in small regions.

These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA
methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be
methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers,
so as to justify bigger budgets.

Steve

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178531
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.


  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178532
From: drevik@utkvx.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes...
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.

I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide.
Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to 
do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations
cost $$$.

Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.


> 
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.
> 
> 
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178533
From: cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

(oh boy. it's the [in]famous Phill Hallam-Baker.)

In article <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
} 
} In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
} 
} |>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
} |>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
} |>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't
} |>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not
} |>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from
} |>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a
} |>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The
} |>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live
} |>off the land ...
} |>
} |>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
} |>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
} |>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.
} 
} Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
} don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
} has done to the country.

how about what 25 years of tax-and-spend, big government, institutionalized
dependency, and out-of-control good intentions at others' expense has
done to the country?
} 
} Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves,
} thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
} ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
} class.

yeah, right. and Clinton is any different? please.
he is just a better lia... i mean, politician.

you think Slick and his gang of elitist socialist academics will lead
us to the promised land? don't hold your breath.

-*-
charles

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178534
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Capital Gains tax increase "loses" money

In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>
>>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large
>>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a)
>>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by
>>accumlated gains.
>
>To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains
>taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there
>to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised.
>   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that
>more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort
>"trends".

Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they
clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86
blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:

1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find
oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term
that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a
few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with
preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.

2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of
what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects
beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to
unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on
taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar
advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice
was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986),
but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates
(without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).

It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal
economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless
pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe
accurately what happens in the real world.


-- 
MORAL: Always Choose the Right Sort of Parents 
       Before You Start in to be Rough
                                        - George Ade
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178535
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: fillibuster

In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de                            writes...
>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
>|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
>|>>set in.
>|>
>|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
>|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
>|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
>|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)
> 
>The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
>The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
>and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
>considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body. 
> 
Just how much power does the House of Lords have now? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178536
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russ)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the Religious Left.
>
                                                                       
Not at all.  I am not a member of the Religious Left, Right, or even
Center.  In fact I don't consider myself very religious at all [ this will
probably result in flames now :) ].  In fact Phil, you should leave
religion out of it.  It just clouds the issue.
                                                                       
>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them aren't. And the
>natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man-made ones.
                                                                         
How typical.  So you think we shouldn't avoid these 'events' [ I shall
refrain from the word disaster since it seems to upset you so much.  :( ]
when we can.  In case you didn't realize it, the natural disasters [ oops,
sorry events ] you are refering to  we have no control over.  Man-made
ones we do.

I guess you missed the show on Ch 20 earlier this week about the disaster
[ oops there I go again... I meant to say event ] on the Exxon Valdez.
Just a natural every day occurance to spread oil on 300 Miles of beach. I
would like to know which natural event [ hey I remembered not to say disaster ]
that would be similar to this.
							       
>Most of your so-called disasters (Love Canal, Times Beach, TMI) aren't
>disasters at all.
                                                                   
Hmm, I suppose you could be right.  They are as natural as a tree, or a
sunrise.  NOT !
                                                                         
>So look, if you want to worship trees (or owls or snails or whatever), fine, do
>so. But DON'T try to push the scaredness of YOUR religious off onto me.
>

So look, if you want to worship a oil slick ( or toxic waste dump or live
in a house that has a cesspool in the front yard ), fine, you have my
permission to do so [ yea right like you need MY permission... ], it just
won't be in the neighborhood where I live.  But DON'T try to push your
shortsighted tunnelvision views off on the rest of us.

-- 
| Russell Hockins               | There are people who believe that there is |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   | no such thing as an environmental disaster.|
|                               | Pretty weird... ain't it?                  |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178537
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
>>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
>>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.

>I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
>convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
>sufficient.



    So, you sat in the court room and listened to the case.  After careful
consideration, you have come to your conclusion.  Well, good for you.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178539
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'

In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <1993Apr13.121723.20568@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>When are Libertarians going to draw a clear line between
>>themselves and NAMBLA? By your own statements, you were once
>>a member of an organization which you *knew* supported
>>exactly what NAMBLA supports, namely abolishing the age of
>>consent. I've never supported any such organization. YOU
>>have.

>While both organizations may, on paper, support the abolition of the age
>of consent, there the resemblance stops.

>One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade
>to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.

What's the difference, in practice?

It amounts to your saying, it's disgusting but should be legal,

***or***

someone else saying, let's allow the parties involved to decide what is
disgusting.

Or, if you're like me, you think that it ISN'T a coercive law, because
some children can't make informed consent.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178540
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>: 
>>: As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>>: is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>>: tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>>: 

[...]

>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.

You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE
opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own
agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen.
While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that
if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become
a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area.
I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is
more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many
instances.

>Just
>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>condition.

I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as
you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not
be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of
libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of
government coercion except in a very limited cases.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178541
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@zeus02.desy.de) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>>} 
>|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
>|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
>|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
>|>>
>|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
>|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
>|>
>|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is
>|>voluntary
>
>Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of
>collection effectively makes it a tax.

Could it be because you're British, Phill, and living in Germany?
While the EC working rules are more liberal than what we have in
the 1989 US-Canada FTA, there's probably a law about that (having
health insurance coverage is a condition of my being down here,
for example).

You have mentioned this once before, yet both the NY Times profile on
the German sickness funds (late Jan.) and pamphlets that my girlfriend
gives to her language students from the German consulate both say that
it is "voluntary" (okay, there were quotation marks (-;) and that only
90% of the population is covered by the sickness funds (analogous to
our provincial health insurances, but not divided by province/state).

Another guy in health care policy says that the Turkish guest workers
aren't covered ... he's written to me a couple of times (he's not a
post-er).  I'll ask him ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178542
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Gore throws out the first ball. And media coverage of it


In article <1993Apr15.093957.1213@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) writes:
> In article <1993Apr13.122543.1682@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> > 
> > In article <C5E2JA.849@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >> This past Thursday VP GOre threw out the first ball at the home opener for
> >> the Atlanta Braves. According to the news reports he was quite loudly booed.
> >> (No, Dr. Norman, these were not your typical beer swilling red-necks.)
> >> 
> >> Personally I wouldn't have paid any more attention to the incident except
> >> that the evening news when describing the event, went on to comment that
> >> being booed was nothing unusual since it was normal for audiences to
> >> boo at this point since the celebrity was delaying the start of the game.
> >> 
> >> What a bunch of crock. I have never heard of any incident in which the
> >> thrower of the ceremonial ball has been booed before.
> > 
> > Dan Quayle got roundly booed in Milwaulkee last year.  (I was listening 
> > on the radio).  This was the game that Quayle told the Brewers players that
> > he would like to see them play the Orioles in the ALCS.
> 
> It's come to this, has it?  Defending Al Gore by comparing him to Dan Quayle?

Who compared Quayle to Gore?  Mark said he had never heard of any incident
in which the thrower of the ceremonial ball had been booed before.  I mentioned
another incident.  (And if the media had a liberal bias, I'm sure he would
have heard of the Quayle incident.)

If I was to compare Quayle to anyone, it most likely would be Elmer Fudd.

> I'd say that about says it all... back to the pit with ye, back to alt.fan.
> dan-quayle!  Begone!

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178543
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
(discrediting Kinsey) says so.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178544
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <15312@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr08.092954.13507@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
># Face it, Clayton, he was not found guilty, and so what if gays sometimes
># make it consensually with 16 year old boys. There ARE 16 year old gays, you
># know. And as I recall, the case of the state rested on the testimony of one
># "victim" who declined to testify, even under threat. I have had teens since
># I was 40, and so have a lot of people. Face it Clayton, you're just a jerk!
># -RSW
># -- 
># * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
># * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
># * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
>
>I am always amazed to see people admit to breaking the law -- and
>putting their address in the signature.  Please tell us more about 
>this.  Were they 13?  14?  Would you like to make a statement for
>the district attorney?

I had sex with a 13 year old boy, it was great, we did *everything*,
well, a hell of a lot.  It was fun anyway.  Oh, and before you turn 
purple with rage I was 12 at the time.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178545
From: smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: The Manitoban Candidate

bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:

> In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to
> govern all American institutions (starting with the American health
> care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators.

With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian
socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got
the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the
control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high
public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market
forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.

Steven Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178546
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr16.010908.22897@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)         writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>[...]
>>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.
> 
>You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE
>opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own
>agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen.
>While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that
>if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become
>a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area.
>I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is
>more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many
>instances.
> 
Pardon me for interrupting, but why doesn't anyone ever bring up other
possibilities besides more government, less government, or no government
and stop there? It seems to me that the problems with society go MUCH
deeper than government. Democracies seem to reflective of the majority
of society, both the good and the bad. If you take away the government,
you still have the structural flaws in society, except this time, with
no restraints. Yes? No?
	Why doesn't anybody ever discuss communal society, like a
kibbutz? I never studied it on depth, but from what I've heard, the kibbutz
in Isreal was very successful. It is also very close to what Aristotle
and Socrates believed was the best.
	Sorry to detract from the discussion.

>>Just
>>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>>condition.
> 
>I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as
>you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not
>be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of
>libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of
>government coercion except in a very limited cases.

But what good is change if there is no tracable improvement in the human
condition? Who would ever support the change if you tell them it won't 
improve their lives? I know that there are, and will be, libertarians 
who will jump in now and say that it WILL improve our lives. I can deal
with that. All I'm saying is that improving the human condition must
be the PRIMARY goal of any organization.

>Ian Sutherland
>ian@eecs.nwu.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178547
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: AM Press Briefing by Dee Dee Myers -- 4.15.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 15, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY DEE DEE MYERS

	     
                          The Briefing Room


9:45 A.M. EDT

	     	  
	     Q	  Why was the 10:00 a.m. postponed? 
	     	  
	     MS. MYERS:  Just due to scheduling conflicts.  So as we 
put out, the President will meet with the leaders of the national 
police organizations at 2:00 p.m. in the Rose Garden, as opposed to 
10:00 a.m.  The only other things on his schedule today are:  At 
11:00 a.m. he'll meet with General Vessey, who, as you know, is on 
his way to Vietnam to continue working on the MIA-POW issue.  At 
12:30 p.m. he'll have lunch with the Vice President in the Oval 
Office.  And at 2:00 p.m. he'll meet with the police organizations.
Then from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. he'll do his weekly photos with the 
various groups.
	     
	     Q	  A photo op with Vessey?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's no coverage on the Vessey meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Why?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Why?  It's a closed meeting.  
	     
	     Q	  What about the lunch?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The lunch?  No, there's no coverage.
	     
	     Q	  Is he meeting with any congress people today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing scheduled.
	     
	     Q	  There are no meetings --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There are no congressional meetings today, 
no.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President been given any information by the 
Pentagon or reached any conclusion about the validity of this report 
from Hanoi?  Any instructions to Vessey on how to deal with the 
Vietnamese on that subject?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, clearly, the report is the first order 
of business.  It's high on the agenda on something that they'll 
discuss.  I think the President and General Vessey will discuss the 
parameters of his visit to Vietnam today, but the President hasn't 
drawn any conclusions about the report yet.  Certainly, it's 
something that he wants General Vessey to talk with the Vietnamese 
about first.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President talk with any Republican senators 
yesterday about the stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He spoke with Senator Dole.
	     
	     Q	  How many times?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe once during the day and once last 
night.
	     
	     Q	  What was the outcome of that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  They're continuing to work toward some kind 
of an agreement on a jobs package.
	     
	     Q	  Is it your impression that Senator Dole is in any 
way flexible on this?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think we're hopeful that we're going 
to get some kind of jobs package through the Senate, and we'll 
continue to work with Senator Dole and others until we reach some 
kind of an agreement.
	     
	     Q	  Did they discuss the VAT tax?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know if that came up.
	     
	     Q	  Can you check that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Sure.

	     Q	  So what are they -- is the President offering to 
scale down his program -- is that what he's trying to do, buy it down 
to where Dole will sign on?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, he's trying to protect as much of it 
as he can.  But it's important to him to get some kind of a jobs 
package through the Senate and through Congress now.  And as soon as 
we reach some conclusions on that, we'll let you know.  But at the 
moment, he's continuing to consult with members of Congress 
including, obviously, Senator Dole.
	     
	     Q	  Is he talking to anybody else?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe he talked to any other 
Republicans yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Is he talking to anybody today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think anything is scheduled, but I 
wouldn't rule it out.
	     
	     Q	  We were led to believe that the President called 
Mr. Dole on the subject of Russian aid and that Bob Dole brought the 
conversation around to stimulus package.  Is that correct?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the President has contacted several 
people on Russian aid.  I think that it was always expected that the 
stimulus package or the jobs package will be part of any conversation 
he would have with Senator Dole.  The primary objective of the 
conversation was Russian aid.  That was the first order of business, 
but it was both.
	     
	     Q	  In the President's mind, are they linked 
politically in that if the Republicans continue to reject the 
stimulus package, he thinks it will be harder to sell Russian aid to 
the American people?  Has he made that argument?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I can't talk about specifically what 
arguments he might have made.  The President is obviously committed 
to both.  He liked to see a jobs package to the American people 
first.  But as you know, we outlined the details of additional 
Russian aid last night in Tokyo.
	     
	     Q	  But does the President believe that the stimulus 
package will make it more difficult to persuade Americans to vote for 
Russian -- to accept a vote for Russian aid?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that the President is going to 
continue to work to pass the stimulus package, to pass a jobs 
package, and we're still hopeful that we'll get some kind of jobs 
package through the Congress.
	     
	     Q	  Is it fair to say that the President is negotiating 
now with Dole?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's discussing options with him.
	     
	     Q	  On the stimulus, is it your understanding that over 
the break some Democrats, themselves, have left the support that they 
had earlier for the package, the stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think we still have wide support in the 
Senate for the jobs package.
	     
	     Q	  But specifically, that you've lost Democrats other 
than Shelby?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.  There hasn't been a 
vote.
	     
	     Q	  What about Kohl?
	     
	     Q	  Kohl and Feingold?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There hasn't been a vote yet.  And we'll 
continue to work with senators to try to get a majority to try to 
bring the package to a vote, because we believe that a majority of 
the members of the United States Senate support the package.
	     
	     Q	  If you're weren't worried about Kohl and Feingold, 
why did George mention Milwaukee projects the other day?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think George pointed out a number of 
projects in a number of states that stand to be funded, or to lose 
funding if this jobs package doesn't pass.
	     
	     Q	  No Democrats.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
	     
	     Q	  Does he plan to talk to Dole again today or any 
other Republicans again today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's nothing specifically scheduled, but 
again, I wouldn't rule it out.
	     
	     Q	  Does he plan to put out any more press releases to 
any other states today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  What we've done is we're in the process of 
breaking down the benefits of the jobs package state by state.  I 
think it's entirely feasible that as we sort of are able to sum those 
up, we'll send out press releases to the various states that suggest 
how their states would benefit from this package.
	     
	     Q	  Will you share those with us?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Sure.  As we did yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have copies of the ones you sent --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, we made those available yesterday.  And 
we certainly can continue to provide them today.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, since yesterday's questions and subsequent 
stories about the VAT, what further consideration of this issue has 
been given?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing's changed since yesterday.  I think 
the President commented on it this morning to say only that it was 
something he knew was being considered by the task force and that he 
has not made a decision on, and I don't think we have anything to add 
to that.
	     
	     Q	  But he also said that business and labor groups are 
telling him they support it.  Can you tell us --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that there has been -- I'm not going 
to speculate on who supports it.  I think the President said that 
there has been some support among business and labor groups.  I don't 
think he said he was directly contacted by them.
	     
	     Q	  Are we to take that to mean that the administration 
has sounded out business and labor groups on this --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think there's been plenty of public 
discourse on this over the years and even recently, but I don't think 
I want to add to that.
	     
	     Q	  In February, though, the President said that this 
was something to be considered 10 or 15 years down the road.  What 
has happened between then and now to cause this administration to 
change its mind?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think as we said yesterday, it is 
something that the working groups are looking at.  They're 
considering a wide variety of options on everything from funding to 
specific options that will be covered by the President's health care 
plan.  The President has not taken it up yet, has not made a decision 
on it.  And beyond that, I don't have anything to add.
	     
	     Q	  You haven't answered the question.  It wasn't being 
considered by anyone in the White House after the President's 
comments in February, and George reaffirmed that in a briefing.
	     
	     Q	  And then suddenly --
	     
	     Q	  What happened?

	     MS. MYERS:  The working groups, as we have said 
throughout, we instructed to consider a wide variety of options 
across-the-board.  And one of the things that has been talked about 
and that they are clearly considering is some kind of a value-added 
tax.

	     Q	  But the President himself took this off the table, 
Dee Dee, and suddenly it reappears.  And this goes to the credibility 
of this administration in a way.  What has happened in the meantime?

	     MS. MYERS:  The President has not looked at this, it 
hasn't been presented to him, again, yet.  The working groups are 
looking at it, as they're looking at a wide variety of options, and 
no decisions have been made.

	     Q	  And it raises the question of how independently the 
task force is working.

	     MS. MYERS:  The task force was instructed to consider 
all options, and they've taken that mandate seriously and they're 
considering all options.

	     Q	  But that's not the impression that the President 
left in February.  The impression he left was that this was something 
that was long-range, to be looked at 10, 15 years down the road.  The 
clear implication of his remarks was that this was something that was 
not on the table, not an option. 

	     Q	  "If it changes I'll tell you."
	     
	     Q	  Bring him on.

	     Q	  And you repeatedly referred to the President's 
remarks, telling us that those were still in operation.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's changed, and we told you.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  But that's what Alice Rivlin's comments and Donna 
Shalala comments were about.  I mean, that seemed like an 
orchestrated effort because you have two independent Cabinet officers 
--

	     MS. MYERS:  I wouldn't -- no, Alice Rivlin's not a 
Cabinet member, first of all.  Second of all, it was not 
orchestrated, but clearly, they both said yesterday and in the last 
couple of days that it's something that's being looked at.  We 
confirmed that yesterday.  And I don't have anything to add to that.

	     Q	  Is it because he has very few options?

	     Q	  Is this something that it will be incumbent upon 
the task force to convince the President about?  In other words, has 
the President himself personally ruled it out and it's now up to the 
task force to convince him to put it back on the table?  Or is it, in 
fact, back on the table, having been placed there by discussions with 
the President?  

	     MS. MYERS:  It is not the working group's mission at 
this point to convince the President of anything.  It is their 
mission to put before him his options and to explain the benefits and 
the costs and the basic pros and cons of each of those options.  I 
think that they will certainly present the VAT to him in that 
context, and at this point he's not -- that presentation has not been 
made, but it's something that he will hear and he has not made a 
decision on.

	     Q	  They will present it to him as one of his options, 
though he specifically ruled it out?

	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.

	     Q	  Dee Dee, is this more than a trial balloon?  Is 
this a serious consideration that the working groups are giving to 
this form of taxation?

	     MS. MYERS:  It's simply a statement of fact.  The 
working groups are considering a wide variety of options on a number 
of issues relating to health care reform.  One of the options that 
they're looking at is the VAT. 

	     Q	  Dee Dee, when the working groups were examining 
this possibility, was this on the table during the same time period 
that you were telling us that it was not?

	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know what the specific timing of 
their drafting of options is.  I don't know.

	     Q	  Who was telling you that it was not under 
consideration?

	     MS. MYERS:  I was referring back to the President's 
comments.

	     Q	  Have they discovered that the sin taxes won't raise 
enough money to fund the core benefit package?

	     MS. MYERS:  No, there's no decisions that have been made 
on how to pay for the health care plan.
	     
	     Q	  I'm asking whether the projections --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's a number of options depending on how 
the plan is structured.  You can't decide how much the plan is going 
to cost until you decide what the plan is going to look like.  And so 
you can't discuss what financing options have been ruled in our out 
until you know.

	     Q	  Dee Dee, we've been told that they have a computer 
models on a number of possible packages.

	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.  

	     Q	  The question is whether they have now determined 
whether sin taxes would not produce enough money for even the barest 
minimum package.  That is not a very difficult computation.

	     MS. MYERS:  It is a question that you know that we're 
not going to answer until -- there's a number of options being 
considered.  It depends on how the package is structured.  The exact 
details of the package and the financing mechanisms used to pay for 
them are all among the decisions that have yet to be made.  
	     
	     Q	  And when the President has been meeting with health 
care -- his health care advisors, which we are told he has been doing 
--
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	     they have never once said to him, these are your 
funding options, including the VAT?  He has never heard the word VAT 
in his --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:    I am not going to comment on the specific 
nature of the daily -- they're not daily, but the quasi-regular 
briefings.
	     
	     Q	  Well, you have.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I have not, other than to say that he's not 
considered the VAT.  And I think that is a true statement.
	     
	     Q	  No, but you said that it has not been presented to 
him as an option.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	  That doesn't mean he hasn't heard about it.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to get into the details of 
what's discussed.  I think that statement stands for itself.
	     
	     Q	     specific, Dee Dee.  When you say he hasn't 
looked at it, do you mean that he hasn't looked at it in terms of 
paying for medical coverage, or hasn't looked at it in general?  
Because back in Chilicothe he was very specific in defining how it 
works, what the advantages are, the whole thing.  It sounds like --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  But that was -- I think in Chilicothe, if 
you go back to his remarks there, it was a broader philosophical 
discussion of the tax structure.  And I think the comments were 
generally in reference to the overall economic plan.  But clearly, 
it's something that he's thought about in the broad context.  I mean, 
that was clear in Chilicothe.  What I'm saying is that in the process 
of the working groups it's something that he hasn't considered yet.  
It's something that the working groups will present to him among the 
number of options, and that no decisions have been made.  And I'm not 
going to comment any further on the details of the meetings where 
health care issues are being discussed.
	     
	     Q	  It's your statement from this podium that no 
discussion of this has taken place.  You say that no option -- that 
the option has not been presented to him.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That is correct.
	     
	     Q	  Do you stand by -- does the White House still stand 
by George's statement in March that this will not be in the proposal?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No decisions have been made.  We have 
nothing to add to what's already been said.
	     
	     Q	  Let me follow up here.  Do you stand by what Rivlin 
said yesterday, that if any kind of VAT were to be used or 
considered, that other changes to the tax code would have to be made 
so that it would be less regressive?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment any further on what 
might happen if.
	     
	     Q	  But do you stand by the previous conversations in 
February that if there were to be a VAT, I think the President said 
you'd exclude food and energy --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment on the specific 
structure of a decision that hasn't been made.
	     
	     Q	  Was the President aware prior to Donna Shalala's 
comments yesterday that this was under consideration by the working 
groups?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know specifically what --
	     
	     Q	  Could you check for us, because that's a real 
important credibility question?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Since the task force was brought together this 
issue has been discussed, at the beginning and throughout, as one 
fairly painless way to raise a lot of money.  Were you all kept in 
the dark?  Was the Press Office kept in the dark over the past month 
and a half when you've been denying that a VAT tax would be 
considered that it was actually on the table over there as an option?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think we've said all that we have to say.  
It is something the working groups are looking at.  The President has 
not made a decision about it yet.  And beyond that, I have nothing to 
add.
	     
	     Q	  Well, sorry, Dee Dee, there are still a couple of 
questions that we are going to have to ask because we have a problem 
with credibility here -- yours primarily.  What we're asking is, if 
you all were not told at all that this thing was being considered 
while you were coming out here and telling us that it was not, or if 
it's a case that you were coming out here and deliberately misleading 
us.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe that anyone has ever come 
out here and deliberately misled you from this podium -- ever --ever.
	     
	     Q	  Has anyone tried to shade it a little bit to 
indicate something -- has anybody told anybody to come out --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're not trying to shade answers or 
deliberately mislead anybody.  I've said what I have to say about 
this issue.
	     
	     Q	  All we were trying to find out --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I understand what you're trying to find out 
and I've given you the answers, Helen.
	     
	     Q	  We're trying to find out what changed -- what made 
it an option again.  That's the --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The working groups were given a broad 
mandate to investigate all options, and they are doing that.  
	     
	     Q	  Yes, but it wasn't an option before.  How can you 
investigate it if the President has taken it off the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It is something that they're obviously 
considering and the President has not made a decision on.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, but he took it off the table in February.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Working groups are considering it.  They'll 
present it to the President at some point and he'll make a decision.
	     
	     Q	  Why would they consider it if he has taken it off 
the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's clearly on the table. 
	     
	     Q	  Yes, but he took it off the table.  Did he change 
his mind?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's back on the table, Bill.
	     
	     Q	  Did he change his mind?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He said this morning that he hasn't made a 
decision about it.  He obviously knows that it's on the table.  It's 
something that he will look at at some and when we have a decision on 
this we'll let you know.
	     
	     Q	  So he must have changed his mind, right?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  At some point it will be looked at.  I mean, 
--
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, there's like two options -- either he 
changed his mind or the working groups think they're authority 
exceeds the President's.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The working groups were given a broad 
mandate to look at all options; they've done that.
	     
	     Q	  Are you going to put out his income tax?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, there will be something available on 
his income tax probably later this afternoon.  His return will be 
available. 
	     
	     Q	  Will there be any kind of briefing to go through 
it?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, nothing's planned.  I think someone will 
be available, probably not in a briefing setting, but to walk you 
through the questions.
	     
	     Q	  We're used to be walked line-by-line through the 
presidential tax forms.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I've seen those briefings.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Could we have one?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:   No, I don't think there will be any kind of 
a formal briefing, but there will be somebody available to answer 
your questions about it.
	     
	     Q	  Did they file a joint form?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  When did he file it?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe it's being filed today.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, is there going to be a backgrounder for 
Miyazawa?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, there will be a readout after the 
meeting.
	     
	     Q	  No backgrounder today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No backgrounder today.
	     
	     Q	  This is complicated stuff.  We need help.  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We can't give you taxes and Miyazawa all in 
one day, it's too confusing.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Vance and Owen have opened the doors on the use of 
force in Bosnia.   They've both said that, A, they never ruled it 
out, and B, it might be necessary now.  Does that influence your 
thinking on whether or not to change your approach?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's been no change in our policy towards 
Bosnia.  We have always said that we'd consider --
	     
	     Q	  But does that impact upon your decision?  Are they 
people whose opinions would carry weight with you?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  They're people whose opinions carry weight 
certainly.  I mean, the President supports the process that they've 
initiated.  But there's been no change in our policy for Bosnia, 
although we're considering a number of options right now.  If the 
Serbs don't come back to the negotiating table, if they don't sign on 
to some kind of an agreement, we will consider additional options, 
which we've been saying regularly.
	     
	     Q	  One follow-up question then?  We cannot get a 
straight answer from anyone in the administration.  Why do you not 
set a deadline for the Serbs?  Can you tell us the strategic or 
tactical reasons for not giving them a deadline to come to the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're continuing to put pressure on them 
every day.
	     
	     Q	  Which doesn't work so --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, we think it is having some effect.  
We're going to continue to tighten sanctions.  As you know, we 
support the omnibus resolution.  We expect that to come to a vote on 
the 26th.  
	     
	     Q	  You say it's having an effect -- can you give us 
any documentation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'd be happy to provide somebody to talk to 
you about the impact of the sanctions and things like that.
	     
	     Q	  There's been no -- you have not been able to 
provide anybody who can tell us that the sanctions have had any 
effect in Bosnia.  Serbia, yes; in Bosnia, no.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that they've had effect in Serbia 
and we think they've had some effect in Bosnia.  And again, I'll be 
happy to provide somebody to walk you through the details of that, if 
you'd like.
	     
	     Q	  We would like to hear from someone who can show us 
what the effect has been in Bosnia.  We had the briefing on all of 
the terrible things that are happening in Belgrade, but we haven't 
seen anything that indicates an impact on the fighting.  Can you 
provide something along those lines?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I will see what I can get you.
	     
	     Q	  On the extra Russian aid that Christopher announced 
this morning -- where is that money coming from?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll have to work with Congress on the 
details of that package.
	     
	     Q	  So that would be new money that you would hope to 
get?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:    Yes, that's new money, in addition to the 
$1.6 billion announced in Vancouver.  So I assume that you all have 
seen the $1.8-billion package that was announced this morning in 
Tokyo by Secretary Christopher.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't there a concern, though, about offering 
something which you have to get in Congress?  I mean, that was the 
concern with Vancouver; you didn't want to do that.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The concern with Vancouver was to do 
something immediately, which required money that was already approved 
in the Fiscal '93 budget.  What we're looking at now is a little bit 
longer-term plan to build on top of the $1.6 billion that we 
announced in Vancouver.  This clearly will require congressional 
approval, or some of it will anyway, and we're going to continue to 
work with Congress to make that happen.
	     
	     Q	  To what extent has that been vetted or agreed to by 
Congress?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The President has had a number of 
conversations with members and will continue to work with them as 
this process moves forward.
	     
	     Q	  Was Christopher able to put this package out with a 
fair degree of understanding that you will be able to get it through 
Congress?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It was created in consultation with 
Congress.
	     
	     Q	  In meeting with the law enforcement officials, is 
that -- does that have a set speech and a goal?  A direction?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, the President will talk about -- and 
the law enforcement organizations are endorsing the President's jobs 
package.  They believe particularly the summer jobs package will help 
give kids something to do.
	     
	     Q	  Who are they?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's members or leadership from three 
organizations:  NAPO, which is the National Association of Police 
Organizations; IBPO, which is the International Brotherhood of Police 
Organizations, I believe; and IUPA, which is the International Union 
of Police Associations.
	     
	     Q	  Will the FBI chief be there?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The FBI chief?  No.
	     
	     Q	  Or any other federal law enforcement officials?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, it will be the President and these 
national law enforcement organization leaders.
	     
	     Q	  Does the $1.8 billion announced today include the 
$400 million that's in the FY '94 budget for disarmament?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.  The Nunn-Lugar money is separate.
	     
	     Q	  So this would be the $700 million that's in the 
budget already, plus another $1.1 billion?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe all of this is on top of the $700 
million already in the budget.
	     
	     Q	  Is this going to be part of the supplemental or 
Fiscal '94 --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll work with Congress on the exact 
funding mechanism -- on exactly how this will be paid for.
	     
	     Q	  This $1.8 billion on top of --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  On top of $700 million -- on top of the $400 
million Nunn-Lugar money we announced earlier.
	     
	     Q	  And this is what prompted the President to call Bob 
Dole -- it was on this tranche, not on the previous money he was 
calling Bob Dole?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	  Is there a briefing on Miyazawa?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There will be a readout after the meeting 
with Miyazawa.  Tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, on a totally unrelated matter, some 
Republicans who are active in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are 
complaining about this new cozy relationship between the White House 
and the Chamber of Commerce.  There are -- the town hall meeting the 
other night, the satellite and all of this relationship.
Does the White House feel that you're getting too close to these 
Chambers of Commerce?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That's an interesting charge.  (Laughter.)  
After how many years of Democrats being accused of not paying any 
attention to the Chambers, now there are those who would accuse us of 
being too close.  I think that's interesting.  But no, we're thrilled 
by the support we've received from the national Chamber and local 
Chambers across the country and we'll continue to work with them on 
this and other initiatives.
	     
	     Q	  What's the status of the President thinking about 
going to this Democratic retreat?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's on his calendar.  I think he'll almost 
certainly go.
	     
	     Q	  All three days?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We haven't figured out exactly when he'll be 
there yet.  
	     
	     Q	  Is it open to coverage?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I believe the whole thing is closed.
	     
	     Q	  Is he going to have any kind of address, statement, 
anything at all on the gay rights march on the 25th?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're still looking at that.  We haven't 
made a final decision about how we'll -- who will make a statement or 
what --
	     
	     Q	  Any meetings scheduled with any of the leaders?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing is scheduled, but I wouldn't rule it 
out.
	     
	     Q	  What about an AIDS czar?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's coming.
	     
	     Q	  Anything on the weekend?
	     
	     Q	  There's been a suggestion that he's going to this 
retreat to avoid having to participate in the gay rights -- or appear 
or have any involvement in the gay rights march.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I think this is something he's been 
discussing for a long time -- appearing at the Senate Democratic 
retreat.
	     
	     Q	  The weekend?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Weekend?  Don't know -- the only thing on 
right now is the radio address on Saturday.
	     
	     Q	  Any travel plans?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  If it changes -- none right now.
	     
	     Q	  He's not going to be off campaigning for his 
stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No specific plans right now.
	     
	     Q	  What about mid-week?  Anything likely?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's possible.  Yes, I think it's likely 
that we'll travel next week -- certainly the weekend.
	     
	     Q	  Has he called Thurmond about his daughter?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  I'll check.
	     
	     Q	  Going to name a drug czar this weekend?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  This weekend?  I don't believe so.
	     
	     Q	  And the radio address on Saturday -- is that going 
to be focused on the stimulus package?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm sure it will.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END10:10 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178549
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: VP Gore Joins Students in Orlando for 1st Kids Earth Summit



                           WHITE HOUSE
                   OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
_________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                CONTACT:  Heidi Kukis
THURSDAY, April 15, 1993                       202-456-7035
                                               Julia Payne
                                               202-456-7036


    GORE JOINS STUDENTS IN ORLANDO FOR FIRST KIDS EARTH SUMMIT
    Will Take Part in Special Town Meeting On the Environment
 ******** SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 1993 - ORLANDO, FLORIDA **********

     WASINGTON -- Joining students from across the United States 
and around the world for the first ever Kids Earth Summit, Vice 
President Al Gore will travel to Orlando, Florida, on Saturday 
(4/17) and participate in a special town hall meeting, hosted by 
Linda Ellerbee for broadcast on Nickelodeon, to hear the young 
people's concerns and share ideas about the environment.

     The Vice President will take part in the "Kids World 
Council: Plan It for the Planet" from 2-5 PM (EDT) Saturday 
(4/17) in Orlando, Florida.  He will tour a display of student 
environmental projects, then videotape the town hall meeting 
where he will discuss with student delegates their concerns about 
the environment and their plans for an environmentally sound 
future.

     The town hall meeting will be moderated by Linda Ellerbee 
and taped for a news special, "Nickelodeon Special Edition:  Plan 
It for the Planet," which will air on Sunday, April 18 at 8 PM 
(EDT).  It is sponsored by Nickelodeon and the Children's Earth 
Fund.

     "Young people care about the environment because they know 
it affects our future.  Across the country and around the world, 
young people are speaking out about the environmental challenges 
we face.  They are identifying problems, thinking about 
solutions, and they are demanding action from their leaders," the 
Vice President said.

     The Kids World Council delegates are meeting for three days 
in Orlando to discuss how to save energy and switch to renewable 
energy.  They will be following the format and goals of the Earth 
Summit that took place last year in Rio de Janeiro.  The Vice 
President led the Senate Delegation to the Earth Summit.

     "I look forward to hearing what young people have to say 
about the environment and their future.  Their insight into the 
world around us is important," the Vice President said.

                                (MORE)


   

     

     	  

                 SCHEDULE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
                     Saturday, April 17, 1993


2:15 PM (EDT) VICE PRESIDENT TOURS display of student                           
 environmental projects.
              Nickelodeon Studios
              Orlando, Florida


3:30 PM (EDT) VICE PRESIDENT TAKES PART IN TOWN HALL MEETING
              with Kids World Council delegates and
              Linda Ellerbee.
              Nickelodeon Studios
              Orlando, Florida


5 PM (EDT)    VICE PRESIDENT DEPARTS from Kids World Council
              for Washington, D.C.




     NOTE:  PRESS THAT WISH TO ATTEND SHOULD CONTACT EILEEN                    
PARISE OR MARTY VON RUDEN IN FLORIDA AT 407-352-7589.

 


                                ##
             


      	   
     
     

       


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178550
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks to Law Enforcement Leaders



	     	  


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 15, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                   TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
	     
	     
                           The Rose Garden 


2:52 P.M. EDT


	     THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Ladies and gentlemen, 
two months ago I presented a comprehensive plan to reduce our 
national deficit and to increase our investment in the American 
people, their jobs and their economic future.  The federal budget 
plan passed Congress in record time, and created a new sense of hope 
and opportunity in the country.  
	     
	     Then, the short-term jobs plan I presented to Congress, 
which would create a half a million jobs in the next two years passed 
the House of Representatives two weeks ago.  It now has the support 
of a majority of the United States Senate. 
	     
	     All of these members of Congress know it's time to get 
the economy moving again, to get job growth going again, to get a 
fast start on the investments we need to build a lasting prosperity.  
Unfortunately, a minority of the members of the United States Senate 
have used gridlock tactics to prevent their colleagues from working 
the will of the majority on the jobs bill.
	     
	     When Congress returns, I ask every senator from every 
state and from both parties to remember what is at stake.  The issue 
is not politics, it's people.  Sixteen million of them are looking 
for full-time jobs and can't find them.  These men and women don't 
care about who's up or down in Washington.  They care about paying 
the rent and meeting the mortgage payment, about putting food on the 
table and buying shoes for their children, about regaining a sense of 
dignity that comes from doing a day's work and supporting their 
families and drawing a paycheck.
	     
	     They're asking those of us who have the privilege of 
serving to put aside politics and do something now to move our 
economy forward.  I am prepared to do that.  And I have been working 
with the Senate to come up with an adjusted package that meets some 
of the concerns of those who have been blocking action on the jobs 
plan.  I'm willing to compromise, so long as we keep the focus on 
jobs, keep the focus on growth and keep the focus on meeting unmet 
national needs.  
	     
	     Our opponents have been asking for a smaller package.  
Today I ask them to join me in determining exactly what kind and what 
size package Congress can approve that actually meets the needs of 
the American people. 
	     
	     But even as we make those reductions and the package 
will be smaller, I believe we must address problems that are on the 
minds of millions of Americans, and one in particular, and that is 
the need to toughen law enforcement in our society to deal with the 
dramatic rise in violent crime. 
	     
	     So I will ask, even in this reduced package, for an 
additional $200 million in federal funding to help local communities 
to rehire police officers who have been laid off because of the 
fiscal problems caused by the national recession.  Together, with a 
matching effort by local governments, this could put as many as 
10,000 police officers back on the job, and back on the beat in 
communities all across our nation.
	     
	     At a time when too many of our people live in fear of 
violent crime, when too many businesses have closed and too many 
people have lost their jobs because people are afraid to leave their 
homes, rehiring thousands of officers is one of the best investments 
America can make.  And I ask both Houses of Congress to make that 
investment in our people's safety and in their piece of mind.  
	     
	     I believe in the need for strong federal action to keep 
the economy going toward recovery and to create jobs.  Make no 
mistake about it:  I will fight for these priorities as hard as I 
ever have.  I will never forget that the people sent me here to fight 
for their jobs, their future and for fundamental change.
	     
	     I want to thank the police officers who are here today 
and tell you that not a single one of them knew before they came here 
that I had determined to ask for more money in this jobs bill to 
rehire police officers.  They came here because they believe in the 
summer jobs portion of the package.  And I want them to be free to 
talk about that.  They came here not out of any law enforcement 
concern other than the fact that they wanted the kids in this country 
to have a chance to have jobs this summer, to have safer streets and 
a brighter and more peaceful future.
	     
	     I say what I say today not just because it's good for 
law enforcement but because it's good for the people who live in 
these communities.  I have always supported community policing not 
only because it helps to prevent crime and to lower the crime rate, 
but because it cements better relationships between people in law 
enforcement and the people that they're hired to protect.  It reduces 
the chances of abusive action by police officers and increases the 
chances of harmony and safe streets at the same time.
	     
	     These are the kinds of things that we are trying to do.  
I promised in my campaign that I'd do everything I could to put 
another 100,000 police officers on the street over the next four 
years.  This makes a good downpayment on that.  This keeps in mind 
the core of the jobs package.  And this will help us to move forward.  
	     
	     So I ask the people in the Senate who have blocked the 
jobs bill, let's work together.  I can accept a reduced package if 
you will increase your commitment to safe streets.  I do not accept 
the fact that we should reduce our commitment to summer jobs or to 
building our infrastructure or to doing those other things that will 
create real and lasting  prosperity for our people.  I have done my 
part now to end the gridlock; I ask you to do yours.  
	     
	     I want now to give the people who are here with me on 
the platform a chance to make some remarks and to be heard by the 
American people -- beginning with Janet Reno, the distinguished 
Attorney General.
  
	     
	     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, can you tell us -- do you think that 
the jobs package could be put in further jeopardy by controversy over 
the suggestion of a VAT tax at this point in the congressional 
dialogue?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Not at all.  I think it should have --
they wouldn't have any relationship one to the other.  First of all, 
I made absolutely no decision on that.  You should know that there's 
a lot of support in the business community and the labor community -- 
people have asked us to consider that because of the enormous burden 
of the present system on many of our major employers, particularly 
many of those that we depend upon to generate jobs and to carry the 
strength of this economy.  But I have made absolutely no decision 
that would even approach that on that or any other kind of general 
tax.
	     
	     Q	  Do you personally believe that the American public 
is ready to pay for -- to have another tax to pay for health care?  I 
mean, apart from what business and labor leaders have said --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm not going to speculate on that.  I 
will say this:  The real issue is how quickly we can recycle the 
benefits of all the savings to cover the cost.  I mean, that is --
everyone knows that if you do what we're proposing to do, if you 
streamline the insurance system, if you fix the system so that 
there's no longer an enormous economic incentive to over-utilize or 
over-provide certain services, if you provide primary and preventive 
care in places where it isn't now, every single analysis shows 
absolutely massive savings to the health care system.
	     
	     The real question is whether you can transfer those 
savings to cover those who have no coverage now or those who have 
virtually no coverage so that you provide people the security.  I 
have no idea.  The polls say that, but I don't know.  All I know is 
the polls that I see in the press that many of you have commissioned, 
they say overwhelmingly the American people want the security of an 
affordable health care system.
	     
	     But I don't think that has anything to do with this 
stimulus, and it certainly shouldn't have.  People want a job first 
and foremost.  They want that more than anything else.
	     
	     Q	  Now that you've announced your willingness to 
compromise on the stimulus package, can you tell us what parts of 
your package you consider vital and uncompromisable?  I assume summer 
jobs is one.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I want the summer jobs; I want the 
highway program and I want the police program.  I still intend -- let 
me say this:  I still intend to fully and aggressively push the crime 
bill, which did not pass the Congress last year.  This is a 
supplement to that, not a substitute for it in any way.  But I think 
we need to do that.
	     
	     I think we need the Ryan White funds because of the 
enormous health care burdens to the communities that are inordinately 
and disproportionately affected by the problems of caring for people 
with AIDS.  And there are several other things that I think should be 
done.  We have to do the Agriculture Department meat inspectors; the 
safety of the public depends on that.  
	     
	     There are a number of other things that I don't -- I 
don't think any of it should be cut, but I have given Senator 
Mitchell and Senator Byrd -- I talked to them.  And Senator Dole 
called me yesterday to discuss this, and I told him that I would call 
him back.  I called him back last night in New Hampshire and we 
discussed this.  And I basically asked them to talk today, and said 
that I would not make any statements about any specifics until at 
least they had a chance to talk to see whether or not they could 
reach some accord.  
	     
	     So I don't want to be any more specific than I have been 
already, and let's see if they can talk it out.
	     
	     Q	  When you talked to Senator Dole and Senator 
Mitchell did you tell them about your -- increase also, that $200 
million, that you want that as part of the package?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I did -- I told Senator -- I left word 
for Senator Mitchell last night about it.  When I talked to Senator 
Dole -- I don't remember for sure -- I do not believe I mentioned it.  
But I did tell him that I was prepared to reduce the package and I 
wanted to break the gridlock, and I told him that I was working on a 
reformulation of it so that -- in the hope that it would become even 
more focused on jobs and the kinds of issues that I thought the 
American people wanted us to address.  And this is certainly 
consistent with that.
	     
	     Thank you.

                                 END3:12 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178555
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

In article <1993Apr15.162802.20933@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:
>
>The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train?
>
>I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With
>the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think
>people in Dallas or Houston need it either.

I totally agree.  Really, the only people this is going to benefit, are
those who live in the cities where the train stops.  Who wants to drive
to the train station from X (Lubbock for example)?  It's probably farther
to drive to the train station than it is to the nearest national airport.

I really can't see spending 5.7 billion on a system that only three cities
will benefit from.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178556
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Trip to Pittsburg



                         THE WHITE HOUSE


                  Office of the Press Secretary

                                                                   
For Immediate Release                             April 15, 1993



                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY



     The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April 
17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the 
state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818 
full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a 
public address at Pittsburgh International Airport at 9:30 am.  

     The President will leave Washington early Saturday morning 
and return that afternoon.  A White House press charter will 
depart Andrews Air Force Base at 7:30.  Filing facilities will be 
available in Pittsburgh.

                               ###




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178557
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad

In article <1993Apr13.150740.6221@iqsc.COM> rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black) writes:
>rail in Texas.  Being from California, I have come to the conclusion 
>that one has two choices for preventing economic strangulation through
>traffic:  High speed rail or growth limits.
>
>Rex

Growth limits?  How will HSR help with the traffic congestion?  From what
I understand, the rail will not stop in places like Waco, or Bryan, or
lots of intermediate places in between.  Even though I live in Austin,
I don't see myself using the train except on rare occasions.  probably
twice a year.  And at $65 dollars a ticket I could probably drive for 
cheaper also. (even if the price of gas went up)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178558
From: chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue




> Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
>
>

>10. Men in uniform are persona non grata in the home of our Commander in
>    Chief.
>
>9.  Algore's enviro-mentalism will make the Clean Air Act look like an
>    industrial policy.
>
>8.  Higher taxes are once again the prescription for all that ails America.
>
>7.  Tax dodging is unpatriotic; draft dodging is a symbol of pride.
>
>6.  Beaded curtains hang from the Oval Office windows.
>
>5.  Socialism may be dead in the ex-Soviet Union but we are told to prepare
>    for the nationalization of our health care resources. (These people
>    must be inhaling something.)
>
>4.  Not quite free love but eating Flowers is considered healthy.
>
>3.  The feminazis have a President in the White House whether the rest of
>    us realize it or not.
>
>2.  Slick may be the first draft dodger to send American troops into
>    combat.
>
>1.  Slick may be unpopular with middle-class Americans, but he's a BIG HIT
>    on campus with the professorial class.
>
>
>
>Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
>

Here's my own top ten response to Mr. Ipser's list


10.  It's about time we have a President that might actually stand up to the
     military.  Our men and women in uniform must learn that the world does not
     revolve around them, and that one of the things they're out there defending
     is our right to be critical of them, even denounce them.

9.   Let me explain something to you.  Environmental policy and industrial
     policy MUST go hand in hand.  Our nation, and indeed, our planet cannot
     afford to continue ignoring this as was done over the last twelve years.
     Our industrial/environmental position has been downright SHAMEFUL! We
     must have active government support of the key industries such as,
     telecommunications, microelectronics, medical, biotech, and environmental
     tech.  Meanwhile weed out old, inneficient, high-polution, industries
     that are better left to other nations.  This will make us richer, help
     produce new jobs, and help the environment.  To give credit where credit
     is due, I heard a lot of this in a speech by Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
     tonite.  In addition, it's time we get really, really serious about 
     issues like overpopulation, globabl warming, and ozone depletion.  The
     planet on which we live should be our utmost priority!

8.   It just so happens that that it takes money to make this country work,
     to provide the services that people need, and to help solve the problems
     that need to be solved.  Granted, some things can probably be done more
     efficiently for less money, and should be.  But some things are going to
     cost more money and I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone whining about
     taxes all the time.  You want to live in my country, you pay your fair
     share!

7.   I can't believe what hypocrites people are when they ask people to give
     up their lives for their country and then complain about taxes.  If you're
     willing to send me off to die for some stupid obsession with fighting an
     enemy which at best doesn't affect us and at worst really should be our
     friend, then you have no right to tell me you shouldn't pay taxes!

6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!

5.   Look, Canada, Europe, and Japan manage to provide health care for their
     citizens (and, yes, basic health IS a human right which people are
     entitled to).  If these nations aren't capitalist enough for you, then
     I guess we've found something better than capitalism!  There is nothing
     sacred about the capitalist system, and if something, be it socialism
     or anything else, works better, then I say let capitalism die.

4.   Make love, not War!

3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
     at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
     to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
     them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly 
     have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
     discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
     the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.

2.   See number 10.

1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!

        

    -Amar Chaudhary

     Peace, Land, at Matzoh! 
     "AC in DC in 2008!"

None of the opinions here necessary reflect the opinions of Yale University or
anyone or anything associated with it, except for me, of course :)

Please post reponses or send them to chaudhary-amar@cs.yale.edu



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178559
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writ
es:
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR
.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>
>

Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready 
immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one 
frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health 
care service.

(I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are 
slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't 
deserve my tax help).

ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178560
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <15377@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #But what came out,
> #in much lower profile reporting, was that the "victim" was a
> #prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the false
> #accusation.
> 
> There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the
> defense merely alledged that she was. Even Clayton knows the
> difference. Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know the difference. 

Evidence given for her prostitute status, besides the admittedly 
questionable claim of the man on trial included:

1. Prior employment in a number of massage parlors, with women who
claimed that she worked as a prostitute;

2. Walking around a truck stop at 4:00 AM wearing a lace miniskirt,
a halter top, and no underwear of any sort;

3. Not having a purse or other I.D. with her.

Not enough to convict her, but enough to create reasonable doubt
whether a rape actually took place, or theft of services.

Are you just ignorant, or lying again?

> #the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the 
> #Marines were engaged in self-defense.
> 
> No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder
> on proof. A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines: 
> 
> #	New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in
> #the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving the
> #Marines acted to cause injury.

The accounts on the evening news indicated that they claimed self-
defense, and the judge agreed that they were so operating.

> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178561
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

In article <1993Apr14.164549.24069@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
> In article <15342@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # # And now those "other options" don't exist.  We probably agree on this
# # # more than you think--welfare was invented to solve a problem of the
# # # 30's, but the poverty is now so much worse, and our economic infra-
# # # structure has been so eroded, that it just can't keep up any more.
# 
# # You mean, since your philosophy took over, the economy has almost
# # collapsed.
# 
# Excuse me, *my* philosophy?  You don't have any idea what *my* philosophy
# is.  The American economy has had its ups and downs through a number of
# prevailing economic philosophies.  But then, economics is hardly a science.

In my lifetime, your philosophy -- socialism masquerading as a liberal
welfare state -- has been in ascendancy.

# No, I mean exactly what I wrote--the welfare system of the New Deal is
# wholly inadequate to cope with the current state of affairs.

Absolutely.  So the response of socialists is take us even further
into socialism.

# # # # # (2) Whether or not the fathers work
# # # # # is not germane to single mothers.
#  
# # # # Very true.  But the promotion of casual sexuality is something that
# # # # plays a part in the single mother problem.
# 
# # # I'll buy that--and there's lots of reasons for it, extremely far down on
# # # the list being the flash-in-the-pan media attention a bunch of middle-
# # # class dropouts got for their philosophy and experimentation.  
# 
# # Flash-in-the-pan?  No, your subculture has utterly dominated the
# # TV and movie industries for two decades now.
# 
# *My* subculture?  My, we're getting personal.  The only subculture I see
# dominating the TV and movie industries is *money*.  If you'll buy it,
# they'll sell it.  And as recent movements to boycott TV advertisers have
# shown, they're *very* sensitive about what sells.  Whatever happened to
# personal responsibility, anyway?  Or am I personally responsible for
# the decline in that, too?

To the extent that people have been encouraged to NOT be responsible
for themselves, yes.

# # # # Come on.  You and I both know that the major problem of this society
# # # # today isn't a lack of employment, it's a lack of people willing to work.
# 
# # # Huh???  Tell that to the single mother I know who was laid off from
# # # her $10/hour job at a hospital and now works 2 full-time minimum-
# # # wage jobs to barely be able to support herself and her kid.  *Barely.*
# # # Hey, she's too proud to go on public assistance, but the only jobs
# # # she can find are menial and with no benefits.  And no career path
# # # either--they find excuses to lay people off and hire new ones rather
# # # than give raises and perks.  And why not?  It's a lot cheaper.
# 
# # Oddly enough, all the unskilled or semiskilled people I know manage
# # to find employment almost immediately.  Maybe she needs to move to a
# # cheaper part of the country, where jobs are plentiful, and the cost
# # of living is lower.
# 
# The west side of Chicago is about as cheap as it gets--squalor city.
# Tell me about all these places where it's cheap to live and jobs are
# abundant--I'll pass them on.

Sonoma County.

# You live in a strange and wondrous place, sir.  Inexpensive housing,

Not exactly cheap, but not Los Angeles, either.

# lots of employment, and utterly surrounded by socialists.  Well, I suppose
# that's the sort of environment that would attract socialists, or at least
# not dissuade them.

No, it's that areas with a lot of wealthy breed socialists -- all the
spoiled rich kids, feeling guilty about their wealth.  But not guilty
enough to give it away -- they just look for politicians to take MY
more limited wealth away.

# # # I see a lot of people willing--nay, eager--to work.  What I don't see
# # # is a system that makes it at all feasible to do so.  It's not just
# # # welfare, which nobody enjoys, but there just aren't the jobs any more.
# # # When the US was expanding industrial capacity there was always a mill
# # # to go work in--skills to learn, a future.  Now there's only McDonalds.
# 
# # Odd.  Not the experience of anyone I know.  Just the opposite.
# 
# In California???

Yup.

# # # Mr. Cramer, I was there:  Hippiedom was a very low-budget operation.
# # # Our drugs were cheap.
# 
# # The money I was referring to was Aid to Families with Druggie 
# # Cohabitators (AFDC).
# 
# Well, I doubt that much of this goes to drugs--there isn't much left after
# buying food, and there is very little in the first place.  Sure, you read
# about such cases now and then, but that's what makes them news.  Show me
# your statistics about AFDC abuse.

I can tell you that relatives I have known, the drugs came first, the
food was secondary.

# Ken Perlow   ***** *****
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178562
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)

In article <CB.93Apr5130728@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> Craig Depken writes:
> 
>     The fact that the South had a number of slave owners is true, but
>     relatively small numbers (around 1200) had more than a few hundred slaves.
>     (I have to get references that I do not have here for 
>     exact numbers.)
> 
> If it has any bearing on this discussion, I saw a figure for the total
> number of slave-owners as 300,000.  Does anyone have a figure for how
> many slaves there were?  How many farmers without slaves?
> 
> Chris Brewster                            E-MAIL ADDRESS: cb@cray.com

In 1860:

region              total population  free blacks  %       slaves   %
U.S.                32,227,616        487,070      1.5%    3,953,818 12.3%
Confederacy          9,103,332        132,760      1.5%    3,521,110 38.7%
Union Slave States   3,212,041        128,158      4.0%      432,586 13.5%
All Union States    23,124,284        354,310      1.5%      432,708  1.9%
Union "Free" States 19,912,243        226,152      1.1%          122  0.0%


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178563
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Evidence

In article <115298@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> BK:
# ##So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality?
# 
# CC:
# #The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it.
# 
# Hmmm.
# 
# I've told you more than once that I've been monogamous for almost 4 years
# now, and that I really don't get into fetishes.

Then you are nearly the only homosexual who is.  I don't believe you.
You've changed your story before.

# Yet you maintain my homosexual activity is still immoral.
# 
# Care to elaborate?
# 
# For that matter, explain why fetishes are immoral?
# 
# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

The fact that your fetish is more important than who you are making
love to.  (Actually, in your case, "having sex with.")
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178564
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: New Study Out On Gay Percentage


From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:

    Male sex survey: Gay activity low

    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.

The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178565
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr13.104856.25246@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> In article <C581G8.Kw8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> >In article <15283@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ##For a while, homosexuals paid higher insurance rates than straights,
# ##and with very good reason, until the government made it illegal to
# ##do so.
# 
# Well if we go by this philosophy how many Children do you think
# we help pay for with our insurance premiums???  Children who obviously
# cannot be afforded, since the insurance companies have to pay for
# all of the prenatal and birthing.....  What about the children born
# with horrible flaws who cost the system an arm and a leg to be kept alive?
# We all pay because we are all part of this society and we should take
# care of one another.....

Oddly enough, dependent coverage costs a bit more than for one self
alone.  But if you really believe your claims, you could make a lot
of money starting the "Homosexuals Health Insurance Co." and refuse to
insure "breeders."  But I shudder to think what your premiums will be
like.

# Bil Snodgrass III


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178566
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

In article <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.
edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>>}
>|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
>|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
>|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
>|>>
>|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
>|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
>|>
>|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary
>
>Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection
>effectively makes it a tax.
>
>

>|>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
>|>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
>|>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.
>
>Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
>don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
>has done to the country.
>
>Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselve
s,
>thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
>ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
>class.
>

This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
1980 election.

This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame,
pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.

Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more than 
the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples' 
books.  What a joke.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178567
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Release on USIA Appointments



                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                        April 15, 1993



 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT JOSEPH DUFFEY NAMED TO HEAD USIA,
        MICA TO CHAIR BOARD FOR INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING


Washington, D.C. -  President Clinton today announced his 
intention to nominate American University President and former 
State Department Assistant Secretary Joseph Duffey to be Director 
of the United States Information Agency. The President also 
designated Daniel Mica Chairman of the Board for International 
Broadcasting.
     
     "Joe Duffey's expertise in the fields of education, 
communications and foreign affairs is vast and will serve him 
well as he takes the helm at USIA and works to promote the ideals 
of democracy and freedom abroad," the President said. 

     President of American University in Washington, D.C. since 
1991, Duffey previously served nine years as Chancellor and 
President of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In 1977 
he served as Assistant Secretary of State, Education and Cultural 
Affairs in the State Department. Duffey served as Chairman of the 
National Endowment for the Humanities under both Presidents 
Carter and Reagan. 

     In 1978 and 1980, Duffey served as a United States delegate 
to the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific and Cultural Organization. In 1991, Duffey served as 
joint head of the U.S. Delegation observing national elections in 
Ethiopia. 

     USIA, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, is an 
independent foreign affairs agency within the executive branch 
that explains and supports U.S. foreign policy and national 
security interests abroad through a wide range of information 
programs. Among the agency's programs are the Fulbright academic 
program, Voice of America, the Worldnet satellite television 
system and a network of overseas libraries and cultural centers.  
The agency has more than 210 posts in more than 140 countries.

                              (more)
Press Release
pg. 2




     Mica becomes Chairman of the Board for International 
Broadcasting after serving as a member of the board since 1991.

     "Dan Mica has done an excellent job on the Board of 
International Broadcasting and I expect he will continue as 
chairman to promote the cause of democracy abroad," the President 
said.


     Biographical sketches of the appointees follow:       


Joseph Duffey has served as President of American University 
since 1991. Prior to his tenure at American, Duffey served as 
Chancellor and President of the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst (1982 - 91) and as a Guest Scholar at the Brookings 
Institution (1982). He served as Chairman of the National 
Endowment for the Humanities from 1977 - 82 and as Assistant 
Secretary of State, Education and Cultural Affairs with the 
Department of State in 1977. Duffey holds 14 honorary degrees 
from American colleges and universities. In 1980 he was named 
Commander of the Order of the Crown by the King of Belgium and he 
has been a member of the Council of Foreign Relations since 1979. 
Duffey received a BA from Marshall University in 1954, a BD from 
the Andover Newton Theological School in 1958, a STM from Yale 
University in 1963 and a Ph.D. from the Harvard Seminary 
Foundation in 1969. Duffey is a member of the National Business-
Higher Education Forum and a founder and co-chairman of the 
Western Massachusetts Economic Development Conference. Duffey is 
married to Anne Wexler and has four sons.


Daniel Mica is a former U.S. Representative from the 14th 
District of Florida and has served on the Board of International 
Broadcasting since 1991. During his tenure in Congress from 1979 
- 89 he served on the House Committee on Foreign Relations and 
was appointed by President Reagan as the Congressional 
Representative to the United Nations. 


                           -30-30-30- 




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178568
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights

---
51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally
The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993

   Melbourne, Florida --   [...]

   Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets
   within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice.
   Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses
   or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.

   The protesters say the ruling all but wiped out the First Amendment
   to the Constitution.

   ``This is our sidewalk,'' said Joe Carroll, 33, a landscaper who
   marched with his children, Mary Grace, 8, and John, 7.

   ``I am not a rescuer.  I am not a trespasser.  It's just that this is
   my sidewalk.  I am not really protesting abortion.  We are protesting
   denial of our rights of assembly, religion, speech.  This judge is
   trashing the Constitution.''

   The children's grandmother led them away, sobbing, as Carroll and
   his father were arrested.

   Outside the clinic, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Washington,
   D.C.-based Feminist Majority Foundation, called for the Florida
   Legislature and Congress to pass laws as tough as the judge's
   order, which covers only Brevard and Seminole counties.

   ``This cannot go on,'' she said.  ``This is not freedom of speech,
   this is total psychological warfare with violence.  It is ridiculous
   to have to ask clinics to go court-by-court . . . to get protection.''

   [...]

---


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178569
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: The DEFAMATION LEAGUE

 
 The following was posted and no doubt retyped by Yigal Ahrens and considering 
 the importance of the issue and the almost total blackout except in 
 California, I am reposting to other appropriates groups.
 
 
 
 From LA Times, Friday, April 9, 1993.  P. A1.
 
 EVIDENCE OF ADL SPY OPERATION SEIZED BY POLICE
 
 By Richard C. Paddock, Times staff writer
 
 SAN FRANCISCO -- Police on Thursday served search warrants on the
 Anti-Defamation League here and in Los Angeles, seizing evidence of a
 nationwide intelligence network accused of keeping files on more than
 950 political groups, newspapers and labor unions and as many as
 12,000 people.
 
 Describing the spy operation in great detail, San Francisco
 authorities simultaneously released voluminous documents telling how
 operatives of the Anti-Defamation League searched through trash and
 infiltrated organizations to gather intelligence on Arab-American,
 right-wing and what they called "pinko" organizations.
 
 Representatives of the Anti-Defamation League, a well-known
 organization in the U.S. Jewish community dedicated to fighting
 anti-Semitism, declined detailed comment Thursday but denied breaking
 any laws.
 
 Police allege that the organization maintains undercover operatives to
 gather political intelligence in at least seven cities, including Los
 Angeles and San Francisco.
 
 Groups that were the focus of the spy operation span the political
 spectrum, including such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan
 Resistance, Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, the National Assn. for the
 Advancement of Colored People, the United Farm Workers and the Jewish
 Defense League.  Also on the list were Mills College, the board of
 directors of San Francisco public television station KQED and the San
 Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper.
 
 People who were subjects of the spy operation included former
 Republican Rep. Pete McCloskey, jailed political extremist Lyndon H.
 LaRouche and Los Angeles Times foreign correspondent Scott Kraft, who
 is based in South Africa.
 
 Authorities said much of the material collected by the groups was
 confidential information obtained illegally from law enforcement
 agencies.  They also alleged that data on some individuals and
 organizations was sold separately to the South African government.
 
 In addition to allegations of obtaining confidential information from
 police, the Anti-Defamation League could face a total of 48 felony
 counts for not properly reporting the employment of its chief West
 Coast spy, Roy Bullock, according to the affidavit filed to justify
 the search warrant.
 
 The Anti-Defamation League disguised payments to Bullock for more than
 25 years by funneling $550 a week to Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I.
 Hochman, who then paid Bullock, according to the documents released in
 San Francisco.  Hochman, a former president of the Jewish Federation
 Council of Greater Los Angeles and one of the state's leading tax
 attorneys, will be out of the city until late next week and could not
 be reached for comment, his office said.
 
 Until 1990, Hochman, a former U.S. prosecutor, also was a member of a
 panel appointed by then-Sen. Pete Wilson to secretly make initial
 recommendations on new federal judges in California.  Hochman is a
 former regional president of the Anti-Defamation League.
 
 The league, which initially cooperated with police, has denied
 repeatedly that its intelligence-gathering operation broke any laws.
 League officials will not confirm or deny whether Bullock was an
 employee and have said they simply traded information with police
 departments about people who might be involved in hate crimes.
 
 But in an affidavit filed to obtain warrants for Thursday's searches,
 San Francisco police alleged that "ADL employees were apparently less
 than truthful" in providing information during an earlier search
 conducted without a warrant.
 
 David Lehrer, executive director of the Los Angeles ADL office, said
 the organization has not violated the law.  "There is nothing
 nefarious about how we operate or what we have done," he said.  "Our
 record speaks for itself."
 
 The police affidavit contends that Lehrer had sole control of a secret
 fund used to pay for "fact-finding operations."  Lehrer, according to
 the documents, signed checks from the account under the name L.
 Patterson.
 
 An ADL official said the account was used to pay for subscriptions to
 a wide variety of extremist publications that might balk at sending
 them directly to the Anti-Defamation League.
 
 Bullock, 58, who has been collecting intelligence for the ADL for
 nearly 40 years, defended his efforts during a lengthy interview with
 San Francisco police.  He said that he gathered names from many
 sources and entered them into his computer under headings such as
 "Skins" and "Pinkos," but that did not necessarily mean that they were
 under surveillance.
 
 "I might never see or call up on 99% of them again," Bullock said.
 "And it doesn't mean anything that they're in the files.  It's not a
 threat to anyone's civil rights that a name appears in my files under,
 say, 'Pinko.'"
 
 In recent years, Bullock worked closely with San Francisco Police
 Officer Tom Gerard, who fled to the Phillippines last fall after he
 was questioned by the FBI in the case.
 
 A former CIA employee, Gerard supplied Bullock with criminal records
 and Department of Motor Vehicles information such as home addresses,
 vehicle registration, physical characteristics and drivers license
 photographs.
 
 Using files gathered for the Anti-Defamation League, Gerard and
 Bullock also provided information to the South African government,
 receiving $16,000 over four years, the documents show.
 
 The file on Times staff writer Kraft, which was apparently sold to the
 South African government, provides some insight into the hit-and-miss
 nature of the spy operation.
 
 The file notes that Kraft's articles "appear frequently in The Times
 and are well researched and written," but little else about the file
 is accurate.  The brief entry confuses The Times' Kraft with another
 Scott Kraft and provides the South African government with the wrong
 Kraft's physical description, photograph and other personal
 information.
 
 Nevertheless, the documents provide illuminating details of how
 Bullock for decades infiltrated all manner of organizations, from
 skinheads to left-wing radicals, searching regularly through the trash
 of target groups.  Using Anti-Defamation League funds, he also ran his
 own paid informants under code names such as "Scott" and "Scumbag."
 
 He worked closely with police officers up and down the coast,
 exchanged information with the FBI and worked with federal agencies,
 including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
 
 It was Bullock's work as a paid informant for the FBI -- while spying
 on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League and the South African
 government -- that proved his undoing. The FBI learned that he was an
 agent of a foreign government and began investigating, leading to the
 probe of the Anti-Defamation League's intelligence network.  The
 Anti-Defamation League employed undercover operatives to gather
 information in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Washington,
 Chicago, St. Louis and Atlanta, according to the affidavit and
 investigators.  Joining San Francisco police in searching league
 offices and a Los Angeles bank were investigators from the office of
 San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith and the state Franchise Tax
 Board.  The Los Angeles Police Department, which earlier refused to
 cooperate with the investigation, was informed of the searches in Los
 Angeles but not invited to participate.  Investigators suspect that
 some confidential information in the Anti-Defamation League files may
 have come from Los Angeles police officers.
 
 
 
 From Los Angeles Times, Saturday, April 10, 1993.  P. A23.
 
 ADL VOWS TO COOPERATE WITH SPY INVESTIGATION
 
 By Richard C. Paddock, Times staff writer.
 
 SAN FRANCISCO -- The Anti-Defamation League defended its record as a
 civil rights group Friday and said it will cooperate with authorities
 who are investigating whether the organization collected confidential
 police information on citizens and groups.
 
 But San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith said that Anti-Defamation
 League employees involved in intelligence gathering could face many
 felony counts of receiving confidential files, eavesdropping, tax
 violations and conspiracy.
 
 Police have accused the Anti-Defamation League of not being truthful
 about its spying operations, which collected information on more than
 12,000 individuals and 950 political groups across the political
 spectrum.
 
 Hundreds of pages of documents released by prosecutors Thursday show
 that the ADL maintained a nationwide intelligence network and kept
 files on political figures.
 
 Even so, Smith suggested that if the Anti-Defamation League shut down
 its spy operation, prosecutors would take that into account when
 deciding what charges to file.
 
 In a statement released in Washington, National Director Abraham H.
 Foxman described the ADL as "a Jewish defense agency which has fought
 to protect all minorities from bigotry and discrimination for 80
 years."
 
 Foxman said the organization is regarded as a credible source on
 extremist groups and has a tradition of routinely providing
 information to police, journalists, academics, government officials
 and the public.  It has never been the policy of the ADL to obtain
 information illegally, he said.
 
 "Like other journalists, in order to protect the confidentiality and
 physical safety of its sources, ADL will not comment on the nature or
 identity of any source of information," Foxman said.
 
 The Anti-Defamation League refused to acknowledge that one of its
 longtime employees, Roy Bullock, was anything more than "a private
 individual who is alleged to be an ADL 'informant.'"
 
 Among the documents released by prosecutors were detailed statements
 showing how the ADL funneled weekly payments to Bullock through
 Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I. Hochman.
 
 "Roy would penetrate organizations and needed this arrangement to be
 distanced from ADL," Hochman told a San Francisco police investigator.
 Hochman could not be reached Friday at his home or office for comment.
 
 Despite the Anti-Defamation League's assertion that it will cooperate
 with authorities, San Francisco police said the group did not turn
 over all pertinent documents during a voluntary search of the group's
 offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco last fall.
 
 A second round of searches Thursday, this time with search warrants,
 produced a vast quantity of records, primarily dealing with financial
 transactions, Smith said.  Further searches may be necessary and it
 will be at least a month before any charges are filed, he said.
 
 "The investigation, of course, will go wherever the facts lead us,"
 the district attorney said.
 --
 Yigal Arens
 USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
 arens@isi.edu
js


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178570
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Red Army Fraction (RAF) communique

As quoted from <c115184.734895755@assn119> by c115184@cs.UAlberta.CA (Merth Eric William):

> 
> >In article <C4vBM1.Gs0@NCoast.ORG>, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> 
> >|>As quoted from <C4vCtB.J1H@dscomsa.desy.de> by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
> >|>
> >|>> Isn't it wonderfull the way people can make the sadistic and indescriminate
> >|>> murder of the Bader-Meinhof gang sound like altruism?
> >|>
> >|>Gee Phil, I'd remember where you are and that these people are monitoring the
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >|>net.  I'd also remember that they have about as much sense of humor as Ed
>    ^^^
> 
> Damn. It isn't Big Brother after all? And all this time I thought that all
> those revolutionaries, while blowing things up and killing the odd
> innocent person in the process, really did love all us proles. ('cause
> _everybody knows_ that dialectical materialism will save you [even
> if it has to get you killed first]).
> What a fool I've been. 

What you fail to see is that in order to make a nightmarish stew of psychosis
and repression, you have to break a few eggs.  You the evil productive 
elements in society, are those eggs....

Damn the spirit, full speed ahead....

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178571
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.15.93



	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 15, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

                          The Briefing Room



1:04 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Good afternoon.  
	     
	     Q	  Could we do this on the lawn?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That would be nice.  Let's go out 
to the cherry blossoms.  We'll do like the President.
	     
	     Q	  Is the stimulus package dead? 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely not.  
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us more about the Dole talks?  You 
said it was a good visit, but no compromise.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.  The President had a good talk 
with Senator Dole last night.  I think that as we said before, there 
were no specific compromises on either side, although it was a very 
good discussion about the jobs package and about other issues as 
well.  As you know, the President first called Senator Dole I believe 
Tuesday night to talk about the Russian aid package.  They did not 
speak -- Senator Dole called him back Wednesday morning -- when the 
President was out.  Instead he spoke with Tony Lake, and at the close 
of that conversation, indicated that he wanted to speak to the 
President about the jobs and stimulus package.  They finally talked 
about that yesterday afternoon.
	     
	     At the close of that discussion they said that they 
would have another talk last night, which they did, when the Senator 
was up in New Hampshire.  And although there were no specific 
compromises made on either side, they did say that they would 
continue to have some discussions.  And that's where we are.
	     
	     Q	  Well, who is giving in?  Where is it standing --are 
both making concessions?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that it's at that 
phase.  No compromise has been made.  As the President has said 
consistently, he intends to come forward with an adjusted package.  
He believes in the package, but he believes that if it's going to 
take adjustments to get the minority to release it, he's willing to 
make those adjustments.
	     
	     Q	  On the subject of a VAT --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, boy.
	     
	     Q	  Can we stay on this for one more minute?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  We have a problem with the five minutes --
	     
	     Q	  I know no decisions have been made, but what would 
lead the health group to believe that a VAT might be necessary?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sorry, Andrea, I'm not going to go 
down that road.  No decisions have been made.  As the President said 
this morning, a number of groups, a number of members of Congress, a 
number of other organizations have recommended that this be looked 
at.  The working group is looking at it, but no decisions have been 
made.
	     
	     Q	  To follow, have they done that directly through 
him?  Have labor and business groups been in touch with the President 
about it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, although 
there's a lot of people who have public decisions in support of the 
VAT.  But the President has not made a decision.
	     
	     Q	  At the meetings that he's had with his own task 
force advisers, have they discussed the funding issue and what the 
possible options would be?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that that has been 
presented for a decision, no.
	     
	     Q	  Not for a decision, but has it been discussed as an 
option?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, there are a lot of levels of 
briefing.  I do not believe that the VAT has been presented to the 
President as, okay, this is something for you to decide on.  
	     
	     Q	  You're not saying he didn't know it was being 
considered, though, are you?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he said it's being considered.
	     
	     Q	  He knew that.
	     
	     Q	  But has he discussed that with his advisers?  
That's what I'm asking.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has said it's being 
considered.  I do not know what level of discussion there has been 
over the VAT.  It is something the working groups are looking at.  I 
don't even know that it's --
	     
	     Q	  But he didn't say he was considering, did he, at 
this stage?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he is not.  I think we're 
getting into something of a metaphysical debate right here.  What is 
considered -- 
	     
	     Q	  Well, he is the one who said, I haven't reviewed 
it.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That is true.  That is what I just 
repeated. 
	     
	     Q	  George, is there any concern here that as a result 
of the definite statement he made in February and the promise that if 
it were to be considered he'd let us know, and having it trickle out 
the way it did, that there may now be the development of a 
credibility gap on this issue and others?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think so.  I mean, it is 
now public knowledge that this is being considered.
	     
	     Q	  Is he or you at all embarrassed about the absolute 
statements that were made from this platform to the effect that it 
was off the table and was not being considered, and then to have it 
come out not from you people, but --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, wait a second.  It came out 
from the administration.  What are you talking about?
	     
	     Q	  What I'm saying is, though, that the President said 
he would let us know. 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.
	     
	     Q	  You people then said -- you said, I believe, that 
it's not going to be on the program.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  On March 25th.
	     
	     Q	  On March 25th. 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Circumstances change.
	     
	     Q	  Well, I understand.  But we have to find that out 
by rooting around in the fine print of an interview
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Rooting around -- I know you did do 
a very good job there to read the USA Today article.  But this is --
(laughter) -- the Deputy Director of the OMB and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services.  I mean, that is common anytime you guys 
write a story that has an unattributed quote from somebody in the 
Clinton administration, the headline is -- I'll look at it right 
here, and AP story -- "Clinton wants more money for spying."
	     
	     Q	  What about his remark that if it were being 
considered, he'd tell us about it?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  And the administration's concerned, 
and he'd let you know.
	     
	     Q	  And did he?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.  Absolutely.  What did he say 
this morning?
	     
	     Q	  It had to be dragged out of you here yesterday.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It didn't have to be dragged out of 
me.  We had the Deputy Director of the OMB, we had the Secretary of 
Health of Human Services say it was being considered.  That is his 
administration.  That is his administration policy.
	     
	     Q	  Were these authorized trial balloons, or were they 
orchestrated leaks?  I mean, what was the --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They were asked questions, they 
answered the questions.
	     
	     Q	  You're saying here that it didn't have to be 
dragged out, that you more or less made it clear yesterday you were 
considering it.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  I was very clear.  
Painfully clear.
	     
	     Q	  Was there a particular political strategy in making 
it clear the administration is considering a new tax increase on tax 
day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, it was just this issue is being 
considered.  They were asked if it was being considered; they 
answered that it was being considered.
	     
	     Q	  George, The New York Times --
	     
	     Q	  Why do it yesterday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They were asked.
	     
	     Q	  The New York Times reports today that Secretary 
Reich and the chief economist at the Labor Department used apples and 
oranges numbers in order to portray last month's unemployment figures 
in a way that was supportive of the President's job stimulus bill, 
but which turned out to be totally false.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if it was totally 
false, but I think -- (laughter) -- the chief economist at the Labor 
Department did grant that it was an inappropriate mixing, and they 
say that. 
	     
	     Q	  The question is, is the President concerned about 
behavior that amounts to corrupting government data?  And what's he 
doing about it, if so?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The chief economist has said that a 
mistake was made, it won't happen again, and that's the end of the 
matter.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't that the same information that goes to the 
President?
	     
	     Q	  If I could go back to the stimulus package --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There's two separate pieces of 
information.  I think that's where the confusion was.
	     
	     Q	  When did you all first learn about this mistake 
that was made?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I read the article this morning.
	     
	     Q	  And as far as you know, is the President aware of 
it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think so.
	     
	     Q	  And was he aware of it before he read about it in 
The New York Times?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  Not to my knowledge.
	     
	     Q	  Did you ever hear about it before this morning?  
Anything?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I didn't.
	     
	     Q	  Wasn't the President given an erroneous spin on 
this for his own purpose?  For his speeches, for his arguments?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well again, I'm not sure.  Both 
statements are true.  What the Labor Department has granted is that 
mixing them in one sentence, essentially, was misleading.  They said 
it was a mistake.  They said they wouldn't do it again.
	     
	     Q	  Did they drop it -- is this something that you 
choose to spin or make an issue of?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Whenever fewer people are out of 
work, we're gratified.  But that doesn't take away from the need to 
get this jobs package going.
	     
	     Q	  If I could go back to the stimulus package for a 
minute.  You said that the President plans to come forward with an 
amendment.  Is the timetable still what it was -- that the amendment 
would be laid down on Monday and voted on on Tuesday, or did he, in 
the conversation with Dole, talk about the possibility of putting 
that off for a few more days to give more time for the discussion?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think at this point there's no 
changes in the schedule at all.  I don't know that they discussed the 
timing like that.
	     
	     Q	  Do you believe that you're closer or getting closer 
this week than you were last week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I believe that we're going 
to pass a jobs package.  The President is prepared to make 
adjustments in order to get that to happen.  I don't know where the 
votes are on cloture at this particular time.  I don't know what's 
going to happen until we have a vote.  But the President believes 
deeply in this jobs package and wants to get it done.
	     
	     Q	  Has there been any indication that this situation 
has changed?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're going to continue to work on 
it.  We'll know when the votes are taken.
	     
	     Q	  George, last week you said that there are -- or 
various people in the administration were saying that you couldn't go 
through Dole, you were going to have to try and go around him because 
he was immovable on this subject of a compromise, or at least the 
compromise he wanted was not anything like the one that you could 
accept.  This week you're talking to him.  Is that because you've 
realized that the peeling off effort wasn't going to work?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's because Senator Dole wanted 
to talk to the President about the stimulus package.
	     
	     Q	  He initiated the conversation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Secretary Reich this morning said that, in fact, 
the President is not willing to compromise on this bill at all.  You 
say he's making --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that that's exactly 
what he said.  I think he said he didn't have any indication that 
there was any compromises yet or that there would be a compromise, 
and the President doesn't want to compromise.  And the President 
doesn't want to compromise.  But if he has to make adjustments to get 
it through, he will.
	     
	     Q	  Officials here yesterday said that Panetta was 
working on a series of adjustments that might be made public before 
the actual vote.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's possible.
	     
	     Q	  Today?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure exactly when that will 
happen, but I think that it's very possible that we'll come forward 
with some sort of a different package, or Senate Democrats will come 
forward with some sort of a different package in order to get it 
passed.
	     
	     Q	  As we understood his conversations with Dole, the 
first one was some discussion of this and I'll get back to you 
tonight with some details or some adjustments, or whatever the phrase 
is.  Did he offer him some details or some adjustments?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it's a question of how 
detailed.  I mean, I think they had a general discussion about the 
package last night, subsequent to their conversation yesterday 
afternoon.  I believe that there will be follow-up discussions today 
in the Senate, not necessarily between the President and Senator 
Dole.  And let me just reiterate, neither side has made specific 
compromises at this date.  When we have something we'll let you know.  
And I'm not suggesting that Senator Dole has accepted anything that 
we've talked about or that we've offered anything in a hard way.
	     
	     Q	  What are the follow-up discussions if not the 
President and Dole?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think Senator Mitchell is going 
to talk to Senator Dole.
	     
	     Q	  Is that a threat?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Did the President say to Senator Dole, all right, 
how about this number as an overall size, or did Dole say to the 
President, I can go as high as this?  Did they talk numbers?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think it was a negotiation 
in that respect.  It was more of a discussion about their positions.
	     
	     Q	  Did they discuss actual numbers?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.  I know they 
talked about the basic outlines of the packages.  I think they talked 
about the programs they cared about.  I don't know if they got to the 
level of this many x-billion dollars. 
	     
	     Q	  Does Dole have to sign off before there is a 
package?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, of course not.
	     
	     Q	  Did the White House have anything to do with the 
protesters who showed up in New Hampshire today where Senator Dole 
was speaking?  Was that in any way organized by --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, no.
	     
	     Q	  And has the President been in touch with Senators 
Kohl or Feingold?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think he's talked to them, 
no.
	     
	     Q	  George, is the President considering the more 
palatable fact of having a national sales tax instead of having the 
haves having to continuously pay for the have-nots?  And is he going 
to scrap his proposed tax on the privileged few, with the haves 
having to pay for the have-nots?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes deeply that 
the tax rates on upper income Americans, as he presented in his 
budget, should go up.  And I think for the second half of your 
question, I'll refer you to my briefing from yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  George, on the subject of accuracy in information, 
you suggested the other day that the stimulus package included money 
that would solve the water problem in Milwaukee.  Apparently that is 
not true.  It's actually waste water money.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's waste water money for 
Wisconsin, and some could go to Milwaukee. 
	     
	     Q	  But it would not affect the drinking water problem 
because it's waste water money, right?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It would affect the water treatment 
overall. 
	     
	     Q	  But the implication from your statement the other 
day was that it would help fix this disease problem in Milwaukee now.  
Would you agree that's not the case?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure of the specifics.  I 
know that it goes to the overall water treatment in Wisconsin.
	     
	     Q	  A leftover question from this morning, which was, 
when did the President find out that the task force was deliberating 
on a VAT?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure exactly when.  I just 
don't know.  I assume it came up over the last -- certainly between 
the time that we had commented on in the past and two days ago.  
	     
	     Q	  So sometime since March 25th?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's right.  I don't know 
the exact date.
	     
	     Q	  George, the President this morning mentioned that 
some labor and business groups are for the VAT tax.  Apparently, the 
National Association of Manufacturers talks about perhaps the VAT tax 
being okay if it replaces the BTU tax.  So does the President feel 
that perhaps this might be in place of some other tax he's proposed, 
or is this totally in addition to the other taxes he's already 
proposed?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we've said all we have to 
say about the VAT at this point.  I mean, there's just no -- this is 
being considered by the health care working groups, and that is all.  
The President hasn't made any further decisions beyond that. 
	     
	     Q	  But it would be to finance health care, it wouldn't 
be to replace some other tax that finances -- it wouldn't replace the 
income tax, for instance?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There have been no discussions on 
that.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of getting a VAT tax through Congress, 
Senator Dole's press release today said VAT -- on tax day.  Do you 
think -- does it have a chance of getting through Congress?  Would it 
have a chance?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I have no idea. 
	     
	     Q	  Is that a consideration whether you all put it 
forward?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That would become a consideration 
if the President were to decide to do it.  It's not in consideration 
now.
	     
	     Q	  You said at the beginning of the briefing that 
circumstances had changed and that had caused the VAT to now be under 
consideration.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, what the President referred to 
this morning.  These groups came forward and said this is something 
that has to be considered.
	     
	     Q	  Those are the circumstances that have changed?  
That's the only difference between now and when he emphatically ruled 
it out that groups have asked it to be considered?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's what he said. 
	     
	     Q	  Is that true?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Was there, in fact, some understanding that sin 
taxes would not produce enough money for the health care benefits?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not going to get into the 
deliberations.
	     
	     Q	  But, George --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  What the consideration is, as 
the President said, groups came forward and said this is something 
you ought to consider.  The working groups are looking at it. 
	     
	     Q	  Is that the only thing that's changed since his 
prior statement and your prior statement on the VAT?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Can you explain how those groups -- how that 
information got to him that groups wanted it?  Was it just reading 
the newspaper or did groups make presentations?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the groups -- as you know, 
the health care task force has met with dozens of groups.
	     
	     Q	  But this is the President's knowledge that these 
groups had come forward.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he was referring to what 
was coming to the working groups.  Obviously, there have also been 
published positions in the newspapers.
	     
	     Q	  Have certain groups briefed him on the group's 
presentations to them?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they've briefed him 
-- I mean, how detailed the briefings have been.    I know that the 
working groups decided to look into this after being pressed by these 
groups.
	     
	     Q	  What kind of arguments did the groups make that 
were persuasive enough that the President would change the position 
that he had enunciated previously?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know, it's just they've had 
longstanding positions that this would be a good way to finance 
health care.
	     
	     Q	  The President wasn't aware of those longstanding 
positions?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He may have been at some level.  
Obviously, he's been a governor for a long time and he knows the 
basic arguments for and against a VAT tax.
	     
	     Q	  What we're trying to figure out here -- you're 
telling us that the only change, the only thing that affected this 
change in the President's attitude toward the VAT between February 
and now --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President's attitude hasn't 
necessarily changed.  I mean, he has not made a decision.
	     
	     Q	  I know, but the President said that it was off the 
table.  So did you.  And you're saying that the only thing that's 
changed is the positions of these groups, except you're also 
describing them as longstanding positions.  I don't see the change.  
If these groups haven't had any change in their position that's been 
made to the President --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, they've made the 
presentations to the health care task force.
	     
	     Q	  There's no relationship at all between the fact 
that sin taxes that he had said -- suggested in February that he 
favored will not produce enough revenue to finance --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think he ever suggested 
that they would produce all the revenue.
	     
	     Q	  Well, he suggested that he thought that those were 
appropriate ways to finance health care.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He did say that.  I don't know that 
he said anything to refute that.
	     
	     Q	  But, in fact, has the task force discovered that 
there wouldn't be enough revenue from those taxes to finance the kind 
of core benefits --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't think that the task 
force ever suggested that there would.
	     
	     Q	  George, if he advocated a VAT tax, would that break 
his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his 
programs?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't comment on a hypothetical 
situation.
	     	  
	     Q	  But does that promise -- would that promise not to 
raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the programs prevent him 
from seeking a VAT tax?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has made no decisions 
on the VAT tax.  When he does, we'll tell you and we'll explain the 
implications then.
	     
	     Q	  Which specific groups can you cite -- business, 
labor or otherwise -- whose recommendations to the health care task 
force has prompted this consideration?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't have the specific.  I just 
don't have that.
	     
	     Q	  George, can you tell us to what extend these other 
alternatives, for instance, the employer tax or the sin taxes or 
other financing options are also still on the table and what these 
options are?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, as members of the task force 
and representatives of the working groups have said, they are looking 
at a wide variety of options.  I think that Ira Magaziner said that 
there are 20 different options under consideration.  But I'm not 
going to comment --
	     
	     Q	  What's the scope --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not going to comment on 
them, no.
	     
	     Q	  What's the scope of the need?  How much are you 
talking about that has to be produced by one or a combination of the 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's what the health care task 
force is looking at.
	     
	     Q	  Since there's not going to be any briefing on the 
Miyazawa visit, two questions:  One, generally what does the 
President hope to use that meeting for, but more specifically, is his 
task complicated by the Japanese anger over the Vancouver note and 
the remark about market access at the press conference?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Vancouver note?
	     
	     Q	  Does no mean yes.
	     
	     Q	  Yes and no.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I don't know.  I saw the 
Prime Minister's press conference where he was asked the question 
about that note and he gave a very gracious and complete answer when 
he was asked the question.  The questions of trade are something that 
certainly will be discussed between the Prime Minister and the 
President.  There is obviously a trade imbalance between Japan and 
the U.S. that we want to do something about.
	     
	     Q	  Also in those comments the Prime Minister made he 
suggested that the United States should come down heavy on him in 
terms of trade.  Are you going to oblige?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:   I think the President will state 
our views on trade very clearly and our views on the trade deficit 
very clearly.  I don't necessarily want to agree with your 
characterization of the Prime Minister's comments.
	     
	     Q	     that we need specific export targets, specific 
numerical targets -- is that what he's going to discuss with 
Miyazawa?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They're going to have a broad 
discussion of a wide range of trade issues.  I don't want to get into 
those specifics until after the meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Why?
	     
	     Q	   That's the crux of the issue, right?  Whether or 
not -- does the President believe that without specific numerical 
targets, it is really, as he said in his press conference, sort of 
hopeless that this is going to change very much?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that we must 
have pressure on Japan to turn the trade imbalance around.  I do not 
want to get into the specifics of how that would be done.
	     
	     Q	  But does the President believe that their stimulus 
package announced yesterday will rectify the imbalance?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think, first, the President wants 
to get a full briefing on the stimulus package from Prime Minister 
Miyazawa himself, and then he'll make the comment on it.
	     
	     Q	  How about the Russian aid package?  There seems to 
be some confusion about how the U.S. views that, Secretary 
Christopher saying -- or Bentsen saying the Japanese may need to do 
more, the Japanese saying that that's not what they heard?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, we're going to continue to 
work with all our allies in the G-7, and we're going to continue to 
press for help for Russian reform, Russian democratic reform.  And I 
think that, so far, we had a very good announcement out of Tokyo and 
we're going to continue to work with our allies for bilateral 
packages.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think the Japanese need to do more?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're going to continue to work 
with all our allies to do as much as we can.
	     
	     Q	  Secretary Christopher was asked today on the Today 
Show this morning what he thought of Margaret Thatcher's comments on 
the Bosnia policy.  And he said, "It's a rather emotional response."  
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Over an emotional issue.
	     
	     Q	  Right -- to an emotional problem.  Does the White  
House condone that kind of remark?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that Secretary 
Christopher's remarks speaks for itself.  The President believes also 
that this is a deeply troubling situation that we're trying to find 
answers for. 
	     
	     Q	  But that specific -- "rather emotional response" -- 
specific term?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, it speaks for itself.
	     
	     Q	  In connection with that, doesn't it seem that with 
the numbers of people who are being killed at this very moment, is it 
good American policy to put off some decisions that might be made now 
to help Boris Yeltsin win a referendum?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  For example?
	     
	     Q	  To take stronger action, to take military action -- 
air strikes, anything that can be done?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that what 
must be done now is to push harder for sanctions.  He is also -- as 
you know, the administration has been discussing lifting the arms 
embargo.  He believes those are the appropriate ways to increase 
pressure at this time.
	     
	     Q	  What is your response to the critics who would say 
that the U.S. is now stymied by trying to help Boris Yeltsin retain 
the presidency?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They're wrong.  We're pressing hard 
for the Serbs to come to the negotiating table.  We're pressing hard 
for increased sanctions, and we're talking to our allies about the 
arms embargo.
	     
	     Q	  You were putting great store in Vance and Owen 
getting people to agree to that.  Now, Vance and Owen have both said 
that military force to some extent would be acceptable.  Does that 
change your thinking?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Clearly, we're going to listen to 
whatever people who have put so much time into a situation have to 
say.  But at this point, the President is moving forward on sanctions 
and talking about the arms embargo.
	     
	     Q	  A follow-up on a Dee Dee comment this morning.  She 
said she would be able to provide some administration officials who 
could document the effect the sanctions are having in Bosnia.  Are 
you going to be able to do that, or do you have anything --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that's what she said.
	     
	     Q	  That's exactly what she said.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that's true.  But 
what she said -- we would look into the situation of what kind of 
evidence can be provided in Bosnia.  Obviously, if there are 
connections between the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs in Belgrade and 
we are tightening the screws on the Serbs in Belgrade, that will have 
an effect over time.  I do not know day by day, minute by minute, 
what kind of help is being given between the two and what the exact 
effect has been.   But, clearly, we are slowing the shipment of goods 
into Belgrade.  We are having an effect on the Serbs there.  What 
kind of effect that will eventually have on the Bosnian Serbs I don't 
know.  But one thing I would say is if it were having no effect at 
all, I don't know why they'd be fighting it so much.
	     
	     Q	  Are the First Lady's tax returns going to be 
released?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's a joint tax return.  
And it will be probably later today.
	     
	     Q	  Is the President considering signing an executive 
order banning discrimination against homosexuals in the federal work 
force as part of the gay rights march here next week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think there's any proposal 
for that at this time, not that I know of.
	     
	     Q	  It's something that the President promised during 
the campaign that he would do.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I have not seen any -- I don't 
think it's anything that's on his plate right now.
	     
	     Q	  Is he meeting with gay rights leaders at any point 
on this issue?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about on this issue.  
I assume that he'll meet with representatives of the gay and lesbian 
community sometime soon, as he meets with representatives of lots of 
different groups and communities.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if that's scheduled --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's probably going to be tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Probably going to be tomorrow?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  It's a good thing you asked.
	     
	     Q	  Who's probably going to be there?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.
	     
	     Q	  How long --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  That's all I know.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if it's at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow?  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know what time it is.  I 
don't even know for sure if it's going to be tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  Environmental groups have asked him to make a major 
speech next week of some kind.  Is that going to happen, do you know?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they've asked, but 
I think the President has always planned, as he did last year, to 
give a speech on Earth Day and I expect that he will.  If it's not 
exactly on Earth Day, it might be a day before or something like 
that.
	     
	     Q	  Is he planning to sign or announce the signing of 
the biodiversity treaty in connection with Earth Day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know the specific 
timing of something like that, but it's certainly something under 
discussion and something we've been working on.
	     
	     Q	  Campaign finance reform?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're working on it.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think it will be next week?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.
	     
	     Q	  The biodiversity treaty is something you're working 
on?  I missed the question.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, something we're working on.  
He asked if it was ready to be signed, and I said I didn't know 
anything about that but it's something we've certainly been working 
on.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know what organizations might be represented 
in this meeting with the gay and lesbian groups?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know if he is going to reconsider being out 
of town on the day of the march?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's got to be at the Senate 
meeting in Jamestown, and I believe he's also going to be giving a 
speech to the American Association of Newspaper Publishers in Boston 
on Sunday, as he did last year.
	     
	     Q	  Would you have told us if she had not pressed you 
on the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  On what?
	     
	     Q	  On the gays.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  When we went through the 
President's schedule for the day, certainly.
	     
	     Q?	    George, what day is the publisher's speech?  Is 
that Sunday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it's a Sunday.
	     
	     Q	  And Saturday he'll be in Jamestown?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  So you're just going to be in Jamestown for one 
day?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, I'm not sure.  I don't know how 
long the Senate thing goes.  It might go overnight.  I just don't 
know.
	     
	     Q	  You would have made the gay meeting public, right?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm certain if we had the meeting 
-- I don't know about open to the press, but we would have told you 
about it.
	     
	     Q	  I mean, because it is, as far as I can tell, the 
first time in history a President has met in the Oval Office with --  

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I didn't say it was going to be in 
the Oval Office.  (Laughter.)  But I didn't -- I'm not say that it's 
not, but I didn't say that it was.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	     at the White House in the Bush administration 
gay officials were invited to a bill signing ceremony and the White 
House had to repudiate having done that.  So I just wanted to make 
sure --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the President wouldn't do 
anything like that.
	     
	     Q	  Certainly not.
	     
	     Q	  What marching orders did the President give to 
General Vessey?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They had a very good discussion for 
about half an hour today.  He wanted -- the most important thing was 
he had a full accounting for American POWs and MIAs.  He will 
obviously look into the circumstances surrounding this new document.  
The President stressed that he wanted the fullest possible accounting 
and said that only when we have that can we even consider any changes 
in our policy towards Vietnam.  He'll be looking at Vietnam's 
response to the questions raised by the document and he'll also look 
into investigations on discrepancy cases, increased efforts on 
remains, implementing trilateral investigations -- and access to 
military archives.  
	     
	     And Ambassador Toon also briefed the President on the 
activities of the joint commission and on the document.
	     
	     Q	  Vietnam says it's a fake.  What is the DOD analysis 
at this stage?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's not completed yet, and it's 
also the first thing that General Vessey will bring up with the 
Vietnamese.
	     
	     Q	  A number of Defense officials have been saying that 
they think that the 600 or so prisoners referred to are, in fact, 
non-Americans that the Vietnamese had captured who they referred to 
as Americans from time to time.  Do people -- 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We don't have any final 
determination.  We're going to wait for the complete review; when we 
have it, we'll make a judgment.
	     
	     Q	  I know you don't have any final determination, but 
given all of the intense public interest in this, do you think that 
that's a likely possibility?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't want to characterize 
it in any way until the review is complete.
	     
	     Q	  George, was there a topic scheduled for the speech 
in Boston?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No. 
	     
	     Q	  Is the President going to have a press conference 
tomorrow with Miyazawa?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think so, but I'm not positive.  
Yes, I expect, yes.
	     
	     Q	  Was Toon in with Vessey?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes. 
	     
	     Q	  He was in on the meeting?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  What was the question?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Was Ambassador Toon in with Vessey, 
and the answer is yes. 
	     
	     Q	  Do you have any response to The Wall Street Journal 
report this morning the President's distressed about some of his 
press clippings and that perhaps he's distressed with you about that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  Well, I do have a response.  I 
think the article was highly misleading to the extent that it implied 
that the President has had restricted access to the press.  I would 
point out that he's answered 358 questions on 77 occasions, more than 
any of his predecessors. I would also point out it also --
	     
	     Q	  How many questions?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Three hundred fifty-eight, on 77 
occasions.
	     
	     Q	  How many were while he was jogging?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, no, that's actually a very 
good question, Andrea.  And I would point out further that the 
article also implied that these questions were only answered at 
tightly controlled photo opportunities, which is just patently false.  
He's had 13 press conferences in either the East Room, the Oval 
Office or the Roosevelt Room or the Briefing Room, in addition to 
questions taken at photo opportunities, and that is only the --
	     
	     Q	  Oval Office press conference -- when was that? 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's answered questions in the --
East Room.  He's had five in the East Room, he's had one in the Oval 
Office, he's had one in the Rose Garden, he's had one or two in the 
Roosevelt Room.  And this is just to the White House, Washington 
Press Corps.  In addition to that, he's had 17 interviews with local 
television anchors.  He's met with the editorial board of The 
Portland Oregonian.  He's had an hour-long interview with Dan Rather. 
He's had interviews with local press from California, Florida and 
Connecticut --
	     
	     Q	  Can you address the question of the attitude?  The 
article implies that he doesn't --
	     
	     Q	  Why doesn't he like us?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  Did you really get blamed for that Post story?
	     
	     Q	  The story is that you -- are you held responsible 
for it.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think I'm going to comment 
about this.
	     
	     Q	  Are you denying that the President has shown 
displeasure publicly?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I am not commenting on the 
discussions between the President and myself.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President write that letter to Chris 
Webber?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  What?
	     
	     Q	  The letter to the University of Michigan basketball 
player?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, yes.
	     
	     Q	  That is an authentic letter?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Since the President first talked about the VAT in 
February, he said at the time that he thought there probably should 
be exceptions made in basic necessities such as food and clothing.  
Does he still hold that position given the impact it could have?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I just can't comment on a 
proposal he hasn't made.
	     
	     Q	  George, does the President have some agenda for 
this meeting with the gay leaders tomorrow?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think it will just a 
general meeting on the wide range of issues that they care about 
including AIDS and other issues -- civil rights.
	     
	     Q	  The military issue?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm certain it will come up.
	     
	     Q	  Is he using this event to name the AIDS --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think so.
	     
	     Q	  George, what specifically is the President doing to 
prepare for tomorrow's meeting with the Prime Minister Miyazawa?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's had briefing memos.  He's had 
general discussions with members of the Treasury Department, the 
Trade Representative and others.
	     
	     Q	     report yet?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if he has the report 
referred to in The Times, but Ambassador Kantor was here to brief him 
today.
	     
	     Q	  He was?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Does he intend to use any of these instances that 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know that the 
report's been presented.  But obviously, the President will press 
hard in any case where he thinks that a violation has occurred.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of the Wall Street Journal, the thrust was 
that there's a real schism here -- a hostility.  Do you think he 
feels that way?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  As I said on the 
record in the article, I think the President likes reporters.  Again, 
I think that the thrust of the article was still misleading.  The 
thrust of the article was that in some way, some attitude which the 
President may or may not have is affecting access when, in fact, he 
has the most open, accessible administration than have any in recent 
history.

	     Q	  Can we come up to your office?  (Laughter.)

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  If you're invited.  
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END                    1:34 P.M. EDT
	     
#57-04/15
	     




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178573
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Drug Use Up At Younger Age


The article that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14,
1993 issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up At Younger Age" by Mike
Snider, p. 1A).

    Drug use is on the rise among kids as young as eighth graders -
    usually 13 - and they're using more LSD and inhalants like glue
    and air fresheners, says a new survey.

    The annual National High School Senior Survey on Drug Abuse finds
    "statistically significant increases" in eighth-graders' use of
    many drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, crack, LSD and inhalants.

    "We may be in danger of losing some ... hard-won ground (in reducing
    drug use) as a new, more naive generation of youngsters enters
    adolescence," says Lloyd Johnston, University of Michigan, chief
    researcher on the study sponsored by the Department of Health and
    Human Services.

    But drug use among high school seniors is continuing a decade-long
    decline.

    The study of 50,000 students shows the percentage who tried the
    following in the 30 days before they were polled:

        * 8th-graders  - alcohol 26%; cigarettes 16%; marijuana 4%;
                         cocaine 0.7%.

        * 10th-graders - alcohol 40%; cigarettes 22%; marijuana 8%;
                         cocaine 0.7%.

        * 12th-graders - alcohol 51%; cigarettes 28%; marijuana 12%;
                         cocaine 1.3%.

    Among 12th-graders, use of marijuana, cocaine and inhalants
    declined over the year before.  Not so with LSD.

    * 2% of eighth-graders have tried LSD in the last year, up 24%
    over 1991. 

    * Use of LSD among seniors is at its highest point since 1982; 6%
    tried it in the last year.

    Reducing drug use among students "requires a different kind of
    strategy" that Health Secretary Donna Shalala says will be part
    of an overall illness prevention plan.

    The survey shows drugs are easier to get and fewer eighth-graders
    disapprove of them.

    "It's scary," Shalala says.  "Dealers are focusing on younger, more
    vulnerable kids."


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178574
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: We're winning the war on drugs.  Not!

The DEA and other organizations would have the American people
believe that we are winning the "war on drugs".  I'm going to
dispel the propaganda that the DEA is putting out by showing
you the drug war's *real* status. To help prove my assertions
I've also posted two articles from USA Today that clearly
demonstrate that drug use among certain age groups *is* on the
rise.  If WOD is working, as we're led to believe, then drug
abuse should have gone down substantially by now.  The reality
is, is that it has not gone down very much.  If anything,
substance abuse is on the rise.  I'm also going to supply a
possible solution to this problem.

The following text is an excerpt from an article about rock music
and pot entitled "Hello Again, Mary Jane" which appears in the
current issue of Time magazine (April 19, 1993, p. 59).

    Law-enforcement officials say pot advocates are just blowing
    smoke when they talk about the comeback of the weed.  "Perhaps
    because of the change of administrations, the marijuana lobby
    is out in full force," says Robert Bonner, head of the Drug
    Enforcement Administration.  "The fact is, they're losing the
    battle."  In 1985 more than 23% of youths ages 12 to 17 said
    they smoked marijuana; in 1991 that figure was 13%, and Bonner
    says it is still falling.  Bonner also offers a reminder that
    studies confirm such marijuana health risks as destruction of
    nerve cells in the brain and lung damage.

The chart that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eigth-graders" by Mike
Snider, p. 6D).

    Adolescents' choices

    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
                      Estimated, per 100 students
                             1991     1992   Pct. chg.
    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16% 
    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%

    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
    1993 report

We are not winning the "war on drugs".  I think you can see that one
of the tactics that the DEA employs to give people the impression that
the "war on drugs" is being won is to selectively quote statistics---
only statistics that support their contention that drug use has gone
down.  The excerpt from Time magazine that I included in this post is
an excellent example of how organizations like the DEA attempt to
deceive the public.

Usage of *one* particular drug may have gone down but at the same
time usage of other drugs may have gone *up* (a.k.a. substitution).
Also, drug usage among *one* particular age group may have gone down
but drug usage among another age group may have gone *up*.  Therefore,
if one takes a look at the big picture, taking into consideration *all*
the statistics, then it's obvious that the so-called "war on drugs" is
being lost.  Perhaps the drug war is being won as far as illegal drugs
go, but if one factors in alcohol abuse, smoking, and use of inhalants,
then the magnitude of the drug problem in this country can then placed
in its true perspective.

For those of you who don't consider alcohol to be a drug then try
drinking a fifth of whiskey sometime and then come back and tell me
that it's not a drug.  Agencies like the DEA only go after *illegal*
drugs.  This is one of the reasons why the drug war is a fruitless
attempt at preventing substance abuse---people will merely switch to
another drug if the one they were using becomes scarce or unpopular.

The solution to the drug abuse problem in this country may be to
legalize some---not all---drugs whose toxicity has been shown to be
within reasonable limits (you won't drop dead after using it a few
times) and then couple this with a massive drug education program.
The reason why I think legalization is *part* of the solution is
because people seem to be able to easily obtain drugs despite the
government's efforts to the contrary---the money spent on drug
interdiction could be spent more effectively elsewhere (e.g., drug
education).  Additionally, legalization would reduce crime because
the profit motive would be taken out of drug trafficking which often
goes along with other kinds of crime.  Not to mention the fact that
addicts would have less reason to prey on innocent people for their
money and posessions in order to support their expensive habit;
legalization would cause the street price of drugs to fall
substantially so drugs would be much more affordable to addicts.

IMHO, the way to reduce substance abuse is to do to drugs what has been
done to smokers:  make drug use socially unacceptable rather than try to
employ heavy-handed law enforcement and punish people by incarcerating
them.  As you already know, people in the U.S. smoke a lot less than
they used to.  This reduction in the number of smokers has been brought
about by public awareness campaigns, laws restricting where people can
light up, warning labels on cigarette packages, taxation on tobacco in
order to reduce consumption, and so on.  I propose that similar methods
be used to reduce substance abuse after legalization has been carried
out.  They are as follows:

    * Drugs being sold must come with clear, concise information which
      states the possible health hazzards involved with using this
      product and recommendations on how the drug should be used.
      Things like dosage levels and how long the drug should be used
      ought to accompany the packaging the drug is contained in.

    * All drugs should be taxed at a rate that generates a lot of
      revenue but not so high as to encourage people to acquire drugs
      through illegal channels.  Part of the revenue collected from
      drug taxes should be used to fund drug education and law
      enforcement.

    * Make it a felony to sell drugs to minors (people under the age of
      18).  Anyone can sell drugs but they must not dodge paying the
      taxes on drugs or sell drugs with the warning information absent.
      Failure to pay the appropiate taxes on drugs or omitting warning
      information should also be a felony.

    * Establish a government agency whose job is to insure that the
      purity and safety of all drugs is as high as possible.  This
      agency would try to prevent people from getting a hold of bad
      drugs---something that is a fairly serious problem now.

I'm sure that many of the things I've discussed in this article have
been hashed out before in this newsgroup.  Nevertheless, I thought
it was a good idea to give my two cents (actually a buck and a half...)
all at once so you could get a good idea of where I currently stand on
WOD.  Go ahead and tear into my post; I'm sure there is something in it
that you may wish to take a different view on or flame. :) :) :)  BTW,
I posted the articles from USA Today to not only help prove my
assertions but also to provide information on LSD usage among youths---
something which I noticed some posters to this group were interested in.

Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178575
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eighth-graders


The article that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. eighth-graders" by Mike
Snider, p. 6D).

    A new national survey says drugs are easier to get, more teens are
    using them and fewer deem drug use as risky. 

    For the last two years, government officials have trumpeted results
    from the National High School Survey as signs that the drug war is
    being won.  But this year, officials are retreating - drug use by
    eighth-graders has risen, according to the survey of 50,000 students
    nationwide.

    Possible reason for the increase:  more experimentation.  Why?  If
    drug use dropped during the '80s, eventually some students will
    have fewer "drug-using contemporaries" who act as examples of
    substance abuse's drawbacks, says social psychologist Lloyd Johnston,
    one of the survey authors.  Each new wave of youths "must be given
    the knowledge, skills and motivation to resist using these drugs,"
    Johnston says.

    This type of resurgence "is possible," says Eileen Shiff, author of
    "Experts Advise Parents" (Delta, $14.95).  But that's not the issue,
    she says.  The prevalence of alcohol and drugs among teens today
    could result in more alcoholic adults decades from now.

    Aggravating the problem:  baby boomer parents - who experimented with
    drugs and alcohol as teens - trying to be friends, not parents, to
    their children.  "I've even seen parents serving kegs of beer" to
    their underage kids and friends, Shiff says.  For a recent graduation,
    Shiff and other parents organized an all-night, "lock-in" party where
    no booze or drugs were allowed.  "We need to fulfill that parental
    role, otherwise the peer group takes over," she says.

    Officials may "talk about the war on drugs, but they really haven't
    done anything that I've seen," says Suzanne Linkous, Scottsdale,
    Ariz., 16, a volunteer who talks with teens about drugs, dating and
    other issues on a peer counseling and suicide hot line.  Linkous, a
    member of USA Today's Teen Panel, says "there's always going to be
    experimentation" with drugs.

    A real war on drugs could be waged "education-wise," she says.  But
    "some don't want to give kids the facts.  They think it will give
    them ideas; it's the same with birth control.  I think you should
    give the kids the information or have it accessible" through classes,
    pamphlets and speakers, she says.

    Education efforts need to start as soon as kids get in school - in
    kindergarten, says Dallas Owens, 17, teen panelist from Miami Shores,
    Fla.  "I remember in kindergarten, I used to see (drugs).  I think
    kids in the 10th and 12th grades have already made up their minds
    (about using drugs)," he says.

    Scare tactics in public service announcements aren't working; only
    one commercial has gotten it right, he says.  The commercial opens
    with two "good-looking girls" in the restroom talking about having
    no prom date.  Then they take a hit off a joint.  "That hits home
    because it's not attractive," he says.  "You can't be doing drugs if
    you want somebody to like you."


    Adolescents' choices

    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
                      Estimated, per 100 students
                             1991     1992   Pct. chg.
    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16% 
    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%

    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
    1993 report


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178576
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: The Manitoban Candidate

smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>
>> In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to
>> govern all American institutions (starting with the American health
>> care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators.
>
>With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
>pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
>that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
>shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
>time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian
>socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got
>the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the
>control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high
>public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market
>forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.


And not only that, made a second clone from the same tissue sample
after that of said domineering wife, to run at the helm of the
more-pro-business party under guise of more free trade ... and
she did inhale, many times, to boot ...

(-; (-; (-; 

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178577
From: vlad@netcom.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>(discrediting Kinsey) says so.
>-- 

Yes, I saw today in 6 o'clock news on KCBS here in San Francisco
this statistic quoted. 

2.2% men had sex with another man.
1.3% cinsider themself homosexual.

I understand of course that because this statistic goes against
common believe and not PC-correct it must be complete BS.

Thx

vlad
-- 
Vladimir Kuznetsov                         (408)252-5455
Natural Intelligence Consulting            vlad@netcom.COM
                                           73437,3344@compuserve.com
                                           vkuznetsov@mci.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178578
From: texx@ossi.com (Robert "Texx" Woodworth)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws

#1

Clayton, my man...

You are a tad out of touch....

First, gay comunities all over the country are in the process of excluding NAMBLA
from parades etc.

#2

Nobody from NAMBLA is gonna get a job in a day care centre.  The same liberals you are
upset about are also passing laws that make tough background checks for childcare
people.

#3

Tell me, how would you feel if your employer fired you for your antigay post on the
internet?  Would you be upset ?  I`ll bet you would be pissed!
To some, your posts ,ight make the company look bad.
While your posts offend me I dont think it would be right for you to get fired over
it.

I dont believe the gay comunity is asking for hiring quotas like the affirmative
action laws of the 60's did.
My understanding is that the gay community just wants the same rights the srtraights
have.  I dont think people should have their leases cancelled when their landlord
finds out they are gay.  I dont think that when someone sees someone walk out of
a gay business and then blabs it all over work that the gay person gets fired.
Do you REALLY think these are justified ?

#4

Clayton, I am told you are a parent a couple times over.
Have you been following the strip in the paper "For Better or For Worse" ?

I honestly want your opinion as a parent on the strip.  

Do you really care about your childeren
as much as friends of mine tell me ?  How much do you care about your childeren ?
How much do you care about other people's childeren?  Do you care about MY childeren?
Do you care about my sister's childeren ?

If one of your kids told you he/she was gay, would you throw them out of your home
in the middle of the night?

Would you approve of your childeren driving down to San Francisco to trow bottles
at and beat up on gay people?  Would you condone your childeren beating up on someone
elses childeren ?


I await your answers to these queastions.  PLease no flaming...
This is to be a civilised discussion, from one father to another.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178581
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>(discrediting Kinsey) says so.

Wow, does this mean 2 out of 5 homosexuals will be at the March
on Washington?  How *very* interesting.

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178582
From: kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.

Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer; 

I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there. 

Eliminate the C-17 transport. Overwight, overdue, overbudget, it was
supposed to carry tanks. New tanks are now too big for the airplane. 

Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. The breakup of the USSR has
left us with a number of sticky military problems, but NONE of them will
require "God's gift to submarines". 

Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. I'm sure it's a great airplane that will do
EVERYTHING its designers said, but at half-a-gigabuck a copy, we can't
afford for even ONE to crash. And airplanes DO crash. 

Elmo Zumwalt said it best 20+ years ago; "High/Low". A MIX of a FEW
extremely capable weapons systems and a LOT of CHEAPER,
moderate-capability systems. 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the
kmitchel@netcom.com| Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
Citrus Heights, CA | reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178583
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <mattm-140493165729@mcmelmon.apple.com>, mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Anyway, I was under the impression that the Marines
> in question invited Clinton down for the same treatment.  While a
> bar fight is a bar fight, threatening the Commander in Chief seems
> a rather unprofessional thing for a professional soldier to do...
> 
>
Also, it appears that two of the three Marines have some sort of charges
pending against them from another fight they were in a week before. 
Interesting.

Frank


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank R. Chloupek 
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University) 

"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:  
somebody else's place."
							--P.J. O'Rourke



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178584
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <1993Apr14.152634.16128@pony.Ingres.COM>, jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles) writes:
> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
>>questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate in?"
>>and you think he made a good case????? The arresting officer said the
>>bastards told him they did it on purpose and hoped the victim would die,
>>and you think the defense made a good case????? No wonder we're losing! 
>>We're aparently not trying to win!
> 
> The clip I saw was even worse than that. The defense attorney was asking
> something like "what have you done to serve YOUR country, as compared to
> these fine upstanding examples of patriotism?"
> 
> I didn't see the response; I don't think it was shown on TV. I wish the
> response had been "I vote. I pay taxes. I pay my salary. I support the Bill
> of Rights, unlike you, Counselor."
> 
> In my dreams :-(
> 
> Now, the real question is, could this be a federal civil rights case, since
> the state case was a sham? (Sound like a well-known Los Angeles trial?) Probably
> not: fags and dykes aren't protected (for being fags and dykes) under civil
> rights laws.
> 
>
I would doubt any civil rights case would be in order for the point that you
mentioned.  Even if it were possible, I think it is a bad idea since it smacks
real strongly of double jeopardy.  A civil case for damages is fine since that
is a trial that would proceed regardless of the first.  I think a bad precedent
has already been set in the King trial in L.A. and something like this would
make it worse.  Regardless of how bad anybody feels about this decision, it
must stand that charges of assault were not not proven against the three
marines and that's how it should stand.

Frank (who is still mad, but now somewhat sane)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank R. Chloupek 
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University) 

"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:  
somebody else's place."
							--P.J. O'Rourke



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178585
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <1993Apr16.030703.23005@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready 
>immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one 
>frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health 
>care service.
>
>(I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are 
>slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't 
>deserve my tax help).

Hmmmmm......what about their kids?

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178587
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:

[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them 
  together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent
  him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ]

>As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
> 
>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>condition.

Part of what started this was my earlier example of Illinois, USA requiring
anyone doing more than X automobile transfers a year (X = 10, I think)
to become licensed as a used car dealer.  In addition, it requirs anyone
with a used car dealer's license to own at least 10 cars at a time, all the
time. 

Let me continue with this example and try to answer Steve's questions.

Steve, let's say you have the talent and inclination to fix up and resell
cars.  Either you've gotten good enough at it in your spare time to bump
up against these limits, or you would like to do it full-time but these
stupid, arbitrary laws prevent you from starting out small and pulling
yourself up.  So I'm protected from a hungry neighborhood competitor willing
to take a low profit while working extra hard to fulfill my needs, and you're
protected from doing what you want with your life.

Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:

Your money is truly yours; it belongs to you.  You can use it to buy a car.
If you use it to buy a car, it is truly your car; it belongs to you.  You
can use your money to fix up that car.  Since it is your car, you can sell
that car.

Your life is truly yours; it belongs to you.  It matters not if someone
thinks that it's "wrong" for you to buy and sell 10 cars within 12 months
rather than, say, 9 cars.  They may dissaprove, but it is not their life or
their money, it is your life and your money.

My money is truly mine; it belongs to me.  I can use it to buy a car.
Perhaps your car.  Perhaps that 10th car, the one that someone, somewhere
dissaproves of you selling and, presumably, of me buying.

That someone could go to the government and insist that the government make
us stop it.  But the government would be powerless to stop us from doing
what we like with our own property, in the abscence of fraud or agression.
And it would be powerless to stop us from associating with each other.

This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency
and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty.
And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or
rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me
as a wonderful way to improve the human condition.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178588
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue

In article <1ql7tuINN8j8@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary) writes:
>
>Here's my own top ten response to Mr. Ipser's list
>
>8.   It just so happens that that it takes money to make this country work,
>     to provide the services that people need, and to help solve the problems
>     that need to be solved.  Granted, some things can probably be done more
>     efficiently for less money, and should be.  But some things are going to
>     cost more money and I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone whining about
>     taxes all the time.  You want to live in my country, you pay your fair
>     share!

Some people pay shares that are more "fair" than others, and will continue
to do so, even with the presence of President Clinton.  Until the rich 
elite *hurt* from taxes and shower me with their blood dripping from the
wound of the tax dagger, I will scream and yell.  Because, taxes are 
killing the poor and middle-class, and I'm tired of the wealthy getting
a free ride in this country.  Sure, they pay a lot of taxes, but I want
them to SHARE MY PAIN!!

And, not even Slick Willy is *that* fair, is he, seeing that he and his
wife qualify as one of those wealthy people I was talking about?  [They're
on the lower end of "wealthy", but "wealthy" they are.]

>7.   I can't believe what hypocrites people are when they ask people to give
>     up their lives for their country and then complain about taxes.  If you're
>     willing to send me off to die for some stupid obsession with fighting an
>     enemy which at best doesn't affect us and at worst really should be our
>     friend, then you have no right to tell me you shouldn't pay taxes!

Yah, I think the draft for Vietnam was a sack of shit.  But, do we get
to pick and choose which laws we obey, Mr. Chaudhary?  If so, shall we
set up a "you follow the laws you like, and I'll follow the laws I 
like" arrangement?

>6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!

I never thought much of beaded curtains.
 
Now beaded seat-covers, on the other hand....

>5.   [Health care is a human right--deleted]

I didn't think I was going to respond to this, but I changed my mind.

Tell me, why do you think health care is a human right?  

This isn't a flame or anything, I just wonder.  Next thing you know, 
free public transportation will be a human right.  Maybe membership
at prestigious health spas?

[Sorry to grease the hill on ya there....]

>4.   Make love, not War!

Be sure and wrap that wanker when you go spreadin' that free love stuff
around.  (Or, after the FDA gets its thumb out of its ass, use that neat
new "Reality" femi-condom.)

>3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
>     at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
>     to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
>     them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly 
>     have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
>     discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
>     the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.

So do I.  Amen.  And all that.

>1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!

What the hell is an "acadamia" anyway?  Is that like a macadamia?  

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178589
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
[purile babble deleted]

Well, some form of guaranteed health care isn't a bad idea, but,
yah, I'm a bit worried of a gubnint-run HMO myself.  I'd much
rather have something like Canada has [and I'll *belt* anyone
who tells me to move to Canada :)], but since people will yell
and scream "NO!!! NOT ONE LIKE CANADA HAS!!!", we're
probably all screwed.

>      BROMEISTER PREDICTED:
>
>	  " $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES "
>
>          " A NATIONAL SALES TAX "


Impressive.

Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you
will:

1.  The sun will rise tomorrow.
2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show.
3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.

Chances are, I'll get at least one of those right, if I'm lucky.
I may even get two.

>      Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions!
>
>      i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996.
>	   Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it.
>          
>	   Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.


Can't argue with you there.  Once the gubnint has its hands in yer
pocket, they just can't help but feel around a bit....


>      ii)  Unemployment will rise!


Oh, no SH**?!  You mean, our weakened economy will collapse in
the face of all this gubnint tax-and-spending, and everyone will
be in the handout line?  You're a GENIUS!!


>      iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase!
>	    We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997!
>	    Everyone will DANCE AND SING!


Deficit reduction.  Spending cuts via fee increases?


>      To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
>      the middle class to pay for my programs "
>
>      To paraphrase Bill Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
>      the middle class to pay for my programs "

No, any first-year PoliSci major will tell you that the Prez
*never* raises taxes.  Congress does it.

All those who voted the Clinton ticket get to wear this *new*
label.....

+----------------+
|     SUCKA!     |
|                |
|  Made in USA   |  
+----------------+

Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178590
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

In article <1993Apr16.031616.23130@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>
>This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
>1980 election.
>
>This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame,
>pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.
>
>Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more than 
>the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples' 
>books.  What a joke.

Drive down to Cincinnati and take a look.  Not pretty, is it?
Things were much better there in 1980.  All that growth went into
the hands of Ron and Georgie's pals, and I DIDN'T GET A SINGLE
DIME OF IT, DAMMIT.  And, now, I'm gonna be bled to death by tax
leeches to pay for the damage.  F***ing great.

Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in 
Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm.
I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in
Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178593
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights

Do the words "chilling effect" stimulate impulses within that
small collection of neurons you call a brain?

cpk
-- 
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?

Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178594
From: de@cup.hp.com (Dan Epstein)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3

Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@dscomsa.desy.de) wrote:

: First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the
: Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil
: production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment 
: Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would
: use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.

I agree with most of what Phill says, except the point about it being in
our interests to bring down the oil price.  Consider that both the U.S.
and Great Britain have domestic sources to partly satisfy 
their energy needs.    Pricy OPEC oil impacts both Germany,
Japan and many other "industrial rivals" more than these two.  
In addition, the proceeds from the sale (especially by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
U.A.E. etc) are disproportionately reinvested in the U.S. and G.B., 
propping up these economies and further providing an incentive 
to keep prices from falling too low.

Dan Epstein

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178595
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'

In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
writes:

>Naw, I think you are. While both organizations may, on paper, support the
>abolition of the age of consent, there the resemblance stops.

>One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade
>to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.

I get it.  One organization wants to abolish age of consent laws,
whereas in contrast the other wants to abolish age of consent laws.
This makes it respectable to belong to one organization, but not the
other.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178596
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Subject: Representation of Territories? (Was: Re: The $11,250,000,000,000 lunch)

boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:

> In article <ws0s2B1w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
  (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> > BTW, is anyone besides myself peeved that non-US citizens (Puerto
> > Ricans, etc.) are very close to having full representation in the U.S.
> > House of Representatives?
> >
> 
>    Sorry Chris, Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

OK.  I stand corrected.  I guess, then, that the comments about payoffs
(i.e., "pork") to Puerto Ricans that others have been making still
stands?

Now, everybody, how about some opinion on the following related topic:

Should the people who are natives of U.S. territories have
representation in the U.S. House of Rep's or the U.S. Congress?
The U.S. Constitution sets up the House of Representatives to represent
each State in proportion to its population, and the Senate to represent
each State equally.  What should be done with U.S. territories like
Puerto Rico?  Does anyone have knowledge about how this was handled in
the past, such as with the Louisiana Territory or the Northwest
Territory?

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178597
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>
>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>
>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>
>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.

1) So what?

2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
   us then this is an event unprecidented in history...

>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.

Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....

>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  

And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
you....

>It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.

Fuck off

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178599
From: techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
Subject: The earth also pollutes......

FURY OF MOTHER NATURE

Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those 
of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy 
Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data, "all 
of the air polluting materials produced by man since the beginning of the 
industrial revolution do not begin to equal  the quantities of toxic 
materials, aerosols, and particulates spewed into the air from just three 
volcanoes: Krakatoa in Indonesia in 1883, Mount Katmai in Alaska in 1912, and 
Hekla in Iceland in 1947." To which could be added Mount St. Helens in 
Washington State in 1980 (which pumped out 910,000 metric tons of carbon 
dioxide alone). El Chicon in Mexico in 1982 (which sent more than 100 million 
tons of sulfur gases into the stratosphere), and Mount Pinatubo in the 
Philippines (which in 1991 hurled upwards of 30 million tons of material into 
the stratosphere).
LOS NINOS
Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global 
warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 
Boulder Colorado reported that the freakish weather was actually due to a 
natural phenomenon, the interaction of El Nino and El Nina, two massive 
currents in the tropical Pacific. El Nino is a huge strip of warm water that 
periodically appears off the coast of South America and disrupts the world's 
weather patterns. Now and then, it alternates with El Nina, a mass of cold 
water that comes from the ocean depths along the equator and drifts for 
thousands of miles.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE'S  Peter Gorner summarized the phenomenon: "Cold water along 
the equator clashed with warmer than normal water southeast of Hawaii. The 
result was both the U.S. drought and the devastating floods that swamped 
Bangladesh...... Nina's cooler water disrupted tropical weather patterns and 
distorted the path of the Jet Stream across North America. Then the Jet 
Stream shoved rain-producing weather systems away from the interior of the 
U.S. resulting in drought."
TERMITE TERROR

Sundry animals and insects also contribute their share to environmental 
"degradation. TIME for April 20,1992 noted that in "the Netherlands... manure 
from pigs poses a major ecological threat, defiling water supplies with 
excessive nitrites and acidifying local soils. Sheep have permanently scarred 
the landscape in Spain and Portugal, while in India ... bovines [cows] are 
ravenous wraiths whose constant quest  for food drives them to ravage 
standing forrests."
The February 1983 issue  of SCIENCE DIGEST reported that "an international 
team of researchers has discovered that termites generate more than twice the 
Carbon Dioxide  that fuel burning does." According to a study reported in 
SCIENCE for November 5, 1982, the "estimated gross amount of Carbon Dioxide 
produced [by termites] was more than twice the net global input from fossil 
fuel combustion." In addition, "Termites are a potentially important source 
of atmospheric methane: they could account for a large fraction of global 
emmisions." The wood-eating pests have a bacteria that enables them too 
digest carbon so efficiently that some 90 pe is converted too Carbon Dioxide, 
methane, and other gases they belch into the atmosphere.
Ants are another natural source of "pollution." In 1987, an atmospheric 
chemist with Bell Laboratories, and zoologists from Cornell University, 
reported that ants of the subfamily FORMICINAE make and store huge quantities 
of the formic acid that contributes most of the acidity of rain that falls in 
remote areas and is found in atmosphere gas and precepitation around the 
globe. It is abundant, for instance, in the fog and mists that hang over the 
rain forests of Central Africa. According to the July 6, 1987 INSIGHT 
magazine, the "ants release the acid when defending themselves and 
communicating with each other and upon dying. Since  30 percent of the world 
ant population belongs to this subfamily, there is significant concern about  
the acid the ants release," an amount estimated at "600,000 metric tons 
annually." which is equal to the combined formic acid contributions of 
automobiles, refuse combustion and vegetation."
Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the 
environment.
By Robert W. Lee.


------
techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178600
From: techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
Subject: some scientists do not believe in the green house effect

The following statement was released
on February 27,1992 by the Science &
Environmental Policy Project

As independent scientists researching atmosphere and climate problems, we are 
concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on 
Environment and Development, being developed by environmental and  activists 
groups and certain political leaders. This so called "Earth Summit" is 
scheduled to convene in  Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of 
global envionmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on 
the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.
Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncetain scientific theories. They 
are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming 
follows from the burning of fossill fuels and requires immediate action. We 
do not agree. 
A survey of U.S. Atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, 
confirms that there is  no consesensus about the cause of the slight warming 
observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even 
suggests sunspot variability (which is directly proportional to solar 
activity),  rather  than a rise in greenhouse gases is responsible for the 
global temperature increases and decreases recoded since about 1880.
Futhermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that 
the theoretical climate climate models used to predict a future warming 
cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. 
Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.
Finally, agriculturalits generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide 
levels from fossil fuels burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on 
world food supply.
We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, 
are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent 
changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global 
regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, 
standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences 
falling on developing countries and the  poor.
David B. Aubrey, PhD, Senior Scintist, Woods  Hole Oceanographic Institute. 
Nathaniel B. Guttman, PhD, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic 
Data Center. Hugh B. Ellsaesser, PhD, Meteorologist, Lawerence Livermore 
National Laboratory. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Center for Meteorology and 
Physical Meteorolgy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Robert C. 
Balling, PhD, Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University.
Patrick Micheals, PhD, Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, 
Universityy of Virginia. Roger Pielke, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science, 
Colorado State University. Micheal Garstang, PhD, Professor of Meteorology, 
University of Virginia. Sherwood P. Idso, PhD, Research Physicist, U.S. Water 
Conservation Laboratory.
Lev S. Gandin PhD, Visiting Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric 
Research. John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research group, Forecast Systems 
Laboratory, NOAA. H. Jean Thiebaux, PhD, Research Scientist, National 
Meterological Center, National Weather Service, NOAA. Kenneth V. Beard, PhD, 
Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois. Paul W. Mielke, Jr. 
PhD, Professor, Department of Statistics, Colorado State University. Thomas 
Lockhart, Meteorological Standards Institute.
Peter F. Giddings, Meterologist, Weather Service Director. Hazen A. bedke, 
Meteoroligist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service.


Gabriel T. Csanady, PhD, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University. Roy 
Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillet Weather Data Services. Terrance J. 
Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force. Neil L. Frank, PhD, Meteorologist, 
National Weather service. Bruce A. Boe, PhD, Director, North Dakota 
Atmospheric Resource Board. Andrew Detweiler, PhD, Assoc. Professor, 
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, South Dakota School of Mines And 
Technology.
Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American 
Meteorological Society. Stephen R. Hanna, PhD, Sigma Research Corporation, 
Elliot Abrams, Meteoroligist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc. 
William E. Reifsnyder, PhD, Consulting Meteorologist, professor Emeritus, 
Forest Meteorology, Yale University. David W. Reylnolds, Research 
meteorologist. Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Ocean Routes, 
Inc.
Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile test 
Center.Werner A Braum, PhD, Former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida 
State University.David P. Rodgers, PhD, Assoc. Professor of Research 
Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanograghy. Brian Fiedler, PhD, Asst 
professor of Meteorology, University of Oaklahoma.
Edward A. Brandes, Meterologist. Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological 
Research Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOAA. Joesph Zabransky, Jr., Associate 
professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College. James A. Moore, Project 
Manager, Research Applications program, national Center for Atmospheric 
Research. Daniel J McNaughton, ENSR Consultating and Engineering. Brian 
Sussman, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorologist, fellow, American 
Meteorological Society. H Read McGrath, PhD, Meteorologist. Robert E. 
Zabrecky, Meteorologist.
William  M. Porch, PhD, Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos national 
Laboratory. Earle R. Williams, PhD, Associate Profesor of Meteorology, Dept. 
of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Atmospheric Physsicist, University of 
Virginia, Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project. (Affilitions 
listed are for identification purposes only).

------
techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178602
From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at 
>> the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior 
>> Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?  
>>
>> Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers 
>> get brought out.
>
>Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops),
>who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the
>density of the crowd in small regions.
>
>These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA
>methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be
>methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers,
>so as to justify bigger budgets.

Judging from past experience (the '87 March, a Peace and Justice March the 
same year, and 3 different Pro-coice Marches), The Park Service will come out
with an estimate that is approximately 1/2 the estimate that organizers will
come up with - though the last Choice march I went to had a sign-in system, 
and the numbers ended up closer.  And then you've got the media types in their
helicopters, rolling dice.

I believe the MOW plans and handing out some sort of wristband thingy, and 
basing their count on those.  I see two problems with this.  One, can they 
get *everybody* to take one (and only one)?  Two, they couldn't possibly have
been able to choose a color/design that won't clash with *somebody's* outfit!

:->
bearpaw


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178603
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|
|> # 1) So what?
|> 
|> Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
|> involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
|> about "10%" to keep politicians scared.
|> 

Back your statments with proof, or shut up.

|> # 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
|> #    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
|> #    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
|> 
|> But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
|> other members of the leftist agenda.
|> 

Again, back your statements or shut up.

|> # #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
|> # #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
|> # 
|> # Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
|> 
|> Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.
|> 

Hmm...  Tell me, did you go to the Mickey Mouse school of logic?  You have
just stated that there are not many homosexuals as Kinsey reported in his
survey (and the surveys of the Kinsey Institute since).  Then you say that
the reason many young people are promiscuous is because homosexuals form
a large part of that group, or there are some homosexuals whose lives 
consist of having sex, with no gaps for eating &c.  Using *your* logic
it would seem to suggest that on average gay men have about 2000 partners each
a week!  Try to think through your arguments carefully.  Or then again, not,
because I like to laugh every now and then.

|> # #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
|> # #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
|> # #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
|> # #male population.  
|> # 
|> # And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
|> # who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
|> # you....
|> 
|> It wasn't published.
|> 

Hence the argument cannot be resolved using this data.  Next point, please.

|> # #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
|> # #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
|> # #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
|> # 
|> # Fuck off
|> 
|> Typical homoseuxal response.
|> 
|> 

This depends on the premise that there are only three types of behaviour: gay, bi
and hetero.  This has yet to be proved.  See an earlier post about the Kinsey
Institute of grading.  This, although rough, seems more logical.  Also you use
"this would show", defining a fact and not an assumption.  Again, back your 
statements or shut up.

> 
|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178604
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15430@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
|> pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
|> hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
|> my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
|> to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

Your post is based on the premise that the laws as they stand do not
discriminate anybody, so your argument falls over immediately.  Are you
really that dumb as to use emotive language to prove an argument?
Please feel free to answer, that is, if you have anything intelligent
to say on the matter.



|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178605
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15437@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:



|> You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
|> straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
|> 

Excuse me a moment when I laugh my head off...  I defy you to prove
your statement "damaged and screwed up".  You can't?  Oh dear.  Your
argument, once again, Mr Logic(NOT!), falls flat on its face.

Take a course in civil behaviour and logic.  Then come back and defend
your arguments.

|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178606
From: busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April


In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes...
> 
>In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
>|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
> 
>|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>|>   I note with insufficient emotion that amongst the five survivors of the 
>|>   Waco debacle, there were two Brits and an Aussie. The Anglo-Saxon persona 
>|>   really doesn't lend itself to martyrdom for a spurious messiah.
>|>
>|>I don't see how you draw that conclusion.  Around 20 of the 80 inside the
>|>buildings were British (one quarter).  Two out of the eight (latest count I
>|>heard) survivors were British (one quarter).  Anyhow, British doesn't equate
>|>to  Anglo-Saxon.
>|>
>|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
>|>a mile of the compound?
> 
>Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
>has a range of 3000 meters.


  What crap, Phil. 50mm? Wrong. To give you a clue as to how big 50mm is, the
 F-16 fighter aircraft have 20mm gattling guns used to shoot down other 
 aircraft. A 50mm gun would be somewhere in the `cannon' realm. They might
 have had .50 calibre but definitely not 50mm. 



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 Paul R. Busta	                                    Busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com
 Salem,N.H.                                   
 603-894-3962


           "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
                       violent revolution inevitable..."


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178607
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15436@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
|> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
|> obedience.
|> 

Perhaps you should change your name to Clayton "Mr Logic(NOT!)" Cramer!
Please give evidence of the above statement or shut up.  I believe that I
may have answered that elsewhere, amongst your other ravings.


|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178608
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15440@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
|> > In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> > #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....
|> > 
|> > Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
|> > 
|> > -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
|> 
|> When you force people to associate with others against their will,
|> yes.
|> 
|> 


Good grief!  I do believe that for once you may have an argument which may
be discussed intelligently!

I guess that you are a person who dislikes contact with people of ethnic
minority.  However, your argument again falls flat on its face.  You state
that you, under an anti-discrimination bill, would be forced to associate
with others [homosexuals, I assume] against your will.  How do you know that
you do not associate with them now, except they may be closeted?   Would you
like to change your argument to read "forced to associate with truthfully
homosexual people against my will"?  You have no proof that anyone you
now know may not be homosexual and this punches a large hole in your
argument.  Is it your belief that a homosexual comes in only one flavour (sic)
and that is the camp mincing type?  Prove it.  You cannot.

I must admit though, that it looks as if you actually thought about your response
this time instead of just raving.


|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178609
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15441@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> # I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
|> # huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being
|> 
|> That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.
|> 

Hey, Clayton, it's me again!  I just love your arguments.  They completely
clinch each and _every_ one of your points!

But then again, that, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up your are.

Hehe.  I haven't had so much fun since I started blasting christians in alt.atheism!



|> # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> # Xavier
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178610
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <15442@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> The Walz monster above, however, was past 40 when he molested these
|> kids, as he says above.


Hehehe!  Dontcha just love these carefully constructed arguements?

Clayton, babe, please define the word `molest`.  Are you using a legal
term or a proper dictionary term?  Molest, as far as I can remember, means
`to do damage to person(s)`.  My mate, Mike, was lured into a woman's parlour
when he was 14.  Is that molestation?  A number of my friends (straight) lost
their virginity before that.  Were they 'molested'?  They told me that they
thoroughly enjoyed the experience.  I see no damage.  

Please stop pushing your objective morality on others.  If you push, people won't
fall over and say 'Ye gads, you're right!', they'll just push back.

Have you signed up for that logic course yet?

|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178611
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6011 talk.politics.misc:22764
|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9k
|>From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu
|>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
|>Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA
|>Message-ID: <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>
|>Date: 20 Apr 93 03:02:34 MDT
|>References: <1993Apr20.004224.66488@cc.usu.edu> <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
|>Organization: Utah State University
|>Lines: 34
|>
|>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
|>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
|>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
|>
|>	Firstly, they could have backed off.  When you put a power freak, like
|>David Koresh, in that kind of situation he is going to explode.  (no pun
|>intended).  Koresh wanted to be a martyr and the government played right into
|>his hands.
|>
|>	If the government hadn't given him the attention he wanted nothing
|>would have ever happened.
|>
|>	Secondly, the Davidians were expecting everything the government did. 
|>They thought that they were facing the apocalypse, and that they were to perish
|>in fire.  They weren't scared of the FBI.  They are not the average hoods, they
|>are very devout followers of a religion.  PsyOps didn't work and the government
|>got frustrated so they murdered them. 
|>
|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
|>
|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
|>first place.


The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
the doorbell.

The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 


If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
hear it.


Phill Hallam-Baker


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178612
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

In article <FOX.93Apr20083448@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>No one has time to chase down every rumor that gets printed
>in the National Enquirer or whatever.  The point is to wait
>and see if the assertions of the (rather bizarre) original
>post will be corroborated in any way.  Perhaps they will.
>The recent posts of the rather bizarre original poster speak
>for themselves.

This story was in the LA Times a few months ago.
The Clinton administration is exploring every avenue of
"revenue enhancement", but not all will be chosen.

There was a funny cartoon in Sunday's NY Times: "Bill
Clinton's Calendar".  Every day was April 15.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178614
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence

   A person sees the front of their home is strewn with garbage. That
person removes the trash, and sweeps the sidewalk. His next door neigh-
bors have not. The person then approaches his two neighbors and talks
to them about cleaning the front of their homes, and why it would be
good for their own living conditions, and that of the neighborhood.
   There's nothing wrong with holding your neighbors accountable for
their actions. That is the basis for a viable, safe community.

Regards,

Neal

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178615
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative

In article <1qn252INNot4@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>
>>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
>                     ^^^^^^^^^
>>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>>
>>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	bill.
>
>What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be
>so kind as to explain how this is "Clinton's" initiative, when it
>has been before Congress for "at least the past 6 months"?

    It is Clinton's initiative now.  He is pushing it hard
    Aren't the liberals supposed to be concerned about privacy
    rights?

    If you want to know more about the wiretapping initiative,
    read "1984" - it's in there, installed in every bedroom.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178617
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: No facts, just yapping --> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.
>

Out and out lie.  Not substantiated. I do not understand statments
like these. Please stop making such ridiculous claims.  Maybe you
should consider working for or getting your information from the
National Inquirer for now on.

>But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
>other members of the leftist agenda.
>

Ahh!  Rabbit from a hat.  Here is another desperate step to discount
any activity of the Washington Gay March.

># #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
># #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
># 
># Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>
>Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

Yes, Mr. Cramer- and supposibly they are only 1% of the entire
population.  Plus you stated that the 7.3 figure is a 'MEDIAN'.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178618
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Could it be backwards? --> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15430@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
># What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
># with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
># hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
># 
># (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
># 
># ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
>
>Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
>pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
>hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
>my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
>to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

But aren't you imposing your moral standards against gay people because
you do not want to rent to, or hire, or as you put associate with, (
and I do not know of a law that requires you to associate with gay
people)?  It works both ways.

All people want to have an equal opportunity for all things that
lie in the public domain.  It will be a gigantic step forward when
people take other people based upon ability and talent, rather
than skin color, eye color, height, weight, sexual orientation 
(and I use this last one as meaning gay, bi, straight, let's not
go off on the tangent about pedophiles, rapist, etc.)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178619
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: More verbal garbage this way ---> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15437@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
>> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be 
>> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners?
>> 
>> 	Just a thought.
>> 						-Matt
>
>You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
>straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
>

This is getting sad.  All you can do is make this ridiculous statements,
based upon some old information and a Press Democrat article that was
poorly written.

Please show the numbers for your use of "MUCH more".  I have not seen
them.  And I want them to be true and accurate, or at least show a 
trend within the everyday gay population.

There are all kinds of 'damaged and screwed up' people, and most of
them are not gay.

Keep it up, you just shoot your own position down over and over.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178620
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

Well, they never should have gotten into this situation.

Look at the history of this group. David Koresh has been arrested
?twice?  by local police. Both times, he accepted the arrest warrant
and went peacefully. So, the feds decide to arrest him. How do they
choose to arrest a person with a record of peaceful obedience under
arrest? They throw a concussion grenades at his building. 

In addition, we KNOW that we've been lied to. Initially, we were told
that they suspected him of molesting children and having several
wives. But these are NOT ATF offenses, were they? So they changed
their story, several times. And the original warrant is STILL sealed.
And we were told about the rockets and ammunition they had... but did
anyone notice any ammo exploding in the fire? They claimed that Koresh
hadn't left the compound in months... but people in town report seeing
him just a week before the raid.

How would I have handled it differently? 

Well, first, I haven't seen any evidence that the BDs did anything
wrong. There's a sealed warrant, and a collection of stories which
keep changing about what they did. So I might not have done ANYTHING.

OK. Now, supposing that I know what the BDs are being arrested for.
Well, they've got a history of accepting arrests... so, I send
officers to the door with a warrant. Wearing bulletproof vests.
Covered from a distance by sharpshooters. Now, there's no good reason
to suspect that these people will do anything, right? Why didn't
anyone TRY serving a warrant?

OK. Going further. They refuse the warrant. It becomes necessary to
raid. You plan a raid. You hear an hour before that there was a leak,
and they know your coming. SO what do you do?  Well, change your
plans, right? Nope... they go ahead with it anyone... including
sending in unprotected men to break into the place. It was idiotic. I
don't know what I would have ended up doing. But that original raid
should NEVER have happened.

The shit that came later should NEVER have happened.

The full record of the raid should be released to the public to let us
know what the hell really happened there.

The lies should NEVER have been told.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"We the people are getting tired of your lies
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| We the people now believe that it's time
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || We're demanding our rights to the answers
|| carroll@udel.edu             || We elect a precedent to state of mind"-Fish

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178621
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Stop forcing me!  --> Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>> 
>> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
>> 
>> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
>
>When you force people to associate with others against their will,
>yes.
>

You are forced everyday to associate with people that you do not
wish to, and there isn't even a law that makes you do it.  But 
you do, becuase you want to go shopping, or go to work, or go to
a public park, or go to a baseball game, etc.

The process of ending discrimination is based upon the rational
concept 'that all men (women, people) are created equal', have
the same equal standing and chances in society.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178623
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.
>
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.
>
>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
>
>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.

There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)

>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.

Let's be realistic here, shall we?

You're a member of a rather paranoid religious organization. Someone
comes to your building, dressed in black suits, carrying firearms.
They throw a concussion grenade at the place, and try to break in.
What, exactly, are you going to do?

I would not allow anyone to enter my home without first identifying
themselves. If someone attacks my home by firing weapons or throwing
explosive, I think I'd be entirely justified in defending myself.

Regardless of what I think of the BDs, and regardless of whether or
not they were guilty of firearms violations, this is NOT the way you
treat people in a supposedly free society.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"We the people are getting tired of your lies
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| We the people now believe that it's time
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || We're demanding our rights to the answers
|| carroll@udel.edu             || We elect a precedent to state of mind"-Fish

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178624
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Clayton Cramer wrote:
: Lawrence C. Foard writes:
: # #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
: # Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
: Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

Implying, no so tacitly, that homosexual men are more promiscuous than
heterosexual men.  Interesting, especially in the wake of a news report
last week about a group of high school seniors (heterosexual, I might
add) who boasted monthly conquests of up to *67* girls *each*.  It
seems that promiscuity is not limited to homosexuals.

This is a sad fact of life: no matter what you look for -- whether it 
be homosexual promiscuity, racial discrimination, or sexual harassment
-- you *will* find it.  Whether or not it actually exists where you're
looking.

-garison


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178625
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU wrote:
: The median of a distribution is that variate-value which divides the
: distribution halfway, i.e. 1/2 of the distribution (population) have
: lower and half have higher variate-values.

: So for Males 20-39 the median=7.3, this means that half of these men
: are higher than this and half are lower than this.  Now if the population
: sample size is 3300, and 1% of them are gay, 33 males are gay.  If we
: say they are distributed equally then only 16.5 are greater than 7.3
: sexual partners, of course, this means that 49.5% heterosexual men are
: greater than 7.3.

Not quite.  First, the median does not imply that half of the men are
above and half below 7.3: it simply means that 7.3 is the mid-point
between the maximum number of partners and the minimum (which is most
likely zero).  However, assuming your implication to be more-or-less
correct, your final result is still invalid.  If 50% of *all* males
have had more than 7.3 partners, and you deduct the assumed 1% of 
homosexual males, what remains is not 49.5%, but still *50%* of all
*heterosexual* males.  Which is to say: hey, we're all human.

-garison

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178626
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <1993Apr19.031846.6874@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
 writes:
>In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer
 kyle cramm) writes:
>>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoef
er kyle cramm) writes:
>>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on
>>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy tha
t
>>>                                                               ^^^^^
>>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  
>>>>
>>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important.
>>
>>       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many
>>of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective

>>is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about
>>the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that
>>Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this
>>ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a
>>descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have
>>used it in the past.
>
>No one is questioning whether Mr. King is black.  The question arises
>whether King's race should make police officers "afraid as hell."  Your
>statement seems to imply that cops should have a different standard for
>large black guys than for just large guys in general.

The original poster never said they were afraid of King because he was
black.  In fact the officers were afraid of King because of WHAT HE DID,
not because OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.  It is you, Mr. Frank that read the
phrase "large black man" and cried racism in a typical knee-jerk fashion.
When you (and others, I suspect) can get past this problem maybe the real
problems in this issue can be discussed.
>
>That two posts later you don't understand why anyone pointed out your use
>of the adjective is almost as informative as your original use.
>--
>ted frank                 |
>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
>the u of c law school     |
>standard disclaimers      |

JSL.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178627
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King

In article <1993Apr19.141933.29924@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.
chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer
 kyle cramm) writes:
>>
>>      The entire second trial was about race, Ted.  I don't feel compelled to
>>discuss Mr. King's racial background, but had Mr. King been white there would
>>not have been a second trial.  You probably are saying that the beating would
>>not have occurred if he were white, but that is an extremely difficult call
>>to make.  It is possible the case, but not definately.
>>
>One could easily point out that the jury decided that this "extremely
>difficult call" could be made, which is why the two of the defendants
>were found guilty.  One could also make some interesting observations on
>our system of justice, where the men were not guilty of excessive force,
>but guilty enough to have violated his civil rights by use of the
>(non-existant) excessive force.
>--

It is also interesting to note that Powell (and maybe Koons) were found
guilty of aiding and abetting the deprival of King's civil rights...but,
two others who also beat King and all the others who watched were not.
Go figure?  Can you say sacraficial lambs?  Can you say appeal?

>John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
>Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
>Midland TX


JSL.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178628
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Study after Study? --->Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <15445@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.174605.21907@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
># 
># So, what can we deduce from these figures?  Are there a lot
># less male homosexuals than there used to be or are men
># (perhaps women too) not as honest as they used to be about
># there sexuality?  Presumably, the people that were polled in
>
>You mean, in the 1940s, men and women were much more open about
>their homosexuality than today?  Want to try that one again?
>

That probably is not true.  But today it may not be much better for
the gay population in general.

>
>You mean, ignore study after study, so that we can continue to 
>accept a study (Kinsey's) that is obviously wrong?  
>

Where are all of these studies?  You have cited a few, and my research
shows that there are not that many.  Do Not Confuse a survey as a
study, there is a big difference.  Asking people outside of a polling
booth and adding up numbers is NOT a study.

># as easily of been gay I suppose.  One of the big debates about
># homosexuality is whether or not it's a type of behavior that is
># learned or if one is just born that way.  IMHO, the more likely
># explanation is that it's some combination of the two.
>
>Based on what, besides your own warm fuzzy feelings?

But this is what you base most of your conclusion upon. Warm
fuzzy feelings.

Maybe he has stated an educated opinion based upon the studies
that involve genetics and psychological influence.  There are a
lot of those types of studies, aren't there?  Try reading some.
>
># Here's something to ponder upon:  have any of you gay-bashers out
># there ever considered that homosexuals probably deem their sexual
># orientation as being a state of affairs that is just as much an
># intrinsic and "natural" part of their life as heterosexuals do
># about their own sexuality?  In other words, someone who is *truly*
>
>Alcoholics share that feeling, until they hit bottom.

This is a crap statement and comparison.  Many people use this sad
and stupid argument.  There is not relationship between alcoholics
and people's sexual orientation- except that some may find what it
really is when they are drunk (repressed inhibition released).
>
>Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
>of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
>recent works suggest.

Nonsense- this simply is not true.  I suppose it is a waste of time
to try and tell you to understand what a study presents.  Most of
what you cite does not extrapolate anything, you do.

>
>If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their
>morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children

If people in general would stop using irrational position to oppress
other's and leave our private lives to ourselves, I would have no
support for laws and rules to protect people form this.  But we need
only look at post such as yours to see that they lack rational
thought and intelligent outlooks.

>alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But
>until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of 
>government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice
>but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative
>lifestyle," but a sickness.
>

Remember that peaceful people are not necessarily doing the right 
thing.  Peaceful, tolerant, enlightened, educated, rational thinking
people- that is what we need.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178629
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes
:
>>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives
on
>> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watc
h
>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to
>> finish.
>
>sorry, i didn't see him "charge" the cops.  i saw him trying to get away
>from people who were beating him.  i guess we each see what we want to
>see.
>candace miller

I guess your view of the video from your sofa gives you a better view than
the cops involved?  I guess one can see what one wants to see after all.

JSL.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178631
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved Damn Ferigner'

Marc.Steinkoenig@f4567.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Marc Steinkoenig) writes:

>*** Quoting Drieux, Just Drieux to All dated 04-11-93 ***
>> 
>> My point, if it alluded you, is that as LONG
>> as the USA remains in the State of REBELLION
>> against God's Divinely APPOINTED Vicar over
>> these colonies, what more can YOU expect from
>> PaganIdolators Alienated From God's Wonderful Plan???
>> 
>> 
>> ] > obGeoPoliticalContext: I was Pleased that the 
>> ] > restoration of the Bourbon de Bourbon's to
>What tree did you just climb down from, the church is an opressive farce which
>destroys cultures. I'm not knocking religious "morality", but I think that
>Americans take their religion TOO SERIOUSLY to the point of trying to convert
>anyone or anything to their particular sect. It's a  question of power and not
>salvation... All monotheistic religions breed intoleraance into their flock
>(Islam, Judaism, AND CHRISTIANITY). Religion is not the opiate of the masses,
>fanaticism is and brother, it lookes like you're pretty hopped up on your own
>self-rightousness.


never heard of arguement by absurdity, eh no?  Also called
sarcasm.  The usual procedure is to accept some part of the
'oppositions' arguement and run with it until one goes
beyond 'rational thought' and then ring the changes.

z.B. The idea of a minimum wage is considered a good one.
And in these times of economic difficulty, the Washington
legislature is propossing to raise the State MinWage from
$4.25 (the federal level) to $4.90 (fifteen cents over
Oregon's).
	It would seem to me that this increase does not
keep pace with inflation, that the minimum wage should be
to $6.08 by my figures, so it is proposed that we raise
the minimum wage to $6.50 per hour by 1 July and then give
a 10% cost of living increase every 4 July.

and anyone who doesn't like it is obviously a country club
republican getting rich off the exploitation of poor people.

chus
pyotr

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178632
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
## Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
#
#Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

Err, earth to Clayton, you posted this to show that 2% were
homosexual. So if we assume EVERY homosexual was promiscious, that
leads us to conclude that 23 percent of heterosexuals are promiscious.
And that first assumtion is a bad one.

Clayton, it *IS* suprising from the claims you are making.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178633
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

#> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 

Clayton Cramer writes:
#When you force people to associate with others against their will,
#yes.

Earth to Clayton, the topic under discussion was the US military, an
all volunteer force.

I realize you can't stop your knee jerking, but at least use half a
clue. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178634
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15453@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
#Really?  I thought that insurance companies hired all of
#their actuarial staffs to determine the risks correlated
#with all groups of people, and that gays are more likely
#to have AIDS than are those of other sexual orientations.

Correlation != causality.

The risk factor is having non-monogomous unprotected sex, not being
homosexual. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178635
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: The Continuing Decay.....

[much blathering on the Role Of Military Forces in
Enforcing Civil Law deleted]

The main problem with trying to get the Military involved in Police work
is the differences in the missions.

The Police take names, try and find out what happened,
stop suspects (thats the meaning of 'arrest') and
turn them over to the custody of the Judicial Branch
for the adjudication of their case.

The Military's mission is to kill the enemy before
they can escape or surrender.

chus
pyotr

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178636
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


In article <C5qyuG.LuF@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:

|>In article <1993Apr19.132847.23755@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|>> 
|>> Looks like the Branch Davidian is out of buisness.
|>> 
|>> This morning the "police" (FBI/BATF) started ramming
|>> holes in the walls of buildings and shooting in tear gas.
|>> Shortly there after, a fire began that has now engulfed 
|>> all the buildings in the compound.  Only one Brach Davidian
|>> member has come out.
|>> 
|>> Authorities are saying that Branch Davidian members were
|>> seen starting the fire.  It looks like there will no
|>> witnesses to dispute that claim.
|>> 
|>> There were ~90 adults an 19 children in the compound.
|>> 
|>
|>
|>Funny, how the fire seemed to start on the right hand side of the 
|>building just next to where a tank was backing away, though!
|>
|>Probably just a coincidence.

Watch the videotape carefully, the CNN coverage was fairly decisive.

The first fire starts in the Tower, this is three storeys high and there
is a flag to the right of it on the picture. The second fire starts 
in another tower which is similar to the first only two storeys high.
The flag is on the left in the camera picture that shows this fire
starting.

Thus the camera pictures cleraly show the fire starting at two separate
locations. The FBI report a third. I was not able to verify it from the
videotape however someone else identified a fire shown to be starting behind
the small tower in the second (flag on left) camera angle.


The flames coming out of the building are yellow/orange. This is the
normal colour for carbon compounds burning. The flames were those of a 
solid or confined liquid burning, not of a gas exploding. 


The explosion that occurs mid way along the building is certainly not an
explosive though. The cloud itself is on fire. This would seem to
be most likely to be some sort of fuel oil store exploding rather than
the explosion of a magazine.


|>Funny, how considering there was to be a great cache of explosives
|>ammunition, etc in the compound, I did not see any series of explosions.

Depends entirely on how they were distributed. You would not be able
to identify ammunition rounds going off from video camera coverage
from a mile away. If and when the FBI release pictures from cmeras
on the armoured vehicles (which presumably exist) it might be possible to 
get a clearer picture. 

If anyone expects to see explosions hollywood style aka Rambo movies then
remember that in real life cars do not burst into flames when going over cliffs.

Just about the most you could expect would be to see the grenades
going off. Since the building was designed to be blast proof to some
extent it would be difficult to distinguish the grenades going off from
the collapse of the building due to the fire.


|>And, oops, the automatic weapons were probably burnt up in the fire
|>with the other witnesses.

Paranoia.

|>Unless, I see videotapes showing the davidians starting the fire, I
|>guess I may have a problem believing the feds saying they saw them
|>doing it, but couldn`t or didn`t manage to tape it.  They have
|>been taping everything else.

You wouldn't beleive the FBI if they showed you a picture of Koresh himself
setting light to the place. Your mindset is such that you are simply
unable to accept as true anything that might suggest that a group of
heavily armed weapons fanatics might indeed be in the wrong.

The gun lobby can't accept that the B-D set light to the place because
that would mean that Koreh had murdered 17 children, that would mean that
their taking his account of the murder of 4 BATF agents would be even
less credible than it was to start with.

Koresh had 51 days to come out with his hands up and face a fair trial. 
Instead he ordered the murder of everyone in the place.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178638
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
>government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
>them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
>them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
>up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
>set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
>to get gun control legislation through.

What's despicable is that this sordid incident is being glommed onto by all
sorts of people desperately trying to "get a revolution." It makes
"ambulance chasing" by lawyers seem like a harmless pastime.

For the last few months, benighted souls have been calling C-SPAN on issues
as mundane as budget resolutions, saying that "I don't know, I just have
the feeling there is going to be a revolution in this country," and so on.

Get real! For a real case study in revolution, go to Blockbuster Video
and check out "Underground," a film made about the Weather Underground in
the 70's. Even with all the strife back then, the "revolution" never did
come. And Waco is supposed to be the spark of the end times?

In the tape, it is interesting to see the way the Weatherpersons dance
around the issue of one of their defining moments, which was when a few
of their comrades managed to blow themselves up manufacturing bombs in
a Greenwich village townhouse. The problem, one of them said, was that
they were so caught up in their armed struggle that they *forgot* about
their own personal safety and weren't "careful." But of course that was
*society's* fault, a society that didn't instill a sense of worth in
the people, so they neglect their own safety.

Current apologists for Koresh may pick up some important rationalization
tips from this tape!

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178639
From: busta@vicki.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes...
> 
>In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6011 talk.politics.misc:22764
>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9k
>|>From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu
>|>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
>|>Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA
>|>Message-ID: <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>
>|>Date: 20 Apr 93 03:02:34 MDT
>|>References: <1993Apr20.004224.66488@cc.usu.edu> <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>|>Organization: Utah State University
>|>Lines: 34
>|>
>|>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>|>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>|>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>|>
>|>	Firstly, they could have backed off.  When you put a power freak, like
>|>David Koresh, in that kind of situation he is going to explode.  (no pun
>|>intended).  Koresh wanted to be a martyr and the government played right into
>|>his hands.
>|>
>|>	If the government hadn't given him the attention he wanted nothing
>|>would have ever happened.
>|>
>|>	Secondly, the Davidians were expecting everything the government did. 
>|>They thought that they were facing the apocalypse, and that they were to perish
>|>in fire.  They weren't scared of the FBI.  They are not the average hoods, they
>|>are very devout followers of a religion.  PsyOps didn't work and the government
>|>got frustrated so they murdered them. 
>|>
>|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
>|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
>|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
>|>
>|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
>|>first place.
> 
> 
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.


 The above statement ignores reality. The BD WERE provoked.


> 
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.


 Damn, Phil. You must have seen a different tape of the initial raid than
I did. Your `doorbell' happened to include lobbing percussion grenades and
attempting to storm the compound through the windows. I can honestly say
I have never seen a `doorbell' that works like that.



> 
>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.


  THINK, man. The BATF are serving a warrant on someone who they feel might
 have illegal automatic weapons. If they expected, as you state, that `the B-D
 to be anything other than peaceful citizens' they could have sent one, maybe 
 two agents up to the front door, knock, and attempt to serve the warrant on
 the person answering the door. Scenario one, that person lets them in to 
 perform the search and no one gets hurt. Scenario two, the person answering
 the door pulls a weapon aand kills both officers. Now you have two dead BATF
 agents instead of four, the BATF knows exactly where they stand with regards
 to the BD and began to formulate a plan of action to arrest those responsible
 without harm to the innocent people/children within the compound.


> 
>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 


 No, the stupidity was the attempt to serve the warrant SWAT style.


> 
> 
>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.


 Sure, do it within the law. The BATF is there to uphold the law, not
 circumvent it to fit their needs.....


> 
> 
>Phill Hallam-Baker
> 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 Paul R. Busta	                                     Busta@vicki.enet.dec.com
 Salem, N.H.
 603-894-3962

         "One only sees what one observes, and one observes only 
              those things which are already in the mind."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178640
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

For starters, they could have gone on waiting and negotiating.  The Davidians
weren't going anywhere, and their supplies had to be limited.  Large, perhaps,
but limited.  If they had simply fired the compound by themselves without
gov't tanks smashing down their walls, then at least the gov't would not be
guilty of having _again_ used an inappropriate level of force, and would have
been able to use the meantime to continue to pressure and negotiate.  No, they
would not have looked good on the news in six months or a year.  But they sure
as hell don't look very good now.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178641
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

That has not been demonstrated.  Had he come to trial, there was a very real
possibility that Koresh would have gotten an acquittal on grounds of self-
defense.  All survivors of the debacle have sworn that the BATF shot first.

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

They "rang the doorbell" using a concussion grenade!  And if the bloody
warrants were "legal" then why were they _sealed_ after the fight started?
And if Koresh had declared himself a "private state" and was just daring the
gov't to go in, then why did he surrender last year to a local sheriff who
served a warrant _for_his_arrest_ (as opposed to the BATF search warrant,
which did not include arrest unless violations were found) by just calling
him up to tell him and then going out to collect him with his squad car?
That doesn't sound like a dictator to me, it sounds like someone who knows
he has a court battle.  Things might have gone very differently if the BATF
_had_ "rung the doorbell".

>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

This is stupid.  That is no paranoid assertion, it is testamony from surviving
witnesses, and the BATF _has_ no tanks, nor am I aware of either the BATF _or_
the FBI using any until yesterday.  When they use maximum force they do just
what they did that first day that got four officers killed.

>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

"Underarmed"?  You flabberghast me, they were loaded for bear and every
picture shows them wearing bullet-proof vests!  They were using concussion
grenades and full-auto weapons, what was missing low-yield tac-nukes?  This
is a transparent attempt to retcon a justification for the ridiculous amount
of force used, both initially and yesterday.  You should be ashamed.

>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.

They _had_ a sure-fire method: keep them bottled up and talk them to death or
surrender without giving him justification for some looney-tune religious
stunt.

Phil, I've been reading your postings for months and I'm convinced that you
will back anything, no matter how damaging it may be to yours or anyone
else's rights if you think it will hurt people you don't like.  It's people
with that attitude that set up the preconditions for the Holocaust, a process
that is in place _now_ in this country, even if the tattered, pitiful remains
of the Constitution is slowing its progress.  This isn't a Libertarian issue,
others may argue that line, but from a strictly Constitutional view of a
democratic gov't, what the FBI and BATF did was wrong, wrong, wrong, even if
their _reasons_ for trying to arrest Koresh were 100% right.  _Anything_ that
leads to the deaths of 17 children, if nothing else touches your stoney
heart, is _wrong_ no matter who pushed the button.  For God's sake, man, get
your morality back.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178643
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
>of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
>recent works suggest.

Which number is that?  Zero?

Please present "a number" of authoritative works which "suggest"
that "homosexuality is a form of mental disorder, caused by
childhood sexual abuse."

Don't present your own biased conclusions, based on a collage
of tidbits you've extracted from a few hours' research, as the
conclusions of people who study mental disease and sexual abuse
professionally.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy 	Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178644
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <F3ZB3B1w165w@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz>, system@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:
|> > brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:
|> > 
|> > >Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because 
|> > >someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....  
|> > >Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...
|> 
|> Hmmm, what statistics are these? Can you offer any references. The only
|> studies I've seen indicate a higher proportion of homosexuals in prison
|> than in the general population, but I don't think that allows for the
|> "default" you refer to. Prison is not a normal situation...
|> 
|> But I haven't seen anything that suggests that the "default" proportion is
|> lower than in the general population (although it seems plausible).
|> 
|> Anyway, as I say, can you provide any references?
|> 
|> 

Is this an arguement against or for?  Or simply a statement of agreeance/
disagreeance.  The fact that there are more homosexuals in prison does not
mean that homosexuals are immoral and more liable to commit crime.  And one
must remember that prison is not necessarily a reflection of the type of
people who are criminals.  What are the statistics for unsolved crime?



|> -- 
|> 	This posting is definitive. bljeghbe'chugh vaj blHegh.
|>   Wayne McDougall :: Keeper of the list of shows better than Star Trek(TM) ::
|>             Ask me about the Auckland Festival of Missions, 18-25 April, 1993
|> I always change my mind when new evidence is available. What method do you use?
|> 

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178645
From: gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5s5D2.4uu@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes...


> 
:So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce
:third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples
:where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two
:primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help?

Of course it helps,  but only if the decision to involve third parties
is the primary partis' to make.  A corrupt and ignorant third party
isn't going to say,  "we're corrupt and ignorant,  we'll stay out of this".
Pointing out that they are corrupt and ignorant won't help,  they either
won't believe you or won't care.


> 
:>  It's impossible (or at least beyond my abilities) to formulate a rule
:>that will always tell whether the involvement of a third party would be
:>good or bad,  but there's one that seems better than any other I've ever
:>heard suggested:  voluntary good,  mandatory bad.  That is,  a third
:>party should involve itself in a transaction ONLY at the request of
:>the primary participants.
> 
:So we *don't* formulate a rule that will always tell; we try to use
:knowledge about other properties of situations.  To some of us, it
:appears that trying always to apply "voluntary good, mandatory bad"
:is not only less than optimal, it is in some circumstances seriously
:damaging.  The interesting question is to characterize those
:circumstances as best we can.

Look,  somebody has to have the power to decide whether a third party
will regulate your transactions or not.  That somebody is going to
be either you or the third party.  You can argue until you are
blue in the face that regulators shouldn't get involved (in fact,  people
have tried this),  they won't listen.    The fundamental question you
have to ask is,  whose decision is it whether or not to involve regulators,
ours or theirs?  After you've answered thed first question,  you can
try to move on to such questions as "should regulators be involved" and,  if
so,  "what regulations are appropriate?"  Although with your answer to
the first question,  the second and third are taken out of your hands.


Mr. Grinch 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178646
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND)
Subject: Re: Bush's WI 

In article <1qt61e$d7e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (B writes...
>In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?) says:
>>In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes...
>>>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
>>>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
>>>	you are still able.
>>> 
>>Have you?
> 
>        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in.
>        My savings have already been converted.
> 
Bye.
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
 come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
"The probability of someone watching you is proportional
to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178647
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
># #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
># 
># Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>
>Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

...which would make the number 15%, right Clayton?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy 	Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu	AppleLink: j.mccarthy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178648
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In <philC5LqAD.K5u@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

|What WILL you do for a religion now that Marxism-Leninism is dead?

Who said it was dead. It seems to be alive and well here on the net.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178649
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's AND 90'S

In article <1993Apr17.055654.21764@midway.uchicago.edu>, dave@seaview.bsd.uchicago.edu  writes...
>In article <1993Apr17.043704.23702@oracle.us.oracle.com>  
>mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr17.023211.23547@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM   
>writes:
>> >In article <philC5Lru6.LxA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)  
>writes...
>> >>In article <1993Apr15.195139.29457@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM   
>writes:
>> >>You dumb shit.
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >	It's amazing that someone with your limited vocabulary learned
>> >how to use a computer. Didn't they require you to take English at the  
>school
>> > where you went? Or are you just crude by nature?
>> 
> 
>I'm forced to agree with Garrett here.  There's no need for vulgarity,
>or even hostility.  I mean, it's not as though Garrett _asked_ to be born
>dumber than a bag of hammers.  While it can occasionally be annoying,
>there is a noble tragedy to someone with no knowlege of geography or 
>pre-Madonna history thinking that his political views are worth reading.  
>Something like a hydroencephalic trying to master nuclear physics.  
>I was the first to note that the population of the PRC isn't gonna
>fit into Cambodia unless you puree them, so there's no need to keep 
>pounding on that idiocy.  There are plenty of other idiocies in his post.
>Find your own and stop hogging mine.
> 
At first this kind of ranting annoyed me, but now it's rather entertaining.
These kinds of posts don't require ANY facts, logic, or even sense. It's 
kind of like what 10-year old kids do on the playground. So go on and play.
Not everyone on the net is as simple minded as you guys seem to be.

>Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
>Biological Sciences Division               dave@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu
>Brain damage was what we were after. The chromosome damage was just gravy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
 come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com
"The probability of someone watching you is proportional
to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178650
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Suffer the little Children, was Welcome to Police State USA

azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:

>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

lightly off track, but still relevant: why all the crying
over the children?  I know we are hardwired to consider
the future of the race, and comapssionate people are concerned
for all children; but so what?

For the Branch Davidians, the options were to die or
submit to Evil[tm] - and have their children's very
souls lost due to the brain washing of the Ungodly
State.  (to put this in terms the 'average' netter might
	grasp: they considered it the equivalent of putting
	Jesse Helms in charge of NEA _and_ MTV.)

And remembering that in 1983 the Supreme Court Struck Down
Freedom of Conscience (IRS vs Bob Jones et al.):

Who's next?

Is your religion / belief system Government Approved?

Jim JOnes had won numerous awards from the state before
he moved to Guiana?  Obviously state regulation would have
stopped that tragedy too.


chus
pyotr

p.s. The Mormons weren't always Saints, but they did go a long
way to be left alone. Always a ThoughtCrime in any ProperState.

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178651
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

Of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have staged the
raid in the first place.

>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 


>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.

Napalming seems a bit redundant.

The Stupidity was in the BATF mindset 'We're from Washington
We Know Better"  Execute Plan A: Storm the compound in a No-Knock
- the locals are gullible rubes, who cares that they served
warrents by knocking on the door.  Such an old fashioned, out dated
method of Law Enforcement anyway.  Gotta have the latest Armament
Technology, doncha know?

Sweet baby buddah - didn't these clown ever read "Dealing
with Paranoids"?

chus
pyotr


>Phill Hallam-Baker

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178653
From: jpr1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (James P. Reynolds)
Subject: HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT (Re: will they ever learn?)

In article <D3F72B1w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes
:
>They Refuse To Learn From History Or From the Present

>Pointing to Canada's vaunted socialized medical care program, he
>contends that "it is failing even while the cost is catching up with
>angry taxpayers." He notes: "Americans don't go to Canada and
>elsewhere for medical care; it's the Canadians and others who come
>here. Why should the United States duplicate what doesn't work well
>in other countries? We have the world's best medical care; let's not
>mess it up with Hillary Clinton's plans for socialized medicine."
>
>
>John F. McManus, National President of the John Birch Society
>


When McManus says, "We have the world's best medical care," I can hardly
believe he's referring to a system:

1.  That costs us 14 percent of our GDP, while there isn't a
    single other country in the industrialized world that spends more than
    10 percent.

2.  That leaves 37 million of us with no coverage, even though all
    the other systems in the industrialized world cover virtually everyone.

3.  Yet, Americans rank near the bottom of the list in terms of life
    expectancy, childhood immunization rate, infant mortality, and many
    preventable diseases.

4.  We pay, on average, about $1000 each for MRIs.  (To put that in
    perspective, they cost $177 in Japan.)

5.  The average US company spends over 2500 dollars a year per employee on
    health benefits.  Seven hundred to 1500 is the range just about everywhere
    else.


How can anyone say that such a system is the best in the world?  The only
thing the USA health care system is good at is showering well-insured patients
with a champagne treatment of care and outrageously overcharging for it.  And
the "private" system of insurers and paperwork is so bloated and inefficient
that it itself sucks up over 100 billion dollars a year in money from every
other sector of society - individuals, government, and industry.

Of the < 800 billion dollars Americans threw into the bottomless pit of health
care costs last year, the Consumer's Union estimated that at least 200 billion
was thrown away on overpriced, useless, and even downright harmful tests and
procedures, and the most bureaucratic, regulated insurance system in the world.

There are more than 1200 different private insurers in the USA.  But did the
"private competition" stimulate more efficient paperwork?  Ask any doctor
who's had to hire a full-time clerk to deal with it all!

The competition among hospitals is driving costs UP, not down.  The
competition among hospitals for both doctors and patients has encouraged the
hospitals to traffic in expensive superfluous equipment.  Spending millions on
expensive machines of dubious value that spend 80 percent of the day idle
isn't my idea of the world's best health care system.

Competition among specialists is driving them to perform dangerous and
expensive procedures where they are very marginally helpful.  I'm especially
thinking of heart surgery and some women's surgeries like hysterectomy and
Cesarean section.  Sound like the world's best health care system?



Ever notice how, every time someone tries to bring about some real change in
health care, the Libbies start bashing Canada's system?  First of all, Hillary
Clinton is not advocating another Canadian system.  I think that's been made
abundantly clear in the news for the last couple of months.  Where did John F.
McManus get that idea, anyway?

Let's say you're a Canadian living in a small town near the USA border.  Your
child needs a complicated procedure only available in city hospitals.  The
nearest Canadian cities are 6 hours west and 20 hours east, and there's an
American city one hour south.  Which way are you going to go?  Is it because
the American system is the "best" in the world, or just for convenience?

It still amazes me that people can't seem to see more than just black and
white on health care reform.  There are a million different ways we ould
restructure the system.  It's not just a choice between total government
control and total private control.  I wish the people screaming "socialized
medicine" every time soemone wants to change the current syste would INFORM
THEMSELVES on health care issues.



The current system sucks.  I want to keep providers private but that doesn't
change the fact that we will never be able to deal with the deficit if we
don't REFORM THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.  Purely private health care without any
government intervention doesn't work.  Hillary Clinton is not thinking of
nationalizing providers or evern insurers.  How can you scream "socialized
medicine" at her programs?  Don't you even know what you're talking about?



Ever see Clinton's graphs of projected deficit versus year for the rest of the
decade?  Notice how the line falls, then starts increasing?  Why?  I'll give
you one wild guess as to which component of spending will overwhelm us if we
don't do something about it.



PEOPE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.  The current health care system is a cancer which is
killing our economic well-being.  Costs are still rising 10 percent a year
even as Americans by the tens of millions go without, or are forced into
managed-care programs, which are certainly pretty socialized already if you
ask me.

A couple of months ago I posted a message asking any Hillary-bashers to please
come forward and present (no gimmicks, straight talk) just how THEY would set
about keeping costs down.  I didn't get a single answer.

The only thing I keep hearing from Libbie organizations are press releases
filled with evasive platitudes like "give health care back to the people."
Just do you expect to do that without serious reforms?  What is it about the
current system that you would change and how would that help?


How can anyone read the news, live under our system, and NOT see these faults?
How can we deal with the deficit, our cities, our educational system, our
infrastrucure, AIDS, modernizing our industry, etc. if we don't quit throwing
away money which could be used to SOLVE those problems?


America needs health care reform NOW.  Don't just sit there and Hillary-bash,
inform yourself!

Jim Reynolds


-- 
James P. Reynolds    (that's Jim to you and me.)     jpr1@lehigh.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178654
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

|> 
|> In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
|> the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
|> suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
|> the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
|> by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
|> claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
|> AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
|> grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
|> they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.
|> 
...
|> The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
|> government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
|> them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
|> them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
|> up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
|> set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
|> to get gun control legislation through.
|> 

I must object to the characterization of those opposed to the
government's handling of the Waco situation as "gun supporters".
Your argument tries to paint the BATF critics as right-wing
gun nuts, and just mixes up two issues.

I am one of the BATF/FBI critics, and yet I am a liberal
and just as anti-gun as you are.  I just happen to believe
that everyone has civil rights, even religious crazies.
They're all human beings, not some nest of wasps that
you're trying to exterminate.

The BATF created the crisis situation by the way they handled
the original raid.  It was well known that Koresh regularly
went jogging outside his property.  He could have been served
with a search warrant then.  He could have been arrested if
he had refused to comply.  Instead officers armed with grenades
invaded the property.  This escalated into a shooting war
with tragic deaths on both sides.

Those were the first two mistakes:  the bad judgment of
asking for a no-knock warrant, and the bad and probably
illegal way the already-unwise warrant was served.

At this point, the situation escalated to where it was
described as an armed standoff and a hostage crisis.
That's when the government started covering their traces,
sealing the warrant, revising their reported history of
the incident, etc.

Things were already building up to disaster.  Now the
government could have simply closed the supply routes
and waited.  But according to Janet Reno, that option
had "never been seriously considered".  So, supposedly
because the agents were "frustrated and fatigued", and
because there supposedly were no backups, they felt
they had to go in.

Now it's entirely possible that Koresh was responsible
for the fire.  If that's so, he deserves the blame
for the deaths of the people in his compound.

But the government's hands are far from clean.
Their first raid demonstrated bad judgment plus
contempt for the 4th amendment.  The motivations
for the second raid are just too unbelievable.
And their coverup of the events of the first
raid undermines their credibility in anything
they do thereafter.  We have only some very
biased FBI agents' word for what happened.

And please let's not turn this into a pro-gun vs. anti-gun
discussion.  Anti-gun people do not believe that gun-owners
deserve to get frontally assaulted by armed government
agents.  And Koresh's civil rights exist whether his
guns were legal, illegal, illegal-but-should-have-been-legal,
or whatever! 


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178655
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15430@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1993Apr16.164638.27218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:


># What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
># with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
># hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
># 
># (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
># 
># ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

>Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
>pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
>hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
>my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
>to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

Gosh, I have to associate with heterosexuals against my will every day! 
That means you've imposed your moral codes on me, now doesn't it? 
Fortunately, I have taken the time to get to know some members
of the het community and discovered that, hey!  They really AREN'T all evil
elitists with no concept of reality!

I've got a few clues for you.  (a) I'm not working to pass any laws.  (b)
Our morals are YOUR morals: I imagine you value freedom.  So do we.  If you
value your own freedom, you must necessarily accept that these laws are
important to protect it.  After all, discriminate in one area and you're
open to discriminate in the rest.  (c) I suggest learning a bit more about
gays, lesbians, and bis before you post the kind of drivel you have been. 
It's obvious that you haven't a clue who you're talking about.

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

But not between members of the same sex, right?  How can you live with such
hypocrisy?

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178656
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>> In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....
>> 
>> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
>> 
>> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

>When you force people to associate with others against their will,
>yes.

We're having to associate with you against our will.  This is fascism! 

You don't have to associate with anyone against your will.  Go live in a
cave.  We won't miss you.

Drewcifer


-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178658
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: race and violence

In article <1993Apr18.190534.28044@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> alaramor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron C Laramore) writes:
>Basically, I think this tendency for non african americans to believe that
>something is wrong with us exists because non african americans don't want to
>deal with the possiblility that the society is deeply biased against african
>americans, and that this is about 80% of the problem.

There is something terribly wrong, however, with a culture which
condemns, attacks, and all too often kills any of its members who
attempt to get an education.  My mother is an elementary school
teacher, and she tells me that she and her african american collegues
are frustrated to tears by the fact that any african american child who
attempts to do well in school and get an education is accused by
his/her peers of "trying to be white", and is beaten, bullied, and
tormented by them.  It goes beyond each passing grade on a test earning
a beating.  In my mother's school, one of the most promising young
students, who happened to be african american, had her throat cut by
one of these young thugs.

Nobody who buys into such a culture has any hope of being anything but
poor and/or a thug and/or dead, regardless of their color.

What has to be changed is the culture.  If that culture can't be
changed, then those african-american kids who are willing to separate
from it *must* be separated from it and the murderous thugs of whatever
color.  Otherwise, future bright young african american girls who
wanted to be doctors will end up dead on the school bus.
-- 
Let's face it, when it comes to utilities,  Microsoft has | Mike Van Pelt
performed about as well as a savings and loan.  These are | mvp@netcom.com 
the guys,  remember,  who put BACKUP and RESTORE - not to | mvp@lsil.com     
mention EDLIN - on your hard disk.  - Lincoln Spector     +----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178659
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15441@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>> In article <15409@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># 
># Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
># if the oppertunity presented itself?
># 
># I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
># huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being
>
>That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.


No Cramer it does not.  In this instance you are telling porkies to
*yourself* as well as everyone else.  Haven't you ever been to a
cafe or restaurant and been absalutely stuffed full of goodies and yet
when one more item, just a little different, with a new texture and
a new taste, was presented you *somehow* found the space for it.

Maybe you haven't, so what?  It is a widely reported phenomina and
I reckon the same applies to sex.



>
># #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
># Xavier
>
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

Xavier

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178661
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge

In article <1qocun$h2r@access.digex.net> carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron) writes:

>>and the word "liberal" definitely has a different connotation 
>>than what you have written above.  Just ask Michael Dukakis. 
>
>Yeah, the Republicans have defined it to mean "spends money on things that
>don't make our rich buddies richer"
	If you have something reasoned and intelligent to say then you should
post. If all you can do is rant and rave- save it.

>
>or maybe they mean that liberals believe in "tax and spend" rather than
>"borrow and spend"
	True conservatism is cutting spending and taxes. It's a matter of
debate just how succesful the last few presidents have been at that.

>
>finally, it means "open-minded about things that I don;t want to be open
>-minded about"
	I hear it again and again, and I've noticed far more often from 
liberals than anyone else- "if you don't agree with me you are close-minded"
	Look who's talking. I suggest you take a look at your post. I see
nothing but unfair and unsubstantiated generalizations. It suggests that the
author is anything but open-minded.
	Next time you feel like posting something like this- save it for 
somebody who cares.

>
>Carl

	*********************************************************
	  William Everett		These opinions are mine-
	  Harvy Mudd College		You can't have them
	*********************************************************    
	 "The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
	arms of despotism."  -- Tocqueville, 1852
	"The insane fear of Reaganism throws the Liberals headlong into the
	arms of socialism."  -- McGuinness, 1993
	*********************************************************


    


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178663
From: kevin@msai.com (Kevin Smith)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

>>You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice somthing
>>for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ? To bad.
>>What is immoral is: people like you and the current president who don't
>>have any idea why this country still exists after 200+ years.
>
> >I don't consider these ideas selfish; I consider them rational. 

I agree with the body of your post, but please reconsider your phrasing
here.  I think these ideas are selfish AND rational, which
is commendable.

Don't give selfishness a bad rap.  If we were all selfless there would
be no moral reason NOT to have a draft.  It [the draft] is the ultimate 
in mindlessly serving your fellow man with no thought to the importance
of the self.
-- 
    __    
| / |  |  | | |\  |    The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily
|<  |- |  | | | \ |    shared by my employer -- they came to me while
| \ |_  \/  | |  \|    viewing prime-time sit-coms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178664
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <15445@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
wrote:
> Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
> of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
> recent works suggest.

Mr. Cramer, when are you going to stop indulging in such blatant lies?
This is not only not true, you know damned well that it's not true.  None
of your research supports this; no mental health expert has taken this
position.  This is *your own* opinion which is not backed up by any
research or any knowledge.

According to one survey, done in San Francisco, the number of heterosexual
men who were molested as children was on the order of 5%.  The number of
homosexual men who were molested as children was on the order of 8%.
Source:  a book on sexual abuse of children by David Finkelhor (sorry,
the title escapes me).

Conclusions that can be drawn from this:  none.

> If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their
> morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children
> alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But
> until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of 
> government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice
> but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative
> lifestyle," but a sickness.

Oh, you definitely have a choice.  You realize, of course, that you
are approaching the two-year anniversary of your crusade.  How are
you planning on celebrating two years of lies?

Incidentally, we are still waiting your crusade against African-Americans,
women, and other minorities who also want to "impose their morality on
others".  After all, they also want the government to "tell peaceful
people how to live."  Therefore, you really "have no choice", but to
continue to point out that being a woman or an African-American is not
a lifestyle, but a sickness.

It's bullshit, Mr. Cramer.  It was bullshit when you began this crusade
and it's still bullshit.  I am continually amazed at the depths to which
you'll stoop to carry on this deliberate attack.

Paul Bartholomew
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178665
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April


In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)

|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
|>   I note with insufficient emotion that amongst the five survivors of the 
|>   Waco debacle, there were two Brits and an Aussie. The Anglo-Saxon persona 
|>   really doesn't lend itself to martyrdom for a spurious messiah.
|>
|>I don't see how you draw that conclusion.  Around 20 of the 80 inside the
|>buildings were British (one quarter).  Two out of the eight (latest count I
|>heard) survivors were British (one quarter).  Anyhow, British doesn't equate
|>to  Anglo-Saxon.
|>
|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
|>a mile of the compound?

Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
has a range of 3000 meters.

Next question.


The problem is of course the laws that allow a bunch of raving nutters
to collect a huge stack of arms in the first place.

The sequence of events meant that there really was no option but to
attempt some sort of breakthrough via an intervention. If the FBI had
had the stomach for it they could have mounted a commando type
raid and attempted to save the children by shooting all the adults.
It really was a no win situation. Koresh had plenty of opportunity 
to give up and stand trial for the murder of the 4 ATF officers. Instead
he ordered the murder of the children.


In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.


The B-D seige could not be allowed to go on indefinitely. The B-D were
quite capable of commiting mass suicide and murdering the children at any
time. A commando assault was the only other likely action that could have
achieved that objective, that would have been very risky, orders of 
magintude harder than Antebbe or the Iranian Embassy Seige. Airplanes
and Embassies are not designed for defense against attack ranch 
apocalypse was. 6 terrorists are far easier to disloge without casualties
than 80.

Allowing the siege to go on was not an option either, besides the serious
risk that Koresh would proclaim armageddon at any moment there was the 
question of the difficulties of keeping the emmergency team on standby over
a prolonged period. The longer the siege went on the more mentally prepared
Koresh and his followers would be for a prolonged siege. Rather than go
in prematurely the mistake was probably to go in too soon.


Can you think of a better way of getting the children out?

A 100% certain way?


The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
to get gun control legislation through.

This conspiracy theory assumes that the BATF deliberately got 4 of its
agents killed and that the FBI etc actually enjoy sitting out in the
middle of Texas being shot at by religious nutters.

Still the conspiracy theory is comforting, it allows them to pretend that
WACO proves nothing except about how incompetent the government is in 
resolving a hostage crisis. No govt in the world has ever faced a 
comparable situation, quite probably there was no manner in which it
could be peacefully resolved. The blame does not rest on the FBI, it
rests on the fact that Koresh was allowed to get so far, in particular
the person who tipped the B-D off in advance has the murder of 4 ATF
agents and 17 children on his or her conscience.


There are a large number of people in the US who predict the end of society
preach salvation through armed security. The fact is that these are the
very people who pose the threat to society in the first place. The next WACO
may not be religious nutters but a political movement. A splinter group
of the Klu Klux Klan taking over a schoolhouse in a black area for example
and holding several hundred children hostage.

The only possible solution to such situations that can work is to prevent
them arising. No other government in the world has faced such a situation. 
this is because no other government has so carelessly allowed high power
weaponry to become avaliable to any little Hitler or would be Messiah
to set themselves up as dictator in their own little empire.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178667
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:

+>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
+>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?


After the seige began:

Surround the place with Razor wire and then let them sit.  Do not
have daily press conferences, do your best to keep things out of
the press.


As things get more and more miserable inside, one of two things is
going to happen:

	1. People will start coming out.

	2. They will commit suicide in mass at some point.


The thing to remember about (2) is that hysterical situations and "assults"
play into the hands of a "leader" who has picked this course.   Its
much easier to stampede people into something like suicide if there
is gas coming in and bullets in the air.  Let them be hungry and miserable
for longer and longer and it will probably be more effective.

	The "possiblity" that they would all kill themselves at some
point would not bother me in the least or alter tactics.  If people
are going to take their own lives, the best you can probably do is
prevent yourself from giving them the opportunity or an excuse to
do it.

	If the FBI and Attorney General Vampira really were concerned
with sanitation and welfare of the children inside, they would not
have turned the water to the compound off as a "pressure" tactic in
the first place.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178668
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: Drug Use and Policy in Japan

Is anyone out there knowledgeable on drug issues in Japan?  I'm interested
in knowing if Japan has or has ever had a problem with drugs, and how they
dealt with it.  I've heard, undocumented, that Japan years ago used heavy
legal penalties to end a serious heroin problem.  I'd like to know both
sides of the story.  Does anyone recall such a problem?  What were laws
at the time relating to drug use, drug dealing, and drug trafficking?  What
are the laws now?  What other anti-drug measures, like education and treatment
has Japan used?  How are drugs regarded by the Japanese people?  How effective
have anti-drug measures been in Japan?  Thanks for your help.


  - David Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178669
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15436@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> [Some chump at Brandeis:]

>> I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long
>> as you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.

> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
> obedience.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find
out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  The Colorado
boycott has fizzled, Slick Willie was effectively prevented from
implementing his military policy wrt homosexuals by members of his
_OWN_ party, this new study casts a large shadow of doubt on their
claims of large numbers, and coming this Saturday they are going to
wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more
than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are
promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be
there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in
the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle
America.

Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
where they belong.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178670
From: halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

>In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes
>:
>>>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives
>on
>>> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
>>> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watc
>h
>>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
>>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to


Even if Rodney King had come out of that car waving a gun and they 
managed to disarm him, the police still had no right right to beat
him senseless the way they did once he was on the ground.  If they 
can't handle their jobs, they should be relieved of them.

Additionally, Anna Quindlan of the New York Times said it best (paraphrase):
Many people bring up what happened before what is shown on the tape.  Here's
what came before:  the 80's, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, racism,...

-jim halat
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178671
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT (Re: will they ever learn?)

jpr1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (James P. Reynolds) writes:

>PEOPE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.  The current health care system is a cancer which is
>killing our economic well-being.  Costs are still rising 10 percent a year
>even as Americans by the tens of millions go without, or are forced into
>managed-care programs, which are certainly pretty socialized already if you
>ask me.

>A couple of months ago I posted a message asking any Hillary-bashers to please
>come forward and present (no gimmicks, straight talk) just how THEY would set
>about keeping costs down.  I didn't get a single answer.

    The first thing I would do would be to disband Medicare and Medicade!  They
are a primary reason why health care costs are going up.  To cover the people
that are currently on these programs, I would sell their coverage in blocks
to insurance companies.  The private companies would bid to get these large
blocks of people, and prices would go down.

    To get away from strong federal control on health care, I would pass off
more control to the states.  Everyone is always spewing forth about how 
wonderful Hawaii is doing.  Well, how about giving some other STATES incentive
to try their own plans

    What I would NOT do is try to implement some far reaching federal program
program to cover all Americans, because this is the surest way to fail!


>How can anyone read the news, live under our system, and NOT see these faults?
>How can we deal with the deficit, our cities, our educational system, our
>infrastrucure, AIDS, modernizing our industry, etc. if we don't quit throwing
>away money which could be used to SOLVE those problems?

   One sure way to stop throwing money away is to stop giving so much to the
federal government.  Our FEDERAL taxes should be slashed, and our STATE taxes
increased.  A strong central government always fails.  Give power back to the
states/counties/cities, where it belongs.

>America needs health care reform NOW.  Don't just sit there and Hillary-bash,
>inform yourself!

  The more I inform myself, the more I want to Hillary-bash.  :->


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178672
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>
>Okay, but do doctors willingly testify against each other in 
>malpractice cases when they do go to court (obviously, absolutely 
>essential to prove malpractice)? It used to be impossible to get
>doctors here to do that (A possible advantage of the US system 
>you won't hear about from the AMA). 

Our doctors' monopoly is exactly the same as in the U.S., if not
more powerful now that they can dictate insurance payment rates,
but I don't know an answer to this one.  Anecdotally, my friends
who are MD's (including my main buds from high school) talk about
how hard it is to turn "state's witness" against someone else ...
no direct experience there, though.

>Also, in some circumstances you may have to sue the insurance plan-
>people here, after all, sue health insurance companies all the time. 
>I heard about a guy in Alberta who came down with some rare eye 
>disease that he had to take repeated trips to Seattle to get treated.
>It cost him and his family something like $6000 and the province, 
>years later, still has only reimbursed them for $500 or so.

Well, what American private insurance plans cover travel expenses???

Since our public insurance plans are publicly accountable, one can
raise a stink in the media to try and extort benefits beyond which
one is entitled (hey, not Alberta's fault that he lives there) ... 
If he lived in Cheyenne, WY his private insurance would've told him
to go to hell for the travel expenses and that's that.  An HMO would
have just kept quiet and let him go blind.

>>>Well, yeah, tell us about the National Defense Medical Centre
>>>outside Ottawa.
>> 
>>It serves the same purpose as the Bethesda Naval Hospital ... since
>>not all hospitals can provide everything, maybe they have some stuff
>>that others don't?  (Ottawa's population is only a quarter million,
>>if you include the surrounding counties.)
>
>My point was that something that should necessarily remain 
>unpoliticized has become very politicized, to the detriment 
>of its mission.

I don't think that this has been shown with the DMC ...

>>>The problem is, in a system where hospitals' annual budgets are
>>>>approved by the government, how do you keep political considerations
>>>out of medical decisions?  I bet that if you're an MP or MPP, or good
>>>friends with one, you're put on any hospital's "urgent" care list no
>>>matter how minor your problem. Which is OK unless you're someone who
>>>gets bumped off the list for some bigshot.
>> 
>>People of influence will get their way in any system, American or
>>European.  It's the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the
>>rules. (-;
>
>But to what extent does it affect the system? And why is an urgent 
>care list necessary in the first place? It's worth thinking about.

It's regular practice in a hospital to figure out who needs to get
at what facilities.  Don't Americans have to arrange in advance for
operations too?  I think that there are two standards being applied
here, and that Canada can't give Beverly Hills-style treatment to
everybody.  It's not a big brother list ... it's more like calling
around town for a table for dinner ...

>Yeah, but private nonprofit foundations have to make money somehow, 
>especially in the hospital business. 

Yes, and the Tories in Ottawa are trying to make them do that rather
than hope for a bigger grant from the feds and their province the 
next time around.  Whether it's using mop a couple of weeks longer
or even selling services to Americans (remember, our system is cash
based and since our health care infrastructure is overbuilt except
in specialties that require larger populations to generate business,
why not?  The alternative is closing unused wards ... business.).

>whether Canadians would be thrilled at the prospect of their own 
>health services catering toward Americans, who would be willing 
>to pay more than they do, is another issue entirely), it must be 
>noted that they said they were doing it partly because their grants 
>from the province were getting smaller If those grants are so 
>insubstantial, why the need to attract foreigners to make up the 
>difference?

You answered the question yourself ... "private nonprofit foundations
have to make money somehow", and I think that it's about time that
they acted like the private hospitals that they are.  Personally,
I'm fed up with Canadian socialists trying to tell everyone that
their health care is free when we are actually buying insurance
(that's one at you, Bob Rae!!).

>>The GDP figures are combined public and private expenditures for total
>>outlay, and  are compiled use the same methods by the OECD that yield 
>>the 13-14% figure for the U.S.
>
>But don't the US figures include dentistry and optometry where the 
>Canadian one (until recently, anyway) didn't?

Since we have always been evaluated in an OECD style, I don't see
how ... remember, OECD counts both private and public funds, and
in Canada like France and Germany, 30% of health care spending is
private funds (i.e., not the basic health insurance money).

>>>So what happens if the health care systems financially collapse.
>> 
>>How?  They are collecting premiums ... and I'm an advocate of having
>>copayments like the French do in their system ...
>
>Well, if you spend more than you take in, you go bankrupt. It's that
>simple. If the provincial insurance systems find themselves paying
>out more than they get in revenue, they won't be able to pay for
>everybody's primary care. Yes, the infrastructure will be there. 
>But will everybody be able to continue using it at the same rate.

Minor copayments can flush out abusers.  Remember that our "system"
is only an insurance policy.  But our costs aren't rising fast
enough to ensure adequate copayments/deductibles ... last year,
Quebec's user-fee proposal came out with the number of "$5" as
the necessary hike that could be done through a copayment rather
than give the QMA a raise.  And it's not contract time yet, as
far as I can tell from UPI Clarinet ...

Even the new Reform Party, a breakoff of traditionalists from the
Conservatives with a mildly "libertarian" faction, holds our public
health insurance as an untouchable but that just a few people have to
be reminded that it's not free (the average Canadian/European is more
fiscally naive than their American counterparts on issues like these).
But no mention of copayments anywhere to be seen ... but cutting public
spending all over the place, and bringing back the death penalty, with
little haste if elected.

>I know that, for Pete's sake, I live right on the border. I know the
>Canadian system isn't socialized medicine (unlike Britain's NHS). 

Sorry! (-;  It's just that I even run into people from Buffalo
and from Michigan who don't know ...

>The point is, that means that if the money runs low in the plan,
>you're out of luck unless you can afford it yourself.

Yeah, but there'd be a lot of lead-time and a health-care crisis that
would preclude it.  If provincial governments (as bad as some of them
are; heck, we have the NDP cleaning up a spending mess made by the
Conservatives in Saskatchewan - embarassing!) can be so irresponsible,
there is still reallocation --- health insurance is so important that
it's about the only thing that can inspire open rebellion and violent
insurrection outside of the hockey rink.  Right now, attempts to get
the system and its users to learn good habits are being treated like
cod-liver oil ...

>>>Would the private insurers take up the slack? They'd be under no
>>>obligation to. Of course, they could eventually make money again, 
>>>but if what you say is true, they'd be loathe to do so (and out of
>>>practice in handling such basic services, too).
>> 
>>Some of the companies providing extra insurance are subsidiaries of
>>American companies, and their parents provide full insurance down
>>here.  Regardless, all firms up north can easily turn on cable TV
>>to see how well the American firms are doing by being involved in
>>basic coverage.  The private firms are making too much money after
>>having gotten rid of basic coverage.  They run around patting them-
>>selves on the back for their own cooperation in providing extras 
>>for those people who "deserve it".
>
>Yeah, but eventually it's going to create a kind of two-tiered 
>effect that will be noticeable after a while, like in Britain. 

Most Americans are fearful of a single-tier system ... (-;

Seriously, there are few areas that have sufficient population for a
two/more-tiered system like what the French have ... a health policy
prof, D.G. Shea, has cited studies in the NEJM that indicate having
a population of 500,000 is necessary for adequate competition ...
and in Canada, there are only four cities west of the Great Lakes
with that population or larger.

Anyways, the numbers show that costs have held steadier than those
in the U.S. and barring any future Chernobyl-like crisis, sudden
transients in spending are unlikely.  In fact, the health allocation
is one of the most well-behaved sectors of spending up north so any
talk of bankruptcy is talk-radio fodder far away from the border.

>If the provinces hit fiscal rough spots and have to cut back, the
>things private insurers have to offer will seem less and less like
>luxuries and the gap will be more and more noticeable.

This won't be overnight, and something like this would force Canada
to have a system more like the French one ... but that's not a bad
thing, and the change will be minimal (i.e., add copayments and
frustrate the socialists chanting "Hey, it's *free*!").

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178673
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
: 
: It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal
: setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose
: that never seems to occur?...
 
Advances in freedom have been made in the past.  The "divine right of
king" concept was questioned at one time and may have used the same
argument, that it hadn't come about before.  But our ancestors had the
courage to throw off the old system that said that one man ruling many
was necessary to have a decent, wholesome society.  In the 1800s the 
concept of slavery was questioned.  Our ancestors had the courage to
question a practice that had existed for thousands of years.  Was
the idea that one man owning another necessary to have a decent, 
wholesome society?  Now libertarians question the necessity of
majoritarianism.  Is it necessary that many people rule over many
others to have a decent, wholesome society?
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178675
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

In article <C5qqKE.97J@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

   In <4916@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

   |>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993

   |                       *Paranoia part deleted.*

   |  Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?

   I don't remember the article that you removed so I can't comment on it.
   What I can comment on though is your response.

   Do you really believe that what you wrote is sufficient to refute
   the article?  Do have any facts in addition to your opinion?

No one has time to chase down every rumor that gets printed
in the National Enquirer or whatever.  The point is to wait
and see if the assertions of the (rather bizarre) original
post will be corroborated in any way.  Perhaps they will.
The recent posts of the rather bizarre original poster speak
for themselves.

-david

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178676
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

    Anything but...

    Bill Clinton and Janett Reno should not have started the whole
    shenanigan in the first place.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178677
From: scatt@apg.andersen.com (Scott Cattanach)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>In <1993Apr19.223257.24652@teetot.acusd.edu> jerry@teetot.acusd.edu (Jerry Stratton) writes:

>happen.  It seems that what they were trying to do was get the
>children out.  The idea was that ramming the compound with the
>tank and pouring in tear gas was supposed to send all the "mothers"
>fleeing outside with their children.

If any reliance was put on women's "mothering instinct" in an official
explanation of a govt. action during a Republican administration, would
it generate so few complaints?  (as opposed to complaints about the action
itself)

--
"Spending programs are now 'investments,' taxes are 'contributions,' and 
these are the same people who say _I_ need a dictionary?"  - Dan Quayle 2/19/93

My employer is not responsible for ANYTHING that may appear above.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178679
From: bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>

How about tell everyone what the hell they were doing there in the first place?

If we knew that, we'd be in a much better position to judge their actions.
Until then, we can only speculate and develop nice conspiracy and/or police
state stories.

-Bob

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178680
From: bu534@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill E Jones)
Subject: Re: race and violence


Not this again.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178681
From: mauser@terminus.apexgrp.com (Richard Chandler)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

> From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) 
     Bzzzzt.  THANK you for playing, but obviously you are not reading the 
  material as it is presented.  According to the report I've got in my 
  hands, the Newsweek article (which reported that "2 to 3 percent" of the 
  population is gay) used the criteria of "No heterosexual contact in the 
  past year."  But at the same time, the University of Denver study points 
  out, quite dramatically, that 60% of all self-identifying gay men have 
> had some form of heterosexual contact in the past year. 

I think the big mistake in that study must be that if one had had no sexual 
contact of any kind in the previous year, they are counted as heterosexual.
Even if they didn't intend it that way, that's how the figures are being used.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178682
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...

>Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.

>There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
>no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
>concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)

	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF,
	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF
	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were
	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade 
	range. 

	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?  

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178683
From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......


People *die* of natural causes, too.  We hear all this bellyaching over
things like murder and war while Mother Nature is killing people all of
the time.

In fact, more people die of natural causes than due to the conscious
actions of other people.  So, what's a few murders here and there?


-- 

                                              John Berryhill


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178690
From: lynn@granitt.uio.no (Malcolm Lynn)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?


this is a tesrt
s

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178691
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
: 
: No.  I make a distinction between working for yourself to survive and
: paying dues to Mother Nature in the form of labour and working for
: Joe propertyowner because you do not have the option of working for
: yourself.  Joe propertyowner stands between you and the earth you
: work and expects you to pay him *and* mother nature for the right
: to survive.  The property laws create a layer of parasites that get
: fat on the fact that people have *no option* except to work in
: factories.  
: 
I want people to be able to get the things they need in life.  Property
ownership may not be ideal, but it is far better at letting people get
what they need to live a productive, fulfulling life.

The first experiment in America, where property ownership was denied,
caused, starvation, hunger, and death.  Few people know that the
Pilgrims originally tried to have common property to grow food and a
common food store.  Many people know the hardships they suffered the
first few winters because of it.  After arriving, the Pilgrims made all
property common.  They all shared in the work and the resulting crops
went into a common store.  After much debate the new Governor Bradford
privitized the land; assigning plots to each family.  According to Perry
D. Westbrook:  "The change was immediately justified by the increased
industry of the inhabitants and by the larger acreage planted."

Bradford himself acknowledged this failure of communism.  He wrote:  "The
experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried
sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the
vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of
later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into
a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser
than God.  For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much
confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been
to their benefit and comfort."

Bradford did not blame this failure on the "strangers", but on the basic
selfishness in all men.  He wrote "seeing all men have this corruption in
them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them."  In other
words, according to Westbrook, "Bradford found private enterprise to be
the most suitable economic policy for mankind in its fallen state."

Let's not make the same mistake that the Pilgrims made.  Private
property allows a society to flourish, the alternative brings
starvation, poverty and discontent.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178692
From: fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.

I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems
to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.

>Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer; 
>
>I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there. 
>
>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 

Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few
airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the
answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane
from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls
again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend
the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.

>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. 
>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. 

It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe
SSN-21, I know litttle about.

fpa


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178693
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans



Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans



10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of
    America's health care resources.

9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft.

8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic
    constituencies.

7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court.

6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military.

5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos
    over to socialzed health care.

4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation.

3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the
    Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate,
    the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs.

2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism.

1.  Resign, now!



Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993

Be sure to look for:
_Slick Willie's First Very Own Book of Top Ten Lists_
Available soon in paperback.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178694
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

> Clayton Cramer:

>> But what came out, in much lower profile reporting, was that the
>> "victim" was a prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the
>> false accusation.

> There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the
> defense merely alledged that she was.

The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
apparently found this compelling.

> Even Clayton knows the difference.  Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know
> the difference.

Clayton does indeed know the difference.  Greg apparently doesn't.

>> the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the Marines
>> were engaged in self-defense.

> No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder
> on proof.

Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the
Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?

> A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines: 

>    New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in
>    the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving
>    the Marines acted to cause injury.

Because, in part [REPEAT AFTER ME], "the judge found that there was
some credible evidence that the Marines were engaged in self-defense".
Hopefully, one of these days you will understand.

> Interesting that in 2 of the 3 cases Clayton does what he accuses
> others of doing.

With respect to credibility, I would rate Clayton Cramer an order of
magnitude higher than a) the news media, and b) homosexuals.

> But I never thought Clayton was consistent.

Clayton is indeed consistent.  And so are you.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178695
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <C5KH8G.961@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them 
>  together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent
>  him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ]
>
>>As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>>is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>>tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>> 
>>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
>>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>>condition.

		   [Patrick's example of anti-competitive regulations for
            auto dealers deleted.]
>Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:
>...
>This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency
>and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty.
>And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or
>rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me
>as a wonderful way to improve the human condition.
>
>   Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick

Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As
I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of 
eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers,
barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian
agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of
allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without
regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be 
free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.  
(As some/many libertarians would argue.)  

On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of 
difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic, 
to say the least.

I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education, 
national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile 
analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.  

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178696
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

Jamie R. McCarthy (k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu) wrote:
: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: >
: >Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
: >of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
: >recent works suggest.
: 
: Which number is that?  Zero?

The only time I have heard mention of such a mechanism is
with respect to FEMALE homosexuality resulting from HETEROSEXUAL
childhood abuse.
(and this as only one of several factors affecting the same person)

As Mr Cramer appears to concentrate on MALE homosexuality
I doubt this is what he has in mind.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178697
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.
>
>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.
>
>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

So, you approve of the BATF launching a 100-person raid, complete
with flack jackets, men hidden in horse trailers, stun grenades,
semi-auto weapons on peaceful citizens?  who would also accept
a search authoried by a court?

There is still no proof that the Branch Davidians had illegal weapons.
Nothing else was in the jurisdiction of the BATF, unless they were
thought to have a still, or be smoking untaxed cigarettes.

The automatic firearms violation is a TAX matter !  You don't serve
no-knock warrants on someone with .50 CAL MGs.  It isn't necessary
(they can't flush a machine gun down a toilet, you know), and it isn't
smart (if you are right, you got a good chance of getting blown away.
if you are wrong, you shouldn't have done it.)

>
>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

The stupidity was indeed related to this.  But the stupidity may have been to
attempt to serve the warrant by ludicrously over-armed, over-protected
and over-confident gestapo.  Escalation isn't automatically brilliant.

IT WAS A TAX MATTER !  YOU CAN"T FLUSH MGs DOWN THE TOILET !
YOU DON"T NEED NO-KNOCK WARRANTS FOR EVERYTHING.

Actually, IMHO nothing justifies them, but that is another argument .
>
>
>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>hear it.
>
There wasn't any murder of police officers.  There was probable cause
to arrest them for murder perhaps.  We US citizens are innocent until proven
guilty.

There also wasn't any killing until the BATF screwed up real bad.

>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
>

Lew
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178699
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:


>In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6011 talk.politics.misc:22764
>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9k
>|>From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu
>|>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
>|>Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA
>|>Message-ID: <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>
>|>Date: 20 Apr 93 03:02:34 MDT
>|>References: <1993Apr20.004224.66488@cc.usu.edu> <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>|>Organization: Utah State University
>|>Lines: 34
>|>
>|>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>|>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>|>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>|>
>|>	Firstly, they could have backed off.  When you put a power freak, like
>|>David Koresh, in that kind of situation he is going to explode.  (no pun
>|>intended).  Koresh wanted to be a martyr and the government played right into
>|>his hands.
>|>
>|>	If the government hadn't given him the attention he wanted nothing
>|>would have ever happened.
>|>
>|>	Secondly, the Davidians were expecting everything the government did. 
>|>They thought that they were facing the apocalypse, and that they were to perish
>|>in fire.  They weren't scared of the FBI.  They are not the average hoods, they
>|>are very devout followers of a religion.  PsyOps didn't work and the government
>|>got frustrated so they murdered them. 
>|>
>|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
>|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
>|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
>|>
>|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
>|>first place.


>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

+>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
+>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
+>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
+>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
+>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

	The search was a "no-knock" warrent.  Meaning that what
those on the scene see is a bunch of men with guns storming 
their compound and lobbing grenades at them.  The terms of the
search warrent are secret and the BATF has yet to even reveal
what they were.




+>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
+>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 

	They did not serve a warrent, they basically attacked the
compound and expected a surrender.  They had semiautomatics and
concussion grenades that we KNOW about.  

	Look at the death and injury toll inflicted on both sides in the first
battle and its difficult to believe that either side had any
superiority in weapons.


+>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
+>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
+>hear it.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178700
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: A few questions for Janet Reno

	A few questions for Janet Reno:

	Why don't you think generals have any place in law enforcement?

	If the ATF/FBI had proof that Koresh was:

		A child molester
		A child abuser
		A wife abuser
		Bigamist
		Sexual Deviant (not a crime in all 50 states, yet)
	As well as
		Illegally modify weapons

	Why wasn't he simply arrested during one of his morning jogs?  Why did
the allegations of child/wife/sex crimes only come out after the Branch
Davidians repelled the initial assualt?

	Was it because it became necessary to demonize David Koresh?  Do you
feel responsible for the deaths of over 80 people?  How many would be alive to
day if Koresh had been arrested outside the compound?


	Inquiring minds want to know.

	[Although Janet was installed after the siege began, her purge of the
justice dept. leaves only her people in charge.]

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178701
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: What is Clinton ???

In article <9649@kielo.uta.fi>, csfraw@vehka.cs.uta.fi (Francis Akoto) writes:
> I would like to know Clintons background. Is he Anglo-saxon, Irish, Italian
> hispanic etc.

	He's 1/2 liar, 1/2 cheat and 1/2 demagogue.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178702
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: The "Big Secret"

In article <9304182100.AA08789@poly.math.cor>, harelb@math.cornell.edu writes:
>     ******************************************************
>     "IT IS A MATTER OF LOGIC that government-run systems are
>     inefficient, and the fact that the highly bureaucratized private
>     sector system in the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore
>     irrelevant.  

	Proof that the entire private sector is vastly more inefficient?

> It is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross
>     of Massachusetts employs 6680 people, more than are employed in
>     all of Canada's health programs, which insure 10 times as many
>     people"

	Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.

	Oops.

	[Ads for Z magazine deleted to Save the Earth]

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178703
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15454@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>> Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
>> if the oppertunity presented itself?
>
>> I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
>> huge variety of willing partners.
>
>If true, and if gays were the same as straights except
>for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would
>have much less sex than straights because the available
>pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for
>straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!


You miss the point.  A lot more negotiation is needed to convince women
to have sex because there is a big taboo about women being free with 
their sex.  Many of the women I know would do almost anything rather
than be known as a slag, slut or whore.

With men however there is *status* attached to being able to fuck 
constantly.  And with gay men, where both partners can prove status
through their constant verility then you are going to get a situation
where there is a lot of sex.

The difference is between het sex being rationed as a valuable commodity
and gay sex being virtually unlimited due to the *appetites* of men.

Straights suffer a bottle neck where women are concerned, gay men who
do not experience this bottle neck go to excess.


>-- 
>Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh


Xavier



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178704
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
into killing the children.

The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with 
a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person.
In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes 
him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the
hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically
threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would
release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would
pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178706
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Presidential Statement on Waco



The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release                             April 19, 1993



                  STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON


I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in Waco today.  My 
thoughts and prayers are with the families of David Koresh's 
victims.

The law enforcement agencies involved in the Waco siege 
recommended the course of action pursued today.  The Attorney 
General informed me of their analysis and judgment and 
recommended that we proceed with today's action given the risks 
of maintaining the previous policy indefinitely.  I told the 
Attorney General to do what she thought was right, and I stand by 
that decision. 

                                #



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178707
From: wolfe@wolves.Durham.NC.US (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr14.135948.3024@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, 
>tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) said:
>
>> A good case? A F**KING GOOD CASE? The defense lawyer asked the victim
>> questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate
>> in?"  and you think he made a good case?????
>
>Speaking as someone who's only about six weeks and a $6,900 tuition bill
>away from becoming an unemployed slob with a law degree, I'd really like
>to see a transcript of this trial.  I'd especially like to know what
>happened immediately after the defense attorney asked that question
>(assuming that the reports that he did so are accurate... I'm not
>accusing Tom Farrell of making anything up, but this _is_ the sort of
>case that spawns garbled misquotes, false rumors and urban legends like
>tribbles).  It'd be nice to think that the prosecutor objected
>(irrelevant, prejudicial, inflammatory... take your pick) and that the
>judge upheld the objection.

	Having watched most of the televised trial, I can answer that
when such statements were made by the defense atty, the prosecutor did
object, and the judge tended to sustain the ones that were obviously
falling under the "self-incrimination" type of objection.  There was
quite a bit of meta-discussion during the trial over the use of graphic
language, with most folks asking the judge if she wanted to hear the
exact language.  Practically every time the defense tried to get the
plaintiffs to "self-incriminate" by asking them such questions, there
were objections and sustains.

	At one point the defense managed to get in a quip about
"solicitation for a felony" and the judge herself said "sustained"
before the prosecutor could get the objection stated.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC	[This site is NOT affiliated  ]
wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us			[with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178708
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>into killing the children.

Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178709
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
> In article <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
# #
# #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
# 
# Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.

Not really.  The percentage of gays was low.  Headline writers aren't
noted for accuracy.

# #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
# #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
# #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
# #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
# #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
# #
# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
# 
# #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
# #-- 
# 
# Now let's take a quick look at what you are saying.
# 
# The median of a distribution is that variate-value which divides the
# distribution halfway, i.e. 1/2 of the distribution (population) have
# lower and half have higher variate-values.
# 
# So for Males 20-39 the median=7.3, this means that half of these men
# are higher than this and half are lower than this.  Now if the population
# sample size is 3300, and 1% of them are gay, 33 males are gay.  If we

Actually, 2% were either exclusively homosexual, or bisexual.  You aren't
readiing very carefully.

# say they are distributed equally then only 16.5 are greater than 7.3
# sexual partners, of course, this means that 49.5% heterosexual men are
# greater than 7.3.
# 
# Interesting results.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178710
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Can't have it both ways- News as enemy, News as supporter.

In article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
# Mr Cramer-
# 
# You are on one hand condemning the news media as;
# 
# "The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions" that
# was your message subject I believe.
# 
# Then you turn around and actually take; From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat,
# April 15, 1993, p. B2: 
# 
# Male sex survey: Gay activity low title.
# 
# You even use such a title for the San Jose Mercury News- the Murky News.
# 
# Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around
# and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory
# doesn't it.

If you can show me that the Press-Democrat misrepresented the Guttmacher
Institute's study, do so.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178711
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation

In article <115993@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> Clayton Cramer, did you read this carefully?  :
> 
> In article <C4tz28.Cpp@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
> 
> >it should not be assumed that we [NAMBLA] agree with the specific 
> >agendas of each and every other participating group, nor 
> >should it be assumed that each and every other group 
> >supports our specific goals and ideals. 

Yeah, just like you shouldn't assume that Aryan Nations supports
genocide.  Who are they (and you) fooling?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178712
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Can't have it both ways- News as enemy, News as supporter.

From article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU:

> Mr Cramer-

> You are on one hand condemning the news media as;

> "The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions" that
> was your message subject I believe.

> Then you turn around and actually take; From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat,
> April 15, 1993, p. B2: 

> Male sex survey: Gay activity low title.

> You even use such a title for the San Jose Mercury News- the Murky News.

> Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around
> and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory
> doesn't it.

I believe that this is not contradictory on the basis that
the quality of media reporting varies greatly based on the
subject at hand.  The media has proven itself very accurate
is the areas of presenting raw, undisputed data.  One good
example would be the weather page in which high and low
temperatures of the previous day for a large number of
locations are posting.  There is little evidence to show
that they are in error.

The American media has failed us in its analysis of complex
events, however.  I'm sure that we can come up with many
news stories that have left us angry because so many facts
have been ommitted.  Cases that come to mind are the
invasion of Panama, the war with Iraq, the disaster in Waco,
the issues surrounding the acceptance of gays into the
military, the war on drugs, and many others.

The story that you bring to light was regarding the new
sex survey.  While I'm sure that due to lazyness some of
the data was ommitted from the article, I would venture to
guess that the data that was presented did not deviate
from the survey.  I do, however, think that it would be
folly to have blind faith in a single newswriter's
analysis of this data.  In this particular case, there was
little analysis, and the reader was left to draw his/her
own convictions.

Many netters, Mr. Cramer included, often forget that the
American media are merely a number of businesses, who's
purpose in life is to make money for their owners and
stockholders.  Revenues come largely from advertisers
who merely want maximum useful exposure per dollar.  The
media is like fast food; the quality of the food (or of
the reporting) will improve only if the customers demand
as such.  Otherwise, it is business as usual.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178713
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Press release on "Clipper Chip" encryption initiative

In article <1qvnmkINNoc6@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes:
>
>                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
>
>[...]
>
>The initiative will involve the creation of new products to 
>accelerate the development and use of advanced and secure 
>telecommunications networks and wireless communications links.
>
>[...]
>
>A state-of-the-art microcircuit called the "Clipper Chip" has 
>been developed by government engineers.  The chip represents a 
>new approach to encryption technology.  It can be used in new, 
>relatively inexpensive encryption devices that can be attached to 
>an ordinary telephone.  It scrambles telephone communications 
>using an encryption algorithm that is more powerful than many in 
>commercial use today.
>
>This new technology will help companies protect proprietary 
>information, protect the privacy of personal phone conversations 
>and prevent unauthorized release of data transmitted 
>electronically.  At the same time this technology preserves the 
>ability of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to 
>intercept lawfully the phone conversations of criminals. 

       While also allowing law enforcement agencies to intercept phone
conversations of criminals *and* non-criminals unlawfully.  ("No, Rev.
King, we aren't spying on you.")

       I wonder how long it will take for "the wrong people" to put their
hands on the equipment necessary to read this stuff.  It'll probably
be as safe as weapons locked safely in evidence rooms.

>"keys," numbers that will be needed by authorized government 
>agencies to decode messages encoded by the device.  When the 
>device is manufactured, the two keys will be deposited separately 
>in two "key-escrow" data bases that will be established by the 
>Attorney General.  Access to these keys will be limited to 
>government officials with legal authorization to conduct a 
>wiretap.

       And people to whom they sell them to.  All it takes is corrupting
the right guy.  No, that never happens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178714
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Richard Chandler (mauser@terminus.apexgrp.com) wrote:
: > From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) 
:      Bzzzzt.  THANK you for playing, but obviously you are not reading the 
:   material as it is presented.  According to the report I've got in my 
:   hands, the Newsweek article (which reported that "2 to 3 percent" of the 
:   population is gay) used the criteria of "No heterosexual contact in the 
:   past year."  But at the same time, the University of Denver study points 
:   out, quite dramatically, that 60% of all self-identifying gay men have 
: > had some form of heterosexual contact in the past year. 
: 
: I think the big mistake in that study must be that if one had had no sexual 
: contact of any kind in the previous year, they are counted as heterosexual.
: Even if they didn't intend it that way, that's how the figures are being used.

Could someone please post some date such as what questonnares where used
and how they were distributed and returned.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178716
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car

In article <1993Apr20.001815.14049@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:

>In article 735071359@utkvm1.utk.edu, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr14.195912.16613@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>>>
>>>Directly contradicted by the NEJM study that compared crime in Seattle and
>>>Vancouver, B.C.  The non-gun rates were roughly the same for both cities.  The
>>>difference in violent crime rates was almost totally gun-related.  
>>
>>        And as was not pointed out in the study, but in critiques
>>of it, (two seperate articles by James Wright and David Kopel come
>>to mind) it was pointed out that the difference was *also* almost
>>entirely minority related.  That is, the gun crime rate skyrocketed
>>for poor minorities (Blacks and Hispanics primarily) while when you
>>compared the white majority they were virutally identical.
>
>Many of the people who never read the NEJM article believe that this
>critique is valid.  In fact, the study explores the minority issue at length
>and cites studies to back up its contention that poverty, not minority
>"type", is the relevant factor in violence statistics.  

      Perhaps I failed to make myself clear:  Minorities in the U.S.
*correlate* with poverty.  This isn't good and we should address it,
but we shouldnt' ignore that minorities and poverty *do* tend to go
together.

      *Does* Vancouver have a consistantly poor population drawn along
racial lines?  If it doesn't, then assumptions of being able to compare
minority vs. majority in both cities is questionable at best.

>>...
>>>Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Those areas implemented gun control because of
>>>the high rates.  
>>
>>       True only to a certain extent.  Take Washington D.C., where
>>gun control was instituted while it had crime problems true, but that
>>crime proceeded to explode afterwards.  Similarly for New York.
>
>Actually, I don't know whether any serious studies have been done for both
>cities.  Usenet-style statistical arguments are not very serious, usually
>involving people sitting by computers with the latest World Almanac figures.
>I had heard of a study on Washington, DC, that seemed to indicate a significant
>drop in gun-related violence there after the laws were implemented.  I heard
>Gary Kleck comment on the radio that he thought the decline in suicide rates
>was related to the new laws, but he doubted their affect on other gun-related
>violence.  I have never seen a report on the study, nor have any of my pro-gun
>friends had much to say about that report.  Remember, you can't just say that
>crime increases indicate a failure of the laws to affect crime rates.  You don't
>know whether the *rate* of increase would have been different without the
>laws.   

       If the *rate* of increase over a period of several years remains
unchanged, or increases, I think it's not a far jump to say that the laws
are not effective.  No, you can't sit down and say that things wouldn't
have been worse.  I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you.  However,
that road leads us to a place where it is impossible to critique *any*
action.  If it gets down to be, "It might have been worse without them,"
then there *is* no valid objection, which I'm sure would amuse certain
people to no end.

>You don't know whether the laws prevented a threefold-increase or 
>failed to stop a two-fold increase.  

       So we've got a situation where we have several options:

	1)  The crime rate decreased:  Obviously gun control worked.

	2)  The crime rate remained the same:  It would have been worse
	without gun control.

	3)  The crime rate increased:  Perhaps the laws prevented an
	even bigger increase.

       Cute testing ground we've got.  All responses support the proposition
that gun control works.

       The question is this:  Did Washington D.C. experiance an increase
in its violent and/or gun crime rate which was greater than the pattern
indicated prior to the implemented gun control laws.  If it did, then
the suggestion that the problem the gun control laws were designed to
"control" did not exist in their entirety prior to the gun control laws.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178717
From: v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <20APR199312325032@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes...
>In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...
> 
>>Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.
> 
>>There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
>>no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
>>concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)
> 
>	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF,
>	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF
>	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were
>	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade 
>	range. 

	What I saw on TV and what you claim are two different things. The
Davidians did not start shooting until after the BATF lobbed a couple
genades in the windows and started shooting themselves.

>	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?  

	EASY! If you see federal agents in body armor with sub machine guns
going in throught windows, that is a No-Knock warrant. Also since the 
videotape shows the BATF throwing grenades before the BD's etunred fire, 
you can safely assume that they didn't ring the doorbell.


P.Vasilion,

p.s. get rid of that bandwidth clogging .sig!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178718
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15464@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
>> In article <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
># #
># #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
># 
># Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.
>
>Not really.  The percentage of gays was low.  Headline writers aren't
>noted for accuracy.
>
But you stated that this study was presented in a very accurate and
dependable way.  This is confusing to the issue.

And if you read this title it implies that; gay sex (homosexual sex)
activities are low compared to the general population that they surveyed.


># #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
># #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
># #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 
># #    2 percent of the men surveyed HAD ENGAGED in homosexual sex and
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># #    1 percent considered themselves EXCLUSIVELY homosexual.   
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># #									     
>Actually, 2% were either exclusively homosexual, or bisexual.  You aren't
>readiing very carefully.

Well let us quibble- look at the above statement that you posted, I have marked
it with '^^^^^^', IT STATES THAT 1% ARE EXCLUSIVELY HOMOSEXUAL- IT STATES 2% ARE
OR HAVE ENGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX.

And please not the use of adjective here "HOMOSEXUAL SEX".

Now I stated that if we take 1% as homosexal this is a valid viewpoint.

I believe that you are either 1) you are not writing what you think you are
writing, 2) you can't read or remember what you wrote.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178719
From: curry@sctc.com (Russ Curry)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>their deaths.  She should resign immediately. 

( I AGREE ! )


>She should have 
>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>into killing the children.

	I think the problem here is that Mrs. Reno strikes me
( After watching NightLine Last night ) as a person who is incapable
of understanding OR dealing with a great number of things.

     
     fact is that Bill and Hillary had to clear the decks for their 
     "Dream Package" of "Free Stuff" for the American People (..Their
     subjects...). They couldn't have a wild card floating around while
     they and Robert  "the Fifth Reich" Reich plan the glorious "Peoples
     Democracy". That wouldn't fit in with their vision of themselves or 
     whatyou should be "progressively" working for... after all, 
     who do you think your'e working for... and if a handful of peasant 
     children have to die for the glorious vision of "the year of the Child"
     in America, its a small price to pay. Let them eat cake....



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178721
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>
>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>
>Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those 
>of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy 
>Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data,

Atomic Energy Commision - Hmm, they would say this.

The Earth may spew alot of substances into the atmosphere, but the quality 
of your toxic output can easily make up for the lack of quantity.  Furthermore, 
the planet is a system of carbon, sulfur and other chemicals which have been
acting for billions of years, we are but newcomers to the system - we must adapt
and control in order to bring about stability.  Also, two wrongs do not make a right, 
so continuing our practices despite overwhelming data is just ignorance in (non)action.

>LOS NINOS
>Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global 
>warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 

Educated and open minded environmentalists do not.

< My opinions are not reflective of my employer - DISCLAIMER >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178722
Subject: Re: some scientists do not believe in the green house effect
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <26VB3B9w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
The word some sums it up, alot of scientist have concluded that without a
doubt Global Climate will/is occur(ring) and should be dealt with by source
reductions.  This includes making sure that the "price" of fossil fuels
reflects their "true costs".

< My opinions are not reflective of my employer's. - DISCLAIMER>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178723
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: The "Big Secret"

demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>harelb@math.cornell.edu writes:
>
>>     "IT IS A MATTER OF LOGIC that government-run systems are
>>     inefficient, and the fact that the highly bureaucratized private
>>     sector system in the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore
>>     irrelevant.  
>
>	Proof that the entire private sector is vastly more inefficient?

Good point, Brett.  It might merely be proof that basic health care
markets operate differently, with certain nonmarket phenomenom that
the private sector can't handle well (like armies vs. warlords). In
that respect, the effects on American society vs. Canadian/European
society might also be different.

>> 	It is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross
>>     of Massachusetts employs 6680 people, more than are employed in
>>     all of Canada's health programs, which insure 10 times as many
>>     people"
>
>Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.

Good point again.  Blue Cross in the U.S. is quite convoluted compared
to the Canadian and German insurance funds, which have a minimal
organization to coordinate it.  If anything, bureaucracy now needs to
be built up in Canada to combat fraud, such as Americans crossing the
border individually to use insurance cards borrowed from friends and
relatives or using phony domestic addresses, or fraud rings stealing
them in blocks.  Our private practices are now recording insurance
account numbers, both public insurance and private insurance, which
most have never bothered to do before on assumption of an honour 
system.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178724
From: matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1qumqkINNq1i@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:
>
>(ca.politics omitted from the distribution line because my site's news
>posting software doesn't believe in it and refuses to try to post to it.
>:-(  I sure hope that Matt also reads either a.f.r-l or t.p.m...)
>

Saw it in t.p.m., thanks.


>In article <C5qK7t.2qK@voder.nsc.com>,
>matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) said:
>
>> I like to call the form of government that I advocate "Fractal
>> Federalism."  With Fractal Federalism, there is a representative
>> national government that has only certain limited powers to do what is
>> absolutely necessary at that level.  Next there are the state
>> governments, again with only absolutely necessary powers.  Onward to
>> counties, cities/townships, districts, and neighborhoods...
>>
>> 1) The lowest (read- "most local") levels are the ones that have the
>> most power over individuals' day-to-day lives, which is good because
>> that is the level where individuals have the most voice.

>You know, if you take all this to its logical conclusion, doesn't it
>seem that the _real_ "lowest level... the level where individuals have
>the most voice" is that of the single individuals themselves?  Why have
>you omitted that level from your model?

Yes, and the individual is not omitted; I just didn't fully articulate the 
principles of Fractal Federalism.  All government powers derive from the
People; each level can receive a new power from the level below through 
the amendment process, where a true consensus (say a 3/4 majority) writes 
that power into the Constitution of the level above (in the case of the 
lowest level, an amendement is passed by a 3/4 majority vote; in the case 
of higher levels, it must be passed by 3/4 of the legislatures.  We can
of course haggle about the specifics of "true consensus" when we hold our 
Constitutional Convention :-).  Once a power has been granted, it may be 
exercised by the legislature.  Powers not in the original Constitutions must 
percolate upward, starting from the individual.  The ratification process 
for the original Constitutions should involve consensus and not simply a 
plurality or majority.

Granting a "right" in a constitution is of course the same as empowering
the government at that level to restrict the activities of the governments
at the lower levels, so it operates in the same way as the amendment process 
(again, that crazy resemblance to the supposed-but-not-actual U.S. government 
structure).

This government structure is a very frustrating one for those people (read-
"liberals") who would like to have concentrated power to use the government
to force people to do "good" (a difficult-to-define word, and one that it 
is difficult to reach a consensus on).  It is also a frustrating structure 
for those who want to use the government to dictate personal behavior (read- 
"big-government conservatives").  I personally would rather see those types
of people frustrated than the incredible erosion of liberty (both civil and 
economic) that is going on now.

This is IMHO a "good" government stucture for those who see the role of
government as the protection of individual liberties, while still recognizing
that individuals need to have some influence in the type of community that
they live in.


>> 2) A free market works on government, not just economics.  Succesful
>> ideas propogate, unsuccessful ideas die.

>What is your definition of a "successful" idea or a "successful"
>government?

One which maintains peace, liberty, and the opportunity for happiness for its
people, while working within the realities of human nature.  You do bring
up the point (intentional or not) that a "lasting" idea is by no means
necessarily a "successful" idea.  I believe that Fractal Federalism would
at least bring many ideas to light, and The People would have the opportunity
to democratically choose between "good" ideas and "bad" ideas.  If the
Docialists, er, I mean Democrats are right and government activism fosters a
prosperous People, they will have a plethora of local opportunities to  
check their thesis.  If Libertopia is possible, it will arise.  If a balanced
Conservative Republic is democratically received as the best level of
government activity, it will become clear to The People that it is best.



>> As far as "set the moral tone" is concerned, if a community does not
>> collectively want to put up with prostitution going on in front of
>> their kids, why should they have to?  If a community does not want to
>> see proliferation of drugs among their kids, why should they have to?

>For the same reason that they have to put up with a church operating
>right out in the open, where their kids can see it, and with the owner
>of the house across the street flying an American flag right out there
>in the open every day in front of their kids.  It's called "freedom."
>If they don't like the ideas to which their kids are exposed, they can
>try to educate and persuade their kids as to why the things that they're
>seeing other people doing are wrong or bad.

Right, and people would not rescind any freedoms (read- "empower the
government") except through the amendment process.  That is how the Federal 
Government is supposed to work now, but the Supreme Soviet, er, I mean the 
Supreme Court put a stop to that "republican government" nonsense.

In my hypothetical government, if there were a constitutional provision
empowering the government to regulate churches the government (whatever
level we are talking about) could indeed ban churches.  The constitutional
provision would be invalid if a higher level had a constitutional provision
protecting free exercise of religion.  The uppermost Constitution is still
the Supreme Law of the Land.



>(I find it interesting that you applaud the idea of free-market
>competition among various ideas, and yet support the right of he
>majority in a community to suppress ideas which they don't like.)

It is a matter of individuals being able to control their own associations
and environment, not a matter of suppression of ideas.

One dilemma of the human condition is that individuals need liberty, and
they also need to have some control over their environment.  In my
"Fractal Federalism" government, certain "rights" are protected by the 
constitutions.  Other "rights" are protected simply because the government 
has not been empowered to infringe upon them.  When a consensus is reached
that the government should have a certain power, then freedom is infringed
upon.  This cannot be avoided -- murder statutes infringe upon freedom,
but I think that the consensus of the American people is that murder statutes
are a good idea.

I am sure that many parents believe that they have a "right" to control
the environment that their children live in.  People feel that they have
a "right" to sleep peacefully at night; thus, there are noise ordinances.
There are zoning laws that keep businesses from overrunning residential
neighborhoods.  I do not view these as bad things (certainly some individual
instances are bad, but the concept is not necessarily bad), I view them
as the people in a community having some control over the type of community
that they live in.  I see the alternative as near anarchy.

Like I said in another post, if you can come up with a scenario where an 
individual can do something truly autonomously -- with absolutely zero
effect on anyone else -- then no individual or government has the right
to restrict that activity.  There are simply not very many behaviors that
fit into the category of the truly autonomous, so the whole thing becomes
an issue of one individual or group having power over another individual
or group.  I think that the "Fractal Federalism" approach is a sound, if
not ideal, approach to limiting this restrictive power.  The libertarian 
scenario degenerates to "might makes right," and the system we have right
now is one of "lawyers abusing natural rights philosophy to decide what 
powers the government should have by subverting the democratic process 
though the Supreme Court."



>> The problem with the egalitarian view is that it tries to deny the
>> fundamental dilemma of democratic government: The People have a right
>> to exercise a voice in their community, yet individuals have the right
>> to be left to themselves.  This is a serious dilemma precisely because
>> there is not much that takes place in a vacuum.

>Oddly enough, if what you say is taken literally there is little or no
>conflict: the people do indeed have a right to exercise a voice -- where
>"voice" equals "persuasive speech" in their communities... it's only
>when they somehow get the idea into their heads that they also have a
>right to dictate behavior in their communities that the trouble begins.

I think I answered this above already, but let me expand a little more
with an example.  If I stand naked in front of your house and masturbate 
in front of your children while they play, in your libertarian (small 'l')
scenario the only recourse you have is to yell at me.  "Autonomous" is
a value judgement 99.99% of the time, it is not a scientific reality with
a clear definition.  Exactly who would you empower to make that value
judgement?



>[stuff deleted]

>> Certainly not the only cause, Mike, but people in a local neighborhood
>> should have a voice in what goes on in that neighborhood.  To deny
>> this is to create another concentrated centralized power to keep the
>> locality from abusing its power -- in essence, using a pit bull to
>> keep a toy poodle from biting your leg.  Chances are, the pit bull is
>> going to turn on you some day, and you have much less defense against
>> it than you do against the toy poodle.

>The argument here appears to be that tyranny of the individual by the
>local majority is superior to having the federal government have and
>exercise the power to protect the individual from his neighbors because
>that federal government will eventually and inevitably become corrupt
>and use its power to tyrannize everyone.  Okay, there's a lot of truth in
>that; certainly we're seeing something like that happening in the United
>States today (though it's unclear that he progression here matches the
>model, since our beloved and benign federal government hasn't
>_ever_shown much enthusiasm for the idea of protecting any individuals...)

Lots of people are long on complaints and short on practical solutions.
Although I am pessimistic that my idea will ever bear fruit, I am at least
trying to be long on solutions also.  I am truly interested if you have
any improvements to make on my ideas (I call them "my ideas", but they
all come from an "average guy" reading of the U.S. Constitution without
benefit of the indoctrination of Constitutional Law academia).



>But I have to say that I think that your solution is at least just as
>bad.  Trading the yoke of federal tyranny for the yoke of local tyranny
>doesn't cheer me up much... I think I'd prefer to put my faith in a
>larger government that at least _might_ protect the individual from time
>to time rather than place it in local mob rule.  Admittedly, it's the
>lesser of two evils, and it's not less by very much, and they're both
>pretty damn evil...

Sorry, the confusion was my fault.  When I said that "Fractal Federalism" 
resembles the U.S. constitution, I meant it and thought it was pretty clear.  
I should have more clearly explained that the ultimate derivation of government
power is from the CONSENSUS of the people (although not the CONSENT of every
individual; a practical observation, not a moral judgement).  It is certainly 
better than having all government power derive from nine lawyers, which is the
situation we have now.  That is why I think the Supreme Court should be
a jury court, with a different jury for each case.  

It is certainly not perfect (no philosophy of government is), but do you still 
find it a repugnant idea?  If so, what is your solution?



>> Ideally, everyone would leave everyone else alone and no government
>> coercive power of any kind would be necessary.  This will never work,
>> because people are different and by their nature they will always want
>> to force their views on others.  If this were not the case, nobody
>> would try to force their view that murder is wrong on anyone else.

>This is true... the question is, what we you going to do about it?  Your
>proposed solution seems to actually _encourage_ these bozos to lord it
>over their victims.

I think that you misunderstood the structure of the form of government I
advocate, and it was my fault for not being more clear.



>Oh, and by the way...

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> LiBORGalism:
>>              THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
>>           FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
>>                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
>>                      CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
>>                       YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>How much would freedom of speech or private property rights be respected
>in a community in which the majority was allowed to make all the rules?
>("That man's saying things in public that I don't want my children
>exposed to!  Let's shut him up!  Those homos are living together and
>fornicating in that house over there!  Let's run 'em outta town!")

The majority does not make the rules.  The majority (or possibly a 
plurality) simply elects representatives to exercise limited government 
powers; those limited government powers derive from a large consensus, 
not a simple majority.  And the Federal Government, in my scenario, still
has the power to protect freedoms.



>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>



Matt Freivald


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178725
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <1r0tvhINNh3s@ctron-news.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>
>For starters, they could have gone on waiting and negotiating.  The Davidians
>weren't going anywhere, and their supplies had to be limited.  Large, perhaps,
>but limited.  If they had simply fired the compound by themselves without
>gov't tanks smashing down their walls, then at least the gov't would not be
>guilty of having _again_ used an inappropriate level of force, and would have
>been able to use the meantime to continue to pressure and negotiate.  No, they
>would not have looked good on the news in six months or a year.  But they sure
>as hell don't look very good now.

  True.  Today's Boston Globe interviewed a former Unification Church
  leader who is now a consultant on cults.  He said the FBI's approach
  was totally wrong.  He said they should have tried to break down the 
  BD's loyalty to Koresh through psychological means.   Koresh's whole
  theology was based on an approaching confrontation with the forces 
  of evil in the world and a seige mentality based on this.  The Feds
  played into his hands **PERFECTLY**.   By surrounding the compound
  with tanks and playing loud rock music and glaring lights at them 
  they strongly reinforced Koresh's message that the outside world was
  evil and threatening.    He said instead they should have set up 
  a picnic atmosphere, and acted inviting and friendly.  If they
  broadcast anything over PA systems it should have been loving 
  relatives reflecting on pleasant events from the cult members'
  childhoods.   The idea is to make the outside world and surrender
  seem like a pleasant, desirable alternative.   Interesting comments.


---peter




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178729
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In <11974@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

+>1.  There is no such thing as non-toxic tear gas.  Tear gas is non-breathable
+>    remaining in it's presence will cause nausea and vomiting, followed eventually
+>    by siezures and death.  Did the FBI know the physical health of all the people
+>    they exposed??  Any potential heart problems among the B-D's??

	They certainly knew that there were pregnant women in there plus 
children.  I could not believe when they said that the gassing was
an attempt to "save the children" yesterday.  I can't think of a much
worse sort of child abuse that pouring tear gas into a building.


+>2.  Have you ever seen a tear gas canister??  Tear gas is produced by burning a
+>    chemical in the can.  The fumes produced are tear gas.  The canister has a 
+>    warning printed on the side of it.  "Contact with flamable material can result
+>    in fire."  Now, how many of these canisters did they throw inside a building 
+>    they admited was a fire-trap??

	I have heard two things recently explaining this:

	1. They pumped the gas into the building from outside via some
	sort of pipe rather than by canister.

	2. The sort of tear gas they are using was described as some
	sort of powdery material that sticks to things.  Kind of
	like a powder cloud.

	And once again, these are government lacky explainations and
	since government stories always change, none or all of the
	information might not be true.


+>This whole thing was a case of over-reaction by the officials at every step.
+>I hope it is thoroughly investigated and the responsible parties are held
+>accountable.  But that is highly unlikely when you figure they are going to
+>be investigating themselves.

	Or better yet, the Texas rangers will be investigating which is
probably worse than the FBI or ATF investigating itself.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178730
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

In article <1993Apr19.132847.23755@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>Authorities are saying that Branch Davidian members were
>seen starting the fire.  It looks like there will no
>witnesses to dispute that claim.

The FBI says that some of the survivors claim to have seen the leaders
of the cult talking about setting a fire, and to have smelt kerosene.
I assume this will come out at any trial that occurs as a result
of these events.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178731
From: houts@zelda.ehs.uiuc.edu (Todd Houts)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.20.10.27.01.1993.9195@romulus.rutgers.edu>  
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

> I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find
> out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  (Non-relevant
> stuff deleted) and coming this Saturday they are going to
> wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more
> than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are
> promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be
> there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in
> the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle
> America.

How wrong you will be.  I participated in the last National March on  
Washington (MOW) for LesGayBi rights (Oct 11, 1987) - with a turnout of  
about 750,000 people - and we didn't have alot pissing us off at the time.   
The big issue was the AIDS crisis, but we weren't being slapped around  
quite as bad as we are now.  This time its AIDS, and Equal Rights,  and  
the Military Squabble.  And this MOW has been in the planning for YEARS  
whereas the last one was pulled together in a relatively short time.  The  
last MOW was the largest ever on D.C. and you can bet we are going to  
exceed that by a long shot.  I truly believe we will exceed the 1.0  
million goal the MOW committee has always had set for this event.

- Todd Allyn Houts
- email: t-houts@uiuc.edu OR houts@zelda.ehs.uiuc.edu
- MESSAGE OF THE DAY:  5 days til MOW


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178732
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5s8Gz.1zE@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>   ALL human communities impose their values on individuals.  
>   That's virtually an operational definition of one.  If you can
>   find an example of a human community that doesn't then you
>   have discovered a new phenomenon in nature.   
>
>   It's pointless asking whether communities "should" do this;
>   they DO do this.  It's like asking whether a leopard "should"
>   have spots -- it just evolved that way.  Human communities
>   evolved (in both the biological and social senses of "evolve") 
>   to have this characteristic.    You can debate whether some 
>   *particular* matter should be left up to the individual or
>   not -- this is part of the above process of "evolution" -- 
>   but it is the nature of a human community to impose its values
>   on individuals and you will not find a single counterexample
>   in nature.
>
>---peter

At all times in human history, people have killed and stolen from one
another.  If you can find an example of where this hasn't happened in
history, then you have discovered a new phenomenon in nature.

It is pointless asking whether people "should" do this;
they DO do this.  It has just evolved that way.  Humans have evolved to
have this characteristivc.  You can debate whether this should be
particular matter should be left up to the individual or not, but it is
the nature of humans to kill and steal from others and you will not find
a single counterexample (of a society without these types) in nature.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find a better argument than that's the way it has always been.
Child mortality has always been, yet we find it in our hearts to have
made an attempt to change that.  
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178733
From: gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <JASON.93Apr19110829@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin
<j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.111054.3748@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>-> Recent studies have been all over the map.  So have less recent
>-> studies.  None can be said to have "shown" anything to within an
>-> accuracy of 1/10 of 1%, as you claim here.

>This study is from the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers
>in Seattle and was a hot topic in the news last week.  The study
>questioned at random 3,321 men in a face to face interview.

This is not a "studies", but a study.  Other studies, including the
just-published "Janus Report", give very different figures.  The Janus
Report figures are not too different than Kinsey: 9% homosexual men,
and 4% bisexual men.

>-> Earlier studies have been all over the map also.  

>I think he's talking about Kinsey who came up with the 10%
>statistic used heavily by gay groups to push their political agenda.
>Kinsey's work has often been accused of lacking a strong scientific
>backbone.  

Don't be stupid.  The Kinsey report is one study, so it can't be "all
over the map" all by itself.  Other studies, including the Battelle
one, have also been criticed.  As far as agendas go, this is really
chutzpah.  *Your* agenda is obvious.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178734
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>
>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Which is a helluva lot more than any Republican attorney general ever did!

 BTW, why all the crocodile tears over wasting a few religious nuts, who
 wanted to be wasted anyway?  We just got back from wasting a few hundred
 thousand religious nuts over in the Middle East, and everybody cheered!!

Mike


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178735
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]

In article <1qs7anINNin6@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu (Douglas Young) writes:
    >>You should face the facts. Love Canal was not, and is not, an
    >>environmental disaster, nor even a problem.
    >>
    >>Nor is Times Beach and TMI and acid rain killing trees and
    >>....
    >>
    >Not a problem? Would you move to Three Mile Island? I would
    >imagine there is some cheap property available!

No, because I don't like the weather back East. However, it would bother me
not one bit to live in an equivalent area here. By the way, do you KNOW what
the extra exposure to radiation from TMI was?

    >The naturally occurring catastrophic events [disasters] that
    >destroy property (ie: hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes) do
    >not usually leave toxic wastes that prevent people from
    >re-building their lives there. The man-made disasters (oil
    >spills, toxic dumping, radioactive waste dispersions) cause
    >death and make an area unliveable far beyond the initial
    >event.

O.K., in the U.S., tell me about some of these deaths and some of these
unliveable areas. Oh, and if you manage to find some of these unliveable
areas, tell me what percentage of the total US land area they are.
(Hint - the total waste produced by all nuclear reactors in the US can be
safely stored in the area of three footbal fields.)


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178736
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Subject: Waco and Panama

I haven't recognized any names from previous discussions, but I do
notice that there are a few who blame Clinton for the actions of the
BATF in Waco.  Unless you felt the same way about what we did under
Bush's *direct* command in Panama, it's just partisan whining.  Which is
what I expect most of it to be.  I can see no way to condemn one and not
the other.  

But I'm sure some Limbot will tell me how killing thousands of
Panamanian civilians to serve an arrest warrant is much better than
allowing 80 religious fanatics to commit suicide following a botched
attempt by the BATF to serve a search warrant.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178740
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On 20 Apr 93 13:34:03 GMT, Gary Piatt observed:

: First, the median does not imply that half of the men are
: above and half below 7.3: it simply means that 7.3 is the mid-point
: between the maximum number of partners and the minimum (which is most
: likely zero).  

Actually, the median *is* defined as the 50th percentile.  If the
median number of sexual partners for men is 7.3, it means that 
at least 50% of men have had 7.3 or fewer sexual partners, and
at least 50% of men have had 7.3 or more sexual partners.

(Question: What is 0.3 of a sexual partner?  :)

To confuse matters more, take the following data set:

[5.0, 6.0, 6.0, 7.0, 7.0, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, 9.0, 250.0]

The mean (arithmetic average) of the above set of numbers is 29.4.
The sample standard deviation is 73.2.
The mode is 9.0.
The median is 7.3.

--
Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

             "It's a strange quirk, but I hardly ever sing along
                   with people who tie me up."  -- Mork

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178741
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <1993Apr20.131452.23310@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
    >Clayton, babe, please define the word `molest`. Are you using
    >a legal term or a proper dictionary term? Molest, as far as I
    >can remember, means `to do damage to person(s)`. My mate,
    >Mike, was lured into a woman's parlour when he was 14. Is
    >that molestation? A number of my friends (straight) lost
    >their virginity before that. Were they 'molested'? They told
    >me that they thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I see no
    >damage.
    >
    >Please stop pushing your objective morality on others. If you
    >push, people won't fall over and say 'Ye gads, you're
    >right!', they'll just push back.
    >
    >Have you signed up for that logic course yet?

Yep -- and the child that "Tree Frog Johnson" adbucted for 6 months reportedly
"enjoyed" her experiences as well. They trained her using food. As an FBI
agent reported (on his disciplinary action for beating up "Tree Frog") "when
you see a 2&1/2 year old baby cheerfully tell you she wants a peanut butter
sandwich and she'll suck your pee-pee, you lose control".

You are quite sick.


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178742
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr20.125526.23076@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
    >I guess that you are a person who dislikes contact with
    >people of ethnic minority. However, your argument again falls
    >flat on its face. You state that you, under an
    >anti-discrimination bill, would be forced to associate with
    >others [homosexuals, I assume] against your will. How do you
    >know that you do not associate with them now, except they may
    >be closeted? Would you like to change your argument to read
    >"forced to associate with truthfully homosexual people
    >against my will"? You have no proof that anyone you now know
    >may not be homosexual and this punches a large hole in your
    >argument. Is it your belief that a homosexual comes in only
    >one flavour (sic) and that is the camp mincing type? Prove
    >it. You cannot.

You are quite incoherent. Perhaps YOU should be forced to associate with
some people against YOUR will. I think a nice large group of skinheads
in a locked basement for 12 hours will wonderfully educate you.

After all, as you don't believe in Freedom Of Asscoiation, you can't
complain can you.

Bloody turdlet ...


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178743
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <1993Apr16.221546.1208@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

   On the other hand, Rush made an interesting point: The Democrats ran
   one of their best campaigns in years against a pathetic Republican and
   a paranoiac and still only pulled 43% of the vote, lost 10 seats in
   the House, and gained 0 seats in the Senate.  1994 might be pretty
   interesting.

Clueless of the world, take heart!  57% of the electorate is willing
to vote for "a pathetic Republican and a paranoiac"!!

-jmc

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178746
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <Apr.20.10.27.01.1993.9195@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <15436@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>> [Some chump at Brandeis:]

>>> I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long
>>> as you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.

>> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
>> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
>> obedience.

>I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find
>out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  The Colorado
>boycott has fizzled, Slick Willie was effectively prevented from
>implementing his military policy wrt homosexuals by members of his
>_OWN_ party, this new study casts a large shadow of doubt on their
>claims of large numbers, and coming this Saturday they are going to
>wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more
>than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are
>promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be
>there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in
>the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle
>America.

Sigh.  You're absolutely right.  We have no political power whatsoever. 
Therefore, we should be oppressed and ignored and denigrated, right?  I
certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir, because if she heard how
disparaging you are towards political minorities, and if she had any shred
of self-respect, she'd be out the door.


>Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
>where they belong.

Don't count on it, sweetheart.

>-- 
>  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>  as this would hold such views??? |
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Certainly not.  Most major universities wouldn't touch views that display
the brainpower and the perspective of a mayfly with a ten-foot pole.

Drewcifer

P.S.  Incidentally, I think even mayflies could come up with more
enlightenment than the above bullshit.  Evolve a bit, will you?
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178747
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>|>
>|>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at
>|>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger
>|>guns.  Let's go get 'em!"
>|>
>|>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the
>|>first place.
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

        As you're no doubt aware, Phill, there are probably five or six
different, mutually contradictory versions of the events in Waco on
Feb. 28 all of which are from reputable news sources, ranging the the 
Associated Press to TIME to Newsweek.

        Some of the earliest reports issued by the AP were not at all
flattering the to BATF, and produced some question as to who fired first.

        Now, for all I know, you were there to witness it.  But
I kind of doubt that.

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

        The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people,
says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of
surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it
slammed in their faces.

        It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to
serve a warrant by knocking on the door.

        There are at least questions that need to be answered.

>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. 

        This paranoid assertation was made by witnesses to the original
assault who stated that the BATF initiated hostilities by throwing
concussion grenades and reported by the Associated Press.

>Had they
>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

        Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five*
minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful
citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would
have retreated immediately.

        If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over
a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying 
sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters?

        I don't know who did what, but, as I said, there are questions that 
need to be answered.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178748
From: bbrewer@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Robert Brewer)
Subject:  Rush Joke   

  I heard the other day that Rush has gotten together with Tammy Faye Baker.
  They were crawling in bed the other night and Rush's feet brushed up against
  Tammy's legs.  "God! your feet are cold" she said.  Rush looked back at here
  and said, "Tammy honey, I told you when we're alone you can just call me
  Rush."  


  Ba dump Bump!  pishhhhh

  Bob


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178749
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?


Wow, I hadn't realized how VENOMOUS this was getting!  Be careful here...the
problem isn't the rich but the values and the systems that make the rich
rich.  Things are designed in such a way that in order to go with the system
and make money, everything ELSE we care about goes to shit.  I have to
constantly remind myself that the goal of human society is not to make
money.  Money doesn't make us happy; it just prevents certain things making
us more unhappy.

Therefore, don't shoot the rich.  Shoot the conservatives!

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178752
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <1qunlgINNfdr@titan.ucs.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:
-> >	I think he's talking about Kinsey who came up with the 10%
-> >statistic used heavily by gay groups to push their political agenda.
-> >Kinsey's work has often been accused of lacking a strong scientific
-> >backbone.  
-> 
-> I really must defend my man Alfred.  Not that this poster was really
-> to be taken seriously, since the deletiae are a phobe's rants.  But
-> still, some who aren't such phobes mistakenly criticize my man. 

	You really need to be able to support yourself without
insults.  The article you're calling rants actually had absolutely
none of my opinions and was only a series of factual statements.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178753
From: civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
> 
> 
1. Withdraw
2. leave the people in the compund to lead their lives as they choose.
3. prosecute the BAFT agents for murder

-- 

Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
                  New Zealand


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178755
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

In <30146@ursa.bear.com> halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

|>In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes
|>:
|>>>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives
|>on
|>>> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
|>>> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watc
|>h
|>>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
|>>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to


|Even if Rodney King had come out of that car waving a gun and they 
|managed to disarm him, the police still had no right right to beat
|him senseless the way they did once he was on the ground.  If they 
|can't handle their jobs, they should be relieved of them.

They police did not beat King when he was on the ground. They beat him when
he was on his knees trying to get back up. If you had watche d the entire
video you would have seen this.

|Additionally, Anna Quindlan of the New York Times said it best (paraphrase):
|Many people bring up what happened before what is shown on the tape.  Here's
|what came before:  the 80's, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, racism,...

If you think this is true, much less relevant, than you are in sadder shape
than I thought.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178756
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate..

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

> I want to know that I have a competent doctor when I am ill.  Government
> regulations have driven up costs and decreased quality by providing a
> monopoly for licensed M.D.s.  Many procedures could be performed by
> qualified nurses but doctors are forced to do them.  The common cold
> must be diagnosed by a licensed doctor who is the only one who is
> allowed to write a perscription.  Doctor's are spending much of their
> time on such mundane cases that they cannot have the time to spend on
> the really tough cases.  This results in higher cost, lower quality
> medical care.

Here in Georgia, the state legislature in 1992 "accidentally passed a law 
lobbied for by Opthamologists prohibiting anyone but a licensed MD from
giving shots. They were trying to limit Optometrists from competing with
them.
They inadvertantly forbade nurses, EMTs, dentists, and tattoo artists 
from "piercing the skin." (probably diabetics too). The Secretary of State's 
office announced on June 30th that they wouldn't enforce it pending
reconsideration in the 1003 Legislature. In the hassle over the state flag
I heard nothing about repealing it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178757
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5sCqI.4By@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
   In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

   >They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
   >non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.

       Non-toxic tear gas?!?  Do you know what tear gas is?

       I do: once upon a time I happened to be in a room when someone threw 
       a tear-gas grenade in (that was supposed to be a joke:).  The sensation 
       was incredible: I felt my eyes and nostrils were being torn apart.
       I remember us - a bunch of young men in our early 20's - running out
       like a herd of wild animals, knocking down the door and jumping
       out of the windows (thank G-d we were on the first floor).

       I can't imagine this kind of stuff being used against children.

For them, the worst effect might not be the physical effects so much
as the psychological effect of being incapacitated without fully
understanding the cause.  Many years ago, I was accidentally exposed
to a tiny dose of tear gas.  (It was in Athens, on the street leading
to the American Embassy; there'd been a march that had been broken up
with tear-gas; I must have stumbled into a remaining patch of gas the
next day.)  Aside from the tears, feeling sick to my stomach, etc.,
the really horrible psychological effect was that of suddenly falling
to pieces and not knowing why it had happened---I was horrified and
wondered what disease or other health problem I had.  (I didn't find
out about the march and the tear-gas till hours later.)  I can imagine
how horribly disorienting this might be to very young children:
suddenly crying uncontrollably and feeling sick, weak, and out of
control of your body---and not knowing the cause.

``This gives us a chance to try the Gas of Peace.''  Yeah, right.

--
-30-
Bob Ingria


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178758
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
# #
# #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
# #
# #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
# #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
# #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
# #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
# #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
# #
# #    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
# #    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
# #    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
# #    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
# 
# 1) So what?

Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
about "10%" to keep politicians scared.

# 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...

But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
other members of the leftist agenda.

# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
# 
# Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....

Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.

# #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
# #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
# #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
# #male population.  
# 
# And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
# who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
# you....

It wasn't published.

# #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
# 
# Fuck off

Typical homoseuxal response.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178759
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:
> Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
> homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
> of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
> to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
> put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual

Such as?  Not being able to get married isn't a roadblock to a permanent
relationship.  Lack of a marriage certificate doesn't force a couple
to break up.  This is an excuse used by homosexuals because the 
alternative is to ask why they are so much more promiscuous than 
straights.

> Dan


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178760
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.164638.27218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
# #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
# #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
# #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
# #male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
# 
# Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?

Marriage isn't a requirement for a couple staying together.

# What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
# with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
# hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
# 
# (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
# 
# ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178761
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

In article <C5L780.Apu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> Kaldis writes:
> #The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
> #presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
> #apparently found this compelling.
> 
> Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
> they are not prostitutes.

Do they have a history of working in massage parlors, and telling
co-workers there that they are prostitutes?  Do they frequent truck
stop parking lots at 4:00 AM, without ID on any sort?

> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178762
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April


In article <C5sIrA.pEw@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:

|>In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>|> 
|>|> In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
|>|> the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
|>|> suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
|>|> the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
|>|> by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
|>|> claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
|>|> AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
|>|> grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
|>|> they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.
|>|> 
|>...
|>|> The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
|>|> government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
|>|> them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
|>|> them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
|>|> up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
|>|> set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
|>|> to get gun control legislation through.
|>|> 
|>
|>I must object to the characterization of those opposed to the
|>government's handling of the Waco situation as "gun supporters".
|>Your argument tries to paint the BATF critics as right-wing
|>gun nuts, and just mixes up two issues.
|>
|>I am one of the BATF/FBI critics, and yet I am a liberal
|>and just as anti-gun as you are.  I just happen to believe
|>that everyone has civil rights, even religious crazies.
|>They're all human beings, not some nest of wasps that
|>you're trying to exterminate.
|>
|>The BATF created the crisis situation by the way they handled
|>the original raid.  It was well known that Koresh regularly
|>went jogging outside his property.  He could have been served
|>with a search warrant then.  He could have been arrested if
|>he had refused to comply.  Instead officers armed with grenades
|>invaded the property.  This escalated into a shooting war
|>with tragic deaths on both sides.
|>
|>Those were the first two mistakes:  the bad judgment of
|>asking for a no-knock warrant, and the bad and probably
|>illegal way the already-unwise warrant was served.
|>
|>At this point, the situation escalated to where it was
|>described as an armed standoff and a hostage crisis.
|>That's when the government started covering their traces,
|>sealing the warrant, revising their reported history of
|>the incident, etc.
|>
|>Things were already building up to disaster.  Now the
|>government could have simply closed the supply routes
|>and waited.  But according to Janet Reno, that option
|>had "never been seriously considered".  So, supposedly
|>because the agents were "frustrated and fatigued", and
|>because there supposedly were no backups, they felt
|>they had to go in.

Yes the govt handled it in the Rambo Hollywood type style
with extreeme Machismo. Perhaps thats not the way to handle
it. 

It is a completely different thing to start asserting as many
have done that the government is primarily to blame. The comparisons
with the NAZIs in particular are purely gratuitous.

Since you have provided a constructive opinion on the issue your
post desreves to be taken seriously. Peter Nelson also made some
very good points about how a low key approach might have been 
more effective.

The point is though that you learn through mistakes. The govt
played the wrong card and lost. Thats not a big deal. They
had had four guys murdered at the begining and maybee they 
just were not prepared for wuite this situation. Who could be?

If the same thing were to happen all over again we might perhaps
be able to castigate the Govt if they used the same tactics and failed
in the same way. As it is I can't say that I would not have made the
same mistake. Maybee I wouldn't because I don't as a rule go in
for a confrontational situation if I can avoid it. Maybee I would
because with all those press about its very difficult not to try
the macho stuff.


The FBI had information from within the compound we had no access
to. They may have calculated that the B-D followers resolve was
cracking based on their listening devices within the compound. They
knew that Koresh had chickened out of one suicide attempt. This
may have been the reason why they considered that fear might have 
been a weapon for breaking his resolve. Again in Panama they had used
the heavy rock music to great effect during Bush's invasion. Funny that
few of the Koresh supporters and appologists complain much about the
death of several thousand Pananmanian civilians while the US govt attempted
to arrest their former ally.


|>And please let's not turn this into a pro-gun vs. anti-gun
|>discussion.  Anti-gun people do not believe that gun-owners
|>deserve to get frontally assaulted by armed government
|>agents.  And Koresh's civil rights exist whether his
|>guns were legal, illegal, illegal-but-should-have-been-legal,
|>or whatever! 

Koresh negated his civil rights the minute his followers fired
on the police helicopter. No matter whether the warrant was or
was not technically valid the guys who were carrying it out 
thought that it was. Thus the assault on them was completely
inexcusable no matter what rationalisation people might wish to
employ.

Of course we have to consider the guns issue. That is the whole
core of the question. Everything else is a diversion.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178763
From: SML108@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: Re: race and violence

In article <mvpC5rB2H.D2F@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) says:
>There is something terribly wrong, however, with a culture which
>condemns, attacks, and all too often kills any of its members who
>attempt to get an education.  My mother is an elementary school
>teacher, and she tells me that she and her african american collegues
>are frustrated to tears by the fact that any african american child who
>attempts to do well in school and get an education is accused by
>his/her peers of "trying to be white", and is beaten, bullied, and
>tormented by them.  It goes beyond each passing grade on a test earning
>a beating.  In my mother's school, one of the most promising young
>students, who happened to be african american, had her throat cut by
>one of these young thugs.

You know, you have a point here, but don't stop with African Americans...
When I was in high school in the early 1980s, on various occasions I had
knives pulled on me, had friends who were stabbed, and I was beaten up
repeatedly by those that couldn't accept me as different.  And don't
let the teachers off the hook either.  On many many occasions, there
were teachers that either resented me or were too scared out of their
wits by the bullies to even stop the people who attacked me and they
would just watch quietly...  All of this was in a nice white middle
class high school.  In fact, we were so nice and white that we made
sure that the one black kid in my class was unable to go to the prom
with his white girlfriend...  This isn't a race thing, it's the
way public schools seem to be run...

I'd hate to be in high school right now...  At least I didn't have
to deal with guns, just the roving psycho-drug-dorks and the jocks-
without-a-future-but-with-plenty-of-testosterone...

I'd separate everyone who wants to learn from these assholes...  But hey,
the valuelessness of learning and glorification of jocks is an American
tradition, you think anything is going to change?  If you have kids,
take 'em out of the public school system and educate them yourself...
That's what I'll do if I ever have them...  I wouldn't wish what I went
through upon any kid...  Maybe on some of their parents though...

Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178764
From: markp@wri.com
Subject: Re: Worshipping the Constitution? (was My Gun is...)

>>papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) said:
>>
>>> Sorry.  Reading this newsgroup I can't help but get the impression of
>>> frothing at the mouth lunatics. I get a lot of:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> c) Constitution worshiping "It's right because it's in the
>>> constitution" As if the constitution wasn't framed by men, centuries
>>> ago in a totally different world.

We have three options with respect to the Constitution:

1. Abide by it.
2. Duly amend it.
3. Abandon those parts of which a majority disapproves.

Of course, since the whole point of the Constitution is to restrain the
will of the majority, and since even in unfettered democracy we have 
nothing to fear from minorities, #3 amounts to abandoning the 
Constitution altogether.

Which will it be?

---
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178765
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
# 	Actually, I was rather surprised to see an article on this subject
# (i.e. the "new, inproved" survey saying that roughly 1% of men are gay)
# on the front page of The New York _Times_ recently (I think it was
# on Thurs, 15 April).  The headline was something to the effect of 
# "New Survey Finds 1% of Men Are Gay"
# 
# 	I was shocked, not because the New York _Times_ was running a story
# on a sex survey (although that was part of it), but because they thought
# that this news was actually important enough to warrant front page space.
# I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long as
# you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.  

If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
obedience.

# 							-Matt
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178766
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <VEAL.755.735336029@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

|>In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

|>>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
|>>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
|>>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
|>>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
|>>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
|>>the doorbell.
|>
|>        The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people,
|>says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of
|>surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it
|>slammed in their faces.
|>
|>        It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to
|>serve a warrant by knocking on the door.

Presumably the B-D did not mount a continuous state of alert with gunmen
ready to fire on people who casually walked up to ring the doorbell.

Once inside the building the BATF would have been in control. Trained
police officers are a match to any bunch of Bozos playing at soldiers.


|>>Had they
|>>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
|>>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
|>>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
|>
|>        Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five*
|>minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful
|>citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would
|>have retreated immediately.

Not a smart move. Unless meant to be part of the surprize cover. Even so
the narrow opening of the trucks simply was not a good idea. A side opening
truck would have been much better, more like a covered waggon.


|>        If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over
|>a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying 
|>sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters?

Sounds just about right to me. Its the minimum amount of force that I
would consider necessary to serve a warrant on the talk.politics.guns
annual dinner.

Michael Hesseltine ordered the use of over 5000 crack troops including
members of the parachute regiment to remove approx 250 hippy peace
protestors on a site where they wanted to install cruise missiles. He
even turned up in a flack jacket to monitor the proceedings. Just about the
most dangerous tool the women possesed was a tin opener. That single
action probably cost him the position as Prime Minister. One of the elders
of my church got arrested in that heroic action by the forces of Toryism.
Hesseltine ever after was something of a national joke.


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178767
From: dave@seaview.bsd.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <C5t74u.5vC@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill  
Hallam-Baker) writes:
> 
> The point is though that you learn through mistakes. The govt
> played the wrong card and lost. Thats not a big deal. They
> had had four guys murdered at the begining and maybee they 
> just were not prepared for wuite this situation. Who could be?
> 
> If the same thing were to happen all over again we might perhaps
> be able to castigate the Govt if they used the same tactics and failed
> in the same way. As it is I can't say that I would not have made the
> same mistake. Maybee I wouldn't because I don't as a rule go in
> for a confrontational situation if I can avoid it. Maybee I would
> because with all those press about its very difficult not to try
> the macho stuff.

My god, how many chances do they get?  Operation Move (Philedelphia, early  
80's), Black Panthers (Chicago, 1969), etc., etc.  Hell, we get heavily armed
millenial cults out west every couple of years.  Do with have to start a  
cascade of times the feds have been in situations like this?

--
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Biological Sciences Division               dave@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu
Brain damage was what we were after.  The chromosome damage was just gravy.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178768
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <20APR199312325032@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6038 talk.politics.misc:22844

|>In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...
|>
|>>Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.
|>
|>>There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
|>>no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
|>>concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)
|>
|>	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF,
|>	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF
|>	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were
|>	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade 
|>	range. 
|>
|>	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?  

Hey don't confuse these guys with facts dude! You might break some
beautiful illusions!

Of course by BATF admits this they mean that the BATF did not deny some
post by a pro-Koresh/gun lobby person some time back.

If anyone wants to understand the paranoid mindset of Koresh I offer you
talk.politics.guns. There you can dredge the sewers of minds so hung
up on power and ego trips that they bend reality arround their own
particular set of beleifs.

I long ago gave up arguing the case for arms control directly. Instead
I invite people to ask themselves, would you want to be in a room full
of the occupants of talk.politics.guns, their personal armouries and
attempt to enter a discussion with them?


Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178769
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you

In article <1993Apr18.192508.12442@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:

> >|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to...
> >|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
> >|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I
> >|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.

> >You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your
> >own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted
> >but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not
> >a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That 
> >poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages 
> >in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who
> >think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you
> >really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting
> >the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?

> Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general
> welfare" in another portion of the constitution.

> Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
> taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL
> WELFARE of the United States..."

> I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they
> said in the preamble.

> ...But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense
> in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional
> functions.  Right?

    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41:

    "It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and
     collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts,
     and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
     United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise
     every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common
     defense or general welfare...

    "No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which
     these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a
     misconstruction.  Had no other enumeration or definition of the
     powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the
     general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection
     might have had some color for it; ...  But what color can the
     objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by
     these general terms immediately follows, and is not even
     separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?  ...  Nothing is
     more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and
     then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178770
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA


In article <1r15l1INNh91@ctron-news.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith) writes:

|>>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
|>>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
|>>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
|>>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
|>>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
|>
|>This is stupid.  That is no paranoid assertion, it is testamony from surviving
|>witnesses, and the BATF _has_ no tanks, nor am I aware of either the BATF _or_
|>the FBI using any until yesterday.  When they use maximum force they do just
|>what they did that first day that got four officers killed.

These surviving witnesses being members of which cult pray tell ??


|>>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
|>>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police. 
|>
|>"Underarmed"?  You flabberghast me, they were loaded for bear and every
|>picture shows them wearing bullet-proof vests!  They were using concussion
|>grenades and full-auto weapons, what was missing low-yield tac-nukes?  This
|>is a transparent attempt to retcon a justification for the ridiculous amount
|>of force used, both initially and yesterday.  You should be ashamed.

We were having a discussion about whether Bush would have done anything
differently. On the basis of Panama, Grenada, Tripoli, Kewait etc we 
decided that Bush would have asked for a surgical airstrike  or used a 
cruise missile, some people suggested that he would have used the nuke
warhead cruise, others pointed out that he would be too cheap to use 'em.

What was missing? Armoured vehicles! 


|>>If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing
|>>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
|>>hear it.
|>
|>They _had_ a sure-fire method: keep them bottled up and talk them to death or
|>surrender without giving him justification for some looney-tune religious
|>stunt.
|>
|>Phil, I've been reading your postings for months and I'm convinced that you
|>will back anything, no matter how damaging it may be to yours or anyone
|>else's rights if you think it will hurt people you don't like.  It's people
|>with that attitude that set up the preconditions for the Holocaust, a process
|>that is in place _now_ in this country, even if the tattered, pitiful remains
|>of the Constitution is slowing its progress.  This isn't a Libertarian issue,
|>others may argue that line, but from a strictly Constitutional view of a
|>democratic gov't, what the FBI and BATF did was wrong, wrong, wrong, even if
|>their _reasons_ for trying to arrest Koresh were 100% right.  _Anything_ that
|>leads to the deaths of 17 children, if nothing else touches your stoney
|>heart, is _wrong_ no matter who pushed the button.  For God's sake, man, get
|>your morality back.

The person who murdered 17 children was Koresh. He kept them there and 
brought about their deaths deliberately.

You may consider that I am a complete bastard and a not very nice chap.
Thats quite true. I don't pretend to be. Being nice is what amateurs
try to do. If you want to talk politics you are talking hard decisions
such as whether the lives of the troops should be risked attempting
to rescue the children. Anyone who has held the office of President
of the United States since FDR has held the threat that if the USA
or its allies were to be threatened then the USA would risk nuclear 
Holocaust in order to protect freedom. Beleive it or not, that is not
the sort of threat that nice chaps make. Do they have a gun nutters
section of the US version of CND by any chance?


There are cases where society has to be protected from
madmen such as Koresh or Hitler. If it were not for the consideration
of the 17 children in there the question of the tactics to be used would
not be a matter of anything but academic significance. It is not for
the govt to prevent people from commiting mass suicide.

The latest reports are that cult members were shot attempting to
leave the compound by Koresh loyalists during the fire. If proven
that would entail the final nail in the coffin of those who want to
promote Koresh as some sort of role model or hero.


I need hardly add that it is Koresh that has created the Holocaust in
this case by the deliberate arson of the ranch appocalypse.



Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178771
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Subject: HHS Secretary Shalala to Address AFT's Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel Conference


Here is a press release from the American Federation of Teachers.

 HHS Secretary Shalala to Address AFT's Paraprofessional and
School-Related Personnel Conference
 To: National and Assignment desks, Education Writer
 Contact: Jamie Horwitz of American Federation of Teachers,
          202-879-4447

   News Advisory:

   Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala will speak
to the 16th annual AFT Paraprofessional and School-Related
Personnel Conference at 8 p.m., Friday, April 23, at the
Washington Hilton.  Shalala will discuss HHS's agenda for helping
children over the next four years.
   AFT's Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel Division
includes school workers such as paraprofessionals and teacher
aides, school bus drivers, school secretaries, school custodians
and maintenance workers and school food service workers.  More
than a thousand school employees will attend the conference which
is being held at the Washington Hilton, April 23-25.  Most of the
school workers attending the conference come from urban school
districts where child health and nutrition, welfare reform and the
availability of Head Start and other preschool programs are major
issues.
   Workshops scheduled for the conference include sessions
addressing issues around reauthorization of Chapter 1; how
paraprofessionals and school-related personnel, especially
minority men, can serve as student role models; the increasing
problem of school violence; dealing with abused children; and
assisting children with serious health problems.
   For a complete conference schedule, contact Jamie Horwitz
at 202-879-4447.
   The American Federation of Teachers represents 805,000
elementary and secondary teachers, paraprofessionals and
school-related personnel, higher education faculty, nurses, state
and municipal workers.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178772
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:

> I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir,

What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a
person, not a euphemism.

> because if she heard

Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

> how disparaging you are towards political minorities,

Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

> and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.

I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were
I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the
door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as
"homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would
further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on
the way out.  Who needs such an airhead?

>> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
>> where they belong.

> Don't count on it, sweetheart.

Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout
history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as
to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.
Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_
_CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend
otherwise.

Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178774
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Bush's WI


In a previous article, garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND) says:

>In article <1qt61e$d7e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (B writes...
>>        Went to the Post Office on Friday, got my passport apps in.
>>        My savings have already been converted.
>> 
>Bye.


      Gosh.  Does this mean I'm not invited to the next
      White House "barbecue" ?


      The real difference between you and I, Garrett, is that
      *I* knew when it was time to leave L.A. :)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178775
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <fern.735342004@camelot> fern@camelot.bradley.edu (Jill Rosencrans) writes:
>
>i'm not saying i'm satisfied with the outcome, it's very upsetting.
>you are simply blaming the wrong person.  
>

Oh are we Jill?  Let me tell you a story then...

One evening not long in this country a man, a parolee, a convicted KNOWN 
violent crimminal lead police on high speed chase after breaking another law.
He decided that police had no right to do their jobs and enforce the law
and assualted two of while attempting to resist arrest.  When police use
metal sticks to force him into submission we heard all the reason why certain
people in this country have and excuse when they refuse to obey the law, 
how this was a perfect example of police oppression, how all the police
had to do was behave a certain way and all would have been finei, how nothing
the victim did could have possibly warranted the response - some blows with
a few sticks - he got from the authorities.

Funny, how when it's Bloodbath Billy or his hitwench calling the shots,
a group of people who were bothering no one, were not know to have broken 
any law, who asked only that they be left alone to practice their religion
as they fit, how it is now that the government is justified in assualting
those people with 100 heavily armed commandos simply because the gun 
grabbers in DC thought these people had more guns thay they thought they
should have.  Now when it's the Clinton administration that has the blood
of dozens on its hand AAAALL of a sudden it's the people who refused to
have their civil rights violated, it's their fault, those evil fanatics
provoked it...

How is it in the mind of the liberal Democrat-Clinton supporter that a
crimminal puke, scum bag, piece of garbage like Rodney King could not have
possibly provoked the beating he got, but this bunch of wierdos could cause 
a fifty one day stand off that ended with the burning deaths of all of them
and their children, all by themselves with no help from the the police.  
And to here people say they deserved what they got, to hear Clinton say
the blame rest solely with Koresch, what a cowardly piece of work that
man has shown, again, himself to be.

WE'RE blaming the right people.  It is you and others that defend ANY of the
actions of the BATF, FBI or Justice Department in this matter, that with 
each word prove again and again the depth of the hypocrisy, the double
standard that people like the Clintons would hold certain Americans to. 
While at the same time allowing others to do as they please with only 
excuses to offer their victims.  It's all to clear these days, from the
comments of the "president" and the rationalizations of his supporters
in these groups, that in a liberal Democratic vision of America only
a certain select few people can expect to have civil rights enforced, 
and this administration intends to enforce laws, apply the Constitution
and obey the laws only when it suits them to do so. 

The Rooster

				WARNING!

                   By order of Heir Clinton and for your own
                personal safety: Remember to maintain membership
                 in ONLY BATF approved religious organizations.
	 	   BATF approved religious services.


.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178776
From: matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test


In article <1993Apr19.183819.5324@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com 
(Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <C5qK7t.2qK@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com 
>(Matt Freivald x8043) writes:
>>
>> In article <1993Apr16.033313.18356@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com
>> (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>
>> As far as "set the moral tone" is concerned, if a community does not
>> collectively want to put up with prostitution going on in front of their
>> kids, why should they have to?  If a community does not want to see
>> proliferation of drugs among their kids, why should they have to?
>
>  By what right? And do tell, from the standpoint of the drug
>dealer or prostitute, what is the difference if the gun is pointed
>by the local hick city council or the feds?
>  If something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. If it is not
>sustainable at a federal level why should it be OK just because
>the geographical unit is smaller?
>

Peter Nelson posted a very eloquent response to this point in 
talk.politics.misc, so I need not consume more bandwidth here.


>
>> The problem with the egalitarian view is that it tries to deny the
>> fundamental dilemma of democratic government:  The People have a right
>> to exercise a voice in their community, yet individuals have the right
>> to be left to themselves.  This is a serious dilemma precisely because
>> there is not much that takes place in a vacuum.
>
>  You are seriously misusing the word egalitarian. You should
>look the word up before you use it. There is a vast difference
>between Equal Justice under the Law and Egalitarianism.

What I meant, if it was not clear, was the intersection set of liberal
and libertarian philosophies of "natural rights" and how the government
(and Constitutional interpretation in particular) fits into that 
philosophy.  This philosophy engages in the very serious practical 
error of endowing the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court with an almost 
totalitarian authority, completely outside of the consent or consensus 
of The People.  This is why Supreme Court nominations are such amazing
political fist-fights these days, because He who Controls the Court
Rules the Country.  The people on the Court may well be trying to do
the best job they can, but they are at best a benevolent oligarch, even
if you approve of every Supreme Court decision ever.  Eventually, an
oligarch will arise that will decimate that which you hold dear.  Try 
Supreme Court cases by Jury, and the problem would be mitigated a great 
deal.

Those who would create broad, non-enumerated government powers at any 
level (as in European Parlamentary Democracies and the current de-facto
standard in the U.S.) have essentially engaged in the same fundamental 
mistake, except that it is some different body that has the totalitarian, 
virtually unchecked (except by plurality election, death, or retirement), 
government power. 


>  And *why* should your community be allowed to stop my activities
>when I'm not picking your pocket or defrauding you? Just because
>you don't like it? Because you find it morally repugnant? 

This is like asking why the wind blows, unless you can prove that
the fact of your engaging in certain activities has absolutely no 
effect whatsoever on any other human being who has not consented to
your engagement in those activities.  Very few human activities indeed
fit into this category.  

Even for those few that do, who would you empower to make the judgement 
of what is and is not a fully autonomous activity?  Who defines "picking 
my pocket" and "defrauding"?  Are economic assets a person's only assets,
or are peace of mind, stability, confidence in a child's emotional 
environment, security, and many other things not also a part of a person's
assets?  What gives you the right to create a moral environment that a
parent strongly objects to?  What gives you the right to create an 
environment of social unrest and instability?  If you say that what you
do does not have those effects, by what authority do you say that?  Who
is empowered to make these value judgements?


>How 
>would *you* feel if I got a gang together and found xtianity
>(or insert your favorite cause here) morally repugnant and
>passed laws to outlaw its free exercise? (all at a local
>level, since that seems to be A-OK with you)
>

If the Federal Constitution explicitly prohibited you from doing so, the 
federal government would prevent you from doing so.  If it did not, and
you could muster enough local support to pass an amendment to the local
Constitution (by, say, a 3/4 majority) empowering the local government 
to do so, then I would have to vote with my feet and move to a neighborhood
more friendly to my own system of values.  This is not an ideal situation,
but it is far better than the mess we are mired in right now.


>> As to the "gang of pitchfork and torch wielding friends", there are very
>> few restrictive local laws that I personally would advocate or vote for,
>> since I am of the view that exercising government power over your neighbors
>> should be done with extreme care and only when absolutely necessary.  But
>> I DO believe in protecting children from victimization by people who have
>> callous disregard for the effects they have on others.  I would certainly
>> leave a "well-behaved" massage parlor alone, so long as it had no
>> detrimental effects on the neighborhood.
>
>  You just don't get it. The debate is not whether you or a
>communitity would or would not vote away my rights; it is
>the propriety of whether that should even be an *option*.

When you define "rights" very broadly, there is no practical choice about 
whether people will or will not infringe upon your rights since these
"rights" overlap.  Even when rights are defined very narrowly, the government 
has been empowered to prevent others from infringing on your rights.  The 
fundamental question is, by whose authority is that power created.  If you 
support the current situation with a "natural rights" Supreme Court (rather
than an "original understanding" Supreme Court or, even better, Supreme
Court by Jury), you are consenting to having nine lawyers in Washington, 
D.C. create those powers out of the air.  In my "Fractal Federalism" scenario, 
it is a broad consensus of The People (i.e. the amendment process) that 
creates those powers.


>> Certainly not the only cause, Mike, but people in a local neighborhood
>> should have a voice in what goes on in that neighborhood.  To deny this
>> is to create another concentrated centralized power to keep the locality
>> from abusing its power
>
>  [!!!] You mean that horrific centralized power, the individual?

No, I mean the federal government that comes trucking in with guns to
tell the locals how to run their neighborhood.  Waco, TX is a nice example.


>
>>-- in essence, using a pit bull to keep a toy poodle
>> from biting your leg.  Chances are, the pit bull is going to turn on you
>> some day, and you have much less defense against it than you do against
>> the toy poodle.  Ideally, everyone would leave everyone else alone and
>> no government coercive power of any kind would be necessary.  This will
>> never work, because people are different and by their nature they will
>> always want to force their views on others.  If this were not the case,
>> nobody would try to force their view that murder is wrong on anyone else.
>
>  Fine. When they force their views on others prosecute them.
>Until then leave them alone. This is such a simple concept.
>How do you feel about speech codes? Hate speech certainly
>*could* be considered an indication that the "pit bull is
>going to turn some day". Should the "community" be allowed
>to limit it too? If not, why not?

If you create a community where public masturbation is permitted in the 
cause of "personal autonomy", have you done anything different?  What
precisely are these autonomous activities you are referring to?  If you
list them, perhaps we can get enough people to agree that they are truly
autonomous and pass a constitutional amendment protecting them.



>  And how do you feel about David Koresh? Did he deserve
>it? Should the BATF (or a local version of same) be allowed
>to toss him in jail just because they *think* he's off
>his rocker?

The Koresh Incident appears to be a horrendous abuse of government power,
power possibly illegitimately obtained through a means I would abolish. 
The constitutionality of "no-knock" warrants seems very dubious to me, not
to mention the mere existence of BATF and the government's propensity to 
ignore the word "infringe" in the Second Amendment.  This power is upheld 
by the same body, with its incredible concentration of power in the hands 
of nine people, that has upheld much so-called "Civil Rights" (read- affirmative 
action) legislation despite the Fourteenth Amendment.


>
>> >  Who said anything about the public till? Get rid of it, and
>> >get out of my face.
>> >
>>
>> I agree about getting rid of the public till.  Are you still sure you don't
>> want to come over for coffee?  You might not especially like my neighborhood,
>> and I might not especially like yours, but at least we can agree to let each
>> other live the kind of life we want to.
>
>  At the point you get rid of the public till, you lose all
>credibility as to *why* you should have a say about my private
>affairs. Are you sure you are ready for that?
>--

Money is certainly not the only asset I have in this world.  If it were,
this would be a bleak existence indeed.


>
>               Michael Thomas  (mike@gordian.com)


Matt Freivald


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
             THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
          FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
                 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
                     CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
                      YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178778
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: The Continuing Decay.....


In a previous article, pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) says:

>
>The Military's mission is to kill the enemy before
>they can escape or surrender.


    Yes, so?  You still haven't explained why they 
    can't be used to enforce Civil Law.  They certainly
    would have done a better job of Koresh.  Just call
    in an air strike.


>chus
>pyotr
>
>-- 
>pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
>OPTIMIST: Bagpiper with a beeper.
>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178779
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
># #
># #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
># #
># #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
># #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
># #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
># #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
># #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
># #
># #    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
># #    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
># #    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
># #    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
># 
># 1) So what?
>
>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  

Put up or shut up. Where is your evidence?
Show a study indicating a link between liking >>GROWN UPS<< of the same
sex and liking children. Saying that 30% of molested children are male
shows nothing since it tells you nothing of the molesters preference
in adults (if they have any at all). 

>They also lie
>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.

The politicians will have plenty to be scared of in one week be it 1% or
90%.

># 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>
>But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
>other members of the leftist agenda.

I'm sure there will be a few non queers, but the vast majority are
queer.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178780
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) says:

>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.


       Or the contempt to ignore it.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178781
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <1r1pit$n7k@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
> In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
> >In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
> >> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
> >> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
> >
> >	Firstly, they could have backed off.
> 
> Regardless of who was at fault in the first assault (the one in which
> four ATF officers died), once that was over backing off was no longer
> an option.  The people inside, particularly Koresh, were criminal
> suspects.  They could have made a case of self-defense, if they wanted,
> in a court of law.  Until then the police had the responsibility to
> capture and arrest them.  I've never heard of a case where the police
> knew there was a criminal suspect in a building, and still decided
> to back off.  Continuing the siege was one of the few alternatives
> to what actually took place, and it's a matter of debate whether any
> of these would have ended any better.
> 

How about letting in the press?

How about letting Koresh out to talk to the press?

Maybe if he had been allowed to talk with the press/TV for a couple of
days he would have surrendered peacefully.


How about letting the relatives of Koresh`s followers talk?


Seems to me when you isolate someone, try to send them crazy by playing
loudspeakers through the night of Tibetan chants, etc., you don`t have
much to stand on when they behave as if they are crazy.  (I`m not too
sure of their sanity to start with.)

I am VERY suspicious when the government controls all communication,
and sends the press 2 miles away. 
I have a gut feeling that no-knock warrant, which is sealed, would not
stand up to scrutiny.

I don`t think no-knock warrants are what the constitution writers had
in mind when they gave us rights against improper search and seizure.
I don`t think an all-powerful central, high-taxing government was
what the constitution writers had in mind when it delagated rights
to the citizens and states and restricted central government.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178782
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet and the babies


In a previous article, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) says:

>	Evidently it was Janet's concern for the babies being slapped by Koresh
>that made her give the go-ahead for the ram-n-gas tactics. :(
>

    Larry King Live was both telling and sickening.  Every other word
    out of Janet REno's mouth  was "the little children" ,etc.  Sounded
    like Clinton talking.  She made claims that the children were 
    beaten, etc, DESPITE the pronouncements of social workers that none
    of the children who left the compound were abused.  But the REAL
    crime:


      Larry King, and his censored show.  NOT ONE FUCKING QUESTION
      about Reno's possible error.  Just two calls about how she
      had made a "good decision".  Now, it doesn't take a rocket
      scientist to figure out that SOME people are going to be upset.

      Nope.  No real questions at all.
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178784
Subject: "Stimulus" legislation?
From: brooks@icbr.ufl.edu

Does anyone know where I can access an online copy of the proposed "jobs"
or "stimulus" legislation?  Please E-mail me directly and if anyone else
is interested, I can post this information.

Thanks,

Mike Brooks

NOTE:  My E-mail address in the news header is NOT correct.  My correct 
address is:

brooks@icbr.ifas.ufl.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178786
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>> 
>>>I heard about a guy in Alberta who came down with some rare eye 
>>>disease that he had to take repeated trips to Seattle to get treated.
>> 
>>Well, what American private insurance plans cover travel expenses???
>
>Well, it wasn't just the travel expenses. It was the whole treatment.

When you buy insurance where you live, it is based on the local rates.
Tourists coming from, say, Utah will find that there is a difference
in what their insurance will cover FOB Provo and what they get stuck
with at Lenox Hill or Mount Sinai if they fall ill in the Big Apple.

>>>But to what extent does it affect the system? And why is an urgent 
>>>care list necessary in the first place? It's worth thinking about.
>> 
>>It's regular practice in a hospital to figure out who needs to get
>>at what facilities.  Don't Americans have to arrange in advance for
>>operations too?  I think that there are two standards being applied
>>here, and that Canada can't give Beverly Hills-style treatment to
>>everybody.  It's not a big brother list ... it's more like calling
>>around town for a table for dinner ...
>
>But Americans need far less advance time to book operations.

It would depend on where you live, downtown Toronto or Mile 101,
British Columbia (just like Cheyenne, WY vs. Boston, MA).  Again,
geography rears its ugly head.

Since our health care providers are private, they depend on an
adequate market size in order to sustain enough business.  Since
our health care professionals have equivalent take-home pay to 
their American cousins, it's not that they're being paid too
little to provide services.

>>>whether Canadians would be thrilled at the prospect of their own 
>>>health services catering toward Americans, who would be willing 
>>>to pay more than they do, is another issue entirely), it must be 
>>>noted that they said they were doing it partly because their grants 
>>>from the province were getting smaller If those grants are so 
>>>insubstantial, why the need to attract foreigners to make up the 
>>>difference?
>> 
>>You answered the question yourself ... "private nonprofit foundations
>>have to make money somehow", and I think that it's about time that
>>they acted like the private hospitals that they are.  Personally,
>>I'm fed up with Canadian socialists trying to tell everyone that
>>their health care is free when we are actually buying insurance
>>(that's one at you, Bob Rae!!).
>
>True, but I was thinking...Does/can anybody compete with the provinces
>to offer basic health coverage? I remember reading that that sort of 
>private health insurance is actually illegal in Canada. 

I have only hear Americans say that it's illegal ... but I could be
wrong, just have never heard it from a Canadian source.  our private
insurance has recently balked in Quebec when the Liberals proposed
privatizing some aspects of routine care ... also, our insurance was
put in place when no NDP (Labour) governments were in power in any
province to derail the effort 'cos they wanted real socialized
medicine.

>You're not buying insurance so much as being coerced into one 
>insurance plan.

No, it is optional ... as it is optional for doctors to accept it.
There are isolated religeous communities in particular that ask for
exemptions (and one e-mail from a Christian Scientist in Edmonton
verified for me that it is indeed negative option).  I guess that you
can argue that there is a right to having a particular insurance, but
so far I've not come across that up north ... and I take pains to keep
tabs with news from home.

>And that turns the private insurers offering the frills into an
>effective cartel-they don't really need to compete because, as you put
>it, they're in a "win-win" situation and they're guaranteed to turn a
>profit 

Believe me, they probably had orgasms when they figured that out.  And
according to my sister the yuppie, they pat themselves on the back to
the point of ungraciousness at Chamber of Commerce luncheons.

>(Interesting side note-have any new insurance companies started
>up-from scratch-since Medicare became standard in Canada?

I actually have doubts that any new ones have emerged since WW I ...
no, scratch that ... there are a few in Western Canada, and *quite* 
a few in Quebec as part of the post-1980 Quebec Miracle (out with the
nationalism, in with the French capitalism).  La Groupe des Cooper-
antes built a new tower by the Eaton('s) store at Les Terraces, and if
you were able to catch Urban Angel on CBS's Crimetime you'd see it as
the well-lit one with double-turrets at the top.  As for Ontario,
which still dominates and anchors business up north ...

Canada is a very old-money kind of place, and the 1989 Free Trade
Agreement saw a lot of odd alliances: labour unions and establishment
old money who wanted to preserve their traditional monopolies on one
side, and entrepreneurs and internationally oriented businesses and
professionals on the other.  The final Trudeau administration and
the first Mulroney government had a high percentage of nouveaux
riches who knew what it was like to make your own money, and that
motivated the McDonald Commission under Trudeau which set up Brian's
initiative (Macaroni was against free trade 'til he did a head count
of his caucus after the 1984 election).

>It's not really insurance if you don't have alternatives

Well, you have to realize that in our society that's like saying
that "it's not really national defence" because you can't hire
your own Rambo squad instead or even opting out as a pacifist.
(BTW, there are always pacifists in the news arguing about their
portion of taxes, but never people arguing over health insurance
alternatives ... and we're talking about a press that is hostile
to whomever is in government, regardless of party; one of their
few redeeming characteristics, it seems (-;).

>Also, in the April 14 Globe and Mail, there was a letter from the
>director of trauma services at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto
>responding to an article on a study comparing heart surgery in
>California and Canada in which some Canadian doctor worried that
>American analysts would seize on the results as proof that Canada
>rationed vital services. The doctor (I can't recall his name) said
>that Canada *is* rationing vital services "as any physician can
>plainly see". He said that a system in which people are refused
>treatment because they can't afford it is no different from a system
>in which people are refused treatment because the government can't
>afford it as a result of deliberate underfunding of the health
>insurance plan. In fairness, he did say that both the US and 
>Canadian systems are in the same situation.

The only way to hit at the Canadian system is transient periods of
high demand, which is more a function of the doctors monopoly's tight
fist on the licencing.  An obvious difference is that in such a
transient period, the rationing is of the nature of a mob battling
over Cabbage Patch Dolls^TM as we've seen recently as opposed by
rationing by ability to pay ... but the former is a *transient*
situation and if a large body of insured patients were to deluge the
California health infrastructure, the same would result --- rationing
among the insured population.  With smaller markets, there is much
less flexibility when dealing with our insured population than
California (which by the way, has 1/3rd more people than Canada in a
MUCH more dense area).  So he is correct in that the resources are
fixed (for a particular time window, or as a function of the doctors
monopoly licencing according to the market steady state) in either
case.  As for being "refused treatment" the government of the day
would be shredded to tatters if something like that were to happen;
Canadians can be geographically bad, too, not realizing that their
health care is private while only their insurance isn't ... too many
people have bought into socialist trype that we have socialized
medicine.

>I know, I know, the monopoly power of Canadian doctors often leads
>them to overstate the problems with the system in order to get more
>money from the government (another case of businessmen, once
>scratched, becoming socialists).  

Right, as I've pointed out above ...

>But hasn't that just shifted the locus of the problem from one place
>to the other? It hasn't really solved it.

Either way, the transient situations are hard to deal with since the
changes in the private medical care resource take place at a slower
rate than the ability of people to fall sick esp. in the light of
disasters (e.g., Chernobyl) or bad luck (a sudden wave of heart
disease). A doctor needs 4-6 years of training, plus internship 
and specialty training.

>People too often tend to put prescription cold medicine on their 
>insurance when they really don't need to.

That's why I've argued for deductible and copayments rather than
education, which is what most Canadian fiscal conservatives are
arguing for (the leftists?  "Ah, just let 'em spend!" --- yeah,
right!).  Also, note that only a few provinces cover prescriptions
under some high dollar threshold ... in most, it's your private
insurance that covers it just like in the U.S.  Still, it all
adds up in the OECD measures.

>In fact, Buffalo may be the only place in the US where people
>get Don Cherry jokes (:-).

We get the Sabres' feed as a replacement game on ESPN tonight (the
Devils' local metro NY coverage supplants the main ESPN game).

>(The NDP cleaning up a Tory spending mess? And just when I thought 
>I understood Canadian politics).

Yeah, it's a sad story and Saskatchewan Tory leader Grant Devine
has been on a nonstop PR campaign to save his sorry butt.  The
Sask NDP have taken a neo-conservative turn like Hawke, Gonzalez
and Mitterand did.

>has anybody considered following Singapore's example and going to a
>system where the company and the state buys basic and catastrophic
>coverage for everybody, and then you also have an IRA sort of thing
>to which you and your employer can can contribute for medical
>expenses only? It would tend to discourage you from overusing it.

The medical IRA would have limited use, as you'd need a lower
catastrophic threshold else there'd still be a drain on the public
purse if someone exhausts their IRA.  Also, Singapore has a much
more autocratic mentality which has seaped down into its masses
(if Singaporeans that I've met are any indication ... I don't
mean any disprespect here) where they'd let you just die.

>One of the good things about being the last country to create a
>national health care system, should we decide to, is that we have
>everybody else's mistakes to learn from.

That's true ... the question is how much leeway is there between
the U.S. approach and the second-most capitalist approaches of
Canada, France and Germany.

>>Seriously, there are few areas that have sufficient population for a
>>two/more-tiered system like what the French have ... a health policy
>>prof, D.G. Shea, has cited studies in the NEJM that indicate having
>>a population of 500,000 is necessary for adequate competition ...
>>and in Canada, there are only four cities west of the Great Lakes
>>with that population or larger.
>
>But there are many cities in the US with that kind of population. 

Yes, many ... and pretty close to a lot of smaller towns or not too
far from a bigger town.  Just take a look at a detailed atlas ...
or better, take a flight from Pittsburgh or Rochester to Toronto.
My first time across Lake Ontario to NYC, I was amazed by the
increase in density ... and the Toronto region is the densest 
in all of Canada.

>There was one about a group of doctors in Calgary who have opened
>Canada's first US-style MRI clinic, as an alternative to the
>provincially owned one.

It's about time!  I've ragged on my own doctor friends as to why they
don't invest in their own private practices ... in the end, it's their
money.  But they choose to spend it on America's Cup pipedreams, and
that's none of my business.  As for "provincially owned" ... for sure
it's against the law in Canada for governments to be directly involved
in the provision of health care except in the military or native reser-
vations.  What that term actually means is that the facility gets by
on public grants to meet shortfall from *lack of use* ... no kidding.
Medical practice itself is much more conservative up north.  My own
best friend did two clerkships at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN,
and is no stranger to high tech medicine ... but his boat comes first.

>There were some people expressing concern that it was the first wedge of
>two-tiered health care and that it might violate the Canada Health Act.

No, it's probably socialist whiners who are offended that we have
private practices ... and always have.  They can all take cash
anyways ... so why not have a particular facility?  The Canadian
big government mentality often imagines government where it does
not even exist ...

Since the French and Germans have become more entrepreneurial and less
laidback without sacrificing their culture and values, then Canadians
can do the same.  As I've pointed out above, the law states that it is
illegal for the *government* to provide any health services except for
the military and natives.

Look, nobody stopped the clinic when they planned on the MRI ...
nobody stopped them when they bought it.  Nobody seems to be stopping
them from using it, either.  Much ado about nothing.  Thank goodness
that hockey playoffs have started ...

>While it seemed currently unjustified, there was one anecdote told by
>the head of the partnership to demonstrate the MRI. He showed an
>image of an injured knee, which happened to belong to the manager of
>the bank who approved the loan. He said that without it, the guy
>might have had to wait a month or more at the provincial MRI, then
>another length of time for treatment, after which the muscles would
>have atrophied and rehabilitation would have been that much harder 
>If that isn't the first whiff of two tiers, I don't know what is.

I'm certain there is exaggeration somewhere, because the GAO study
of Canada cited often on USENET did not find access to MRI to be a
problem.  I'll bet the doctor is relying on people having listened 
to American trash talk on cable so that he can puff his chest a bit.
There are already a few treatment regimens for knee injuries without
relying on MRI ... unfortunately, I've had a few. )-;  And I'm not
a banker. (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178788
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) says:
>
>This, too, is ridiculous.  In no way can the provoker be considered
>to have played more than an exceedingly minor role.  A person
>who kills is ultimately responsible for his own actions.


      Frankly, I'm sick of being lied to.  It was bad before Clinton,
      and now it's worse.  Here, listen to Ricks' ( FBI ) words,
      ONE-HALF hour before the fire:

       " Come out with your hands up.  This matter is NOW OVER. "

      Now, I hear Ricks ( and REno ) claiming that this was just 
      "another incremental step in pressure".  More bullshit.

      Why did they pick 6 AM  Monday morning?  So nobody would
      NOTICE.  So everyone would be busy at work, starting a new
      week.  More bullshit.

      Did the FBI hold back fire engines?  Here, let me paraphrase
      Sessions"

       " no, we didn't hold back the engines.  We had them on 
         stand-by, blah, balh, blah...   And so, to protect the
         the fireman, we didn't allow the engines to enter until
         it was safe "

     WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?   " YES, WE HAVE NO BANANAS? "

     What the HELL kind of double-talk is this?  No, we didn't, so
     blah, balh, we did.    Huh?

     I WATCHED this.

     Clinton takes responsibility, "EVEN THOUGH" it wasn't his 
     decision.  MOre BULLSHIT.  Does he, or does he NOT, take
     responsibility?!   No more "even though" bullshit.  Yes.
     Or no.  

     Christ.


>Ed
>ed@wente.llnl.gov
>
>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178789
From: atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>>into killing the children.
>
>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.
>
The fact that Reno is actually taking responsibility (gee--that's a new
one for a politician) is a new thing for a member of Clinton's administration.
I actually respect her for having a backbone ( I never thought I'd say
that about someone from that bunch).

The way I understand what happened is that she discussed with Clinton
what was being planned for Waco.  Clinton didn't say no, so gave de
facto approval for the operation.  Things got messed up, and a lot of
people died horrible deaths.  (if I am incorrect about this, please 
feel free to correct it.  This is just what I've been able to pick 
up.)

I've just got a couple of questions about this whole thing.
(1)  Why did the government feel they needed to assault that compound?
(2)  Why didn't they try to flush them out in the first week of
     this fiasco instead of waiting 50 days.
(3)  Janet Reno jumped up to take responsibilty to take heat away
     from the President.  Does this sound anything like what a couple
     of Reagan's aides did?

--aaron









Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178790
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) says:

>In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>I've just got a couple of questions about this whole thing.
>(3)  Janet Reno jumped up to take responsibilty to take heat away
>     from the President.  Does this sound anything like what a couple
>     of Reagan's aides did?


    NO. NO, it couldn't POSSIBLY be the same.  Because America voted 
    For Change.  And elected William " George"  Clinton.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178791
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?

First of all, I wouldn't have gone after the Davidians for a firearms
violation which I object to in the first place.  Second, I wouldn't
have executed a search warrant via an armed assault when all the
Davidians were sure to have been there.  Third of all, I wouldn't have
cut off all outside communication to Koresh.  And I certainly wouldn't
have gone in with a tank-- time was on the FBIs side.  Since they had
outside resupply, they could wait indefinitely.


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178793
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

Say WHAT?  Surrounding the compound with armed men and throwing
grenades isn't a provocation?

>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>the doorbell.

You're smoking something not legal in the US.  They never rang the
doorbell.  Not even the BATF has claimed that they have. This was a
no-knock search.

As to the good reason the BATF has-- the warrant and supporting
affadavit have not been made public. 

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178794
Subject: Carpeting in Bosnia
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>

         Anybody for carpeting in Bosnia/Serbia?  I mean like, carpet bombing
         of Serbian positions?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178795
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:

>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:
>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been
>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?
>> 
>> 
>1. Withdraw
>2. leave the people in the compund to lead their lives as they choose.
>3. prosecute the BAFT agents for murder

>-- 

>Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
>                  New Zealand
CHEERS Brandon.  That's the best suggestion I have seen that.  !!!

Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178796
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5t7wv.61E@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <VEAL.755.735336029@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>|>>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare
>|>>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control
>|>>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that
>|>>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and 
>|>>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang
>|>>the doorbell.
>|>
>|>        The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people,
>|>says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of
>|>surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it
>|>slammed in their faces.
>|>
>|>        It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to
>|>serve a warrant by knocking on the door.
>
>Presumably the B-D did not mount a continuous state of alert with gunmen
>ready to fire on people who casually walked up to ring the doorbell.

       Let's try that again:  Why was the BATF concerned about surprise
when they intended to serve the warrant by knocking on the door?  The
BATF appears to be inconsistant in their own description of events.

       And in any case, how does one mount an ambush if one isn't
"on alert?"

>|>>Had they
>|>>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
>|>>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
>|>>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.
>|>
>|>        Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five*
>|>minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful
>|>citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would
>|>have retreated immediately.
>
>Not a smart move. Unless meant to be part of the surprize cover. Even so
>the narrow opening of the trucks simply was not a good idea. A side opening
>truck would have been much better, more like a covered waggon.

       So, were the BATF fired on before or after they left the trailers
to knock on the door to serve the warrant?  Every description I've
heard indicates the BATF did not hang around in the trailers once
they decided to open them up.

       For that matter, if they expect peaceful citizens, why come in live-
stock trailers to being with?

>|>        If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over
>|>a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying 
>|>sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters?
>
>Sounds just about right to me. Its the minimum amount of force that I
>would consider necessary to serve a warrant on the talk.politics.guns
>annual dinner.

       Ok, just to make sure we've got this straight:  You consider
armed troops in disguised vehicles and multiple helicopters to be
used to serve search warrants on peaceful citizens.  (And just so
we don't have one of those entertaining shifts, *you* described them
as the BATF expecting them to be, peaceful.)

>Michael Hesseltine ordered the use of over 5000 crack troops including
>members of the parachute regiment to remove approx 250 hippy peace
>protestors on a site where they wanted to install cruise missiles. He
>even turned up in a flack jacket to monitor the proceedings. Just about the
>most dangerous tool the women possesed was a tin opener. That single
>action probably cost him the position as Prime Minister. One of the elders
>of my church got arrested in that heroic action by the forces of Toryism.
>Hesseltine ever after was something of a national joke.

       I don't see how past abuses excuse present ones.  Hell, you're
not even discussing the same government. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178799
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Law and Economics


I'm going to be mixing together here stuff from two of Ted Frank's
articles, <1993Apr15.143623.25813@midway.uchicago.edu> (which was a
response to me) and <1993Apr16.011455.20518@midway.uchicago.edu> (a
response to Tim Smith)...

> > (Yes, I know, the _Boomer_ court didn't call it eminent domain.  But
> > if it walks like eminent domain and swims like eminent domain and
> > quacks like eminent domain...)  [wdstarr]
>
> Are all tort cases really eminent domain cases then?  What about
> bankruptcy?  Contract?

Eminent domain is a state-mandated transaction in which one party is
required to sell a piece of property which it owns to another party,
regardless of whether the first party wishes to sell at all, at a price
which is set by the state.  I fail to see how this doctrine can be found
in tort, bankruptcy or contract cases in general.  Well, okay, sort of
in bankruptcy...

*  *  *  *  *

>> If so, so what?  Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
>> business of preventing parties from reaping windfall settlements
>> from other parties when those settlements arise from wrongful acts
>> by those other parties?  [wdstarr]
>
> Since you said that _Boomer_'s reliance on economics led to an unjust
> result.  I'm pointing out that your alternative is far more unjust, in
> the traditional sense of the world.
>
> [Atlantic Cement's] act was not wrongful.  It did something that we as
> a capitalistic society should want them to do: build a factory, create
> industry and jobs.  The cost of compliance was grossly
> disproportionate to the damage faced by plaintiffs.

Bang.  Here's one of the places where we widely diverge.  You believe
that the courts, in deciding a civil dispute between two parties, should
consider as a factor -- perhaps as an overriding factor -- issues which
I believe the court should ignore as being irrelevant to the dispute.
_Boomer v.  Atlantic Cement Co._ was an action brought by one party,
Boomer, whose property rights were being violated on an ongoing basis by
another party, the Atlantic Cement Company.  The facts supported
Boomer's contention that Atlantic Cement was wrongfully damaging his
property, and Boomer asked the court to order Atlantic Cement to stop
doing so.  End of story.  There was no reason for the court to consider
such issues as what a capitalistic society would want Atlantic Cement to
do or whether the cost of compliance was disproportionate to the damage
faced by the plaintiffs.  Those issues had nothing to do with the case
before the court.

> Bill, if the government had stepped in and the EPA made a regulation
> requiring multi-million dollar cement plants to be shut down because
> of a smattering of cement dust, at a cost-benefit ratio of 15+:1,
> you'd be up in arms.  Why is it okay for the judicial branch to
> interfere this way, but not the legislative or executive branches?

I'd be up in arms?  Why do you assume that?  Quite the contrary, I'd
probably support the action, since it would be based on the same general
doctrine as the decision that I believe would have been correct in
_Boomer_: the idea that people's property rights should not be violated
for reasons of economic efficiency.  In _Boomer_ it was Boomer's
property rights which I believe the court should have protected; in the
hypothetical EPA ruling you've presented, it's the American people's
collective property rights in a healthy physical environment.  What
good is cost-benefit ratio of 15+:1 if you wind up with cement dust in
your air?

*  *  *  *  *

>>> Your rule makes it per se illegal to ever operate a cement plant.
>>> If the State of Massachusetts came up with a similar regulation,
>>> you'd be up in arms and complaining about interference with
>>> property rights, and Fifth Amendment violations.  Once again--why
>>> is it okay for the judicial branch to interfere this way, but not
>>> the legislative or executive branches?  Or are you not the
>>> libertarian you present yourself as being?  [Ted Frank]
>>
>> How would it be per se illegal to operate a cement plant?  Wouldn't
>> it just mean that when buying land for a cement plant, you would
>> have to either buy enough land so that most of the pollution would
>> stay on your land, or buy pollution easements from the surrounding
>> landowners?  [Tim Smith]
>
> All it takes is one holdout out of hundreds of neighbors to scrap the
> plant.  Furthermore, each of the neighbors is going to want the full
> benefit of the bargain under the resulting bilateral monopoly.  A
> bonanza for lawyers, to be sure, who get to negotiate each of these
> agreements, a windfall for homeowners who can extort away any profits
> the plant would make, but not particularly good for society.

Yes.  So what?  The courts are supposed to protect the specific rights
of individuals, not the general interests of some nebulous society.  If
society can have its cement plant without violating anyone's rights,
fine.  Otherwise society will somehow have to limp along with one less
cement plant.  (See, Ted, I really _am_ a libertarian after all! :-)

> That's the whole point behind the Coase Theorem.  In a world without
> transactions costs, the land will automatically be put to the best
> use, as it is transferred from person to person instantaneously
> without friction; the legal regime will not matter, because the result
> will be the same.  In a world such as ours, one with transactions
> costs, one wants the legal regime to approximate the end result to
> begin with, in order to minimize the transactions costs.

"One wants the legal regime to approximate the end result to begin with,
in order to minimize the transactions costs."???  Which "one" are you
speaking of?  _I_ want the legal regime to protect people's rights.
Besides, Coase's Theorem only has real application in the never-never
land of perfectly rational actors.  In the real world (1) some people
are going to be stubborn, ornery, spiteful or otherwise "irrational"
from a economic point of view and (2) the purpose of the courts is to
protect their right to be so.  I don't care if you can show me logically
that your cattle are only doing $100 of damage to my property per head,
so I should rationally sell you grazing rights to my land for, say, $150
per head -- I still retain the right to tell you that I just plain don't
want any damned cattle on my property, not at any price.

*   *   *   *   *

>> And then you say: "Everyone's property rights were protected; the
>> plaintiffs were made whole; unnecessary settlement costs were
>> avoided."  As above, I dispute your claim that the plaintiffs were
>> "made whole."  They were, in fact, by court action deprived of their
>> rights as owners of property to choose to sell or not sell that
>> property at a price acceptable to them.  [wdstarr]
>
> Then, by your argument, no tort plaintiff is ever made whole, because
> the award of damages in involuntary.  Why should we treat a nuisance
> plaintiff any different than any other tort plaintiff?  We don't
> require specific performance in the analogous contractual situation;
> why in tort?

Last question first: For the same reason as in contract law -- because
to do so would come dangerously close to treading on the Thirteenth
Amendment.

As to your "Then, by your argument, no tort plaintiff is ever made
whole, because the award of damages in involuntary" claim, you're at
least partially right.  Faced with situations in which the wrong has
already been done and the damage to the victim has already taken place
and cannot be reversed or undone, courts will try to set an equitable
price tag on the loss suffered by the victim and require the wrongdoer
to pay this price (rather than an inflated price which the victim might
prefer).  In these cases, the "sale" has already taken place and is
irreversible, and the court simply tries to ensure that a fair price is
paid, under the doctrines that (a) only in certain circumstances should
even a civil wrongdoer be forced to pay punitive or excessive prices and
(b) even a genuine victim should not profit in an unjustified or
inequitable manner from his victimhood.  Both of these doctrines may be
worth discussing or debating elsewhere, but neither is relevant to cases
like _Boomer_ in which the wrongful act and the loss stemming from it
are still in the future and _can_ be reversed/undone (i.e., prevented
from happening at all) by order of the court.

In these types of cases, all the court has to do is require that the
potential victim's property rights are protected until and unless he
agrees to sell them at a mutually-acceptable price.  There is no need
for the court to guess at the equitable value of the loss and force both
sides to accept its finding.  It can leave that operation up to the
parties themselves.

>> And again I ask: Since when are the courts supposed to be in the
>> business of ensuring that "unnecessary" settlement costs are avoided?
>> (If so, I've been miseducated -- I always thought that the courts were
>> supposed to be in the business of ensuring that justice is done.)
>
> Unnecessary settlement costs are unjust because they are punitive.

In cases like _Boomer_, they're simply a cost of doing business.  The
fact that the proprietors of the Atlantic Cement Co. got themselves into
a position in which they found themselves over this barrel is simply a
result of their own poor business decision to start up a cement plant
without _first_ trying to negotiate with Boomer and everyone else whose
property rights they'd be violating via the operation of their plant.
There's nothing punitive or unjust about it.

>> (2) It is "completely sensible" only if you believe that the alleged
>> right of the owners of Atlantic Cement to stay in business and avoid
>> losing a lot of their own money due to their own wrongful act, and
>> the alleged right of several hundred Atlantic Cement employees to
>> not have their jobs disappear, should trump the rights of people who
>> own property which was damaged by Atlantic Cement's wrongful acts.
>> [wdstarr]
>
> Anybody who ever commits a wrongful act should disgorge their entire
> set of possessions to wronged person?  Weren't you complaining about
> excess punitive damages before?

Anybody who wants to commit a wrongful act in the future should be
required to buy the right to do so from the victim, in advance.  And the
seller should be allowed to set his or her price for the privilege.  No
injustice, no punitive damages.

*   *   *   *   *

>>> You'd like Posner, Bill.  He's a libertarian.
>>
>>Really?  I didn't know that... what, if anything, has he had to say
>>about cases like _Boomer_?  [wdstarr]
>
> In EAL, he cites it as an example of bilateral monopoly that the court
> correctly avoided.  I'm sure its covered in the Landes and Posner book
> on tort law, presumably favorably, but I don't have that book in front
> of me.

Doesn't sound very much like a libertarian to me.  Libertarians tend to
believe in the rights of individual people, not societies.

*   *   *   *   *

>> I've admitted that my understanding of the field generally referred
>> to as "law and economics" is weak.  If it advocates the use of
>> economical analysis as one of many "tie-breaker" factors which
>> courts may use to help them reach decisions in cases in which the
>> dispute, as measured by the scale of "justice", is evenly balanced,
>> fine.  But as illustrated by _Boomer_, it is _not_ fine when the
>> courts start viewing the economics of a case as being more important
>> than the justice of a case.  [wdstarr]
>
> In this case the justice of the case was intricately tied up with the
> economics of the case.  Atlantic Cement committed a tort causing $185K
> of damage.  Should it pay in the millions?  Or just compensate for the
> damage it committed?

As stated above, the tort was _ongoing_.  Atlantic Cement wanted to be
able to _continue_ to violate Boomer's rights.  While the court may have
been justified in setting an equitable price tag on the damage already
committed, it had no reason and no need to set a price tag on the
_future_ violations of Boomer's rights and to then force Boomer to sell
at that price.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178802
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <1993Apr21.090638.6253@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:
>In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>>
>>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>>
>>Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those 
>>of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy 
>>Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data,
>
>Atomic Energy Commision - Hmm, they would say this.
>

I'm no defender of the AEC, but it is worth noting that it is unfair to tar
that organization with the decidedly minority scientific views of its
former chairperson and one term Washington governor, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray.
Dr. Ray's political agenda is well-known and documented.  Likewise, her
lack of objectivity in analysing scientific data is well-known.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178809
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <1993Apr21.090638.6253@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:
>In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>>

>The Earth may spew alot of substances into the atmosphere, but the quality 
>of your toxic output can easily make up for the lack of quantity. 
	Excuse me? Quality? As in grade A CO2 and grade B CO2? I may not have
this quite right but I was under the impression that CO2 was CO2.

 Furthermore, 
>the planet is a system of carbon, sulfur and other chemicals which have been
>acting for billions of years, we are but newcomers to the system - we must adapt
>and control in order to bring about stability.  Also, two wrongs do not make a right, 
>so continuing our practices despite overwhelming data is just ignorance in (non)action.

	A) There is no reason to believe this system is inherently stable- 
The Ice ages occured without any help from humans.

	B) The point was that the human contribution of CO2 and other 
greenhouse gasses is insignificant and it won't really make a difference if
we make more or less.

	C) What overwhelming data? I see lots of 'projections' of the future,
which is fascinating, considering they can't predict the weather two weeks
in advance.

	*********************************************************
	*  William Everett		Tan, Rested, and ready  *
	*  Harvey Mudd College		     NIXON in '96       *
	*                                                       *   
	*  These opinions are mine- you can't have them         *   
	*********************************************************



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178810
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes:
>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the 
>environment.

BULLSHIT. How many lakes have ceased to be able to support life from
purely natural pollution? Man has already done this to scores of lakes.
Also, much of the "degredation" you cite was done by cows and pigs.

And why do think there are so many cows around?

Could it be.......cause people raise them?


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178812
From: jrv@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (JR VanMechelen)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......

In article <C5uxHI.H2B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes:
>>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE
>>Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the 
>>environment.
>
>BULLSHIT. How many lakes have ceased to be able to support life from
>purely natural pollution? Man has already done this to scores of lakes.
>Also, much of the "degredation" you cite was done by cows and pigs.

You have perhaps heard of the Dead Sea.  I may be wrong, but I believe
it is not misnamed.  And I don't believe that humans had a hand in it,
although it is possible since the great cedar forests of Lebanon were
but a memory by the time of Christ if not earlier.

But, more on the point, while Nature is the may be the more prolific
"despoiler", Man is certainly the more creative.  We have to our
credit pesticides and heavy metals, not to mention radioactivity,
which is so wonderfully persistent and fatal (not that we invented
radioactivity or heavy metals, we only concentrated them so that they
would be a more lethal threat).

In general I find Mr. Bacon's arguments rhetorical, devoid of sense,
and therefore trivial.

BTW, is there any reason this discussion is on phl.misc?

So long,
JR



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178817
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes......
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <1993Apr21.211635.3737@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) says:

>I'm no defender of the AEC, but it is worth noting that it is unfair to tar
>that organization with the decidedly minority scientific views of its
>former chairperson and one term Washington governor, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray.
>Dr. Ray's political agenda is well-known and documented.  Likewise, her
>lack of objectivity in analysing scientific data is well-known.

You are correct, I apologize.  My problems with the AEC are their (however inherent)
continuous barage of misleading data in order to support the statement
that nuclear is not only "safe and clean" but cheap to boot.  10 to 15 cents per
kilowatt hour is not cheap and neither are nuclear power plants.  As far as
being safe and clean - I'll let nuclear power plants speak for themselves all
the way from the uranium mines to their decommisioning.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178829
From: cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Trip to Pittsburg [sic]

In article <1ql6bgINNklu@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:

>                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

>     The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April 
>17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the 
>state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818
				 ^^^^^                   ^^^^^
*Would*? Ha Haaaa Haa ha haAA

How the hell can they come up with a number, specified to the units
column, on something as complicated as this?

Face it, it's the perceptions that matter here, folks, not the facts.
Especially this one:
 
>full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a 
			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that means over 7200 new jobs
for Allegheny county (metro Pgh) alone!

Haaaa   HAAA ha HA HAAA heh heh  HAAAA  <snif>

Doing what?  I hope it's fixing the potholes on my street. 

Let's face it, folks, we're in a depression and this is the WPA.

Clinton's really coming here to beat on Sen. Arlen Specter, who happens
to be vacationing in Africa (Don't know whether to laugh or cry)


-- 
** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch  -  In 1996, there will be two kinds  **
**      Slavic Cataloger         -  of computer professional : those  **
**  U. of Pgh. Library Systems   -    who know NeXTStep, and those    **
**       cjp+@pitt.edu           -              without Jobs.         **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178831
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
>tes:
>
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
>me how, I just have seen the results.
>
>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
>the head.

I'm sorry about your friend.  Really.  But this anecdote does nothing to
justify the "war on drugs".  If anything, it demonstrates that the "war"
is a miserable failure.  What it demonstrates is that people will take
drugs if they want to, legal or not.  Perhaps if your friend were taking
legal, regulated drugs under a doctors supervision he might not be in the
position he's in now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178832
From: brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>-- 

Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality 
uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all 
homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since 
the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity 
larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.

Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three 
times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.

So... whose promiscuous?

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because 
someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....  
Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...

Look closely at the person, not the group.

All flames will be ignored.  :)

Later,

 _______________________  ______________________________________
(                       )(                                      )
( Brian Stone           )(                                      )
( UNT-CAS Tech. Support )(   Life without your touch is hard,   )
(                       )( but life without you in unthinkable. )
( brian@gab.unt.edu     )(                                      )
(_______________________)(______________________________________)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178833
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: The Manitoban Candidate


In a previous article, smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) says:

>With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
>pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
>that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
>shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some


      Hey, he HAS been talking with Mulroney a lot, huh?



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178834
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: " Only $17 / Month! "



	Ahhh, remember the days of Yesterday?  When we were only 
	going to pay $17 / month?

	When only 1.2% of the population would pay extra taxes?

	Remember when a few of us predicted that it wasn't true?  :)
	Remember the Inaugural?   Dancing and Singing!  Liberation
	at last!  

	Well, figure *this* out:

	5% VAT, estimated to raise $60-100 Billion per year ( on CNN )
	Work it out, chum...

	     $60,000,000,000  /  125,000,000 taxpayers = $480 / year

        But, you exclaim, " I'll get FREE HEALTH CARE! "
	But, I exclaim, " No, you won't! "

	This is only for that poor 37 million who have none.  Not for
	YOU, chum. :)  That comes LATER.

	Add in the estimates of the energy tax costs - $300-500 / year

	Plus, all that extra "corporate and rich" taxes that will 
	trickle down, and what do you have?

	$1,000 / year, just like I said two months ago.

	And, the best part?   You don't GET ANYTHING for it.

	Deficit is STILL projected to rise at same rate it's  been
	rising at, by CLINTON'S OWN ESTIMATES.  And this assumes that
	his plan WILL WORK!

	I mean, come on, it doesn't take a ROCKET SCIENTIST to see
	that in another 2 or 3 years, we're GETTING ANOTHER WHOPPING
	TAX INCREASE, because the deficit will STILL be GROWING 
	FASTER THAN the ECONOMY.

	All Clinton is doing, is moving us to a HIGHER diving board.

        Face it.  Clinton is Bush X 2.  In four more years, our
	country will be completely bankrupt, and your children's
	future, so oft mentioned by Pal Bill, will be gone.

	And those of you still deluding yourselves will be faced
	with the guilt.

	Well, <glancing at watch>, gotta go.  I want to be out of
	here by noon.  Got an appointment at the lake.  No tax
	there, yet.

	:)



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178835
From: hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?

(NOTE: cross-posted to alt.politics.italy and talk.politics.misc
 This is a reply to an article by Ed Ipser which also appeared in
 alt.politics.usa.misc and alt.politics.libertarian, but no longer belongs)


I hate to defend Ed (the article was very poorly written) but here goes:

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Ed should take a look at the budget deficit Regan and Bush created together
>before he starts to make claims about europe collapsing based on the budget
>deficits here. None of them are serious on the USA scale.

Italy's per-capita debt is much higher than USA's.


>We do not want our countries to be run by a narrow elite of rich lawyers
>for the benefit of the super wealthy.

This is *exactly* what the public in France & Italy perceive to be the
problem-- thus the French election and Italian pulizia.


Regarding the post-pulizia Italy:
>What looks likely to happen is the fringe parties are going to do much
>better in the next election. Most of the parliamentary deputies are going
>to get replaced and the parties are going to be forced to look to people
>who are free of any hint of corruption. Look out for a parliament of
>Pavarotti's and porn stars.

Wrong.  This is true perhaps only for the Lega Nord.
The referendum Sunday is expected to establish a British/American style
first-past-the-post system in the Senate.  If implemented, it would
encourage a two- (or perhaps three-) party system in Italy.
Most likely the DC and PSI will not be these parties; rather there will
be a shakeup of the entire party structure from which 2 new parties
will emerge to dominate.  Will Lega Nord be one of these?  Who knows.

(The Camera dei Deputati (lower house) will likely remain with
Proportional Representation for a while, but there is talk of switching a
portion of that house, too. Maybe as much as 40% first-past-the-post)

Overall, the electoral reform in Italy is a welcome change.  Italians
are tired of having crappy government.  Porn stars, Pavarotti's and
Hunters & Fishers won't gain seats because PR is dead.  A good two-party
system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.

It's about time.

Jeff Hagen
hagenjd@ac.wfu.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178836
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie


In a previous article, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) says:

>Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you
>will:
>
>1.  The sun will rise tomorrow.
>2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show.
>3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.


     Hey, *I* wasn't the one dancing and singing on Jan. 20, now
     WAS I?   I was roundly ridiculed for my "predictions".

     Sure they were easy.  TEll that to the other 43% of the people. :)


>
>+----------------+
>|     SUCKA!     |
>|                |
>|  Made in USA   |  
>+----------------+
>
>Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*


      Just WAIT until the see what Clinton has planned for 
      their pension funds!  :)  This one doesn't take much thinking
       either.    Uncle Sam needs money, BAD, and pension funds got it.

      Well, they USED to have it.  Turns out the states  have been
      plundering state employee funds for the past 2-3 years.  ;)

       Ah, it's gonna be SWELL!




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178837
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <1qkl3i$9bj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Broward Horne) says:
>In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says:
>>In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>>(Broward Horne) says:
>>>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it?
>>
>>The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not
>>going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.

>      whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK
>      about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just
>      the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.

That was hardly the point, was it? I was commenting on this all-too-common
Republican attitude that if people disagree with us, they must be idiots, they
must be sheep being led around by the Evil Liberal Media Conspiracy. This is
a dangerous attitude indeed. Because it's not a very big step from "people
are sheep, they can't think for themselves" to "people are sheep and need
firm leadership from we, who know better"... this sort of attitude makes
me worry about what'll happen to the United States if the extremist wing
of the Republican party ever gets back into power again.

>      Holy christ! :)

Hey! This is a government-funded newsgroup! Let's have some separation
of church and state, damn it!

>        Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?

>    Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! "
>    Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "

>   ( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )

More like:

Broward: "Clinton's going to raise your income taxes by over $1000!"
Mark:    "No, he's not, only about $204."
Broward: (silence)

>    Want some more "free predictions" ?

OK, I predict that in 1996 the Republicans will STILL be bitter. Yeah, yeah,
I know, it's not very impressive to predict things that are inevitable...

   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178838
From: joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale)
Subject: Re: Clayton Need not Retract

In article <Apr.9.08.39.25.1993.15639@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>civilized society.  The _ONLY_ way a homosexual can maintain even a
>modicum of respectability is by remaining in the closet.
>-- 
>  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>  as this would hold such views??? |

Once again, it appears that the one-eyed man has appeared in the land of the sighted
and for some strange resaon has appointed himself the ruler and supreme power.

Joe Cipale

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178840
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati

In article <2671@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
> shapiro@sofbas.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
> : 
> : Oh, and BTW, its William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
> : 
> : Regards,
> : Steve.
> 
> 
> No, it's not- and I really fail to understand the use of that name
> as an insult.  Do you feel that being adopted implies some sort of
> moral failing?

Yes, it is -- you could look it up.  And spare us the thin-skinned
indignation, please; what's sauce for four years of using George Herbert
Walker Bush and J. Danforth Quayle as an insult is sauce for William
Jefferson Blythe Clinton.  Do you feel that calling a President by his full 
name implies some sort of disrespect?  Hint: this is a rhetorical question.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
     Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178841
From: dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:

>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>>-- 

>Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality 
>uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all 
>homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since 
>the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity 
>larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.  If the chances of 
promiscuity are larger, yet the rate of promiscuity is lower in the heterosexual
community, doesn't that imply that the homo/bi sexual population is then 
even more promiscuous than the raw statistics imply?  
(No axe to grind here I'm just a scientist and I hate to see statistics abused.)

>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three 
>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.

I am a hetero man and have had sex with one woman in my life (my wife).  It is 
very pleasing to me to be able to say that.  I hope you have the same feeling
as I do.  I also wish that you could (if you wanted) experience the joys and
trials of being committed to someone for life (there is something about marriage
that makes the commitment much greater than one might expect).

>So... whose promiscuous?

>Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because 
>someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....  
>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...

Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays 
are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?" 

Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)

Dan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178842
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans

In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) wrote:
> 
> 
> Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
> 
> 
[deleted for a very good reason which I'm sure you can guess]
>

0. Enact a law that bans people without a sense of humor from
   posting allegedly humorous items. If he did this, I think
   his approval rating would go through the roof!

> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993

This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists
in your .sigs, folks!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178843
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In <1993Apr15.170715.29896@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

|>Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
|>the cost and definitely make them safer to use.

|I think so.  And I don't use drugs, outside of the legal ones (alcohol
|and coffee).

I'm addicted to chocolate myself.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178844
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <1993Apr15.215912.1807@martha.utcc.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>>
>>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>>
>>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>
>       I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into
>problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even
>when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe
>that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side-
>effects, and bad reactions scares them.)  

    The immunization program is just a "useful first step". Among other
    things, the money will go to pay for creating and maintaning a
    a computerized "innoculation" database on all U.S. children.
    (code-named Big Mother... Just kidding, the name will be Children
    Defense Database, or something like that.)

    Once the money is spent and little or no tangible results achieved, 
    the goverment will have to start knocking down doors, in some 
    neigborhoods, and bribe parents in others (probably the ones that 
    are paying kids for attending the school - what a fantastic idea!)

>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178845
From: ihorton@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Dr Zippy)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?

In article <930316.144130.lynn@pcgeo23> lynn@granitt.uio.no (Malcolm Lynn) writes:
>
>this is a tesrt
>s

Of your spelling, eh?

			Dr Zippy.
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Zippy, proof that "Dum blonde" isn't a women only title |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
                   ihorton@uk.ac.coventry.cck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178847
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program

In article <15APR199320293386@utkvx.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes...
>>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>>
>>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide.
>Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to 
>do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations
>cost $$$.

    Nationwide, the immunization rate among toddlers is about 50%, but
    it is reportedly as low as 10% in some inner-city neighborhoods.
    I bet more than 10% kids living in such neighborhoods are already 
    covered by Medicaid.

    Here in Massachussets, we have had a universal immunization program,
    the kind of Clinton seems to be proposing, for many years (two decades?).
    Mass' immunization rate is 65%.  What about the other 35%?  I guess
    some parents are indeed too ignorant or too lazy , or simply do not 
    care.  

>
>Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.

    ???
>
>> 
>>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give 
>>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>> 
>> 
>>-- 
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178848
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15149@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <113328@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>When are you going to admit that the data you presented show
>>just this---that only about 3% of child molesters are gay, and thus are
>>NOT overrepresented with respect to the general incidence of homosexuality?

>When someone can show something besides a Redbook article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this irrelevant?

Either the data shows something, or it doesn't. Regardless of what other
studies show.

Admit it. What you SHOWED to us doesn't prove that gay men are more likely
to be molesters.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178849
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

In article <1993Apr16.131508.9518@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
>>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems
>to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.

Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would
be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.

>
>>Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer; 
>>
>>I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there. 
>>
>>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 
>
>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few
>airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the
>answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane
>from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls
>again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend
>the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.

If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the 
program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.

>
>>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. 
>>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. 
>
>It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe
>SSN-21, I know litttle about.
>
Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf.
The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there
is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing
the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail
getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.

Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get
Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.

In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station
and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being 
required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.

The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
a pork happy Congress.


-- Marc Mueller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178851
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie


SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It 
was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax
was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of 
quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final 
stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the
large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers."
In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the
tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer
paying the full load.

These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.
-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178852
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very

>      own CNN news LOGO!
>
>      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
>
>      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this 
>      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching 
>      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by 
>      now.
>      
>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
>

Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue
persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.

However....

Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
have in Europe)
and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, and
force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax
rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could
be increased only via a national referendum.

Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile...
shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get
health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate
all in one fell swoop.

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178853
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>,
 demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes...
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.

>	Thoughts?

>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.

>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

>	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

First, people should be aware that Brett's (no last name listed) 
posts on bit.listserv.politics indicate that he has been  
hostile toward GM's hiring policies and to the Moseley verdict 
when it came out.  Equal opportunity disagreement, I guess.  :-)

My guess, without seeing the judge's opinion, is that GM's motion 
was denied on due diligence grounds.  Otherwise, a party to a 
case could always keep one or two semi-credible witnesses in 
reserve to spring if they lose.  Not exactly a way to promote 
repose.

						Daniel Reitman

"The Uniform Commercial Code protects the innocent purchaser, but it is not a 
shield for the sly conniver, the blindly naive, or the hopelessly gullible."
Atlas Auto Rental Corp. v. Weisberg, 54 Misc. 2d 168, 172, 281 N.Y.S.2d 400, 
405 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1967).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178854
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:


>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.

Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?

What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.

(a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178855
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr16.141409.25036@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale
 Cook) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) w
ri
>>tes:
>>
>>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>>
>>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid

>>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as

>>me how, I just have seen the results.
>>
>>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in
>>the head.
>
>I'm sorry about your friend.  Really.  But this anecdote does nothing to
>justify the "war on drugs".  If anything, it demonstrates that the "war"
>is a miserable failure.  What it demonstrates is that people will take
>drugs if they want to, legal or not.  Perhaps if your friend were taking
>legal, regulated drugs under a doctors supervision he might not be in the
>position he's in now.
>

I do agree with you, in a way.  The war on drugs has failed, but in my opinion,
that doesn't mean we have to give up.  Only change the tactics.

For instance, here are how some penalties should be changed.

Dealing Coke -- Death
Dealing Heroin -- Death
Dealing Pot -- Death
Dealing Crack -- Death

The list goes on and on!!!......

JUST KIDDING!!!

However, on a more serious note, I do believe that we should take some money 
away from the foriegn operations in South America and costly border 
interdiction efforts.  (Don't think I'm going to say, "spend it to educate 
people", because I know plenty of educated dopers).  Actually, spend it on  
things like drug treatment programs.

I saw an interesting story on 60 minutes about how the British actually 
prescribe and addict his "recommended" dosage, and try to ween him off from it,
or cut the amount down to levels where it is "acceptable".  Sounds good so far 
from what I heard with a decrease in cost, lower addiction rates by wiping out 
the dealer's markets, etc. (But that was the only thing I have heard about it.)

However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to be 
bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never heard of a 
recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal meth and LSD.
The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine" cigarettes, pot and heroin.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178856
From: jmkerrig@vela.acs.oakland.edu (KERRIGAN JOHN M)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans

In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
:>Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
:>
:>10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of
:>    America's health care resources.
:>
:>9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft.
:>
:>8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic
:>    constituencies.
:>
:>7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court.
:>
:>6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military.
:>
:>5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos
:>    over to socialzed health care.
:>
:>4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation.
:>
:>3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the
:>    Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate,
:>    the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs.
:>
:>2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism.
:>

  ***SNIP***

And the number one way Slick Willie could improve his standing with
Americans...

(Drum roll Anton)

1.  Get himself an appointment with Dr. Kervorkian - and keep it!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**        John Kerrigan        a.k.a.  jmkerrig@vela.acs.oakland.edu        **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178857
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <1993Apr20.124358.22881@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:

|In article <15430@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

||> Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
||> pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
||> hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
||> my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
||> to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

|Your post is based on the premise that the laws as they stand do not
|discriminate anybody, so your argument falls over immediately.  Are you

Why not try to eliminate discrimination from existing laws instead of
trying to add discrimination that favors your group.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178859
From: za2cs220@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Andrew D. Simchik)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:

>> I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir,

>What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a
>person, not a euphemism.

Oh, do please try not to be ludicrous.  SO=Significant Other, a term I employed to avoid the awkward construction "girlfriend or wife".

>> because if she heard

>Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

A "deviant" is someone who does not fit an "accepted norm."  By that definition, I would certainly be a deviant, as bisexuality is not an accepted norm in American society so far.  This term, of course, really has no negative aspects inherent in its denotation.  I presume you intended it as a term of abuse.  It's a great pity you feel such tactics to be necessary, but hardly surprising since you have no factual basis for your absurd beliefs.

>> how disparaging you are towards political minorities,

>Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

May I attempt to emulate your style of discourse with a term of abuse?  Ahem...You addle-pated jellyfish!  The post to which I responded was a highly amusing one in which you belittled homosexuals for having no political clout.  I would be further amused if you would explain to me why having no political clout and constituting a political minority are different.

>> and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.

>I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were

And yet you call them "girls!"  The feminists would be up in arms.

>I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the
>door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as
>"homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would
>further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on
>the way out.  Who needs such an airhead?

Cough, cough.  Well, well, you certainly are a fine, upstanding fellow, you are, sir.  And like many "fine, upstanding fellows," you have the reading comprehension of a dyslexic anteater.  Perhaps I should have been more explicit in pointing out that females constitute a political minority in this country when last I checked, and that your obvious lack of respect for these minorities equates to a lack of respect for women.  That is, of course, a conceptual stretch of logic, but given your slow uptake as de




monstrated so far, I figure we should start simple and work up.  Don't worry, you'll get it
     
!
>>> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
>>> where they belong.

>> Don't count on it, sweetheart.

>Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
>inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout
>history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as

This is very true, this bit about nature asserting itself.  Homosexuality has always been a part of human society, and always will be, for that is the natural order.  If you're naive enough to believe otherwise, go right ahead; we'll try not to snicker too loudly behind your back.

"Inevitable."  Chortle.  Anyone would think you had some idea what you were talking about.  I haven't seen fact one from you, and until I do you can just dispense with the bullshit, and tell us what we already know, that you're a clueless little slime mold with no concept of reality beyond The Donna Reed Show.  Live a little, and then come back and tell us all about the "natural order of things."  You're in a bubble, and it's really going to rock your world when you come out.

>to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
>nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.


"Foolish and misguided."  Oh, this is too much.  So which religious figure do YOU believe you are?  And how do you know so much about the nature of man?  You're almost too amusing to be worth the effort of crushing your pealike brain.      
>Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_
>_CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend
>otherwise.

Gee, you sound awfully sure of yourself.  "Methinks the bigot doth protest too much."  Admit it: you're scared shitless that what you've been spoonfed all your sorry little life was wrong, and you're trying to escape that fear by a blind faith that you know, deep down, is based in nothing, nothing at all.  Go ahead, clutch your unfounded declaratives to your empty breast; ignore the myriad of societies that have accepted homosexuality as equally valid or even mystical.  Ignore the solid, inescapable fact t




hat we've existed as long as humans have.  Fear us.  Go ahead.  Laugh at us if it makes you feel better.  We both know you're just whistling in the dark.  There's one group that's stamped out whenever it appears, in any form, and that's the group of boneheads who fancy themselves morally superior.  You're in that group, and you're slowly and steadily being stamped out.  Preach while you can, little man...it won't be long.

>Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".

That's the first truth you've told so far.  I don't hate hets, sir.  I'm bisexual, and I embrace man- and womankind alike.  I have nothing against those who don't understand my love.  But you deny its potency and validity.  You would crush us all, human beings to a one, in your imagined divinity.  It's fools like you that stir my ire...idiots with the small minds, who can't think for themselves, who know nothing about how the real world operates, and who hate because they are told what to do and do it like




 sheep, who hate everyone who refuses to be a sheep.  You're not part of the norm.  You're part of a minority--YES, a minority!--with supreme, o'erweening arrogance.  Your hubris will topple, because it always has, because those with intelligence know it to be a clown's costume.

Wow, that was pretentious!  I sometimes wonder why I waste my talents on zeroes like you.  I really have no interest in continuing this effortless discussion; after all, this is for me the proverbial battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  Come back with some swords--i.e. facts--and we shall do battle.  Till then, begone from my sight.

Drewcifer

P.S.  You were very entertaining, however.  Have you considered taking this on the road?  I hear escapism is back in.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178860
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
> 	One of you said "Nixon didn't use the office of the presidency
>   for personal gain."
> 
> This is a lie. The Senate committee issued an indictment that listed
> Nixon's crimes. The relevant ones were: 
> 1) Violating his oath of office.
> 2) ABUSING HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

"Personal gain": for his own monetary advantage.  I don't think
anyone would dispute that he both violated his oath of office, and
abused his powers.  But that's not for personal gain.

> "Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178861
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes:
> In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical
# #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS.
# #-- 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

# You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about 
# tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything

What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything
different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality
spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other
methods of spreading it as well.

# about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now,
# you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced.
# 
# Joe Cipale

Typical homosexual response.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178862
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr19.134809.24975@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
# # 	Actually, I was rather surprised to see an article on this subject
# # (i.e. the "new, inproved" survey saying that roughly 1% of men are gay)
# # on the front page of The New York _Times_ recently (I think it was
# # on Thurs, 15 April).  The headline was something to the effect of 
# # "New Survey Finds 1% of Men Are Gay"
# 
# Does anyone else see the difference between "1% of Men Are Gay" and 1%
# of Men surveyed *say* they are gay?  Does the NY Times think that
# there is no one "in the closet"?

I see.  When survey after survey show 1-4%, we are supposed to believe
ONE survey, done with very poor assumptions, with a very atypical
population, 40 years ago when the society was FAR more repressed about
homosexuality than it is now.  Yeah, right.

# Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178863
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

Has anybody heard an explanation of why the FBI was using tear gas
in a 35 mph wind?

Doesn't seem like vry good tactics to me ...

Any other explanations?

Lew
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178866
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In <1r2seh$qv9@network.ucsd.edu> jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (ch'rowl-Captain) writes:



>I find it very interesting that you say there will be 2.5 million
>queers in the march on Washington.  The largest figure I've seen in
>the press is 1 million and we all know how liberal the press is with
>their numbers. :)

>For another thing, 1% of 250 million is 2.5 million not 6.  Maybe
>that's where you got the 2.5 million number.  Also, the number cited
>in the actual report is 1.5% so that would be about 3.75 million.

>As for this march on Washington, I wonder how much the media is
>going to inflate the numbers this time.  Last time, for the
>pro-abortion rally, they more than doubled the actual number of
>people who showed up.  That and all the stories coming out of how
>the press "slants" the news really makes one wonder who's watching
>the watchers.

Why are you all playing these pathetic number games?  The number of people
showing up at the MOW hardly constitutes the entire queer populace.  I doubt
that it constitutes more than a handful of us.  I'm queer, and I won't be
there, simply because I don't have the time or the transportation.  What the
hell makes you think the participants in the MOW embody more than a minimum
number?

Face it, people, we're everywhere.  There are always more of us than you
think.  Our numbers are constantly GROWING, not diminishing...some of your
children will grow up to join us.  Hell, some of MY children may grow up to
join us.  The best way to deal with this phenomenon is not to fear it and
blind yourself to it, but to realize that you have nothing to fear.  We're
not perverts, we're not dangerous, we're just here, and we're human just
like you--er, most of you.

Idiots like Cramer and Kaldis can rant all they like.  It won't do them one
iota of good.

Drewcifer

P.S.  I still can't get over the fact that some people actually believe that
every queer in the U.S. would show up at the MOW, and that these numbers are
meaningful.  And, come to think of it, what about those of us in OTHER
countries?  Tree.

-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178867
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the
>Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.

<more tripe deleted>

Phill, are you trying to convince everyone on the net that
you are in fact an abject moron for some reason? Repeating
the same rubbish over and over again may make something a 
"fact" in whatever backwater you are posting from, but it doesn't
wash here, so save it.


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
If guns are outlawed, only government outlaws will have guns.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178868
From: 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Subject: rodney king (was marine gay bashing)

In article <C5qo0o.888@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
> 
>
> 
> |sorry, i didn't see him "charge" the cops.  i saw him trying to get away
> |from people who were beating him.  i guess we each see what we want to
> |see.
> |candace miller
> 
> If this is what you saw, then you did not see the start of the video.
> When the vidoe starts, King is lying on the ground, surrounded by cops.
> Noone is beating him. King then gets up and charges one of the officers.
> (Powell?) While falling back the officer pulls out his nightstick and strikes
> King with it. The blow appears to land near the shoulders of the head.
> -- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178869
From: kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)

Dave O'Shea (dos@major.panix.com) wrote:
: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

: > > However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
: > > be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never
: > > heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal
: > > meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine"
: > > cigarettes, pot and heroin.
: > 
: > Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea
: > that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply
: > decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why
: > the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes"
: > is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...

: I'm all in favor of drug legalization, but I do see some problems with
: it. My hope is that people disposed to doing so would simply overdose
: quickly, and be done with it, before making a mess of thisgs.

It's actually quite simple. We sell Drug Use Licenses to anybody over age
18 who wants one.  Costs $100 and you're required to attend a week of
night classes on the effects of drugs on the human body. At the end of the
class, you sign an informed consent waiver acknowledging that you've been
told that drugs are bad for you, but you want them anyway. In doing so,
you giver up ANY right to state-paid medical care for whatever might
happen to you as a result of doing drugs, or any right to collect welfare
or unemployment should you lose your job as a result of using drugs. You'd
also give up your right to drive a car.  

Anybody caught using drugs without a license has a choice; pay a $1000
fine and accept a backdated drug user's license, or go to prison. 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the
kmitchel@netcom.com| Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
Citrus Heights, CA | reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178870
From: jmorriso@rflab.ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

In article <19APR199319282297@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>> 
>More likely than most places.  When I was there the most "important" 
>state issue was whether to have a state income tax or instead legalize
>a popular vice for fund raising,  and vice won a decisive victory!
>
>>jsh
>
>Mr. Grinch
>
>p.s.  Now that he's safely dead,  I expect David Koresh to become the
>hero of popular folk ballads,  and the ATF to be generally equated with
>Santa Anna  


dead? I saw David Koresh at a local 7-11......

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     | 
 University of British Columbia, Canada | Hey hey!! Ho ho!!
 Electrical Engineering                 | Tax & spend liberals
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM | have got to go!! 
________________________________________|____________________________________

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178871
From: mlf3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Matt Fante)
Subject: [COMMENT] Clinton/Reno/BATF and Waco

\input amstex
\documentstyle{amsppt}
\pagewidth{6.5in}
\magnification=1200
\pageheight{7.5in}
\
\title {Letter to the Editor} \endtitle
\author {Matthew L. Fante} \endauthor
\date {April 20, 1993} \enddate
\endtopmatter

In a letter to the FBI, David Koresh said: ``Do you want me to
pull back the heavens and show you my anger?! ... fear me.''  The 51 day
standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidians ended on April 19
in what appeared to be a mass suicide by fire.  Now that the multi-million
dollar standoff is over, a few things remain: cleaning up the mess, and
assigning blame.

\

From the onset of the April 19 tear gas attacks by federal agents, President
Clinton already started passing the buck by saying ``Talk to the attorney
general or the FBI... I knew it was going to be done, but the decision was
{\it entirely theirs}.  {\it They} made the tactical decision.'' Enter
Attorney General Janet Reno.  After most of the Branch Davidians died,
Reno said she took ``full responsibility'' for the decision.  ``I approved
the plan'' she said adding that she ``did not advise him [Clinton] as to the
details.''  In fact, she told Clinton that it was ``the best way to go.''
As the fire was roaring through the Branch Davidian's compound Clinton said
that he was ``deeply sadened by the loss of life'' and in the same breath that
``the law enforcement agencies involved in the Waco siege recommended the
course of action pursued today.''  Later he went on to say ``I stand by that
[Reno's] decision.''

\

How did this all begin?  At 0930 on February 28 agents of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) launched a full-scale, high-profile
assault on the Branch Davidian's compound.  This raid was much
more than an assault on a group suspected of possessing illegal weapons.  The
assault was a planned media circus used as a propaganda device of the BATF
to show their might and just purpose.

\

At the onset of the ``no-knock'' raid, gaggles of heavily armed BATF agents
made their way inside the compound without identifying themselves or state
that they had a warrant until long after the shooting began.
Silently, the agents made their way to the compound's buildings and started
their ``search'' by charging at the buildings and throwing concussion grenades
and ordering the cult members to come out of the buildings.

\

If unknown persons dressed in black ninja costumes and combat fatigues
were to attack you, throwing grenades and brandishing firearms, would you not
assume that these people are criminals and attempt to defend yourself?  The
tactics employed by the BATF provoked the battle.

\

The initial assualt by the BATF was not successful.  Unfortunately, lives
were lost on both sides.  But, had the assault been a success, the liberal
media would have praised the BATF by showing the footage of BATF agents
carting away a bunch of gun-wielding religious nuts.  Of course, any
violation of the cult's rights would have been overlooked and the media
would proclaim America's fortune in having super-cop organizations like the
BATF that can systematically ``take out'' terroristic groups such as the
Branch Davidians.

\

As far as I can see, the BATF and the FBI dropped the ball - just like
Philadelphia did in the 1985 MOVE crisis which left 11 dead, 250 homeless,
and a city block razed.
It appears that the BATF has adopted the shoot-first tactic of no-knock
raids to execute search warrants.  Don't let the BATF convince you that
the no-knock raid was justified.  No-knock assaults make sense when looking
for, say, drugs that can easily be hidden or disposed of in a few seconds.
The BATF was looking for illegal weapons, not drugs that could be hidden or
flushed down the toilet in a matter of a few seconds.  What ever happened to
``This is the police!  You are surrounded...''?  {\it This policy of no-knock
raids, by federal and local agencies, should be restricted}.  Further, the use
of military firepower against presumed innocent citizens is a very scary idea,
and is why the Davidians were justified in using lethal force to ensure that
their fourth ammendment rights [``the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures''] are not denied.

\

\

\

\noindent Matthew L. Fante \newline
\end











-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Matthew Fante
mlf3@Lehigh.EDU             For a good prime call 2^756839 - 1

410 Webster Street          a public key is available
Bethlehem PA 18015          upon request

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178872
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: Can't have it both ways- News as enemy, News as supporter.

In article <15467@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>From article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU:

 Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around
 and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory
 doesn't it.
>
>I believe that this is not contradictory on the basis that
>the quality of media reporting varies greatly based on the
>subject at hand.  The media has proven itself very accurate
>is the areas of presenting raw, undisputed data.  One good
>example would be the weather page in which high and low
>temperatures of the previous day for a large number of
>locations are posting.  There is little evidence to show
>that they are in error.

I believe this true when we speak of physical data, in the
sense of pure science.  But when we speak of data that revolve
around social sciences then we have to be careful.

>
>The American media has failed us in its analysis of complex
>events, however.  I'm sure that we can come up with many
>news stories that have left us angry because so many facts
>have been ommitted.  Cases that come to mind are the
>invasion of Panama, the war with Iraq, the disaster in Waco,
>the issues surrounding the acceptance of gays into the
>military, the war on drugs, and many others.
>

I quite agree.  But these are cases or 'news events' that contain
politics, social science information, sociology, etc.  and at
best are reflections of the group that reports them.

As you have pointed out, it is difficult to report that the
temperature was 98 degrees when it was 60 degrees and have
people believe you.

>The story that you bring to light was regarding the new
>sex survey.  While I'm sure that due to lazyness some of
>the data was ommitted from the article, I would venture to
>guess that the data that was presented did not deviate
>from the survey.  I do, however, think that it would be
>folly to have blind faith in a single newswriter's
>analysis of this data.  In this particular case, there was
>little analysis, and the reader was left to draw his/her
>own convictions.

Yes and no.  The survey presented, according to Mr. Cramer,
a value called the median- which one used this makes us 
believe that 1/2 of the males had 7.3 plus sex partners and
1/2 of the males had 7.3 or less sex partners.  Homosexuals
are purported to make up only 1%.  In this case, the majority
of people with 7.3 plus sex partners are heterosexual.

It is my feeling that median was not the intended word usage.
But if it is then we have little evidence to support Mr. Cramer
claims about gay promiscuity > hetero promiscuity.

>
>Many netters, Mr. Cramer included, often forget that the
>American media are merely a number of businesses, who's
>purpose in life is to make money for their owners and
>stockholders.  Revenues come largely from advertisers
>who merely want maximum useful exposure per dollar.  The
>media is like fast food; the quality of the food (or of
>the reporting) will improve only if the customers demand
>as such.  Otherwise, it is business as usual.
>-- 
 Very good- this is a point that I have tried to bring out,
and as any network news program will show you, it is true.

The News Media is a business and as such becomes skewed because
of where its loyalties lie.

There is an old statement by a man ( and I cannot remember him
or his statment exactly) but it warns against the merger of
business and news reporting, because of the obvious consequences.
What master is news going to serve in the end... The advertiser
and the bias of the news group.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178873
From: kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu
Subject: Drugs And Crime: A New Approach (was Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized)

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
 
> In article <1993Apr19.090836.6878@msuvx1.memst.edu>, 
> kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu said:
> 
>> I'm for creating a class of "noncommercial" drugs which would include
>> the currently illegal ones, which would be legal to possess, grow,
>> produce, but not to sell.  Bomb the pushers back to the barter age!
>> (And tax production, too.)
> 
> Um, why?  What's wrong with the act of selling recreational drugs, even
> for mercenary reasons (e.g., getting rich)?  (Note: by "selling," I mean
> "selling the product to a consenting adult at a mutually agreeable
> price"... I point this out in an effort to pre-emptively prevent this
> thread from getting sidetracked onto a flamefest about "pushing drugs to
> schoolchildren" or the like.)
> 
> And why should the users be subjected to special taxation?
> 
> -- William December Starr

[Note: This is a repost of my earlier response to Mr. Starr,
which was not properly formatted.  Apologies to those who've
seen the following before:]

To explain my position on the "War On Drugs," I offer this:

Drugs And Crime: A New Approach

by Ken Barnes


Given that:

1. The trade in illegal drugs is responsible for 
much of the crime which afflicts our nation.

2. People who want drugs (particularly people who 
are predisposed to addiction) will find a way to get 
them, whether or not they are legally available.

3. Despite current law enforcement efforts, drugs 
are readily available to those who want them.

4. Addiction to drugs, both legal and illegal, is 
responsible for a significant drain on the productive 
resources of our country, and this occurs in a variety 
of ways, from the cocaine-addicted babies who are 
unable to learn, to the spread of disease among 
addicts, to the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse 
and tobacco smoking.

5. A general economic principle of government is 
that whatever is subsidized you get more of, and 
whatever is taxed you get less of.  To be most 
effective in confronting the nation's drug problem, 
some way must be found to utilize these additional 
powers of government to make drug dealing and drug use 
less attractive.

While this country's current efforts to combat 
legal drugs have succeeded in some respects, (there is 
a greater awareness of the health consequences of 
smoking, and designated-driver programs have helped 
reduce drunk driving, for example), the same cannot be 
said for the "war" on illegal drugs.  There remains a 
core group of illegal drug users which support 
international networks of smugglers, pushers, growers, 
processors, kingpins, and gangsters.  These networks 
and their "marketing activities," which include drive-
by shootings, corrupting law enforcement authorities, 
and smuggling weapons, are directly or indirectly 
responsible for a large proportion of the crimes 
committed in our country every day.

Clearly, illegal drugs and rising crime are 
linked.  It takes only a moment's reflection to 
recognize how they are linked.  The link is money.  As 
with this country's failed effort to prohibit alcohol 
consumption, a black market has been created, in which 
greedy local monopolies, like the gangsters of a 
bygone era, have profited enormously from their 
illegal trade.  The victims of this trade include not 
only the innocent people unfortunate enough to be 
caught in the crossfire, but, I would argue, the drug 
users themselves.

Were it not for the black market, and the violent 
monopoly of the drug lords, drug users might not be 
the thieves, robbers, prostitutes and murderers they 
have become in order to pay the high prices the drug 
lords demand.  In the absence of the drug lords, most  
would be, I believe, simply people with a problem, 
either a moral problem_or_a medical problem, but_not_a 
criminal problem.

Let me be clear however, I am_not_advocating that 
we let the criminals who have been preying on our 
society for these many years of Prohibition off the 
hook.  On the contrary, the new approach I advocate is 
one which would not result in either the government or 
private industry getting into the business of 
promoting crack cocaine, or any other presently 
illegal drug for that matter.  Neither is it an 
approach which sees law abiding citizens handing over 
more and more of their freedom and privacy in an 
effort to track down illegal drug users, until "the 
land of the free and the home of the brave" looks like 
a police state.

Here then is my proposal:

1. Possession and use of all presently illegal 
drugs is decriminalized, but buying and selling them 
remains illegal.  'Potheads' can grow their own 
marijuana (as many already do today), other drug users 
can legally import their poison of choice as long as 
they pay the tariffs, and a barter economy of drug 
experimenters develops.

2. Because of the barter economy which supplies 
the drug users, the black market profits that have so 
enriched the drug lords dwindle.  If these drugs can 
be obtained for 'free' or next to nothing, why buy 
them?  Nevertheless, there will be those who will seek 
to sell these "noncommercial" drugs even at relatively 
low prices.  Therefore,

3. Law enforcement activity is concentrated on 
those individuals who continue to buy and sell, and 
also on the crimes committed by drug users too poor to 
afford even low prices.  But here is where the 
strategy begins to differentiate between the drug 
dealers, the victimizers, and the drug users, their 
victims.

4. Upon arrest for_any_crime,_suspects are 
permitted to choose whether or not they will undergo a 
drug test.  Those who choose to cooperate are informed 
that upon conviction for the crime they are accused 
of, if they are found to be a drug user, they will be 
institutionalized until they are clean, and only then 
will they begin to serve their sentence.  If they 
choose to cooperate and are already drug-free, they 
can begin to serve their sentence right away.  Those 
who choose not to undergo the drug test and are 
convicted face stiffer fines and serve longer 
sentences.

5. Institutionalization of drug using criminals 
serves several purposes:

Drug using criminals (and this includes drunk 
and/or 'stoned' drivers) are separated from their 
sources of supply, thus reducing the total number of 
drug users in society at large, and consequently 
decreasing the demand for drugs on the street, putting 
more of the remaining drug dealers out of business.

Institutionalization provides an incentive for 
drug using criminals to straighten themselves out, 
before becoming part of the general prison population.

While helping protect society from crime, 
institutionalization could also serve to deter drug 
users from becoming criminals, since drug using 
criminals, unlike other criminals, would be delayed 
prior to serving their sentences by the additional 
time it takes for them to sober up.

Institutionalization of drug using criminals 
separate from the general prison population would also 
provide a closely monitored pool of addicts who could 
volunteer for research studies of new techniques and 
treatments for addictive disease, with the potential 
to benefit both themselves and others.

6. Dealers in illegal drugs are generally not 
drug users themselves, and this is particularly true 
of the drug bosses or kingpins running large illicit 
organizations.  Under this proposal, dealers would be 
more readily identifiable, since upon arrest they 
would presumably pass the drug test, or else decline 
to take it in order to avoid having to explain why 
they are in possession of drugs when it is apparent 
they do not use them.  Declining to take the test, 
they would of course face stiffer penalties.  While 
each case of attempted sale of a noncommercial drug 
would have to stand on own its merits, the outcome of 
a suspect's drug test could provide additional 
evidence for the prosecution.

7. Just as cigarette taxes have contributed to 
the decline of smoking in our country by making 
cigarettes more costly while at the same time 
providing revenue for anti-smoking campaigns, 
noncommercial drugs should be taxed, and the money 
generated should be used to combat their use.  
Enforcement of this tax should be on a voluntary basis 
however, and should not be used as an excuse to 
infringe on the rights and privacy of noncommercial 
drug users, since to do so would have the effect of 
reintroducing Prohibition.

Instead, drug users will be encouraged to pay the 
tax by reminding them that if untaxed drugs are ever 
found in their possession during the course of routine 
police operations, they will be required to pay the 
tax immediately or else forfeit their untaxed drugs to 
be destroyed.  If drug dealers are found to be selling 
noncommercial drugs on which taxes have not been paid, 
they will face additional prosecution for evading the 
tax.  The strategy of adding tax evasion to drug 
dealing charges is already in use in some 
jurisdictions, but its effectiveness is currently 
limited by the illegality of drug possession.

Revenue from drug possession taxes and import 
tariffs would be used to fund anti-drug advertising 
campaigns, and provide support to private sector drug 
treatment programs for those unable to afford 
treatment.

8. Taxpayer subsidies to all drug producers must 
be ended.  Federal support of tobacco farming is both 
immoral and wasteful in this era of tight budgets, and 
the marijuana crops grown illicitly on federal lands 
in many states must likewise be eliminated.

While my proposal would have the effect of 
permitting the use of what are now illegal drugs, it 
would hold the users of all drugs responsible for 
their actions, and I believe, would reduce the harm 
drugs have on our society, particularly the crime 
caused by the illegal drug trade.  So long as we 
remain a free nation, with relatively porous borders, 
and freedom for our citizens to travel, we will always 
have a drug problem.  Whether it takes the form of 
heroin addicts dying in abandoned buildings, drunk 
drivers killing and maiming others on our streets, or 
emphysema patients struggling for breath after a 
lifetime of smoking, the results are the same: 
needless suffering and death.  As a society we must 
recognize that while our society permits us to harm 
ourselves with drugs, as we are already doing 
(regardless of the drug laws), we must take a stand 
against the harm that drugs and drug users cause to 
others.  We must particularly oppose the vicious and 
violent cartels which prey on the weakness of drug 
users.  By taking the profits out of their deadly 
trade, my proposal goes a long way towards shutting 
down these powerful criminal organizations.

The question of whether drug use is a moral or 
medical problem depends on which group of drug users 
you're talking about.  Different drugs have different 
effects, and some are more addictive than others.  The 
addictiveness of a drug also often varies between 
individuals, and so we have some people who can drink 
alcohol in moderation, while others find they cannot 
resist the bottle.  Nicotine, which former Surgeon 
General C. Everett Koop declared to be as addicting as 
heroin, is a legal drug with known harmful effects, 
and while some people can stop smoking by willpower 
alone, others continue to smoke even after treatment 
for lung cancer.

For those individuals who can stop taking drugs 
on their own, we may argue that because they have 
chosen to use them, this represents a moral failure on 
their part, or an unwillingness to face the 
difficulties of life.  But for the addicts, while they 
may have chosen to use drugs the first time, by the 
time they discover their addiction it is too late.  We 
cannot hold them responsible for their disease, any 
more than we would blame someone who is drowning for 
an inability to swim.  Perhaps they should have known 
not to go near the water, or perhaps someone should 
have warned them of the danger, but in their present 
circumstances warnings will not help.  Neither does it 
help for the drug dealers on the shore to be tossing 
them weights. 


--Standard disclaimer-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320.711@compuserve.com**********************
"I find television very educating.  Every time somebody turns on the
    set, I go into the other room and read a book."--Groucho Marx

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178876
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

In article <1993Apr21.005756.1125@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>Also, in the April 14 Globe and Mail, there was a letter from the
>>director of trauma services at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto
>>responding to an article on a study comparing heart surgery in
>>California and Canada in which some Canadian doctor worried that

That study which was in the NEJM, I think, noted that the frequency
of heart surgery on patients over seventy increase with income in
California (I guess richer people have more heart disease in 
California -) ) whereas the frequency of surgery on patients over
seventy in Canada was relatively uniform across income distribution.
Heart surgery was more frequent in California, but mortality and
outcomes were essentially the same.

>>American analysts would seize on the results as proof that Canada
>>rationed vital services. The doctor (I can't recall his name) said
>>that Canada *is* rationing vital services "as any physician can
>>plainly see". He said that a system in which people are refused
>>treatment because they can't afford it is no different from a system
>>in which people are refused treatment because the government can't
>>afford it as a result of deliberate underfunding of the health
>>insurance plan. In fairness, he did say that both the US and 
>>Canadian systems are in the same situation.
>
>>(The NDP cleaning up a Tory spending mess? And just when I thought 
>>I understood Canadian politics).
>
>
>>There was one about a group of doctors in Calgary who have opened
>>Canada's first US-style MRI clinic, as an alternative to the
>>provincially owned one.
>
>It's about time!  I've ragged on my own doctor friends as to why they
>don't invest in their own private practices ... in the end, it's their
>money.  But they choose to spend it on America's Cup pipedreams, and
>that's none of my business.  As for "provincially owned" ... for sure
>it's against the law in Canada for governments to be directly involved
>in the provision of health care except in the military or native reser-
>vations.  What that term actually means is that the facility gets by
>on public grants to meet shortfall from *lack of use* ... no kidding.
>Medical practice itself is much more conservative up north.  My own
>best friend did two clerkships at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN,
>and is no stranger to high tech medicine ... but his boat comes first.
>
>>There were some people expressing concern that it was the first wedge of
>>two-tiered health care and that it might violate the Canada Health Act.
>
>No, it's probably socialist whiners who are offended that we have
>private practices ... and always have.  They can all take cash
>anyways ... so why not have a particular facility?  The Canadian
>big government mentality often imagines government where it does
>not even exist ...
>

The only potential problem I see with the private MRI facilty in Calgary is the
self-referral problem to the facility for the doctors who have a financial
interest in it, which is basically unethical...but in Canada because
of our small population, there is likely only to be a few private
facilities involving only a small number of doctors,
and thus I don't think the self-referral problem, which is an epidemic in the
US, could ever get out of hand here.

>Look, nobody stopped the clinic when they planned on the MRI ...
>nobody stopped them when they bought it.  Nobody seems to be stopping
>them from using it, either.  Much ado about nothing.  Thank goodness
>that hockey playoffs have started ...
>

It is an experiment that will be certainly be watched carefully.

>>While it seemed currently unjustified, there was one anecdote told by
>>the head of the partnership to demonstrate the MRI. He showed an
>>image of an injured knee, which happened to belong to the manager of
>>the bank who approved the loan. He said that without it, the guy
>>might have had to wait a month or more at the provincial MRI, then
>>another length of time for treatment, after which the muscles would
>>have atrophied and rehabilitation would have been that much harder 
>>If that isn't the first whiff of two tiers, I don't know what is.
>
>I'm certain there is exaggeration somewhere, because the GAO study
>of Canada cited often on USENET did not find access to MRI to be a
>problem.  I'll bet the doctor is relying on people having listened 
>to American trash talk on cable so that he can puff his chest a bit.
>There are already a few treatment regimens for knee injuries without
>relying on MRI ... unfortunately, I've had a few. )-;  And I'm not
>a banker. (-;
>

What likely happened is the sponsors of the private MRI which include
doctors anticipated that Alberta would need more MRI's, and instead
of waiting for the health planners to realize they needed another
one or two, saw a business opportunity...where they would have a
secure business from the public insurance side of things, and they
could supplement people and businesses who want to pay cash.

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178877
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt) writes:
> Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.COM) wrote:
> :    [...]     When you and the rest of the homosexual community
> : pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
> : hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
> : my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
> : to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.

> Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for
> the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes
> (such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing
> to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?

   What *exactly* does the American Constitution say about "the right 
to association" ? 
   Homosexuals, whether Clayton likes it or not, are as much members
of society as he is. As such they have the right to participate and
have an equal opportunity to pursue their goals.
   No-one is saying that Clayton should be forced to associate with
queerfolk in his private life (one suspects the gays in question would
object also 8-) ), but by proclaiming the general right not to associate
with them in the *public* sphere (which includes housing, hiring, etc),
he's giving his right to non-association priority over their rights to
equal access to opportunity.
   Historically, people can associate publically with disliked groups
with very little ill-effect, however cutting a group off from normal
commerce has a severe impact on their lives.
   Clayton, why exactly should your "right" to non-association in the
public sphere take priority over homosexual's rights to equal opportunity ?

-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, 
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."--gene spafford,1992

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178878
From: jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (ch'rowl-Captain)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5t41s.8nz@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <15427@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>># #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>># #
>># #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>># #
>># #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>># #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>># #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>># #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>># #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>The politicians will have plenty to be scared of in one week be it 1% or
>90%.
>
>># 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>>#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>>#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>>
>>But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
>>other members of the leftist agenda.
>
>I'm sure there will be a few non queers, but the vast majority are
>queer.

I find it very interesting that you say there will be 2.5 million
queers in the march on Washington.  The largest figure I've seen in
the press is 1 million and we all know how liberal the press is with
their numbers. :)

For another thing, 1% of 250 million is 2.5 million not 6.  Maybe
that's where you got the 2.5 million number.  Also, the number cited
in the actual report is 1.5% so that would be about 3.75 million.

As for this march on Washington, I wonder how much the media is
going to inflate the numbers this time.  Last time, for the
pro-abortion rally, they more than doubled the actual number of
people who showed up.  That and all the stories coming out of how
the press "slants" the news really makes one wonder who's watching
the watchers.

BCNU.

+----------------------+------------------------------------------+
|  --> Jon Schell <--  |  Life is something to do when you can't  |
|      The Master      |   get to sleep.  -- Fran Lebowitz        |
|     tm@ucsd.edu      |  Anything that is good and useful is     |
|   jhschell@ucsd.edu  |   made of chocolate.  -- Fortune         |
|   jonschell@aol.com  |  "RE-boot to the head."  -- me           |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----+
| No one else would be crazy enough to claim these opinions. | 42 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+----+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178880
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr20.145735.27235@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
>In article <F3ZB3B1w165w@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz>, system@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:
>|> 
>|> Hmmm, what statistics are these? Can you offer any references. The only
>|> studies I've seen indicate a higher proportion of homosexuals in prison
>|> than in the general population, but I don't think that allows for the
>|> "default" you refer to. Prison is not a normal situation...
>|> 
>|> But I haven't seen anything that suggests that the "default" proportion is
>|> lower than in the general population (although it seems plausible).
>|> 
>|> Anyway, as I say, can you provide any references?
>|> 
>|> 
>
>Is this an arguement against or for?  Or simply a statement of agreeance/
>disagreeance.  The fact that there are more homosexuals in prison does not
>mean that homosexuals are immoral and more liable to commit crime.  And one
>must remember that prison is not necessarily a reflection of the type of
>people who are criminals.  What are the statistics for unsolved crime?

There is also the question of cause and effect.
Lock a mostly straight guy up for 10 years with only guys, ask
ten years later if he has ever had sex with a guy. Closing your
eyes and pretending its a girl sucking you still counts as sex
with a guy on the survey....
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178881
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15437@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
>> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be 
>> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners?
>> 
>> 	Just a thought.
>> 
>> 						-Matt
>
>You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
>straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.

Your starting to sound like a little child who wants ice cream. If you
kick and scream enough you think people will believe you. Sorry proof
by vigorous ascertion doesn't hold any water. I can insist that cats
are dogs all day, it doesn't make it so. 
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178882
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:
>>> where they belong.
>
>> Don't count on it, sweetheart.
>
>Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
>inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things. 

Wrong.

>Throughout
>history, nature has always asserted itself.

Quite true. And evolution made "decided" that homosexuality had a place,
otherwise it would have disappeared quite quickly. There are very few
animals which do not exhibit homosexual behavior.
It has been here before humans existed, and will be here after the
human race has gone.

>Don't be so arrogant as
>to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
>nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.

Quite true. 2000 years of religious idiocy have not changed the nature
of man. You tried to rid yourselves of us for 2000 years and failed.


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178883
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On 21 Apr 93 00:07:20 GMT, Theodore A. Kaldis observed:
: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:

: > because if she heard
: Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

Bigots aren't classified as deviants?  How sad.

: > how disparaging you are towards political minorities,
: Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

So, what's this I hear about a March on Washington...assuming
you are still considering homosexuality and bisexuality
as subsets of "sexual deviants?"

: > and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.
: I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  

I trust that many self-respecting *women* might take some sort
of offense to your use of the term "girls" in the above sentence.

--
Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

   "Always listen to experts.  They'll tell you what can't be done, and why.
               Then do it."   -- Lazarus Long (Robert Heinlein)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178884
Subject: Re: Can I get Your Meds?
From: medkeffjs@hirama.hiram.edu (Jeff Medkeff)

In article <C5pyAB.1wJ@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com 
  (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> In article 1@hirama.hiram.edu, I went and stepped in it:
>>In article <1q7sddINN5iq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, 
  wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>>> I never knew that soldiers were supposed to salute any civilians except
>>> for the Commander-in-Chief... 
>>
>>The CINC is not a civillian.
> 
> 
> Ding Ding, Planet Earth Calling....
> 
> I will Agree that CINCPac and CINCLant are NOT CIVILIANS,
> but the CINC is still the president, and unless things have
> changed a whole LOT with the Arrival of the BIllaryKlintonKlique,
> I don't recall as how the Current President Gots Himself
> Much more than CIVILIAN STATUS.....[1]

As far as a member of the Armed Forces is concerned, the
President is whatever the h*ll he wants to be. All of them
recently have rather insisted on being treated as something
other than a *mere* civilian.

> If it Moves, salute it,
> If it Don't, Pick it Up.
> If You can't pick it up, Paint it.

So if Hilary were asleep at the time......

> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> [1] Nothing personal Jeff, but I LIKE living in countries
> where the Head of State is a CIVILIAN, it sorta limits
> the habit of using the Military as the First Choice for
> solving domestic problems....

I like living in a country where the head of state is not
a military officer too. But this point about not using the
military as the first choice for solving domestic problems....

Didn't they go after these Branch Davidians with a *tank*,
after all?


-- 
Jeffrey S. Medkeff      Bitnet-    medkeffjs@hiramb
PO Box 1098             Internet-  medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Hiram, OH 44234         Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight. But
U.S.A.                  Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178885
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.
>
>
>       Or the contempt to ignore it.

Yup, that was quite contemptuous of the President to make a decision that
12% disagree with...

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178886
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

In article <1993Apr16.174605.21907@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
# Recent studies have shown that the number of men who have
# engaged in homosexual activities in the last decade is 2.3%
# and the number of men who are exclusively homosexual is 1.1%.
# These figures are much less than those that came from earlier
# studies that showed that homosexuality among men is a lot
# higher.
# 
# So, what can we deduce from these figures?  Are there a lot
# less male homosexuals than there used to be or are men
# (perhaps women too) not as honest as they used to be about
# there sexuality?  Presumably, the people that were polled in

You mean, in the 1940s, men and women were much more open about
their homosexuality than today?  Want to try that one again?

# this survey were assured of their anonymnity so they should
# have answered the questions honestly I suppose.  However, it
# could be that gays feel so repressed and denigrated by society
# that they didn't feel that they could be forthcoming about there
# sexuality in something like a survey.  If this true then is it
# possible that there is a lot more gays out there than we are led
# to believe?
# 
# Perhaps if Americans were more open about there sexuality---I think
# most Americans aren't---then we might discover that there are really
# quite a few more people out there who are orientated toward the same
# sex---men and women included.  I'd venture a guess that there is a
# lot of people out there who have considered having a relationship
# with someone of the same sex at some point in there life.  Maybe they
# didn't take their longings seriously, but this doesn't make these
# longings any less valid.  Therefore, if Americans weren't so
# repressed about their sexuality in general---as I believe they may be
# ---then we'd see a lot more people "coming out of the closet".

You mean, ignore study after study, so that we can continue to 
accept a study (Kinsey's) that is obviously wrong?  

# As for myself, I'm a heterosexual and I've never considered having
# sex with another man.  That's just the way I am...I could have just
# as easily of been gay I suppose.  One of the big debates about
# homosexuality is whether or not it's a type of behavior that is
# learned or if one is just born that way.  IMHO, the more likely
# explanation is that it's some combination of the two.

Based on what, besides your own warm fuzzy feelings?

# Here's something to ponder upon:  have any of you gay-bashers out
# there ever considered that homosexuals probably deem their sexual
# orientation as being a state of affairs that is just as much an
# intrinsic and "natural" part of their life as heterosexuals do
# about their own sexuality?  In other words, someone who is *truly*

Alcoholics share that feeling, until they hit bottom.

# gay may not be able to live any other way.  Even if they date someone
# of the opposite sex or get married, in their *heart* they are still a
# homosexual.  Likewise, if someone who is *truly* heterosexual forms
# a relationship with someone of the same sex, then they are *still*
# a heterosexual even though outward appearances may suggest otherwise.
# 
# Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
recent works suggest.

If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their
morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children
alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But
until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of 
government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice
but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative
lifestyle," but a sickness.

# Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
#           the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
# After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
#           [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Good signature!

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178887
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.093826.5227@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
> In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>      rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
# #Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
# #because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
# #with social pressures, probably would at least try.
# 
#    Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months*
# ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show,
# up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must

Cite a survey, other than the obviously bogus Kinsey studies.

# be an even *larger* percentage of people who have had homosexual erotic
# fantasies.  But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we
# say about these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated
# gay potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or,
# more accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social
# sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.
# 
#    Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.

I can't speak for Kaldis; but "force of religion and social sanction"
played no part in my sexual preferences.  Neither had much influence on
me as a teenager.

# elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178888
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qpaujINNecq@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> In article <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
# #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
# #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago,
# 
# Right off the bat this information is flawed.  "Most throrough"?  I'm
# sorry, but Masters & Johnson put out a report within the past few
# years.  The Kinsey Institute has been quite active since it was
# founded oh-so-many years ago.  They, too, recently put out a new
# report on sexuality.

I was quoting a news story.  I have no idea why they claim this was
the most "through examination."

# #    shows about 2
# #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
# #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
# 
# I hate to be picky, but let's do the math.  If we take the cities of
# New York City and Los Angeles alone, we can find approximately 3.5
# million gay people...making about 1.75 million gay men.

WHAT?  Even in San Francisco, the Dept. of Public Health estimates
that only 11% of the male population is gay.  What you are claiming
is that of the 16 million people in the NYC and LA areas, that more
than 10% are gay.  What is the source of your numbers?  Keep in
mind that attempts by CDC to determine homosexual percentage in
American cities have given numbers <3%.

# 1% of the American male population is about 1.25 million.
# 
# So what this study says is that all gay males live in New York City or
# Los Angeles, and about half-a-million people are lying about being gay.
# 
# Something smells funny....

Yes, your 1.75 million number smells funny.

# Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178889
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be 
> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners?
> 
> 	Just a thought.
> 
> 						-Matt

You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178890
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....
> 
> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism. 
> 
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

When you force people to associate with others against their will,
yes.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178891
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15409@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <MJCUGLEY.93Apr14110319@glenturret.maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk>, mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (Womble with Attitude) writes:
# ## Absolutely nothing, seeing as there is no table for heterosexuals.
# ## If, as you claim, the supposedly higher promescuity amongst homosexual
# ## males makes them an insurance risk, you need to be show that
# ## heterosexual males are less promiscuous than homosexual males.
# ## Without the data on heterosexual males, we cannot make a comparison
# ## between promiscuity rates of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
# ## 
# ## *             mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (world)		*
# ## *              or mjcugley@uk.ac.dund.maths-and-cs (UK)			*
# 
# Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
# if the oppertunity presented itself?
# 
# I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
# huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being

That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.

# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# Xavier


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178892
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted

In article <C5Jv9A.F1B@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15312@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr08.092954.13507@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
# ## Face it, Clayton, he was not found guilty, and so what if gays sometimes
# ## make it consensually with 16 year old boys. There ARE 16 year old gays, you
# ## know. And as I recall, the case of the state rested on the testimony of one
# ## "victim" who declined to testify, even under threat. I have had teens since
# ## I was 40, and so have a lot of people. Face it Clayton, you're just a jerk!
# ## -RSW
# ## -- 
# ## * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
# ## * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
# ## * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
# #
# #I am always amazed to see people admit to breaking the law -- and
# #putting their address in the signature.  Please tell us more about 
# #this.  Were they 13?  14?  Would you like to make a statement for
# #the district attorney?
# 
# I had sex with a 13 year old boy, it was great, we did *everything*,
# well, a hell of a lot.  It was fun anyway.  Oh, and before you turn 
# purple with rage I was 12 at the time.
# #-- 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

The Walz monster above, however, was past 40 when he molested these
kids, as he says above.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178893
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach....

In article <pdb059-160493111229@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
# Mr. Cramer, I am still waiting for your response to my requests regarding
# the information you claim to have.  I respectfully request that you either
# provide the information or withdraw the various assertions you make below.
# 
# Item number 1:  in a previous posting, you stated that you had found
# "overwhelming support for child molestation" in soc.motss:
# 
# You have (finally) responded to this one.  I have read your complete file
# of postings to soc.motss and to put it bluntly, it does not support your
# assertion.  In short, this claim is bogus.  Thank you for confirming this.

All those postings in defense of adults having sex with children, and
you just choose to claim that they don't say anything of the sort.
There's no point in discussing this any further, then.  You are clearly
a liar, without morals of any sort, prepared to justify child molestation.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178894
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr19.182341.7516@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>: >
>: 
>: So?  What does this prove?  I do not object to *property ownership*  I
>: just think property ownership should be limited to what an individual
>: person/family *needs*.  I do not *need* 200,000 acres to survive,  I
>: need about 3 acres at most and could get by on less.  I argue that
>: by having *all* property tied up and thus cutting people off form
>: the basic level of subsistance that the property owners must bribe
>: the rest of us to respect their ownership rights by providing
>: alternative means of subsistance.  When we are expected to give
>: these peoperty owners (lets call them thieves) bribes in order to
>: be able to subsists then we have a sick situation.   The property owners
>: are then parasites.  
>
>I want people to be able to live happy and prosperous lives.  Property
>owners cannot maintain a monopoly in the free enterprise system unless
>they have help from a coercive government.  When a few land owners get
>together and try to control all the land without selling, land prices
>will go up.  At some point it will be to the advantage of the land owner
>to sell some of his property.  Trying to put a group of people to
>distribute land "fairly" would give them "monopoly control" over the
>land, and would have the consequences you speak of.  Let's keep the land
>out of the grasp of a monopoly and let it exist in the free market.
-------------------------------------------
It's already in the hands of a monopoly of the rich because of capitalism
of land. Other than government land, saved for posterity and the eco-system
as well as government function, the remaining land is owned by a smaller
percentage of the people than ever before. The game of capitalism is almost
won. The game has only to be declared over and we will have to take matters
into our own hands and redistribute it again fairly, or else be enslaved in
return for a place to live. Here in central California, already, fewer than
30% own all the property and 5% of them own 90% of it. That's twice what it
was twenty years ago. Rents are so high that you pay 60% of your income for
rent. If you just have a McJob, all you can afford is one room, if that.
Some 30% of minimum wage workers are homeless. Unless you both have degrees
in technical fields and are working in them, (in the midst of 30%
unemployment in high tech jobs!), you will never own anything but a used
car if you choose to have more than one child!!! And everywhere else you
could afford there are no jobs. The only way to get there is to save and
not consume any more than you have to, clothing used, food poor. No movies,
no entertainment,, ect. for about five to seven years, and then, if you've
saved $20,000, if you can get together that much, and that's ignoring your
kids and working two jobs, then you can buy a home in Arkansas or Missouri
outright and live somewhere where they flood every other year! That's an
exaggeration if you pay close attention to the flood lines on other
people's houses and find a sturdy hill, then you can buy one up there! Also
buy a rowboat. Missouri's not so bad, if you like the sensation of sleeping
in a sweatbox in summer and your car freezing solid in winter. They really
do put those heaters into the dipstick hole to keep them warm enough to
start with ether!:) Shit, kill the rich and redistribute the livable
property. Kill all of them!
-RSW

>I want people to be able to work and gain a basic subsistance and more.
>Is there a workable system for what you suggest?  I am always looking
>for improvements on the way we can coexist in this world and will give
>people happy, meaningful lives, where each individual can reach their
>highest potential.  Are you asking for the forced redistribution of
>land?  Any system I imagine will lead to unfairnes, pollution, over
>popullation, and land mismanagement.  If you know of such a system,
>please describe it.  Please be specific, since my imagination cannot
>comprehend such a system.  Specifics that I am interested in:
>	1.  Does someone get land assigned them when they are born?
>	2.  What happens to someone's land when they die?  Can they pass
>	    it on to their children?
>	3.  Can someone sell land?
>	4.  Can someone leaase their land?
>	5.  What governmental restrictions will be put on land use?
>	6.  Who will administer such a system?
>	7.  How much will it cost to administer such a system?
>I know that this is alot to ask and will understand if you do not have
>the time to answer these questions.  I think I will be better able to
>understand what you are proposing, if you can answer these quesitons.
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
---------------------------------------------
The land is simply granted to people who live on it now. Extra is kept for
the future. You get to stay where you are without paying rent. Land that
supports others becomes property of the state. Farmers are welcome to plant
crops that people need according to demand and ability and soil quality. If
you want to grow sourgum because you always did, and you aren't doing a
good job, then we let another farmer grow sorghum, and you grow something
else. When people die the land they were entitled to use goes into the
public holdings. No one can sell land, but they can trade places with
anybody. No one can lease land. The government will locally distribute the
use of the land not used for residences. Residences that are insufficient
to the families living there can be traded to the public for a larger house
and yard according to need and availability. The local land council who vow
to live on their land till death to avoid profit ties will decide fairness
subject to review by the state and federal land councils. It will cost no
more than any fucking thing costs now with fucking assed rent going down a
deep dark hole to the owners! Anyone can submit a request for a larger
house or land to start a business on, depending on a valid business plan
and community needs. Heavy equipment is subject to seizure for the public
good or as needed. Heavy equipment operators are encouraged to keep and
maintain their own machine and to operate it at a reasonable salary in
service to the community. Companies who own many machines are to be divided
among the appropriate equipment operators and the rest to be let to valid
operators on a need basis. Cost of upkeep is charged. A guild of heavy
machine operators is recognized for safety and training's sake. Their
council is a subcouncil to the community council. Etc. Etc. Etc. It isn't
so hard to think of a better system than we have. All you have to do is
realize that the system we have now is not sacrosanct, in fact it's a
rigged game that steals you blind and is the most unfair any system could
be already!!!!!!!! The trick is to realize that the old rich have been
making the rules behind your back and that it's time to kick them off the
merry-go-round. Tax the rich to death. They are the ones that converted
your 60's school lunch program into the joke it is today. They are the ones
who always cut education. They are the ones who always raise the rent when
you get a raise. They are the ones who should be not just dislodged but
killed for their abuse. I have trouble justifying the death penalty for a
poor kid who killed and didn't know why not. I have no trouble justifying
the death penalty for the rich who steal countless human lives to feed
their greed! Have you paid rent most of your life? Then you have been
enslaved, percentage wise, most of your life. We used to be serfs. Now we
are called renters, and we are still enslaved to somebody who claims to own
land they don't use and make us pay them for it when they did nothing to
own it. Most rents in California are enough to buy the apartment house,
paynthe taxes and the insurance and have a little left over to travel with!
I have seen the books! I know what my landlord pays and to whom! I know
what I pay her. I am being forced to buy her a building and then I will be
let out at the other end with nothing, when I had as much right as her to
live on this planet! And her child will have the money to likewise
enslave my child. I hope I find out when I am going to die. I can make
things just a little happier form me to be able to destroy her life as she
destroyed mine. And maybe I can take a few other landlords with me, and
their heirs. That would be worth it. Then to be able to die before they can
do anything to me. That's a poor man's dream. Sleep tight, bastard
landlords. You don't know the trouble you are buying yourself as you sleep
on my heirs money in your mattress!
-RSW

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178895
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

From article <C5n90x.EsJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
> In article <15407@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

> #There is a big difference between running one's business
> #affairs, and actively ripping people off.

> And charging homosexuals more becuase people think that AIDS is a "gay
> disease" is actively ripping people off. 

Really?  I thought that insurance companies hired all of
their actuarial staffs to determine the risks correlated
with all groups of people, and that gays are more likely
to have AIDS than are those of other sexual orientations.
If I am wrong about this correlation, please correct me.

My auto insurance company charges me up the wazoo because
I am a young male with a very high performance car.  I
always thought that this was based on NHTSA and other
statistical data, rather than bigotry and hatred for young
men with fast cars.  Of course, with the proper government
intervention, we could force the insurance companies to
pretend that young men with fast cars are just the same
as everyone else...
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178896
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:

> Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
> if the oppertunity presented itself?

> I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
> huge variety of willing partners.

If true, and if gays were the same as straights except
for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would
have much less sex than straights because the available
pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for
straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178897
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Vietnam Deja Vu


The Waco/Whacko Bar-B-Q caused me to remember an official explanation
from the Vietnam War.  The 90s, liberal version is:

    "It was necessary to incinerate the children in order to save them."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178898
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Was Kinsey a Fake and a Pervert?

In article <15446@optilink.COM>
     cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1993Apr17.093826.5227@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>     elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>>    Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months*
>> ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show,
>> up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must

>Cite a survey, other than the obviously bogus Kinsey studies.

   Granted.  Pomeroy, Bell, Weinberg, 1967.  "National Institute of
Mental Health Paper 12353, ''Patterns of Adjusment in Deviant
Populations.''"  Cited as part of the National Institute of Mental
Health Task Force on Homosexuality.

   Pomery concluded, "The Kinsey statistic of 37% is probably higher
than is realistic.  According to these estimates, 33% is a more
realistic figure."

   (I went out and bought LOTS of Bell & Weinberg this weekend... can
you tell?)

   Also, The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (Samuel S. Janus, Ph.D.
and Cynthia L. Janus, M.D., John Wiley & Sons (pub), 1992) has the
following:

Table 3.14
Have you ever had a homosexual experience?
          Men.    Women.
N=        1,335   1,384
Yes       22%      17%
No        78%      83%

Table 3.15
How often have you had homosexual contact?
                      Men   Women
N=                    294     235
a. Once                5%      6%
b. Occasionally       56%     67%
c. Frequently         13%      6%
d. Ongoing            26%     21%

Active (c. + d.)      39%     37%

39% of 22% is 9%.  This number is consistent with Kinsey, Pomery,
Gebard (1953), Bell & Weinberg (1967, 1974), and Rice (1987) in the
finding that 9% of the male population is actively homosexual, with
an further breakdown (Bell & Wienberg, 1978) of 4% exclusively so and
5% self-identifying themselves as "bisexuals."

   (pp 69, 70)

   As for debunking Kinsey, the following article is an important
lesson for everyone to read:

Was Kinsey a Fake and a Pervert?
by Philip Nobile

     Far out on the grassy knoll of sexology, there is a cult of
prochastity researchers who claim that the late Alfred Kinsey was a
secret sex criminal, a Hoosier Dr. Mengele, who bent his numbers
toward the bisexual and the bizarre in a grand conspiracy to queer the
nation and usher in an era of free sex with kids.  

     But what really riles these critics is Kinsey's towerin~ cultural
influence.  His bestselling surveys-- Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
(1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953)-- tore the
sheets off the country's erogenous zones and undermined midcentury
morals.  His charts and graphs, based on detailed histories of 12,000
men and women, demonstrated that practices generally considered rare
and/or 'abnormal'-- masturbation, extramarital relations,
homosexuality, and even barnyard bestiality, were as American as
strawberry shortcake.  

     Yet for a hard core of these heterosexual supremacists, aided and
abetted by Pat Buchanan and the religious right, the zoology professor
from Indiana University remains the evil genius behind the sex
revolution and a target for character assassination.  

     Judith Reisman, the prosecution's expert witness at the
Mapplethorpe trial in Cincinnati, is the leader of the anti- Kinsey
revisionists as well as his Inspector Javert.  In 1983, during a radio
interview with Pat Buchanan in Washington, Reisman accused Kinsey of
having been inolved in "the vicious genital torture of hundreds of
children."  She speculated that he kidnapped and drugged ghetto boys in
order to carry out clandestine orgasm tests.  

     Now, seven years later, Reisman has revived her charges in a
different book, titled Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, just released by the
small and religiously oriented Huntington House in Lafayette,
Louisiana.  Her coauthor is Ed Eichel, a Manhattan psychotherapist who
has invented a new style of intromission ("the coital alignment
technique") that supposedly triggers simultaneous orgasm with
considerable regularity and thereby increases compatibilty between the
sexes.  In the book Eichel contends that "Kinsey deliberately cooked
the gay stats because, being an oddball himself, he wanted to advance
the 'denormalization' of heterosexuality."  

     If the authors are right, then the world- famous Kinsey Reports
are, as the introduction boldly asserts, "the most egregious example
of scientific deception in this century."  And if they are wrong,
Kinsey, Sex and Fraud is a shameful smear.

     Despite the less- than- stellar credentials of Kinsey's
detractors, legends are not what they used to be.  Martin Luther King
may have committed plagiarism.  Bruno Bettelheim slapped young mental
patients around.  Father Bruce Ritter, the founder of Covenant House,
preyed on runaway boys.  Closer to Kinsey, Masters and Johnson have
been disgraced for faking it in one way or another.  

     So it should not surprise anybody that Kinsey, who filmed strange
people having sex in his attic, may have had skeletons in the closet.
The problem is that Reisman does not seem to have the intellectual
prowess to pull off the job.  

     As a thinker, the woman is no Madame Curie.  The 55-year-old
former songwriter for Captain Kangaroo has little professional
standing, no current university position, and no peer-review
publications, though her creative 1983 resume was padded with phantom
accomplishments.  For instance, it listed a book as her own-- Take Back
the Night: Women on Pornography-- that was actually written and edited
by others.  Then there is her Ph.D. in Speech Communication from
Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University.  Although Reisman has no
bachelor's degree, Case granted her a master's in 1976 and a doctorate
in 1979.  Her dissertation was on the commentaries of a local
octagenarian TV commentator.  But on the resume, Reisman gave this
piece of scholarship a fancy Hautes Etudes moniker-- to wit: "The
Application of Aristotelian and Systems Analytic Theory to Mass Media
Effects."

     When Reisman burst into prominence on Buchanan's program, it was
love at first sight for Al Regnery, the outwardly anti- 
porn head of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in Ed Meese's
Justice Department.  Regnery was a young law-and-order conservative and
amateur social philosopher who wanted to help change the sexual
climate of the United States.  

     After Reisman's sensational radio session, the sexual equivalent
of Joe McCarthy's Wheeling speech, Regnery summoned 
her to meetings to discuss mutual interests.  First he tried to shovel
her $800,000 for a quasi-Frankenstein study that was going to measure
the brain chemicals of men and boys who looked at arousing
photographs.  Guffaws on Capitol Hill killed the original proposal, but
$734,000 in govemment money went to Reisman anyway for plan B- a probe
of child images in the cartoons Playboy, Penthouse, and Hust
ler.  (Incredibly, this grant surpassed the entire budget of the
attorney general's pornography commission.) 

     When the overpriced and oversold project was completed in 1986,
it was immediately shelved by an embarrassed Justice Department.  That
spring, Regnery resigned from his post only days before the New
Republic carried this admission that he had kept porno magazines
around the house.  

     Notwithstanding the six-figure humiliation, Reisman went on to
scratch out a niche on the ioony right.  As the darling of the sex
cranks, she deplores subversive phenomena like shaved genitalia in
men's magazines and blames AIDS on gays.  Kinsey, Sex and Fraud is
Reisman's latest grasp for respectability.  Pat Buchanan, of course, is
putting his Krugerrands on Reisman's ultimate vindication.  "This book
is social dynamite," he says in a blurb an the front cover.  He
especially liked the antigay parts.  Smacking his lips in his
syndicated column, he declared, "It may just blow the sewer cap off
Kinsey's monumental reputation, reestablish homosexuality as a 1-in-50
aberration, expose the Gay Rights movement as a paper tiger, and even
put at risk the enormous sex industry built upon Dr. Kinsey's
'research.'"

     The blockbuster charge at the heart of the cluttered and
repetilive j'Accuse is that Kinsey was a sex-mad pedophile who
molested little boys in Nazi-type experiments and recorded their
orgasms in his male volume/ A similar charge was first recited at the
Fifth World Conference on Sexology in Jerusalem in 1981 to no effect
before being recycled by Reisman for Buchanan in Washington in 1983.

     Here is how Reisman and Eichel repackaged the Mengele business in
Kinsey, Sex and Fraud:

     Mengele-like 'scientific' experiments on infants and children
were the basis for Kinsey's conclusions...  on childhood sexuality.

     Somewhere and sometime in the course of the project, Kinsey
appears to have directed experimental sex research on several hundred
children aged from two months to almost 15 years.

     This, of course, would implicate Kinsey and his team in
promoting, and perhaps participating in, the criminal activity.

     In the opinion of this book's authors, that is exactly how part
of Kinsey's child sexuality research took place.


     Donning his psychohistorian's cap and citing an FBI manual on
child molesters as a guide, Eichel casually diagnoses Kinsey as a
homosexual pedophile with the perfect motive for doing exactly as
Reisman said: 
 

     [Kinsey] placed himself in professional and nonprofessional
positions where he had access to young boys, such as Y.M.C.A.  camp
counselor, boys' club leader, and Boy Scout leader-- activities he
kept up 'during his college and graduate yeaers, and even after his
marriage."
 

     As crude as his analysis seems, Eichel was more than happy to
elaborate even further in a recent phone interview.  "If you've ever
been around boy- lovers, pedophiles, they are absolutely compulsive,"
he averred.  "Everything in his life is directed at getting children.  I
didn't mention this in our book but the caption under Kinsey's high
school picture was a quote from Hamlet: 'Man delights me not, no,
[sic] nor woman neither.' What do you think they were picking up on?" 

     Before weighing what Reisman and Eichel pass off as proof of
Kinsey's sex crimes, something must be said about Kinsey's scientific
modus operandi.  He was a fiendish collector.  As a young zoologist with
a D.Sc.  from Harvard, he collected 4 million gall wasps and 1.5
million related insects.  When he switched to sex exploration after
agreeing to teach a marriage Course at Indiana University in 1938, he
was no less curious or acquisitive.  Nothing that mammals did in the
realm of reproduction was foreign to him.  He compiled masses of erotic
materials including toilet wall inscriptions from male and female
johns that highlighted differences in sexual psychology and flms of
mating in 14 species of animals that showed an amazing similarity in
oral eroticism.  

     Naturally, the sexual response of children, the genesis of eros,
fascinated him.  It was impossible to understand the sexual behaviors
of adults without examining their origins.  And so with the fervor of
his bughunting days, Kinsey collected information about kids, though
even his worst enemies-- until Reisman and Eichel-- refrained from
linking him personally to his data on preadolescent sex.  

     Kinsey said plainly in the male volume that he got information on
the sex life of young boys from people who had sex with them: "Some of
these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or
other records which have been put at our disposal."  Although he
gathered much boyhood data from the memories of his subjects and the
observations of parents and nursery school teachers, he treated the
documentary materia! of the pedophiles as pure gold.  There was nothing
like it in the literature.  

     Kinsey's main source, a 63-year-old govemment worker, was also
the most unforgettable character he had ever met.  This man, whose
history took 17 hours to log, had sex with over 600 boys and 200 girls
as well as 17 of 33 family members including his father and
grandmother.  A sexual hobbyist and passionate record-keeper, he gave
Kinsey detailed accounts of orgasms that he observed in preadolescent
boys.  Relying on the man's meticulous research, which involved
following some boys for as long as 16 years, Kinsey was able to
identify for the first time six distinct types of male orgasm-- some
of which involved violent contortions at the peak of release-- as well
as the speed and the capacity of climax.  

     What Freud had only imagined about childhood sexuality, Kinsey
had reported as fact.  Children were indeed erotic beings from the
cradle.  "These data on the sexual activities of younger male provide
an important substantiation of the Freudian view of sexuality as a
component that is present in the human animal from earliest infancy,"
he concluded without raising eyebrows in 1948.  

     Then along came Judith Reisman.  Ignorng the legitimacy of
Kinsey's inquiry, she beheld the ghost of Mengele in Bloomington.  She
was appalled by the thought of infant ecstasy and read torture in the
portrayals of prepubertal orgasm rendered by the government worker.
And she dared to say that Kinsey was a sex criminal.  

     Well, was he or wasn't he? Let's go to the text.  There is no
evidence in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud-- no witnesses, no paper, noteven a
trace of hearsay-- that implicates Kinsey in either planning or
partaking in child sex experiments.  After 12 years on the trail,
Reisman has uncovered just two sources to back up her original charge-
- amazingly enough, Kinsey himself and Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey's
coauthor on both reports, to whom Reisman has never spoken.  It turns
out that her whole case rests on a few passages in the male volume
iand in Pomeroy's 1972 biography titled Dr. Kinsey and the Institute
for Sex Research.

     After frisking every "the" and "and" in both books, Reisman came
up with what she believes are "smoking" sentences.  To establish
Kinsey's alleged role in the planning, she says that "there is a hint"
in the fifth chapter of the male volume that Kinsey "directed" the
orgasm studies on kids.  She cites his tell-tale quote from a critic of
armchair psychoanalysis demanding that "writers...test their
theories...by empirical study and statistical procedures."  Then she
combines this quote with Kinsey's statement that some of the
observations of his pedophile sources "were continued over periods of
months or years until the individuals were old enough to make it
certain that true orgasm was involved."  

     Putting two and two together-- Kinsey's empiricism and lengthy
experimentation-- she arrives at her hint.  But realizing this dog
would not hunt, she devoted but a single paragraph to Kinsey's
supposed planning before shifting to the issue of his personal
involvement.  As for the alleged participation, after poring over
Pomeroy's biography, Reisman found several hidden clues suggesting
Kinsey's likely hands-on approach to kiddie sex.  Here the chain of
reasoning is more complex.  She points out that Kinsey was interested
in clitoral measurements, collecting sperm and filming sex in his
attic.  Since Kinsey did indeed mislead Indiana University about the
purpose of his cinematography-- he said that he was filming "animal
sex"-- Reisman asserts that a "similar misrepresentation may yet apply
to Kinsey's child sex experiments."  Catch the "may"!

     Reisman was also struck by Kinsey's doubting Thomas attitude
toward the never before recorded climax of female rabbits: "Kinsey,
according to Pomeroy, was the type of person who needed to see things
for himself.  Pomeroy gave the example of orgasm in the female rabbit.
Because he had not personally witnessed this event, Kinsey had
difficulty in accepting its reality, even on the strength of testimony
from a distinguished scientist.  How then did Kinsey testify to the
actuality of orgasm in a 5-month-old infant from the mere 'history' of
a sex offender?" (But, of course, he did not: he depended on their
records.) 

     From this fantastic alchemy of conjecture mixed with clitorides,
sperm, attic cumshots, and climax-in-cottontail has Reisman defamed
the legendary Kinsey.

     Paul Gebhard succeeded Kinsey as the director of the Kinsey
Institute and now lives in retirement outside Bloomington.  Reached by
telephone, Gebhard defended the pedophile connection and denied
Reisman's nasty imputations.  "I don't understand the resistance of
people like Reisman to studying the sexuality of children," Gebhard
said more in exasperation than anger.  "That is where sex begins.  We
were happy to take data wherever we found it.  Even though pedophiles
commit criminal acts, they are usually not violent folks.  They
wouldn't be very successful if they were.  One of our best sources was
a headmaster of a boys' school who maintained a kind of alumni club
and sometimes went to the weddings of his former students.  As for
directing experiments, that's absurd.  We never told any of our
subjects what to do.  lt was against our principles.  Almost all of the
pedophile material was retrospective anyway.  Nor did we ever conduct
sex experiments with children ourselves.  That would have been highly
inappropriate."  

     I asked Gebhard if Kinsey had ever seen a child in a sexual
situation.  "I think a mother once brought in a little girl who humped
her teddy bear and Kinsey watched it."  

     As for Kinsey's sex life, it is still shrouded in
confidentiality.  He was married to the same woman for 35 years and
fathered four children.  Apparently, there are no huge sexual
revelations, although rumors of homosexuality have persisted without
confirmation through the years.  Gebhard took his boss's history back
in the '40s, but he refuses to discuss what he knows.  "We never
divulge anything about anybody's history, whether dead or alive," he
says.  

     Reisman said no to an interview for this article on the grounds
that I had once worked for Penthouse-- not to mention the fact that we
have been debating each other in various forums for the past five
years.  In keeping with our contentious history, she took a swipe at me
in her book for continuing "the Kinsey practice of euphemizing
incest."  My offense was using the biblical variant "lying with a near
relative" in a 1977 article on the subject of incest.  As a synonym for
intercourse, "lying with" appears eight times in Genesis.  

     Ed Eichel is a different story.  Though seemingly obsessed by
Kinsey like his coauthor, he was friendly in long conversations.  He
told me that he began to smell a big baised agenda in sexology when he
was a student in New York University's Human Sexuality program in the
early '80s.  "It was literally a gay studies program for heterosexuals,"
he says.

     Around 1985, Eichel came upon Reisman's critique of Kinsey and
the conspiracy theory started to sink in: the sex establishment was
ruled by a Kinseyan bisexual bund advocating the overthrow of the
heterosexual norm.  No wonder he was having such a rough time promoting
the joy of simultaneous orgasm-- anything that enhanced sexual
compatibility between men and women inevitably raised objections.

     Eventually, Eichel exchanged philosophical fluids with Reisman,
and from this union Kinsey, Sex and Fraud was born.  Eichel's main
contribution to the book is discovery and analysis of a Kinsey
conspiracy that supposedly seeks "the establishment of bisexuality as
the balanced sexual orientation for normal, uninhibited people" which,
by destroying the traditional family structure and normal sexual
behavior, "would open the way for the second and more difficult step--
the ultimate goal of cross-generational sex (sex with children)."  

     When I pressed him for specific references to back up his
outrageous contentions, he said weakly, "You don't think Kinsey is
going to come right out and say that everybody is basically bisexual
and should have sex with kids, but this is implicit in the Kinsey
reports."  

     Meanwhile, Eichel is demanding a congressional investigation of
Kinsey and his data.  Perfect.  That's just what the country needs-- a
House Un-American Sexual Activities Committee, looking under beds and
asking people if they are now or have everbeen a reader, a sympathizer
or-- God forbid-- a subject of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.


         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

   "The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure
reasoning, and inhibit clarity.  With a little pratice, writing can be
an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"  - Bill Watterson's Calvin.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178899
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Not talking to soldiers, part II

In article <1993Apr20.163253.8785@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	After going to great lenghts to describe the people inside as hostages
>of Koresh (eg, people leaving "escaped"), and stating that "generals have no
>place in law enforcement" it appears that Janet and the FBI/ATF have egg on
>their faces.
>
>	80+ "hostages" dead.
>
>	Two unsuccessful assualts.
>
>	Janet, some advice: go with the SEALs/Delta Force/Green Berets next
>time and talk nicely to the generals.

  This might be illegal without a very specific Presidential declaration
or even a change in law. In general (sic), U.S. military troops are not
permitted to be used for domestic policing operations.

>
>	BTW-does Janet think that military police are oxymorons?
>
-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178900
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15480@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes:
|> > In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> # #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical
|> # #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS.
|> # #-- 
|> # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> # #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
|> 
|> # You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about 
|> # tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything
|> 
|> What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything
|> different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality
|> spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other
|> methods of spreading it as well.
|> 
|> # about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now,
|> # you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced.
|> # 
|> # Joe Cipale
|> 
|> Typical homosexual response.
|> 
|> 


You have yet to answer any or all of my questions and challenges to your 
statements.  By this am I to assume that you are unable to do so?  Or just
plain unwilling due to your lack of proof/intelligence?  So what next?  I 
prove you wrong so you just put me in your killfile?

Your lack of reasoned response seems to be a typical Clayton response.


|> -- 
|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
|> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178901
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In <15480@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes:
>> In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical
># #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS.
># #-- 
># #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
># #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

># You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about 
># tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything

>What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything
>different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality
>spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other
>methods of spreading it as well.

But it IS made false by your ridiculous leap of logic from "monogamous
homosexual male sex is so rare" (which is a load of horseshit--as
proportionately many queers are monogamous as hets, and the ones who aren't
use condoms, for the most part) to "for practical purposes, homosexuality
spreads AIDS."  No.  Unprotected sex with an infected partner spreads AIDS. 
These "practical purposes" you speak of are obviously the purposes of
spreading homophobia, which leads me to an interesting truth: "Cramer
spreads hate."  Isn't that nice?

># about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now,
># you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced.
># 
># Joe Cipale

>Typical homosexual response.

You mean, "Typical homosexual response to Clayton E. Cramer."  I think any
human being would react that way to someone as contemptibly hateful as you,
actually.  I seem to hear the same sort of thing coming from your posts, you
know....

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Planning to make this a complete sentence anytime soon?

Drewcifer
-- 
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
 \\  /    
   \/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178902
From: joe13+@pitt.edu (Joseph B Stiehm)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <16BB7A1DE.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
...
> 
>Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions
>with the result of the police trying to take the place by
>force and the result being the death of the hostages and the
>gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of
>the blame landing squarely on the police.
> 
>In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down
>from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages
>other terrorists and hostage takers.
> 
>Richard

That people are at risk and that some die during a hostage situation might
be considered an acceptable scenario in storming a compound. 

When EVERYONE dies (save for nine people), including twenty children, the 
outcome must be considered a failure.

Now was the failure due to unforseeable circumstances, incompetence, or
negligence?  From the double talk and multiple stories I've seen on the news
coming from the FBI and Reno I find "it was an honest mistake" hard to swallow

Let's hope they get their stories straight for the second round of questions.



Joseph Stiehm 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178903
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: BATF of USA

A repost from talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.jewish:

From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Date: 20 Apr 1993 19:15:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <C5rLnE.4pC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

> >We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of
> >their rights to worship and bear arms.

> Arms? Automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers? The sorts of things
> no family should be without, I guess.

All government claims.  If they were really stocking such weapons for
Armageddon, how come they never used them?

> Anyway, I've often wondered what
> business followers of Christ would have with weapons. It's hard to imagine a
> pistol-packin' Jesus, though I suppose a pump-action shotgun would have
> made clearing the temple a hell of a lot easier.

"The time is coming.  Those of you who have no sword, sell your shirt and
 buy one... And they told him, Master, we have two swords.  And he said, It 
 is enough."  (LUKE ...)

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
 but the sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
 and the daugher against her mother..."  (MATT 10 34-35)

> Well, when the nice federal officers come to my house to check out my
> extensive weapons cache, I'll just be sure not to shoot at them.
> "Tea, ladies and gentlemen?"

Just maybe you won't be home.  Then you can come home to something 
like this:

    "Well, it's been a rough month," begins Johnnie Lawmaster.  "I
 just get laid off, and my divorce became final.  But I just wasn't
 ready for what happened this particular Monday."

    That particular Monday was was December 16, the first day of the
 Bill of Rights' third century, the day when federal agents and local
 law enforcement officer broke into the house in Tulsa that always flew
 the U.S. flag.  When Lawmaster drove into the driveway that bleak
 afternoon, one of his neighbors had some news.

    "'Ohmigod, John, you are in big trouble!' my neighbor tells me.
 'Sixty police, federal agents and the bomb squad busted in you house,
 kicked down the door, cut locks off your gun safe.'  I couldn't
 believe it.  Then I walked inside.  What a nightmare."

    It was no nightmare; it was horribly real life.  Apparently acting
 on information the Lawmaster possessed an illegal firearm, some thirty
 agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) teamed up
 with state and Tulsa police authorities, search warrant in hand, to
 search for a "Colt, AR-15, .223 caliber machine gun, unknown serial
 number."  The warrant, issued by U.S. Magistrate John Leo Wagner, also
 authorized agents to seize "any tools used in the alteration or
 modification of firearms, such as files or drills; documents, papers,
 books, records, and other tangible properties which identify occupants
 or owners of the property to be searched...."

    Reports vary, but according to neighbors, the joint task force
 operation aimed at the unemployed warehouseman from a nearby hospital
 involved some 60 agents and local law enforcement personnel against
 Lawmaster.  They cordoned off the street; took station with weapons
 drawn in the back yard; used a battering ram to break through the
 front door; kicked in the back door; broke into his gun safe; threw
 personal papers around the house; spilled boxes of ammunition on the
 floor; broke into a small, locked box that contained precious coins;
 stood on a table to peer through the ceiling tiles, breaking the table
 in the process.  Then, they left.  The doors were closed but not
 latched, much less locked.  The ammo and guns were left unsecured.

    "My front and back doors were pulled shut, but they were busted
 through and couldn't latch.  Anybody could have waltzed in there and
 stolen everything I own.  A child could have taken a gun.  The guns,
 the safe -- everything was open and laying around.  I keep all my
 magazines empty, but someone had loaded them.  While I was looking
 around in amazement, the gas, electric and water companies show up to
 turn the power off.  They said they were told to shut things down.
 Then I found the note.  "Nothing Found - ATF."

    "They didn't make any attempt to notify me.  I've lived in Tulsa
 all my life and never got more than a traffic ticket.  How come they
 can't look that up, realize I've been law-abiding my whole life, then
 come to the door when I'm home?  They didn't leave someone here to
 watch over my private property.  They didn't even come by to explain
 what happened.  They just raided my home, ransaked it, left it wide
 open and left."

    Lawmaster placed a phone call to the local BATF agent.  "I asked,
 'Are you gonna' arrest me?' and he said, 'No.'  I asken him, "Who is
 going to repair and clean up my house?'  And he said, "If you're going
 to talk to me, come down to my office.'

    "'I can't come down!' I said.  'My doors are broken!'  If I had
 been on vacation and I didn't have friendly neighbors, I would have
 lost everything I own.  Here I am a competent, responsible firearms
 owner, and the government leaves them open, unlocked, with ammo strewn
 around."

    Lawmaster said the agent advised him, "If you want your door to
 lock and your gun safe to lock, you're gonna' have to pay for it
 yourself."

    "'Oh, I'll come right down, alright,' I told him.  'I'll come
 down, but I'll bring my attorney.'  And he said, 'Well, you bring
 your attorney, and we won't talk to you.'"


So if you don't want your tea party to be held in awkward silence, make
sure your lawyer isn't there, there's a good chap.


> It's very sad all those people died, especially the kids, but that's going
> to happen in a free society whenever psychologically needy people hook up
> with a charismatic nutcase.

What a repulsive outlook on society.  "Followers of unusual religions
may be killed by the government -- it simply can't be helped in a free
society."

You and I have two different concepts of "free."
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178904
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

In <4916@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

|>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993


|                       *Paranoia part deleted.*

|  Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?

I don't remember the article that you removed so I can't comment on it.
What I can comment on though is your response.

Do you really believe that what you wrote is sufficient to refute the article?
Do have any facts in addition to your opinion?
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178905
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM  sez:
[re Michael Friedman and Phil Ronzone]
>
>O.K. So far you guys have called me:
>1) An ignorant asshole
>2) Ignorant slut
>3) Dumb as a bag of hammers
>4) Dumb shit
>	Am I missing any?

Try asking Michael whether he still thinks the M-16 "is one of the
most beautiful machines around."  Or ask Phil if he still claims that
the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment
apply to the federal government.  The responses should be as
enlightening as the recent name-calling, and about as relevant.

-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178906
From: jaffray@dent.uchicago.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <15454@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>> Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
>> if the oppertunity presented itself?
>
>> I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
>> huge variety of willing partners.
>
>If true, and if gays were the same as straights except
>for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would
>have much less sex than straights because the available
>pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for
>straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!

I *cannot* *believe* I am posting in this thread, but what
the hell, he asked for it.

I had sort of the same reaction myself when I was first realizing
I was bi.  "So what, >90% of everyone else is straight, I'd never
end up with a guy anyway."  As several people on soc.bi pointed
out to me, this is true only if you find partners (for relationships
or just for sex) in primarily straight circles.  Nowadays with gay
culture quite visible in major cities and such, you can easily
find yourself in an overwhelmingly queer social circle if you so
choose.  (About half my friends are bi, and that's just from
hanging out in the science fiction club and going to UCBU once a
week, it's not as if I have to go out of my way and hang out in
bars or something.)

So the available pool for dates can be the same size.  Unless of
course you're trying to date a random sample of the US population.

As for promiscuity, I've traded email with Clayton on the topic,
and he still doesn't seem to want to admit that yes, gay males
are sometimes forced to resort to anonymous sex because they're
closeted and can't afford to be seen in a permanent relationship.
Or that part of the promiscuity is because of the messed-up gender
roles in our society, and when males are dating males and they've
*all* been trained to be the aggressor in sex, there's going to
be more sex.  Or that what's "dysfunctional", what's "screwed up"
is societal attitudes, not gay sexuality, and that's what 
encourages deviant behavior in gay males.

(also note that just because someone's had 200 sex partners 
doesn't mean they're promiscuous.  yes, it sounds ridiculous,
but it's quite possible for someone to go through a heavily
closeted phase in which they have lots of anonymous sex with
strangers, and then come out, start forming real relationships,
and be monogamous or nearly so...)


--                                                                       ____
Alan Jaffray (jaffray@math.uchicago.edu)  Email, 'talk' always welcome.  \bi/
Those who dance are thought mad by those who hear not the music -- Anon   \/
B0H7f-t+w-cg+(+)k+?s-vm-h-pS6/3bgz-++o-x-v+j+N0178l--+a(+)f-vn-(++)e--+dvb+u+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178907
From: koresh@dead.davidian
Subject: Gun Control kills over 80

   Rejoice! The Streets of Amerika are much safer now that the Branch
Davidians no longer have those nasty assault weapons. Your children will
no longer lie awake at night wondering when the next Brand Davidian will
attempt to shoot them from their rural compound. 

   Men, women, and children have been murdered by our great BATF, but the
greater good has been secured for all.

   Rejoice! `Criminals' who execise the second amendment will be killed.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178908
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks by the President on Waco w/ Q&A 4.20.93





                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
            IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS 


                           The Rose Garden


1:36 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  On February the 28th, four federal 
agents were killed in the line of duty trying to enforce the law 
against the Branch Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled 
weaponry and ammunition, and placed innocent children at risk.  
Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51-day 
standoff ensued.  
	     
	     The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every 
reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without 
bloodshed and further loss of life.  The Bureau's efforts were 
ultimately unavailing because the individual with whom they were 
dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably 
insane.      

	     He engaged in numerous activities which violated both 
federal law and common standards of decency.  He was, moreover, 
responsible for the deaths and injuries which occurred during the 
action against the compound in February.  Given his inclination 
towards violence and in an effort to protect his young hostages, no 
provocative actions were taken for more than seven weeks by federal 
agents against the compound.  
	     
	     This weekend I was briefed by Attorney General Reno on 
an operation prepared by the FBI, designed to increase pressure on 
Koresh and persuade those in the compound to surrender peacefully.  
The plan included a decision to withhold the use of ammunition, even 
in the face of fire, and instead to use tear gas that would not cause 
permanent harm to health, but would, it was hoped, force the people 
in the compound to come outside and to surrender.
	     
	     I was informed of the plan to end the siege.  I 
discussed it with Attorney General Reno.  I asked the questions I 
thought it was appropriate for me to ask.  I then told her to do what 
she thought was right, and I take full responsibility for the 
implementation of the decision.  
	     
	     Yesterday's action ended in a horrible human tragedy.  
Mr. Koresh's response to the demands for his surrender by federal 
agents was to destroy himself and murder the children who were his 
captives, as well as all the other people who were there who did not 
survive.  He killed those he controlled, and he bears ultimate 
responsibility for the carnage that ensued.
	     
	     Now we must review the past with an eye towards the 
future.  I have directed the United Stated Departments of Justice and 
Treasury to undertake a vigorous and thorough investigation to 
uncover what happened and why, and whether anything could have been 
done differently.  I have told the departments to involve independent 
professional law enforcement officials in the investigation.  I 
expect to receive analysis and answers in whatever time is required 
to complete the review.  Finally, I have directed the departments to 
cooperate fully with all congressional inquiries so that we can 
continue to be fully accountable to the American people.
	     
	     I want to express my appreciation to the Attorney 
General, to the Justice Department, and to the federal agents on the 
front lines who did the best job they could under deeply difficult 
circumstances.  
	     
	     Again, I want to say as I did yesterday, I am very sorry 
for the loss of life which occurred at the beginning and at the end 
of this tragedy in Waco.  I hope very much that others who will be 
tempted to join cults and to become involved with people like David 
Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over 
the last seven weeks.  And I hope very much that the difficult 
situations which federal agents confronted there and which they will 
be doubtless required to confront in other contexts in the future 
will be somewhat better handled and better understood because of what 
has been learned now.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, can you, first of all, tell us why, 
after 51 days, you decided --
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, can you describe for us what it is 
that Janet Reno outlined to you in your 15-minute phone conversation 
with --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I can't hear you both.  If one will go 
first and then the other.
	     
	     Q	  Sorry.  Can you describe what Janet Reno --
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'll answer both your questions, but I 
can't do it at once.
	     
	     Q	  Can you describe what she told you on Sunday about 
the nature of the operation and how much detail you knew about it?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  I was told by the Attorney General 
that the FBI strongly felt that the time had come to take another 
step in trying to dislodge the people in the compound.  And she 
described generally what the operation would be -- that they wanted 
to go in and use tear gas which had been tested not to cause 
permanent damage to adults or to children, but which would make it 
very difficult for people to stay inside the building.  And it was 
hoped that the tear gas would permit them to come outside.  
	     
	     I was further told that under no circumstances would our 
people fire any shots at them even if fired upon.  They were going to 
shoot the tear gas from armored vehicles which would protect them and 
there would be no exchange of fire.  In fact, as you know, an awful 
lot of shots were fired by the cult members at the federal officials.  
There were no shots coming back from the government side.
	     
	     I asked a number of questions.  The first question I 
asked is, why now?  We have waited seven weeks; why now?  The reasons 
I was given were the following:
	     
	     Number one, that there was a limit to how long the 
federal authorities could maintain with their limited resources the 
quality and intensity of coverage by experts there.  They might be 
needed in other parts of the country.
	     
	     Number two, that the people who had reviewed this had 
never seen a case quite like this one before, and they were convinced 
that no progress had been made recently and no progress was going to 
be made through the normal means of getting Koresh and the other cult 
members to come out.  
	     
	     Number three, that the danger of their doing something 
to themselves or to others was likely to increase, not decrease, with 
the passage of time.
	     
	     And number four, that they had reason to believe that 
the children who were still inside the compound were being abused 
significantly, as well as being forced to live in unsanitary and 
unsafe conditions.
	     
	     So for those reasons, they wanted to move at that time.  
The second question I asked the Attorney General is whether they had 
given consideration to all of the things that could go wrong and 
evaluated them against what might happen that was good.  She said 
that the FBI personnel on the scene and those working with them were 
convinced that the chances of bad things happening would only 
increase with the passage of time.
	     
	     The third question I asked was, has the military been 
consulted?  As soon as the initial tragedy came to light in Waco, 
that's the first thing I asked to be done, because it was obvious 
that this was not a typical law enforcement situation.  Military 
people were then brought in, helped to analyze the situation and some 
of the problems that were presented by it.   And so I asked if the 
military had been consulted.  The Attorney General said that they 
had, and that they were in basic agreement that there was only one 
minor tactical difference of opinion between the FBI and the military 
-- something that both sides thought was not of overwhelming 
significance.
	     
	     Having asked those questions and gotten those answers, I 
said that if she thought it was the right thing to do, that she 
should proceed and that I would support it.  And I stand by that 
today.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Wait.  Go ahead.
	     
	     Q	  Can you address the widespread perception --
reported widely, television, radio and newspapers -- that you were 
trying somehow to distance yourself from this disaster?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I'm bewildered by it.  The only 
reason I made no public statement yesterday -- let me say -- the only 
reason I made no public statement yesterday is that I had nothing to 
add to what was being said and I literally did not know until rather 
late in the day whether anybody was still alive other than those who 
had been actually seen and taken to the hospital or taken into 
custody.  It was purely and simply a question of waiting for events 
to unfold.  
	     
	     There was -- I have -- I can't account for why people 
speculated one way or the other, but I talked to the Attorney General 
on the day before the action took place.  I talked to her yesterday.  
I called her again late last night after she appeared on the Larry 
King Show, and I talked to her again this morning.  A President -- it 
is not possible for a President to distance himself from things that 
happen when the federal government is in control.
	     
	     I will say this, however.  I was, frankly, surprised 
would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the 
Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics 
murdered themselves.  (Applause.)  
	     
	     I regret what happened, but it is not possible in this 
life to control the behavior of others in every circumstance.  These 
people killed four federal officials in the line of duty.  They were 
heavily armed.  They fired on federal officials yesterday repeatedly, 
and they were never fired back on.  We did everything we could to 
avoid the loss of life.  They made the decision to immolate 
themselves.  And I regret it terribly, and I feel awful about the 
children.  
	     
	     But in the end, the last comment I had from Janet Reno, 
is when -- and I talked to her on Sunday -- I said, now, I want you 
to tell me once more why you believe -- not why they believe -- why 
you believe we should move now rather than wait some more.  And she 
said, it's because of the children.  They have evidence that those 
children are still being abused and that they're in increasingly 
unsafe conditions, and that they don't think it will get any easier 
with time -- with the passage of time.  I have to take their word for 
that.  So that is where I think things stand.
	     
	     Q	  Can we assume then that you don't think this was 
mishandled in view of the outcome, that you didn't run out of 
patience?  And if you had it to do over again, would you really 
decide that way?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No -- well, I think what you can assume 
is just exactly what I announced today.  This is a -- the FBI has 
done a lot of things right for this country over a long period of 
time.  This is the same FBI that found the people that bombed the 
World Trade Center in lickety-split, record time.  We want an inquiry 
to analyze the steps along the way.  Is there something else we 
should have known?  Is there some other question they should have 
asked?  Is there some other question I should have asked?  Can I say 
for sure that no one -- that we could have done nothing else to make 
the outcome come different?  I don't know that.  That's why I want 
the inquiry and that's why I would like to make sure that we have 
some independent law enforcement people, not political people, but 
totally non-political, outside experts who can bring to bear the best 
evidence we have.  
	     
	     There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of 
fanaticism all across the world.  And we may have to confront it 
again.  And I want to know whether there is anything we can do, 
particularly when there are children involved.  But I do think it is 
important to recognize that the wrong-doers in this case were the 
people who killed others and then killed themselves.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, were there any other options 
presented to you for resolving this situation at any point from 
February 28th until yesterday?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, yes, I got regular reports all 
along the way.  There were lots of other options pursued.  If you go 
back -- you all covered it very well.  The FBI -- you did a very good 
job of it.  I mean, the FBI and the other authorities there pursued 
any number of other options all along the way, and a lot of them 
early on seemed to be working.  Some of the children got out, some of 
the other people left.  There was a -- at one point, there seemed to 
be some lines of communication opening up between Koresh and the 
authorities.  And then he would say things and not do them and things 
just began to spin downward.  
	     
	     Whether there were other -- in terms of what happened 
yesterday, the conversation I had with the Attorney General did not 
involve other options except whether we should take more time with 
the present strategy we were pursuing -- because they said they 
wanted to do this, because they thought this was the best way to get 
people out of the compound quickly before they could kill themselves.  
That's what they thought.
	     
	     Q	  Did the government know that the children did not 
have gas masks?
	     
	     Q	     congressional hearings once the situation -- are 
you in agreement with that?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  That's up to the Congress.  They can do 
whatever they want.  But I think it's very important that the 
Treasury and Justice Departments launch this investigation and bring 
in some outside experts.  And as I said in my statement, if any 
congressional committees want to look into it, we will fully 
cooperate.  There is nothing to hide here.  This was probably the 
most well-covered operation of its kind in the history of the 
country.
	     
	     Go ahead, Sarah.
	     
	     Q	  There are two questions I want to ask you.  The 
first is, I think that they knew very well that the children did not 
have gas masks while the adults did, so the children had no chance 
because this gas was very -- she said it was not lethal, but it was 
very dangerous to the children and they could not have survived 
without gas masks.  And on February 28th -- let's go back -- didn't 
those people have a right to practice their religion?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  They were not just practicing their 
religion, they were -- the Treasury Department believed that they had 
violated federal laws, any number of them.
	     
	     Q	  What federal laws --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me go back and answer -- I can't 
answer the question about the gas masks, except to tell you that the 
whole purpose of using the tear gas was that it had been tested; they 
were convinced that it wouldn't kill either a child or an adult but 
it would force anybody that breathed it to run outside.  And one of 
the things that I've heard -- I don't want to get into the details of 
this because I don't know -- but one of the things that they were 
speculating about today was that the wind was blowing so fast that 
the windows might have been opened and some of the gas might have 
escaped and that may be why it didn't have the desired effect.  
	     
	     They also knew, Sarah, that there was an underground 
compound -- a bus buried underground where the children could be 
sent.  And they were -- I think they were hoping very much that if 
the children were not released immediately outside that the humane 
thing would be done and that the children would be sent someplace 
where they could be protected.  
	     
	     In terms of the gas masks themselves, I learned 
yesterday -- I did not ask this fact question before -- that the gas 
was supposed to stay active in the compound longer than the gas masks 
themselves were to work.  So that it was thought that even if they 
all had gas masks, that eventually the gas would force them out in a 
nonviolent, nonshooting circumstance.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Last question.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, why are you still saying that --
	     
	     Q	  Could you tell us whether or not you ever asked 
Janet Reno about the possibility of a mass suicide?  And when you 
learned about the actual fire and explosion what went through your 
mind during those horrendous moments?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  What I asked Janet Reno is if they had 
considered all the worse things that could happen.  And she said --
and, of course, the whole issue of suicide had been raised in the 
public -- he had -- that had been debated anyway.  And she said that 
the people who were most knowledgeable  about these kinds of issues 
concluded that there was no greater risk of that now than there would 
be tomorrow or the next day or the day after that or at anytime in 
the future.  That was the judgment they made.  Whether they were 
right or wrong, of course, we will never know. 
	     
	     What happened when I saw the fire, when I saw the 
building burning?  I was sick.  I felt terrible.  And my immediate 
concern was whether the children had gotten out and whether they were 
escaping or whether they were inside, trying to burn themselves up.  
That's the first thing I wanted to know.  
	     
	     Thank you.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, why are you still saying it was a 
Janet Reno decision?  Isn't it, in the end, your decision?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what I'm saying is that I didn't 
have a four- or five-hour, detailed briefing from the FBI.  I didn't 
go over every strategic part of it.  It is a decision for which I 
take responsibility.  I'm the President of the United States and I 
signed off on the general decision and giving her the authority to 
make the last call.  When I talked to her on Sunday, some time had 
elapsed.  She might have made a decision to change her mind.  I said, 
if you decide to go forward with this tomorrow, I will support you. 
And I do support her.  
	     
	     She is not ultimately responsible to the American 
people; I am.  But I think she has conducted her duties in an 
appropriate fashion and she has dealt with this situation I think as 
well as she could have.  
	     
	     Thank you.  (Applause.)

                                 END1:55 P.M. EDT

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178909
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: Quick Survey on Economic Views

I'd like to conduct a small survey relating to Americans' views on economics and on Japan.
The survey consists of just two questions.  I ask that only Americans respond; I've posted
it worldwide, however, because I think others will be interested in the results.  I'll
tabulate the results and post them with some commentary.  Please respond by email to
"borden@m5.harvard.edu".  Here are the questions:

1) As an American, would you prefer that in a given year, a) our economy grows by one
   percent, and Japan's economy also grows by one percent, or b) our economy grows by
   two percent while Japan's economy grows by three percent?

2) On what newsgroup did you read this survey?

Thank you for your participation.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178910
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Chris Cooke (cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: 
:    When you force people to associate with others against their will,
:    yes.
: 
: People are *forced* into the USA armed forces?

They were in the recent past, maybe someone knows for certain if the
usa has decided if it wants a conscript army (as they sent into south
east asia) or a volenteer one?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178911
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:
|> 
|> > I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir,
|> 
|> What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a
|> person, not a euphemism.
|> 
|> > because if she heard
|> 
|> Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.

WOW!  Another Clayton wannabe.  Typical response: lack of logic.

Define 'deviant':  someone who deviates from the normal.  Ok, so far.
Define 'normal':   erm, umm.  If you define yourself as normal then it is for
you to prove that you are (within limits, which then brings in the question,
what are the limits?  For you we may have to broaden them to other's intolerance
;-) ) 'normal'.  Difficult to prove.  From what you have posted it must follow
that `normal` to you means someone without compassion and a sense of justice.
But it does look as if you went to the Clayton school of logic, doesn't it?

|> 
|> > how disparaging you are towards political minorities,
|> 
|> Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".

Again an astounding lack of logic!  Wow!

You must define what you say such that everyone agrees.  Here you have used
the phrase "sexual deviant".  How in the hell do you define that?  As someone
who does something sexually that _you_ don't?  By this definition you most
probably mean the majority of the planet.  How do you know that your next
door neighbour doesn't like custard to be spread over his genetalia then
have it licked off by his wife?  Is this sexual deviancy?  How do we know
that you don't like something sexually which others may find repulsive?  Is 
having sex doggy fashion a sexual deviancy?  Please be more specific, and
where you do, back up your claims.  Or I may have to go to hospital due to
laughing too much at yours and Clayton's postings.

Secondly, if we assume for the moment that the phrase 'sexual deviant' means
such people as homosexuals, bisexuals &c. (basically everyone you don't like),
I think that your phrase "do not comprise a `political minorit[y]`" (why the
brackets?) is a non-sequiteur.  Gay groups exist which lobby their governments.
That is a fact.  Prove it false.  Hence they are a politial group.  You 
state that they are not a political minority.  Are they therefore a
political majority?  I think you boobed really big on this one.  Try thinking
about your arguments.

|> 
|> > and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.
|> 
|> I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were
|> I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the
|> door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as
|> "homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would
|> further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on
|> the way out.  Who needs such an airhead?
|>

Prove the first statement please.   Dates, phone numbers, &c.

Again your logic fails.  Again you make statements which you cannot
(and most probably will not) maintain.

You state that a person (girl, in this context) who considers equal rights
for all humans to be an airhead?  As Clayton (your best mate?) would say:
it just shows how screwed up you are.

 
|> >> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet
|> >> where they belong.
|> 
|> > Don't count on it, sweetheart.
|> 
|> Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is
|> inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout
|> history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as
|> to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the
|> nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.
|> Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_
|> _CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend
|> otherwise.

Proof please.  Proof that homosexuality is not part of the natural order.
Proof that nature has always asserted itself.  Are you saying that nature
is a conciousness?  Are you pretending that you have the ability to see the
future?  Are you god(tm)?  In fact, by your arguement, are you waiting for 
the black people to become slaves again?  Because they were reviled as
sub-human (nb: *not* my view) at one time?  Again your arguement falls
on its ass.


|> 
|> Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".

Touchy touchy touchy!

Right.  I have shot holes in each and every one of your arguements.  You are
most probably going to put me in your kill file because you have no answers
to my questions and challenges.  Since you cannot support your arguments it
merely goes to show that what you write is based upon your personal prejudices,
and cannot be taken to be fact of any kind.

I await an intelligent response.....


|> -- 
|>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
|>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
|>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
|>   as this would hold such views??? |

-- 
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |
|  eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk |   8o)        Mae .sig 'ma ar werth!           |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178912
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA

In article <rlglendeC5tBuF.2oC@netcom.com> rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
>Has anybody heard an explanation of why the FBI was using tear gas
>in a 35 mph wind?

    First, a tank drove through the wall into the living room.

    I can't stop thinking about the children who were inside
    the house (the room?) at the time.

    How many people got killed during the Tiannamen Square events?

>
>Doesn't seem like vry good tactics to me ...
>
>Any other explanations?
>
>Lew
>-- 
>Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
>"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178913
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association

In article <pdb059-210493135728@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:

A very well put together post. I disagree with several key points, but the
post is an excellent one with which to "engage in discourse":

    >There has been much discussion recently about the right to
    >freedom of association. Mr. Cramer and Mr. Ronzone appear to
    >take an absolutist position on this right--that it is a
    >fundamental human right, perhaps the fundamental human right,
    >and that it supersedes other rights, such as the right to an
    >equal opportunity. Others feel that a right to an equal
    >opportunity outweighs the right to freedom of association,
    >and thus we have the never-ending debate that flares up
    >repeatedly.

Freedom of Association (FOA) involves the MUTUAL and VOLUNTARY agreement of
two or more people.

Right to Equal Opportunity (lets call it REO) involves coercion in all cases
(by definition).


    >A major problem is that neither of these rights are
    >explicitly declared or protected in the Constitution or in
    >the Declaration of Independence, although both can be derived
    >from these documents. Unfortunately, this means that the
    >debate will never end, because neither side can conclu-
    >sively prove the validity of their view--it becomes solely a
    >matter of personal philosophy.

Yes, there is much debate. But no, it can end, with once and for all
recognition of these rights. (Well, not totally 100% perfect end, but end
in the same way that there is no worldwide disagreement that say, murder, is
a crime).


    >My personal opinion is that the real answer lies somewhere in
    >between. I regard both of these rights as fundamental human
    >rights which, unfortu- nately, come into direct conflict with
    >one another. Which is stronger depends on the given
    >situation.

Hmm, there is even MORE discusion about religion. Should  we take a 
"somewhere in between" approach towards the State & a State recognized
religion? The first amendment, is so, uh, so absolutist you know.

    >For example, if the owner of a "mom-and-pop" store wishes to
    >hire an employee to help out, their right to freedom of
    >association outweighs the rights of their job applicants to
    >an equal opportunity. They should be free to hire whomever
    >they choose, using whatever criteria they choose, without any
    >government intervention at all.
    >
    >Similarly, if a family wishes to rent out a bedroom in their
    >home, or a garage apartment, or something similar, then their
    >right to freedom of association outweighs the rights of their
    >prospective tenants to an equal opportunity.
    >
    >If, on the other hand, IBM, a multi-national corporation with
    >275,000 employees, publicly owned, and operated by a board of
    >directors, wishes to hire additional employees, then whose
    >freedom of association are we protecting? The board of
    >directors? The other employees? The owners of the stock? In
    >this case, the applicant's right to an equal opportunity
    >outweighs the right to freedom of association, and we, as a
    >society, can ask IBM to use only those criteria which are
    >relevant to the specific task.

Why? Says who? Why can mon & pop have FOA, but IBM be forced, and force is
the correct word here, to have REO? As purchase of IBM is voluntary, then
there are very well defined procedures on how IBM chooses to do some things
and chooses to do other things. Why not let those same procedures work for
employment policies?


    >Similarly, if a landlord owns a number of apartment buildings
    >in which he does not live, and which are managed by an
    >independent management agency, then whose freedom of
    >association are we protecting? If the owner does not live in
    >his buildings and has no contact with his tenants, then the
    >prospective tenant's right to an equal opportunity outweighs
    >the right to freedom of association, and we, as a society,
    >can ask the owner to use only those criteria which are
    >relevant to "good" tenants. (I've put "good" in quotation
    >marks because I really don't want to be drawn off into the
    >side issue of what constitutes a good tenant.)

Why does this tenant have an "option" (I won't call it a right) to destroy
the FOA of the landlord? If the landlord and the tenant can't agree, then they
both can cease from using each other's property.

Suddenly, by arm waving, by magic, a landlord does not have FOA. And on what
basis does the FOA of the landlord "disappear"?

It seems that vague terms like "no contact with tenants" suffice.

Well, I think FOA is one our most important rightts (in the top 2-3), and by
golly, if the State is going to make it suffer, I sure would like to see the
heinous crime that justifies the removal of this right.

I don't think "no contact" with the tenats is even a crime, much less something
that should cause severe interference with important rights.

    >I suspect that the majority of the people in this country
    >agree with my position on these extreme cases, particularly
    >if they are presented in this manner. I don't know if Mr.
    >Ronzone or Mr. Cramer would agree--I suspect not. In any
    >case, additional problems arise when we try to apply
    >guidelines for the middle ground. What if the company has 10
    >employees, or 100, or 1000? Where do we draw the line between
    >protecting the right to freedom of association and protecting
    >the right to an equal opportunity?

Rights are not defined by majority/mob choice. FOA is an absolute. REO
is a fancy name for thuggery, for racism, and coercion.

    >The difficulty is that any line we draw will, of necessity,
    >be artificial. And any legislation resulting will be flawed.
    >In the past, the government has usually tried to pass laws
    >which referred to the number of employees hired by the
    >company--e.g., any company with more than xxx employees was
    >affected by the law. Those with fewer were unaffected.

Of course it would be. You dimly see that the line must be artifiacial, because
FOA is the only right. Just like a State religion -- you can't jsutify that
either.

    >Generally, I believe that if we do not have any regulations
    >affecting these rights, then the right to freedom of
    >association will be stronger. On the other hand, many of the
    >regulations protect the right to an equal opportunity too
    >much, weakening the right to freedom of association.
    >
    >I don't believe there is a satisfactory solution which will
    >please everybody. A solution that I came up with is to use
    >publicly owned vs. privately owned as the dividing line. If
    >the company remains privately owned, then the owners should
    >be free to do whatever they want with their company. If the
    >company becomes publicly owned, then the public has a right
    >to ask the company to submit to additional regulation.

Why? I assume that when you say "publicly owned", you are talking about those
quasi-State companys that do NOT have shareholders.

The companies on the Fortune 500, for example, are all privately owned. They
can give you a list of all of their owners. They have no "anonymous",
unknown to them, owners.


    >By the way, the above analysis is based on the assumption
    >that the right to freedom of association and the right to an
    >equal opportunity are both fundamental human rights of equal
    >importance. Since this is entirely a matter of faith, not
    >subject to any "proof", I do not choose to even try to
    >establish this. You either accept it or you don't.
    >
    >Any comments?

FOA can be derived by any two rational people, on a basis that neither has
evil, malicious, or murderous intent towards the others.

In short, agreement is mutual, or not at all.

Your REO on the other hand, lives only by accepting coercion, the gun, into
the situation. And that is self-destructive of the whole argument, because it
is based only on might makes right. Sort of like saying, "nobody has a right
to live", whereupon I whip out a gun and shoot you dead -- end of argument.


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178914
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>> 
>>>You're not buying insurance so much as being coerced into one 
>>>insurance plan.
>> 
>>No, it is optional ... as it is optional for doctors to accept it.
>>There are isolated religeous communities in particular that ask for
>>exemptions (and one e-mail from a Christian Scientist in Edmonton
>>verified for me that it is indeed negative option).  I guess that you
>>can argue that there is a right to having a particular insurance, but
>>so far I've not come across that up north ... and I take pains to keep
>>tabs with news from home.
>
>It's optional, but what if you don't want basic coverage on the 
>government's terms? You said before that if you opt out, you're 
>basically uninsured.

There are two things at work here ... the public insurance is very
wide in what it will cover, as the amortization is also universal.
No private plan can boast of a plan that fits a Gaussian curve ...
and as our private sector has discovered, they're better off not
offering insurance coverage that their customers are going to use.
(-;

>>>And that turns the private insurers offering the frills into an
>>>effective cartel-they don't really need to compete because, as you put
>>>it, they're in a "win-win" situation and they're guaranteed to turn a
>>>profit 
>> 
>>Believe me, they probably had orgasms when they figured that out.  And
>>according to my sister the yuppie, they pat themselves on the back to
>>the point of ungraciousness at Chamber of Commerce luncheons.
>
>So, in a sense, they've stopped being truly capitalists if they don't 
>have to worry about competing anymore. You might say that the total 
>effect is one of socialized medicine-a government providing the basics 
>and a cartel providing the extras. There is no alternative to the system, 
>desirable or not.

The alternative to the system is no system at all (patients opted out,
doctors opted out, or both).  But that only for insurance ... and you
can't force a private insurance company to sell you a plan that they
will not offer.  And remember that the actual health care is delivered
by private entities who collect from the public insurance voluntarily.
Again, they can't force a private entity to spring to life to pay them.

Plus, there is the matter of culture and values ... I'm basically
anti-tax and anti-government, by Canadian standards ... yet I can't
bring myself to make the same arguments as you do, despite that I
understand where you're coming from.  Up north, you're so much more
likely to find someone protesting taxes going to defence than health
insurance premiums to only one fund for basic coverage ...

>>>(Interesting side note-have any new insurance companies started
>>>up-from scratch-since Medicare became standard in Canada?
>> 
>>I actually have doubts that any new ones have emerged since WW I ...
>>no, scratch that ... there are a few in Western Canada, and *quite* 
>>a few in Quebec as part of the post-1980 Quebec Miracle (out with the
>>nationalism, in with the French capitalism).  La Groupe des Cooper-
>>antes built a new tower by the Eaton('s) store at Les Terraces, and if
>>you were able to catch Urban Angel on CBS's Crimetime you'd see it as
>>the well-lit one with double-turrets at the top.  As for Ontario,
>>which still dominates and anchors business up north ...
>
>I meant new companies, not new buildings.

Yes, primarily in Quebec and in Alberta.  Sorry, I musta lost you in
that verbose blurb ...

>>>It's not really insurance if you don't have alternatives
>> 
>>Well, you have to realize that in our society that's like saying
>>that "it's not really national defence" because you can't hire
>>your own Rambo squad instead or even opting out as a pacifist.
>
>True, but I would be more comfortable with a system in which basic 
>care provided by the government was optional, not mandatory.

In Canada and Germany, it's not mandatory.  However, it is negative
option in that you must request the exemption.  That the private
sector will not provide private basic coverage if offered the option
(as in the Quebec case) tells me something about what they know ...

>>Either way, the transient situations are hard to deal with since the
>>changes in the private medical care resource take place at a slower
>>rate than the ability of people to fall sick esp. in the light of
>>disasters (e.g., Chernobyl) or bad luck (a sudden wave of heart
>>disease). A doctor needs 4-6 years of training, plus internship 
>>and specialty training.
>
>Another problem with the US system that should be resolved. Doesn't 
>Canada have something like ten times the proportion of GPs to specialists 
>that the US does?

Yes, but part of the reason is that our most of our markets are
too small to sustain many specialists, sometimes not even one, so
you pretty well have to be a GP to get paid.  And if you do get
the training, the doctors monopoly might block your getting of a
licence because there is already someone in the business and who
cannot fill his/her appointment book.  That we have a CMA doctors
monopoly is something that the American AMA-oriented medical lobby
NEVER tells you down here ...

>The problem is, in a specialty your skill often directly correlates
>to your pay (a good cardiologist makes more than a merely adequate
>cardiologist) more than it does in general practice. In that
>circumstance, it's hard to blame people for going into specialties.

No, I respect people who do specialties (okay, all of my MD friends
are (-;) but there's the question of our small market dynamics up
north ... if anything, that our private doctors and hospitals sell
their services to Americans to generate more business will inflate
their effective population served, and thus make some specialties
finally viable (i.e., there will be enough customers).  We just do
not have enough sick Canadians in absolute numbers otherwise.

>I personally think an approach like Germany's would be best-where the
>companies compete for batches of people. Rochester, a little east of
>us, was able to get almost all of its population covered that way.

Uh ... Germany basically uses our method, with their many sickness
funds.  The competition is fake if it exists at all, because they're
all interlinked.  Look in Der Spiegel or Stern (my girlfriend is in
our German department  and her uncle is a private practicioner in
Saarbrucken) ... no ads for health insurance.  While Canada organizes
by province, Germany organizes the paperwork around big corporations
and regional offices.   But remember that we have provinces that have
the same population as some major German corporations.  Germans have
public health insurance, just that it is brokered by smaller entities
(actually, brokerage of basic by private firms who'll sell extra
insurance to fill out their policies, sort of a voucher system,
was one of the first ideas floated in Canada, too).

Remember, the Germans don't have HMO's ... a telling sign, 'cos
Rochester does and they're also a company town.

>But there was a Washington Post article recently about that that said
>Canadian doctors often use myelograms instead of MRIs, which require
>spinal injections and can cause seizures and headaches. Mickey Kaus,
>in the New Republic, probably spoke for most Americans when he said
>"Who needs that?" I think people here generally like to believe they
>can easily get the most high-tech treatment even if they really can't
>afford it.

I'll have to let a Canadian MD jump in to verify that claim, but
I've come to learn to suspect anything in the American press about
our "system".  If much or some of it were true, you'd have to take
us for idiots for tolerating it.  And given that our insurance was
installed during a period when there were only Liberal and Tory
governments federally and provincially, and the socialists are still
chafing, they would've pressed for real socialized medicine to fix
things ... think about it.  After all, we are using the U.S. as a
metric to make comparison ... both for keeping-up-with-the-Joneses
as for confirming that we did something right.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178915
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares..


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares... Children/Elderly in Poverty

F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares... Children/Elderly in Poverty

  ================================================================== 
  Percentage of children and elderly living in poverty 1984-1987:(3) 
  ================================================================== 

================================================= 
                      CHILDREN            ELDERLY 
COUNTRY              IN POVERTY         IN POVERTY 
================================================= 
United States           20.4               10.9 
Canada                   9.3                2.2 
Australia                9.0                4.0 
United Kingdom           7.4                5.2 
France                   4.6                4.5 
Netherlands              3.8                3.4 
Germany                  2.8                2.8 
Sweden                   1.6                4.3 

Source: Timothy M. Smeeding, "U.S. Poverty and Income Security Policy in a 
Cross National Perspective, October 1991, Luxembourg, October, 1991, 
Luxembourg Income Study, working paper 70. 

******************************************************************

===================================== 
Of the 19 Western Industrial Nations: 
===================================== 

Western Industrial Countries having a National Health Insurance plan 
providing universal coverage: 

Australia      YES    Sweden             YES 
Canada         YES    United Kingdom     YES 
Denmark        YES    Austria            YES 
Finland        YES    France             YES 
Ireland        YES    Switzerland        YES 
Italy          YES    Spain              YES 
Japan          YES    Belgium            YES 
New Zealand    YES    Germany            YES 
Netherlands    YES    Norway             YES  

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Western Industrial Countries NOT having a National Health Insurance 
plan providing universal coverage. 


United States       NO 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

******************************************************************

From page 74 of: 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New      
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.     

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.     
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2    
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
[Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)] 

    ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.     
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The     
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But     
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.'' 

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations     







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178916
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of America


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of Americans un-/under- covered

F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of Americans un-/under- covered

		 =================================== 
		 Percentage of population covered by 
		  public health insurance, 1990(25) 
		 =================================== 

============================================= 
COUNTRY      PERCENT  COUNTRY         PERCENT 
============================================= 
Australia      100    Sweden            100 
Canada         100    United Kingdom    100 
Denmark        100    Austria            99 
Finland        100    France             99 
Ireland        100    Switzerland        99 
Italy          100    Spain              99 
Japan          100    Belgium            98 
New Zealand    100    Germany            92 
Netherlands    100    United States      21 
Norway         100  

Sources: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris), 
Health Data file, 1991: U.S.: National Center for Heath Statistics, Advance 
Data, No. 201, June 18, 1991. 

******************************************************************
"We're Number One in percentage of population without health insurance. 
******************************************************************

"The main reason we're Number One in  percentage of population without
health  insurance  is  that we're last  in  percentage  of  population
covered  by public health insurance. Only about one fifth of Americans
qualify for the main types of public health insurance available in the
United States: Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' benefits.(2l)

"Of those  who don't  qualify, many  have private  insurance.(22)  But
almost  one  in  seven  Americans  (34  million people--most living in
families with a working adult) have  no insurance  at  all, and one in
four (63 million) have been without insurance for a substantial period
of time during the last two years. Many more have inadequate coverage,
meaning that they could be bankrupted by a major illness.(23) In fact,
one  health  care  expert  says that because  only 1  percent  of  the
population  has   private   longterm-care  insurance,  "virtually  any
American could be  impoverished by a prolonged disabling illness."(24)
Additionally, as many as  40 percent of those  eligible for some forms
of public aid do not  receive  it. These  gaps in health  care  result
directly from  the  fact  that  the  United  States is  the only major
industrialized  nation (other than  South Africa) without  a  national
health insurance  plan providing  universal coverage while controlling
costs.

******************************************************************
From: 


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New      
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.     

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.     
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2    
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
[Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)] 

    ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.     
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The     
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But     
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.'' 

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations     







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178917
From: Steve_Martin@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <16BB7A1DE.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Richard Hoenes,
V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions
>with the result of the police trying to take the place by
>force and the result being the death of the hostages and the
>gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of
>the blame landing squarely on the police.
> 
>In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down
>from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages
>other terrorists and hostage takers.

NOT an accurate analogy. David Koresh did not take a bunch of
hostages and then call the BATF with a ransom note. You make
it sound as if the BATF showed up to save those children in the
first place. I have some interesting news for youBATF
has absolutely NO jurisdiction in child abuse cases. 

It seems to me that the BATF showed up, took the Davidians hostage. 
Then the FBI showed up, negotiated to have a few of the hostages 
released, but were unable to keep the BATF from killing the rest 
of the poor people trapped inside the compound.

        Steve Martin
        Steve_Martin@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178919
From: rrl@scotty.hco.tek.com (Richard Lynn)
Subject: Re: "Quality Time," a one-act play.


    ((fluffy bi fantasy squelched))


Dear Mr. Elf,

Please post this shit where it belongs.  I believe
you know where that is, you overweening weenie-biter.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178920
From: Peter Adams <padams@mail.trincoll.edu>
Subject: Trincoll Journal-An interactive Macintosh Magizine of Opinion

                                                              
                                                            Announcing
the Trincoll Journal

                                                      Trinity College's
Paperless Publication

The Trincoll Journal is an interactive magizine written in Hypercard. 
This publication offers a wide variety of information concerning the
"Trinity Campus", and the Greater Hartford Area. In addition the Journal
also provides a unique forum for opinion and expression.

We would like to invite the Internet community to participate in the
creation of this publication by submitting Articles, Art Work, Events
(for the Greater Hartford Area only), and anything else that you think is
interesting, to the Journal each week.

Articles may be written about anything as long as they are written well! 
We are also interested in mirroring Newsletters and other information not
easily accessible to non-intensive Macintosh Users.

The weekly deadline for submitting Materials is Wendsday 10:00pm (Eastern
Standard Time).
Please send all submissions to: Journal@mail.trincoll.edu

To receive the Journal each Week send a mail message with the words
"Subscribe Journal" as the subject line to: Journal@mail.trincoll.edu.
Please include Full name and instituion in the body of text.

Find out what everyone is thinking.....
Subscribe today.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178926
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: AP journalists arrested in Waco

In article <C5wGMt.3p8@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
-> In article <JASON.93Apr22113337@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
-> >In article <1r52hf$ah4@calvin.NYU.EDU> hargitai@acf4.nyu.edu (hargitai) writes:
-> >-> 
-> >-> For those who still doubt what is going on, this is
-> >-> from the still uncensored AP wire:
-> >-> 
-> >-> Two journalists from Houston arrested at gun-point and
-> >-> cuffed and jailed for taking pictures of the compound today.
-> >-> Later released on bail, but cameras and film were confiscated.
-> >-> 
-> >-> jh
-> >
-> >	You could work for CNN.  Take a few lines from a story and
-> >imply something with it but don't say what you really mean.  
-> >
-> >	The police always close off the area around a major crime
-> >scene to keep evidence from being disturbed
-> 
->     By taking pictures?

	They leave foot prints, they may drop some trash on the
ground, and they may pick up something that looks interesting.

-> 
-> >, and it is a misdemeanor
-> >to enter the closed off area.  One of the photographers also quickly
-> >spun around with a long lens camera while the officer was approaching,
-> >a good way to get shot.  
-> 
->     Well, that (hopefully) depends on what country one is in.

	It has nothing to do with the country.  You are coming toward
someone in an area where there has been violent confrontations, and
one guy spins around quickly with an object that looks like a gun.
Police are not trained to stand there and let someone gun them down.

-> There was also no indication in that story
-> >that they wouldn't get their cameras and film back after getting out
-> >of jail.
-> 
->     Once goverment agents have had an opportunity to check 
->     the film out.

	You're making statements that are not supported by facts.
Don't let paranoia get the best of you.  Wait to see if the reporters
don't get their film back or they get it back developed before
screaming conspiracy.

-> 
->     I think it was Barry Goldwater who once said "the goverment
->     that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to
->     take everything from you."  You life and/or freedom including.
->     Of course, that could not happen to you, could it?

	Our government is not big enough to give you everything,
despite the efforts of people like Bill Clinton.  Taking a statement
like that and thinking `everything done in the name of law enforcement
is wrong' is simple minded and ignorant of history.  A government is a
necessary evil, and we must decide what it should be allowed to do
based on facts, history, and not by baseless claims.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178928
From: rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy)
Subject: Koresh is dead. It's time to start healing.

Sorry, but I just wanted to be the first hypocrite to say it. I hope
I'm not too late. Has everyone been watching their local/national
politicians?

Rick

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Roy       Usenet: rick@howtek.MV.com       America Online: QED
Disclaimer: My employer's views are orthogonal to these.
The early bird got worms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178929
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

v140pxgt@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>>>>Again, they can't force a private entity to spring to life to pay them.
>>>
>>>So the government, by sheer economic force, has basically cleared the 
>>>basic-care market for itself. The only way to test this would be for 
>>>some really daring person to start up, from scratch, in Alberta and/or 
>>>Quebec, a health insurance company offering basic care.
>>>
>>>Crazy? Yes, but that's almost how MCI got started.
>> 
>>However, the concept of risks is well known by insurance actuaries
>>and no private firm can get the kind of amortization that the public
>>pools can get.  And since health insurance gets spent, that doesn't
>>sit well with the insurance CEO's ... and you get a situation like
>>in the U.S. where rates keep going up to catch up.
>
>See what I mean? It's a government monopoly.

Sure ... because it's a non-market phenomenom and the free market
can't solve it.  Even our private insurance says that ....

>>And remember ... last year Quebec proposed giving the least risky
>>parts of basic care to the private sector ... and they balked.
>
>Like you said...why should they?

.... and wants no part of it.

>>>By your own arguments, if you don't want the provincial plan,
>>>you're basically up a creek.
>> 
>>Yes ... but in our culture, arguing against it is like arguing
>>for national defence by means of warlords.
>
>True. According to polls I've read (usually in the sort of simpleminded 
>stuff you were initally responding to) something like 60% of Americans 
>would like Canadian-style health care, whereas only 3% of Canadians 
>would like it our way. I'd be interested to know why there are that 
>many (3% of Canada's population is about a million or so people). 

Canada is saturated by American media.  While pundits come on cable
and talk about how awful our health care is supposed to be, what
people experience up north ends up not differing from what they see
portrayed on American television in movies (i.e., same infrastructure,
different insurance make-up).  Yet they know not of any insurance
problems, and have no idea of what an HMO is ... but having lots of
British TV as well, they know that they don't like NHS.

>Someone must have a reason to argue against it, valid or not-what 
>kind of people are they?

The polls that you refer to, for the Canadian data, are from the
annual July 1st polls conducted for Macleans (our major English
newsmagazine) by Decima Research ... Decima president Allen Gregg is
considered one of the world's top poll researchers, and Mulroney's
Conservatives have relied on him to keep in power in the face of
impossible election situations.  The American polls are Harris polls,
and have been reposted on USENET a few times and probably will again.
I'm sorta suspicious myself, 'cos maybe Americans want universal
coverage like Canada --- I honestly doubt that most Americans realize
that we have private doctors and public and private hospitals (i.e.,
similiar health care infrastructure) and our "system" is basically
pure insurance without HMO's.

>>Given recent turnarounds by the HIAA (endorsing universal coverage)
>>and hostility to corporatist HMO's within the AMA, and the complete
>>silence vis a vis Canada-bashing by the AMA, I suspect that they're
>>keeping the "secret" about Canada up their sleeve.
>
>Exactly. Wouldn't you?

Until the idea of managed competition arose, there was no direct
threat to stand-alone private practice.  In the 1960's, the AMA
fought HMO's as corporatized socialist medicine ... part of the
reason why we have only insurance, and no HMO's in Canada 'cos
that was part of the deal cut with the CMA.

>>>I've also read that the three biggest American HMOs can be compared
>>>straight up against some of the smaller Canadian provinces (in the
>>>Maritimes) and they spend something like $300-500 less per patient.
>>>Maybe it does help.
>> 
>>The American HMO's can still "cream" and they probably cover a smaller
>>geographic area than even our smallest provinces.  Geography, again.
>
>Some of them are spread out across the whole country, I think.

But each site is probably compact, and the clientele are creamed.
And don't forget that HMO's place caps on your coverage, and often
won't tell you about additional procedures you could get otherwise
(despite that you might be willing to pay for it).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178930
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15503@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I've already posted results of a survey of homosexuals, that shows
>how profoundly promiscuous homosexual men are.

Were.

In urban areas.

Among those who had access to gay bathhouses.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178932
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach....

In article <15450@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <pdb059-160493111229@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>,
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:

$># Item number 1:  in a previous posting, you stated that you had found
$># "overwhelming support for child molestation" in soc.motss:

$># You have (finally) responded to this one.  I have read your complete file
$># of postings to soc.motss and to put it bluntly, it does not support your
$># assertion.  In short, this claim is bogus.  Thank you for confirming this.

>All those postings in defense of adults having sex with children, and
>you just choose to claim that they don't say anything of the sort.
>There's no point in discussing this any further, then.  You are clearly
>a liar, without morals of any sort, prepared to justify child molestation.

Clayton, are you really an idiot, or do you just play one on USENET?

You claimed you had postings from a dozen (i.e. 12) soc.motss posters that
"supported child molestation". (Point aside that they were really defending
abolishing or modifying the age of consent laws, or the right to be ATTRACTED
but don't act upon desires for children).

so 12 out of thousands is an "overwhelming majority".

You never cease to amaze me.

And you still haven't told me why my relationship with my partner is immoral.

Brian D. Kane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178933
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Waco Investigation Paranoia

Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely
responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will
show that Koresch is responsible' bs. In an investigation of this
size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the
investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.
And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178934
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

On 23 Apr 93 00:18:59 GMT, Clayton Cramer observed:
: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
: # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
: # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
: # addressed lesbians?  Granted, I stopped reading all his posts long, long
: # ago, so perhaps I missed something. 

: Because women very, very seldom molest children.

Un-hunh.  Yeah.  Right.  Sure.

You know that list of things that are stereotypically American -- Mom,
apple pie, etc.?  You don't hear too many stories about Mom being
a child molester, because such stories would simply be unAmerican.

But that doesn't say that it doesn't happen.

--
Michael/StarOwl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178935
From: jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> >In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>> I really don't want to waste time in
>> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  
>
>  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
>not eager to make a fool of myself.


Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about
and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you
wish.

The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits
so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along
with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced
organized crime specifically; etc, etc

If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into
why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group
was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little
research.


>  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification
>if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize
>alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from



Making you look bad is too damn easy.  The vast social and historical
differences between alcohol and other drugs make this comparison
worthless.



>Vice statutes serve
>only to make it more expensive for the rich and more dangerous
>for the poor, as Tim so eloquently put it. People will, however,


And so it shall be if the government (by the people) decides that
these vices are detrimental to the society as a whole.


>  And why, pray tell, is AIDS "victim" in snear quotes? Are you of
>the revisionist sort that thinks there is no such thing as the AIDS
>plauge? Or do they just deserve it?


The overwhelmingly vast majority (get the point)
of AIDS cases are contracted thru behavioral CHOICES.  Nuff said.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178938
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>>from the fire.
>>
>>	Thoughts?
> 
> How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than
> unconscious?

	Their testimony would be a contradiction of the plaintiff's charge (and
witness) that the occupant moved after the impact, indicating he was alive and
trying to get out (and provoking all sorts of sympathetic 'gross, burned alive'
reactions).

>>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>>to the previous ruling appear.
>>
>>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
> 
> What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
> the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
> emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
> first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
> forgot to call all of your witnesses.

	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".

> If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new
> interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find
> such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser
> could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser
> becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new
> expert witnesses).

	No, I support rulings that deny new trials on those grounds.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178939
From: fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams)
Subject: Pork ( C-17 & C-5 was (Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE )

muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 
>>
>>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, ........
>
>If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
>would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the 
>program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.

I do read Av Week and don't remember this.  Could you supply the date
of the magazine?  As for C-17 vs. C-5 , the C-17 can't carry as much
but has more capability ( read : can land at smaller airfields of which
there are more of ) than the C-5.  Now is the C-17 pork?  It depends
on whether your job relies on it or not.  :)  In California right now,
I would say that it is not pork since due to peace dividend so many 
people are out of work. 

>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>a pork happy Congress.
>
>-- Marc Mueller

Huh?  Shouldn't that read "The question is whether a social-pork happy
Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a jobs-pork happy
Congress."

fpa


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178940
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative 


	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
	for our computer networks and telephone systems.

	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
	bill.

	I strongly urge you to begin considering your future.

	I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport
	in the mail soon.

	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
	you are still able.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178941
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1993Apr16.131041.8660@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
>> the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
>> emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
>> first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
>> forgot to call all of your witnesses.
>
>	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
>trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
>beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".

The test isn't whether GM knew--otherwise that would reward GM for its
stupidity.  The test is whether GM reasonably should have known of their
existence.  It works both ways--if GM had won the trial, and the plaintiff
turned up two witnesses who came forward after the first trial who should
have been located beforehand, too bad, so sad--no new trial.

Like Tim said, you don't get a new civil trial because you screwed up 
the first time around.  Unlike the criminal justice system, repose is
much more important in the civil justice system.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178942
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test


In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com>, steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
> >In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
> >tes:
> >
> >>
> >>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
> >>
> >
> >A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
> >is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
> >me how, I just have seen the results.
> >
> >Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in 
> >the head.
> >
> 
> I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm:
> 
> 	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
> 	being screwed up in the head, given that example!
> 
> (Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
> get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
> drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
> not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
> immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
> THIS to THAT!).

And not only that, but if the drugs were legal we could have pharmacists instead
of pushers selling them, and the pharmacists could be obligated to not only
inform the purchasers of the dangers of drug use, but also show them how to use
the drugs in relatively safe ways.  And the dangers of impurities (responsible
for much of the suffering that drugs cause) would be all but eliminated.


  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178943
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict

tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
|>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
|>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.

|I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
|convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
|sufficient.

What evidence are you aware of. What was reported in the media, or all of
the evidence that was presented at the trial.

This sounds to me a lot like the first Rodney King 5 trial. A bunch of people
who saw 10 to 15 seconds out of a several minute long video, decided that
they knew more than people who had sat through a two week trial.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178944
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As
|> I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of 
|> eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers,
|> barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian
|> agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of
|> allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without
|> regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be 
|> free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.  
|> (As some/many libertarians would argue.)  
|> 
|> On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
|> is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
|> for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
|> kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of 
|> difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic, 
|> to say the least.
|> 
|> I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education, 
|> national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
|> a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
|> than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
|> exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile 
|> analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.  

Excellently put!

Even as a libertarian, I have to admit government does do some things I
like.  There is a beautiful performing arts complex in Ft.  Lauderdale
that was partially built with tax dollars (I don't know how much was
private and how much was stolen, I mean public) but it is beautiful and
I enjoy it.  (Keep in mind, though, most of the people in the city will
never attend a single performance there, so they might feel differently
about having to help pay for it.)

However, I have to disagree about it being desireable or efficient to
give government intervention-power on a case-by-case basis.  In fact,
we have a lot better luck maintaining our freedom of speech precisely
because it is not decided on a case-by-case basis as much as other
issues.  Judges decide whether political speech is allowed on the
sidewalk in front of the post office.  They do not try to decide just
whether pro-nazi, pro-choice, pro-life, or pro-tax political speech
should be allowed on the sidewalk in front of the post office.  You can
imagine the result if right to free speech was decided by the majority
on a case-by-case basis.

Not so with economic issues.  Government does tell taxi-drivers exactly
what they can charge, but not the bus lines or the lawyers.

Just as it is not desireable to decide rights of free speech on a
case-by-case basis, we should not decide rights to free enterprise on a
case-by-case basis.

There is hope that a government can be restricted from interferring with
free enterprise.  But there is no hope, in my opinion, of having a
government that interferes with free enterprise in an "efficient"
manner; I call it political market failure.

Thus, if you value freedom and the abundance it produces, you have to
swallow the "whole libertarian agenda."

Roger Collins

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178945
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <16BB1B92B.DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu.Ext> DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu writes:
>You think that you all have it bad....here at good ol' Southwest Missouri
>State U., we have 2 parties running for student body president.  There's the
>token sorority/fraternity faces, and then there's the president and vice
>president of NORML.  They campaigned by handing out condoms and listing
>their qualifications as,"I listen really well."  It makes me sick to have
>a party established on many of the things that are ruining this country like
>they are.  I think I'll run next year.:(

Well, a student body president can't exactly campaign on the stand
that he's "tough on crime".  Their job is to listen to what people want
and fund things that make sense.

Condoms and marijuana aren't exactly the worst things to have available
either...

   don

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178946
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid 
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as 
>me how, I just have seen the results.

Gee, the War on Drugs has been going on for all these years and they're
still getting drugs!  Imagine that...

My friends who like grass (I don;t agree but it's pretty harmless) are
unable to get it, yet I know a number of places where someone stupid
enough could get crack cocaine within a half hour of leaving my office.

The War on Drugs has been completely unsuccessful, yet it's lead to really
horrible abuses of peoples' COnstitutional rights.  I don't see how a
thinking person could justify it.

   don


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178947
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions

Kaldis writes:
#The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
#presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
#apparently found this compelling.

Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
they are not prostitutes.

#Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the
#Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?

Gee, Both Clayton and Kaldis engaging in ad hominem arguments.

I presented evidence that what you said is *NOT* what the judge ruled.
Provide your evidence. Repeating a false claim is not evidence.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178948
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <1993Apr16.170521.21129@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
>
>SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It 
>was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax
>was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of 
>quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final 
>stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the
>large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers."
>In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the
>tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer
>paying the full load.
>
>These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.

      One of the commentators on one of the Big Three news programs 
described the VAT (which ain't a sales tax) as a tax "government's love."
I was even surprised he got the reason right:  it effectively hides the
majority of the tax the consumer has to pay *from* the consumer.  It's
kind of like they do with cars.  You pay far more for automobile taxes than
most people realize because it's contained in two dozen different taxes,
everything from your license to your tires to your gasoline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178949
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage


In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
> 
>     Male sex survey: Gay activity low
> 
>     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>     examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed
*said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they 
considered themselves exclusively homosexual.

The point being that what people say and what they acutally do
may be different.

It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not
mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-)

>     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178951
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Capital Gains tax increase "loses" money

In article <C5J8wI.IGK@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>>In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>>
>>>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large
>>>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a)
>>>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by
>>>accumlated gains.
>>
>>To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains
>>taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there
>>to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised.
>>   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that
>>more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort
>>"trends".
> 
> Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they
> clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86
> blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:

	You misunderstand.  I'm not trying to prove a *cause* for anything. 
Merely pointing out that Ted's assertion that the "blip" in revenues was
"caused" by selling to avoid the tax can't be proven.

> 1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find
> oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term
> that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a
> few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with
> preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.

	Not disputed.

> 2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of
> what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects
> beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to
> unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on
> taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar
> advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice
> was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986),
> but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates
> (without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).

	It works for any situation.  If you believe the market is going up,
don't sell.

	If believe it's not, sell.  But then you'd be selling anyways, wouldn't
you?

	So where is the evidence that a large number of people suddenly decided
that the higher taxes meant they should sell before the year was out?

	There isn't any.

	Ted's saying that the increase over the previous year is "proof" of
that proposition, but I'm saying you can't know that the trend of increasing
capital gains revenues wouldn't account for a lot of that increase.
	1986 was the height of the housing boom, remember.  People were
"trading up" like mad.

> It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal
> economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless
> pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe
> accurately what happens in the real world.

	Indeed.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178952
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Clinton caves in: reduces jobs bill

	Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill.

	Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for
creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money).

	Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178953
From: ries@hqrim.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries)
Subject: Re: " Only $17 / Month! "


  A Alan Brock 4/14/93 Orange County Register Editorial titled "A case for
  repealing the income tax" got my attention.

  Some quotes:

   "... a tax on income, because of the flexible definition of that
   concept, invites the government to snoop into every nook and
   cranny of our lives. Encouraging people to snoop on one another
   and report transgressions against the almighty state, which most
   Americans deplored in Nazi or communist regimes..." 

   "... Although most Americans paid no income tax at all 50 years ago
   -- withholding began only during World War II, as a "temporary"
   exigency, and in 1948 the median family federal income tax was $9..."

   "Last year the federal government got only 37 percent of its income
    from income taxes... How long ago was it that the federal government
    somehow managed to stagger along on 63 percent of its 1992 revenue?
    ... Would you believe five?..."

   "... The income tax has converted a free people into a society of
    the fearful and the snitches..."



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178954
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
>
>>      own CNN news LOGO!
>>
>>      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
>>
>>      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this 
>>      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching 
>>      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by 
>>      now.
>>      
>>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
>>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
>>
>
>Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue
>persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.
>
>However....
>
>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
>have in Europe)
>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, 

       The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase.
There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase
incrementally.

       (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of
Europe's that makes it "visible?")

>and
>force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax
>rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could
>be increased only via a national referendum.

       This would require a constitutional amendment, and Congress
enjoys raising taxes too much to restrict themselves like that.
(Besides, with the 2/3 majority necessary to pull that off you'd 
have a difficult time "forcing" anything like that.)

>Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile...
>shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get
>health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate
>all in one fell swoop.

       Primarily because it's a practical impossibility to "freeze"
tax rates.

       However, this is something that bothers me.  We're always talking
about "consumer confidence" and "consumer spending" as gauges for the
economy.  If they really are important, wouldn't shifting taxes to
consumption provide a disincentive to spend money?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178955
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Just what is in the Jobs/Pork bill?

This was in Wed. WSJ.

[start]
The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded
news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that
certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't
passed.

None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are
part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in
Community Development Block Grants.

...

[end]

I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving
about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this
wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that
same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to
do the honarable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178956
From: dunnjj@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (DUNN  JONATHAN JAMES)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:

>Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would
>be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.

As a libertarian (with a small l) who voted for Clinton, I think that he
should abolish the Selective Service and the draft.  If his conscience
forbade him to go to war in Vietnam, it should forbid him to perpetuate
this system of government-sanctioned slavery.

>Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf.
>The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there
>is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing
>the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail
>getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.
>Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get
>Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.

If our government would pay attention to SERIOUS domestic issues (the ECONOMY)
and choose to stay out of other people's wars (Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia),
we would not be in this fix.  An anyway, couldn't the jobs be replaced by
improving our domestic situation?  (I'm not for continued deficit spending,
but if Clinton and Congress want to spend, I'd rather they improve the 
infrastructure than fight other people's wars.)

>In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station
>and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being 
>required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.
>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>a pork happy Congress.

A novel idea:  Getting away from naval bases, what about refurbishing
decommissioned Air Force bases as airports?  This would be SO much cheaper
than building them from the ground up (Denver's new airport is one of the 
most appalling examples of pork-barreling and cronyism I have seen in
my lifetime).  Even if no more airports are needed, I'm sure Bill Gates
or Ross Perot would LOVE to have their own private airfields, and the
money from their purchases could be applied to the public debt.

>Jon Dunn<

* All E-mail flames will be deleted without reading *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178957
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: Pork ( C-17 & C-5 was (Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE )

In article <1993Apr16.174304.26360@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>>fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Eliminate the C-17 transport. 
>>>
>>>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, ........
>>
>>If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
>>would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the 
>>program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.
>
>I do read Av Week and don't remember this.  Could you supply the date
>of the magazine? 

Aviation Week March 15 1993 p.48

"the CBO estimates that matching the capability of 100 C-17s would
require 70 C-5s at a total cost of $14.4 billion. This option is still
more than $10 billion cheaper than completing the C-17 program, which
the CBO estimates will cost $24.7 billion."

Sorry, I was nine billion off. The C-5s would be ten billion cheaper.
>  As for C-17 vs. C-5 , the C-17 can't carry as much
>but has more capability ( read : can land at smaller airfields of which
>there are more of ) than the C-5.  Now is the C-17 pork?  It depends
>on whether your job relies on it or not.  :)  In California right now,
>I would say that it is not pork since due to peace dividend so many 
>people are out of work. 
>
Well, California voted overwhelmingly for change, right?
The argument to continue military programs just to support jobs is
a poor one. It's kept quite a few bases open that should have been closed
years ago, wasting billions of taxes.

>>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>>a pork happy Congress.
>>
>>-- Marc Mueller
>
>Huh?  Shouldn't that read "The question is whether a social-pork happy
>Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a jobs-pork happy
>Congress."
>
>fpa
>

-- Marc Mueller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178958
From: jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
>	being screwed up in the head, given that example!
>
>(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
>get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
>drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
>not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
>immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
>THIS to THAT!).

Hello, is there anybody in there?  You think you have to pay for this idiot's
problem now, who's going to pay for the ballooning number of addicts and 
all of the associated problems with them.  I don't even want to think about
it with Hillary in the White House and an administration that "feels our
pain".

No harm but to himself?  What about when he drives his school bus full
of kids into a train.  When he gets stoned and drives up on a sidewalk
and kills 5 people.  When he lives off me on Welfare for the rest of his
life.

The problem with the WOD is that it has no bite.  Sending the slimy 
bastards to the chair for selling drugs to kids, now there's some bit.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178959
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies

In article <15389@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > > You mean, since your philosophy took over, the economy has almost
> > > collapsed.
  
> > Excuse me, *my* philosophy?  You don't have any idea what *my* philosophy
> > is.  The American economy has had its ups and downs through a number of
> > prevailing economic philosophies.  But then, economics is hardly a science.

> In my lifetime, your philosophy -- socialism masquerading as a liberal
> welfare state -- has been in ascendancy.

Yo--earth to Clayton--*my* philosophy?  I have never discussed this with you.
I know it's a minor point, but, gee, dude, you have no idea what economic
and political principles I adhere to.  But don't let that stop you--you're on a
roll.  Just ascribe to me whatever you want--I know you'll choose wisely.
After all, I *do* believe in personal responsibility.

> > No, I mean exactly what I wrote--the welfare system of the New Deal is
> > wholly inadequate to cope with the current state of affairs.

> Absolutely.  So the response of socialists is take us even further
> into socialism.

Duh.  What else would you *expect* a socialist to do?

> > > Flash-in-the-pan?  No, your subculture has utterly dominated the
> > > TV and movie industries for two decades now.

> > *My* subculture?  My, we're getting personal.  The only subculture I see
> > dominating the TV and movie industries is *money*.  If you'll buy it,
> > they'll sell it.  And as recent movements to boycott TV advertisers have
> > shown, they're *very* sensitive about what sells.  Whatever happened to
> > personal responsibility, anyway?  Or am I personally responsible for
> > the decline in that, too?

> To the extent that people have been encouraged to NOT be responsible
> for themselves, yes.

(a) Just when and where have I encouraged people not to be responsible
for themselves?  Be specific--but do make up random dates and heinous
acts as you see fit.

(b) You and I have encouraged many people to do many things.  How does that
in any way make our audiences less responsible for their actions?  Is there
a finite amount of responsibility, so (cf. conservation of energy) as
I become more responsible for an occurrence by encouraging it the actual
perpetrator becomes correspondingly less so?  At what point does the
perpetrator become completely innocent altogether?  You know, this lends
a whole new meaning to the term "the moral high ground".

> > > Oddly enough, all the unskilled or semiskilled people I know manage
> > > to find employment almost immediately.  Maybe she needs to move to a
> > > cheaper part of the country, where jobs are plentiful, and the cost
> > > of living is lower.

> > The west side of Chicago is about as cheap as it gets--squalor city.
> > Tell me about all these places where it's cheap to live and jobs are
> > abundant--I'll pass them on.

> Sonoma County.

I will pass the info on.  Out of curiosity, what kind of jobs would these
be?  What's the demographic mix wrt race, age, culture?

> > lots of employment, and utterly surrounded by socialists.  Well, I suppose
> > that's the sort of environment that would attract socialists, or at least
> > not dissuade them.

> No, it's that areas with a lot of wealthy breed socialists -- all the
> spoiled rich kids, feeling guilty about their wealth.  But not guilty
> enough to give it away -- they just look for politicians to take MY
> more limited wealth away.

Life's a bitch, ain't it?  Man, you've got to get out of Fornicalia--have
you considered someplace perhaps geographically distant but politically
more friendly to you, like, say, Indiana?  Or maybe Utah?

> > Well, I doubt that much of this goes to drugs--there isn't much left after
> > buying food, and there is very little in the first place.  Sure, you read
> > about such cases now and then, but that's what makes them news.  Show me
> > your statistics about AFDC abuse.

> I can tell you that relatives I have known, the drugs came first, the
> food was secondary.

I don't doubt it, but unless you can show me statistics to the contrary
I will persist in my apparently dogmatic socialist belief (hey, if *you* say
so) that most AFDC money really does--for better or worse in the long
term--feed FDCs.  

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
16 Apr 93   ****** ******   27 Germinal An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178962
From: asper@calvin.uucp (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans

In article <mwalker-160493090617@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
>
>> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
>
>This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists
>in your .sigs, folks!

Oh, darn.
Okay, okay, let's stop slamming Ipser, and get on with making fun of other
people.

Alan


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178963
From: rolandi@hssc.scarolina.edu (Walter Rolandi)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?

hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen) writes:


>A good two-party system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.

yeah, just like we have here in the US.


--

  WALTER G. ROLANDI
  USENET: rolandi@andy.hssc.scarolina.edu
INTERNET: rolandi@hsscls.hssc.scarolina.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178966
From: nils@monroe.dartmouth.edu (Nils Nieuwejaar)
Subject: Re: We're winning the war on drugs. Not!

kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:

>The chart that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
>issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eigth-graders" by Mike
>Snider, p. 6D).

>    Adolescents' choices

>    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
>                      Estimated, per 100 students
>                             1991     1992   Pct. chg.
>    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
>    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
>    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16% 
>    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
>    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
>    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
>    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%

>    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
>    1993 report

>We are not winning the "war on drugs".  I think you can see that one
>of the tactics that the DEA employs to give people the impression that
>the "war on drugs" is being won is to selectively quote statistics---
>only statistics that support their contention that drug use has gone
>down.  The excerpt from Time magazine that I included in this post is
>an excellent example of how organizations like the DEA attempt to
>deceive the public.

Unfortunately, there's not much we can learn from the statistics presented
here either.  Due to rounding, the 1991 est. for LSD could be anywhere
from .550 to .649 and the 1992 est. could be anywhere from .850 to .949.
This means that the actual change (if you believe these statistics in the
first place) was anywhere from 31% to 73%.  Similarly the increase in
cocaine use could be anywhere from 18% to 66% and the increase of
crack use could be anywhere from 29% to 120%.  This doesn't even
take into account the margin of error which isn't provided here.

This does not mean that the rest of the argument you present is unfounded,
but it does mean that USA Today has (not surprisingly) provided us
with virtually no information.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178967
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Clayton Cramer writes:
#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
#male population.  

Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
promiscious)? 

I didn't think that you did.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178969
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative

In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
                     ^^^^^^^^^
>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>
>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	bill.

What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be
so kind as to explain how this is "Clinton's" initiative, when it
has been before Congress for "at least the past 6 months"?

Jeez, the next thing you know, they'll be blaming the weather on the
poor guy. They'll be blaming World War II on him. They'll be blaming
the Civil War on him. Maybe the Thirty Years War?




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178970
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "

>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993


                       *Paranoia part deleted.*

  Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178971
From: cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Riyadh Al-hajmoosa)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
> (discrediting Kinsey) says so.
> -- 
>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>   as this would hold such views??? |

	My understanding from my psycology classes is that the percentage is 
	more like 10-12% world wide.  I would really like to know your source
	for the 1-2% figure.

						Riyadh Moosa.
						SDSU-Chemistry.
						cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178973
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?

In article <1993Apr16.083029.12516@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) w
rites:
>In article <1993Apr16.031616.23130@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>
>>This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
>>1980 election.
>>
>>This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame
,
>>pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.
>>
>>Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more tha
n
>>the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples'
>>books.  What a joke.
>
>Drive down to Cincinnati and take a look.  Not pretty, is it?

But drive UP to Cleveland and it is about 10,000 times better.  I from Toledo 
originally (but that place always as sucked as long as I've been on the planet.

>Things were much better there in 1980.  All that growth went into
>the hands of Ron and Georgie's pals, and I DIDN'T GET A SINGLE
>DIME OF IT, DAMMIT.  And, now, I'm gonna be bled to death by tax
>leeches to pay for the damage.  F***ing great.

Republicans have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment for the last 
ten years.

>
>Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in
>Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm.

Because for a while, the American companies couln't even compete in THEIR OWN 
COUNTRY, where free trade isn't even an issue.  However, even the automobile
pendelum has swung back to the Big 3.

>I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in
>Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)

Oh, I don't know.  It's probably in the tens of thousands.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178975
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Clinton caves in: reduces jobs bill

In article <1993Apr16.131615.8661@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 	Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill.
> 
> 	Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for
> creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money).
> 
> 	Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.

	It seems radio reports were overly optimistic.  All Clinton wants to
cut is $2.5 Billion for community block grants, keeping in summer jobs.

	Hmmm, well, looks like we need to keep up the pressure on our
congresspersons.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178976
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (La
wrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>
>>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>
>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>
>>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>>
>>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>
>1) So what?

So there are less gays, then the gays claim.
>
>2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>   us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>

Dream on.  Abortion and African-American Civil rights rallies don't even bring
in half of that.

>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>
>Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>

I was wondering why I wasn't getting laid.

>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.
>
>And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
>who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
>you....
>

If it's more, then who cares?

>>It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>
>Fuck off
>

Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men, 
because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and 
with social pressures, probably would at least try.

>--
>------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
> \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>

Did you know that is is a fact that homosexuality was comparatively high in 
Hitler's storm troopers (SA) before he came to power.  I wonder if they got to 
put the triangles on themselves......

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178977
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>>--
>
>Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality
>uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all
>homosexual and bisexual men.

Only the most comprehensive survey on sexuality in 50 years.

>  It would seem more logical to say that since
>the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity
>larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.
>

Chance and size have nothing in common on the multimillion number scale we are 
talking about.


>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three
>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.
>
>So... whose promiscuous?
>

Nobody said that you were.  Chill.

>Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because
>someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....

Well said.

>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...
>

Actually, the Kinsley Report in 1947(or 48?) used a high percentage of 
prisoners so...........


Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178978
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Just what is in the Jobs/Pork bill?

In article <C5L5uM.IsF@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>This was in Wed. WSJ.
>
>[start]
>The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded
>news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that
>certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't
>passed.
>
>None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are
>part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in
>Community Development Block Grants.
>
>...
>
>[end]
>
>I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving
>about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this
>wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that
>same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to
>do the honorable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.

As one of the "Clintonites" cited above, I'll try to clarify since this
is not a case of Clinton's "dishonesty." (I won't necessarily defend him
on other issues.)  

There were NEVER any specific projects included in the Community
Development Block Grant portion of the President's proposal.  Congressional
Republicans, in an effort to discredit the stimulus package, selected what
they felt were silly sounding projects from a wish-list of POTENTIAL 
projects prepared by the US Mayors' Conference before the stimulus package
was ever proposed.  (The document in question was designed to pressure the
White House to increase the size of the block grant proposal submitted
to Congress.  It didn't work.)

The $2.56(?) billion proposed in the stimulus package came nowhere close
to covering the total estimated cost of the original wish-list.  If it
were passed, communities would have to select which projects to fund and
at what level.

In the case of Spokane, Wa., Tom Foley's home district, no one ever
expected to be able to refurbish a local swimming pool (one of the 
Republicans' examples) FROM THE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE STIMULUS
PACKAGE since the estimated cost of doing so exceeded the total 
amount of block grant funds the city would receive from the stimulus 
package for ALL projects.  

The plan, instead, was to use the money on public housing construction
and remodeling to cope with a severe housing shortage.  (Yup, there are
places where that is true.)  The swimming pool improvements were near the
bottom of a long list of priorities prepared by the city.  The $3 million
or so to be received would cover only a few of the most pressing
priorities.

If the block grants are cut from the stimulus package, it is these projects
that will be affected by the lack of funds.  And that is why the Clinton
administration has been publicizing the issue.

A final point.  One may or may not like community block grants.  It is
worth noting, however, that Congressional Republicans' opposition to them
is new.  Since the Nixon administration, Republicans have generally 
supported such grants as an alternative to targeted federal spending,
arguing that local governments are far better able to determine spending
priorities than "Washington bureaucrats."  

Is it clear now?  Or is this all too complicated to understand?

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178979
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?

In article <1qmtl1$71r@gondor.sdsu.edu> cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Riyadh Al-ha
jmoosa) writes:
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>> (discrediting Kinsey) says so.
>> --
>>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>>   as this would hold such views??? |
>
>    My understanding from my psycology classes is that the percentage is
>    more like 10-12% world wide.  I would really like to know your source
>    for the 1-2% figure.
>
>                             Riyadh Moosa.
>                             SDSU-Chemistry.
>                             cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu

Some survey conducted by the U.S. government and some group (I don't know 
which) did what they were calling on all the news shows this morning, "The most
comprehensive survey of sexuality in the past 50 years".  Not an exact quote, 
but you get the idea.

This low percentage is merely one more in a ton of evidence disproving the 10% 
theory.

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178980
From: onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

In article <1993Apr19.071021.14349@spdcc.com> urso@spdcc.com (Stephen Chappell) writes:
>In article <C5Kt0y.3M3@world.std.com> bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes:
>>I believe the MOW plans and handing out some sort of wristband thingy, and 
>>basing their count on those.  I see two problems with this.  One, can they 
>>get *everybody* to take one (and only one)?  Two, they couldn't possibly have
>>been able to choose a color/design that won't clash with *somebody's* outfit!
>>
>...and Three.  The ads I've seen for the wristbands indicate they're
>charging $5 a wristband.  As I've seen them, the wristbands look like
>clear plastic with multi-coloured "rainbow" threads in them labeled
>"1993 March on Washington    999999" (the "999999" being your particular
>wristband number).
> 
>Certainly not *everyone* at the March on Washington will be willing to
>shell out five bucks for a piece of plastic.


I bought mine at the MOW storefront.
Its not plastic, its woven material.

but I think you miss the point.
its not about the five bucks in your pocket, its about supporting the
march and helping to pay for all the printed materail and scehdulkes and
organisation and...

all leading up to the literal *birth* of Queer visibility in this country.

up to this point all our news coverage has been driven by events thatb
happen to us. 
this event is happening by our direct action.
of course the last MOW was the same thing but they ignored us.
I guess that was just labor pains.
perhaps they will ignore us again, in which case we will come in
even largeer numbers next time.

Lst night in DC there were so many queers out and about you could hardly get
in any place.
I suspect thatb over the next two days that will become exponentially
larger.

To my mind this is a physical bsuting down of the collective closet of
queer invisibility.

the five bucks is insignificant.

LUX ./. owen



-- 
D. Owen Rowley onr@netcom.com ( also owen@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178981
Subject: Re: "I couldn't care less"
From: petra@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1993Apr22.095731.20865@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.160722.6920@msuvx2.memst.edu> mech24135045@msuvx2.memst.edu writes:
>>In article <93111.14430834AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>> Above quote from Rush's radio show yesterday, when he referred to recent events
>>> near Waco, Texas.
>>> 
>>
>>Me either. Yes, it's regrettable that eighty-some-odd people died, but
>>they could have walked out the door with the simple turn of a knob. It's
>>just plain stupid to lay the blame for this at anyones feet but ol' Vernon's.
>>If the FBI/BATF started the fire, why did it take six or so hours to catch?
>>Timed incendiary devices, you say? Could those idiots not have picked them 
>>up and tossed them out the window? And what of this argument about whether
>>a wood burning stove was being used? It's a known fact that when a city is
>>under seige, the citzens thereof eat what they can, how they can. Hell,
>>the BD's could've had MRE type grub for all any of us know.
>>My conscience is clear.
> 
> Does the word smolder mean anything to you?  Several minutes can go by
> before a smoldering cigarette butt in a couch sets the couch on fire.
> Here's a possible (maybe very possible) scenario:  one of the CS gas
> grenades that the FBI threw in earlier caused some material like the
> drapes or carpet to smolder for an extended period of time.  Later
> on when a tank punched a hole in the wall, knocking over one of the
> BDs kerosene lanterns, kerosene spilled onto this smoldering material,
> resulting in a fire that killed 86 people inside.  Another possibility

And this results in a fire that starts in one room and torches the entire place
before anyone in the adjacent rooms can escape?  I don't think so.  So much for
the smolder theory.

-Donavan
Sorry, no catchy quotes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178982
From: onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT



Oh..
just a note, my usually poor typing is made even more dificult by the 
small keyboard and mutiple connections I am piped through in order
to access news while here in DC.

I'm really not trying to irritate the spelling mavens :-)

LUX ./. owen


-- 
D. Owen Rowley onr@netcom.com ( also owen@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178983
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

>>>>> On 22 Apr 1993 16:59:28 -0700, turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley) said:
Tim> NNTP-Posting-Host: nwfocus.wa.com
Tim> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>In article <16BB87EF1.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
>> 
>>Yes we've heard that the survivors are now saying that. We've also
>>seen the videotape which shows that the fire started in two or
>>three different places which weren't near the tank.

>    I have not seen the tape on CNN.  Which network did you see it on?

Tim> I saw the film on CNN *as* it happend. It was clear from that
Tim> tape that the fire started in ONE location. Right where the
Tim> tank was attacking, and then had pulled back. There were not
Tim> several spots where the fire started, it started in one
Tim> location and was spread in the direction of the heavy wind.
Tim> The FBI claims to have seen or filmed several starting
Tim> points. Yet they keep this hidden. They have spread so much
Tim> lies. Well I guess if I was responsible for the mass murder
Tim> of 80 people who were exercising constitutional rights, I
Tim> would lie about it too...

Gosh, Tim, you must have seen a different live broadcast than I did. While
the smoke did emerge from one place initially, it was a considerable
distance from the tank, and in a very short time, fire appeared at several
places a good distance apart from there.

Then there's that nagging question about why, out of all those people,
only a few made any attempts to escape or save the children. If it were
me, with my child, [and I wasn't committing suicide,] I believe I would have
made SOME attempt to at least save the child. As it was, at least one of
the survivors was attempting to GO BACK INTO THE FIRE when they were
physically removed. No one lifted a finger to bring out a child, apparently.

How do you explain that? And the two survivors who claimed to have doused
the place with lantern oil and SET the fire (no doubt on David's orders). 
[At least until the lawyers talked to them.] 

Tim> And also, why have they not yet released the search warrant????  

That *is* a good question. Maybe because it would be a further
embarrassment, seeing as how the ATF went in there in Dirty Harry mode
initially. 

As stupidly as it all was handled, I find it difficult to believe that the
entire FBI has completely gone corrupt under a new administration less
than 100 days old. Stupidity and bad decisions and plans have always been
with us. They just had an alignment at Waco.

Tim> Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   FUCK THE POLICE!!!!

See? Freedom of speech abounds.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178984
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: AP journalists arrested in Waco

In article <JASON.93Apr22113337@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
...
> a good way to get shot.  There was also no indication in that story
> that they wouldn't get their cameras and film back after getting out
> of jail.

	Oh they'll get it back, with exposed film. :(

	Shortly after the Rodney King episode, a woman here in Dayton used a
camcorder to tape the police arresting several youths.

	Upon noticing her, the police arrested her (for jaywalking!) and
"accidently" erased the tape while they had it.

	Yep, they'll get their film back allright....

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178986
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Motor-Voter

In article <1r7tjnINNgcu@bigbird.williams.edu> 96csw@williams.edu (Walter "Gib" Gibson) writes:
[Motor-Voter stuff]
>
>	My friend, after the election, brought up the point that it
>would enable more people to vote, however, since it makes it easier to
>get to the place of registration.  He brought up the analogy that if
>there were only ONE place to vote, say, in Alaska- would it be
>excessive and wasteful to petition to have more places to vote?  This
>is a similar idea- a way to encourage more people to vote by making it
>more easily accessible.  I, not knowing where I stood, played devil's
>advocate and said - well, would you have the taxpayer's money go to
>busing for those people that have trouble making it to DMV, then?
>Where does the right to vote merge with the right to vote easily?
>Where should we draw the lines?  

       Well, there does have to be a line.  And to be honest, extending
voter registration to DMVs is hardly analogous to having only one
place for registration in Alaska and opening a new one in Atlanta.  More is 
not always better once you've passed a certain point.

>	My friend said that that is obviously an extreme and that
>actually the motor-voter bill would SAVE money because no longer would
>the city have to pay someone to sit in the town hall and spend all
>his/her time filing those things- they'd just be at the push of a
>button or the filling out of an X at DMV.  So I (actually someone
>else, but there's no need to confuse this anymore) countered again
>saying that wouldn't congress, *as always*, get exorbitent budgets and
>fund committees to orchestrate and oversee the implementation.... the
>argument went back and forth forever- ranging from whether or not it's
>BETTER to have more people voting, whether that is even relevant,
>etc....
>
>	just looking for some more opinions.  Anybody got 'em???

       I thought the Motor Voter bill passed.

       In any case, my experiance with Tennessee's voter registration
system (which you can register with by mail, by the way) is that nobody
who is interested in voting is being denied access to registration.
All it requires is just the tiniest bit of interest on the registrant's
part and thinking about the election once in the eleven months prior to
it.  (Once you register it's good unless you miss for years worth of
elections of move.)

       It's easy to register now.  I simply don't see the value in going
out and trying to get people registered who don't have enough gumption to
even write and have the proper forms sent to them.   How can we expect
responsible decisions out of these people?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178987
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <1993Apr22.085907.19272@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>>Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
>>>to defend the burning of the children.
>>
>>
>>    Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis.
>
>Cigarette cops = Nazis.  Who said Nazism is dead?  We got a bunch of
>them right here in the good 'ol US of A.

No we don't.  They might be zealous, and maybe the bureau shouldn't
exist by some people, but they ARE NOT NAZIS.

Why do people toss around the Nazi label so easily?


-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178988
From: Roland Siebelink <rcsiebel@vnet3.vub.ac.be>
Subject: Voting system/regulations for the European Parliament


Since 1979, the members of the European Parliament (the parliamentary assemby
of the European Community) have been elected directly by the citizens of the
Member States. Before, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were just
Members of National Parliaments (MNPs) elected by and from among their peers.

In the European Parliament, every Member State has a fixed number of seats,
which increases less than proportionally with the population. Once in five
years, a general European election is being held, in which the citizens of all
Member States choose their representatives to the European Parliament. Next
elections are due in 1994.

Now the voting system for these European elections still differs from one
country to another. Although the European Treaty enabling the direct election
of the MEPs requires a uniform voting system, up to now every country has just
used its own system, more or less the same one used for national elections.
British MEPs are elected in a first-past-the-post system with one MEP per
district; nearly all other States have chosen a system with proportional
representation. But then in some countries (France, Italy) MEPs are allowed to
be a MNP as well, whilst in others they are not (Belgium, Netherlands).

The European Parliament is now working on a uniform election system for its
own members, so that every candidate should have the same regulations to
comply with, regardless of the Member State (s)he wants to be elected for. I
would like to know what you people out there think of the following questions:

1. Do you think it is necessary to have uniform regulations or should every
Member State continue to use its own regulations (for European elections that
is)?

2. Do you think a system of majority voting should be implemented, with one or
more MEPs per district, or would you prefer a system with proportional
representation (for the whole of the Community or per state, per region, per
district?).

3. Do you think the European Commission (or just its president) should be
directly elected too, or should it be appointed by the European Parliament, or
by the joint Member State governments as it is now?

4. The Maastricht Treaty allows subjects of Member States to stand for
election in another Member State they are residing in. Do you think you would
or could vote for a foreigner if his/her ideas appeal to you?

5. Do you think MEPs should be allowed to be a member of a national parliament
or a regional parliament too? Or a member of a national or regional government
body?

6. The European Parliament now has meetings in both Strasbourg and Brussels.
MEPs themselves are for a complete move to Brussels in great majority, but
political compromises between the governments of the Member States stick to
the status quo. Do you approve of this or do you think the European Parliament
should meet in one city only, and if yes, which?

Please post your answers to eunet.politics, to which all followups are
automatically directed. If you do not have access to that group, please mail
your answer directly to me and I will post it for you.

I hope many of you will take the time to post their views on this matter.
--
Roland Siebelink - Lokaal B.034          Centrum voor de Studie van Nieuwe
Vrije Universiteit Brussel SCOM/NMIT     Media, Informatie en Telecommunicatie
Pleinlaan 2 - 1050 Brussel - Belgium     Tel. direkt:  +32.2.641 24 15
E-mail <rcsiebel@vnet3.vub.ac.be>        Tel. centrum: +32.2.641 24 12
Talk <rcsiebel@is2.vub.ac.be>            Fax centrum:  +32.2.641 28 61

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178989
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Cults, Waco & Insanity


In article <C5wA2G.1CC@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <C5w51C.H39@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes:
> >
> >I ask this question because there is a tradition, and one that
> >is highly regarded by many people, that several hundred Jews
> >elected to throw themselves off a cliff at Masada rather than
> >submit to Roman rule. The circumstances at Masada and those at
> >Waco would seem in general terms quite similar, and yet so far
> >as I'm aware nobody has seriously suggested that the Jews were
> >insane.
> 
>   As has already been pointed out, the Jews faced a totally
>   different fate at the hand of the Romans than did Koresh 
>   at the hand of the feds.  The Jewish men would most likely
>   have been crucified, the the women and children sold into
>   slavery.   One can well argue that Koresh may have *thought*
>   that a similar fate awaited him, but there was scant rational 
>   basis for that fear, so "insane" seems to describe any such
>   belief.

What is the penalty if convicted of murdering 4 Federal agents
in Texas?  The death penalty.

>   None of which excuses the reckless action of the feds, who
>   allegedly believing they were dealing with a nut, should 
>   have exercise much more restraint.  Indeed, given their 
>   *stated* goals of saving the children, one might also apply
>   the moniker "insane" to the feds' actions.

Yup.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178990
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: WACO burning


In article <1993Apr22.182545.29072@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <1r51iiINN8p9@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> :In article <C5u9Ev.4tA@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> :>
> :>B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London,
> :>reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
> :>making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
> :>lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
> :>people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.
> :
> :We're hearing it.  It sure rings true-- it's consistent in a way that
> :mass suicide by fire is not.  This survivor is also saying that they
>  
> It rings true????
> 
> There was a separate report that an overhead helicopter which was recording
> the entire incident on video tape has a visual record of SEVERAL files
> (I think the number 3 was mentioned) starting at different parts of the
> compound.

Has this video been made public?  The FBI spokesman also said they 
first knew of the fire when black smoke started pouring out, but
later said that *three* different FBI agents saw B-D members starting
the fires.

Also the FBI claims to have listening devices (bugs) in the compound.  
Will they make public the tapes of what the B-D said?

> To me, this attempt to blame the FBI for starting the fire simply looks
> like an attempt by a survivor to shift blame away from the B-D's.
> 
> I think it is a crock.

Well sealing the initial search warrent, keeping the media miles away,
not letting the B-D talk to the public, making contradictory statements,
not releasing the vidio & tapes are not steps to ensure public confidence 
in their actions.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178991
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: Millions of America

In article <1993Apr22.120854.8871@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
(Not a Boomer) says:
>
>In article <16BB713D1E.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU>, PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU
>(David
>Veal) writes:
>...
>>        Here's a question for those of you far more informed about
>> health care than I am.  My Almanac, quoting OECD Health Data
>> lists U.S. Public Health Expenditures for 1990 as being 5.2% of
>> GDP, or 42.4% of total health expenditures.
>>
>>        Are we *really* paying 42.4% of our expenditures to insure
>> 21% of our population?
>
>        Heh, no doubt more "evidence" that the government is more efficient
>than 'evil' for profit health care.

Proving once again that Brett has a major thinking problem...

Two groups that the government insure are the elderly and the "medically an
needy" (those who have impoverished themselves through spending for medical
care).  The typical elderly person spends 3.5 times what a person under age
65.  The typical medically needy person spends about 10 times what the
average person does.

You've got to adjust those data, Brett.

These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178992
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: The real source of trouble in the US health care system

	Cancel private health insurance?

	When government care that only covers 20% of the population consumes
42% of the spending for health care?

	NOT!

	National Health Expenditures: 1960 to 1990
(Includes Puerto Rico and outlying areas.)

Year	Health Services and Supplies ($billions)
	Private		Public
====================================
1960	$19.8		$5.7	(22% of total)
1970	$44.1		$24.9	(56% of total)
1980	$140.7		$98.1	(41% of total)
1990	$374.8		$268.6	(42% of total)

[Source: American Almanac, Page 97.  1992-3 Edition]

	Now you understand where most of that 12.2% of GNP is going--to waste.

	By these figures, private insurance is spending 58% of the money to
cover 4 times as many people.

	Go figure.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178994
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Deja Vu

In article <15457@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>The Waco/Whacko Bar-B-Q caused me to remember an official explanation
>from the Vietnam War.  The 90s, liberal version is:

>    "It was necessary to incinerate the children in order to save them."

And yet this callous incident of disregard for life you call a "Bar-B-Q".

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 178998
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <pdb059-220493100923@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes to Clayton Cramer:

>When are you going to stop lying and admit
>that the whole crusade is based on your own personal hatred, fear, and
>obsession?  You need help, Mr. Cramer.

The saddest thing is that most people, like Cramer's wife, learn dislike
for homosexuality early in childhood.

Clayton, however, is so impressionable, that he let his wife sucker him
on this issue, as a full-grown adult.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179000
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The real source of trouble in the US health care system

In article <1993Apr23.121140.8913@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	Cancel private health insurance?
>
>	When government care that only covers 20% of the population consumes
>42% of the spending for health care?
>
>	NOT!
>
>	National Health Expenditures: 1960 to 1990
>(Includes Puerto Rico and outlying areas.)
>
>Year	Health Services and Supplies ($billions)
>	Private		Public
>====================================
>1960	$19.8		$5.7	(22% of total)
>1970	$44.1		$24.9	(56% of total)
>1980	$140.7		$98.1	(41% of total)
>1990	$374.8		$268.6	(42% of total)
>
>[Source: American Almanac, Page 97.  1992-3 Edition]
>
>	Now you understand where most of that 12.2% of GNP is going--to waste.
>
>	By these figures, private insurance is spending 58% of the money to
>cover 4 times as many people.
>
>	Go figure.
>

The private insurance industry skims the cream off the milk...simple.

Gerald


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179001
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: question about representation


In a debate about the student government here at our university, a
question was raised by one student senator:  

"Why should I represent people who didn't vote?"

and by implication, this raises a different question:

"Why should I represent people who didn't vote for me?"

I feel that there are many good reasons that anyone elected to public
office (in student government or any other government) should strive
to represent ALL the people in their constituency (class of '95 or a
geographical area, or whatever).  

I would like some help from others in phrasing a reasonable argument
on this topic.  Thanks.

Followups are directed to talk.politics.misc, but email is preferred.
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, RPI, Troy, NY 12180 USA  aultj@rpi.edu  <><

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179003
From: pochanay@cae.wisc.edu (Adisak Pochanayon)
Subject: Re: Clayton is an asshole (but we all already know that)

In article <rogerdC5x5DF.JHz@netcom.com> rogerd@netcom.com (Roger D.) writes:
>Adisak Pochanayon (pochanay@cae.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: >>In article <15501@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>: >>|> Homosexuals are vicious, screwed-up, often
>: >>|> really evil people.
>: >>|> I've learned quite a bit in the last two years.  Evil, vicious,
>: >>|> dishonest, lying scum is the only way to describe homosexuals.
>: >>|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>:       I believe that Clayton is full of shit.  Who could believe anyone so biased
>: and so obviously misaligned?  If he were the slightest bit open-minded, he wouldn't
>: write such slanted smears.  Especially to generalize an entire group of people. 
>
>I would say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
>
>
     Really now.  Why is this the pot calling the kettle black?  I am stating
that a person who shows a continually biased opinion is close-minded and that
his opinion should be ignored.  Clayton is stating that a group of at least
two million (1%) American citizens are evil vicious malicious child-molesters.

     Here's a hypothetical question...  If Clayton said something like "all
those niggers are really stupid."  (Please don't be offended, I'm not racist
but merely using an example of Clayton's malign logic).  And then said he
read a report that a lot of blacks in inner cities dropped out of school, I
bet he wouldn't have your support.  Yet he can claim that all homosexuals are
dishonest, evil, lying child molesters without *PERSONALLY* having a single
homosexual friend or acquaintance and you'll sit there and support him.

     God created a place for bigots.  It's called Hell and Clayton is going
to burn there for a long time.  I pray for him to find in his heart the
Christian values he espouses so that he can learn to love his gay brothers
and sisters, because anyone with so much hatred in his soul coulld never
be righteous.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179005
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Waco Investigation Paranoia


In article <16BB98B5A.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>, V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
> Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely
> responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will
> show that Koresch is responsible' bs.

Well they could unseal the original warrent (Why was i sealed in the
first place?), release their video & tapes (from their listening devices
inside the compound) and quit makeing contradictory statements.

Do you believe their statement that the children were killed by
lethal injection?  They later stated that the childrens bodies
were burned to the point the would be hard to identify.  So
how did they come up with the lethal injection theory?

>                                        In an investigation of this
> size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the
> investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.

Unless the evidence was destroyed or other evidence planted.

> And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
> this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.

You mean "Magic bullet" Spector?

I know, a lone gunman killed all the Branch Davidians.   :-) || :-(

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179006
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...
>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...

>>>We're hearing it.  It sure rings true-- it's consistent in a way that
>>>mass suicide by fire is not.  This survivor is also saying that they
>>>were trapped inside by the damage done by the tanks.

>>	Why is an accidental fire more plausible than a mass suicide, 
>>	considering that the Davidians were an apocalyptic cult with
>>	a history of armed violence? If the FBI has reason to lie 
>>	about the cause of the fire, if it resulted from their own
>>	negligence, then the BD survivors also have reason to lie if
>>	they started the blaze. 

>The FBI claims the fire was set simultaneously in three places.  They
>claim the building was filled with tear gas.  Electricity was cut off,
>tanks were rolling all around.  How did the BDs co-ordinate the
>setting of the fire? 

	It's fairly simple. It was decided to burn the place down,
	and more than one agent was dispatched to set the fires in
	separate parts of the compound. I doubt that "simultaneously"
	means "at the exact same time" in this case. It likely means
	"close enough together to preclude them from being part of
	the same fire."


>The FBI claims that men with torches set the fires-- but haven't released
>any evidence of this, though it seems inconcievable that they don't have
>any if it was true.

	They might be waiting until the evidence comes in from the
	site, and the investigation is at least well underway. 


>All of the BDs
>previous actions were aimed towards their survival, not their death.

	The same could be said of Jonestown.

>The idea that kerosene lamps would be all over the place (with
>electricity cut off) makes sense.  The idea that ramming tanks into
>the building would spill them and cause a fire makes sense.    The
>possibility that the FBI wouldn't know this is nil.  It wasn't simple
>negligence.

	Maybe. Then again, I've been suprised at what folks have missed
	in the past in similar situations. Don't jump t oconclusions.

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179007
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <1r72jjINNnmm@ctron-news.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com writes...
>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>	Why is an accidental fire more plausible than a mass suicide, 
>>	considering that the Davidians were an apocalyptic cult with
>>	a history of armed violence?

>Because the place was a tinder box with straw bales for insulation, and they
>wouldn't have time to die from smoke inhalation before the fire reached them.
>Those people burned to death, a truly horrible and agonizingly painful way to
>die, which I don't think even a fanatic would willingly inflict on himself, let
>alone his family. 

	You don't know much about the fall of Diem's government in Vietnam.
	Or the traditional Indian practice of Suttee. People have been
	burning themselves to death (or willing to go through such and end)
	for political and religious reasons since the beginning of time.
	Also, death from smoke inhalation is little better than dying from
	the flames themselves. Think about breatning in searing toxic
	gasses. It's not pleasant.
	

>To anyone who remembered Jim Jones and who thought that mass
>suicide was a real possibility, self-immolation would simply not be the method
>of choice.

	Then again, to a Buddhist monk, it might be. To each his own.

>Far more likely to be bombs, bullets, or poisoned kool-aid.  That's
>not to say they definitely didn't do it - I don't make claims either way - but
>I find the idea implausible enough to want to see the gov't thoroughly inves-
>tigated to determine if _they_ started the fire by accident. 

	I'm waiting to see what the government has, too. 


                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179008
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: The "Big Secret"

In article <1993Apr22.114736.8864@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.181131.1751@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr20.124746.8765@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>...
>>>	Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.
>>>
>>>	Oops.
>> 
>> Oops?  Blue Cross may well be the insurer for government workers in
>> Massachusetts as it is for a number of state and local governments, I
>> don't know.  But Blue Cross is certainly NOT a government agency.  
>> It is a private insurer.
>
>	Yes it is a private insurer that has to deal with government
>regulations concerning how it's employees are to be covered processed, etc. 
>There are a mountain of forms that gov. employees have to go through.

Sorry, but this is a red herring.

Are you contending that the "mountain of forms" are processed by Blue
Cross?  Having had Blue Cross insurance both as a government employee
and as an employee of a private corporation, I saw no difference between
the two sets of forms.  

Moreover, the administrative costs associated with Medicare/Medicaid,
the two primary forms of "government" insurance are considerably lower than
the average for private insurance companies.   (5% versus 14%-16%).

If you have any evidence that Blue Cross bears a heavier burden in insuring
government employees than private employees, post it.  Otherwise, try
to stick to factual assertions.

>
>> And as the original post implied, it is private insurers in the US 
>> whose administrative costs are significantly higher than the administrative
>> costs of tax-supported health care systems in Canada and elsewhere.
>
>	Only those that remain paper-bound and refuse to standardize.

Well now, that's an interesting defense of the "free enterprise" system.
Are you contending that it is government intervention that prevents 
private insurance companies from "standardizing?"

In fact, it is true that some of the red-tape burden stems from the 
lack of standardization among the 1500 or so private insurers in the US,
but it's a little difficult to understand how this is anything other than
"free enterprise" at work.  

By the way, Barron's, the bible of Wall Street, this week admitted that
administrative costs were significantly lower in Canada because "....a
single-payer system is always cheaper...".  Guess even the "free enterprise
advocates" are beginning to see the light.
>
>> Try again.
>
>	Why?  My HMO provides good service at a low cost.  And I don't have the
>government telling my doctors what they can and can not say about medical
>procedures.

Sorry, but you seem to be confusing proposals with health care
reform with the Bush administration's gag order on federally funded family
planning clinics.  There are no proposals that would control what your
"doctor...can and cannot say about medical procedures."

Try again.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179009
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes & some scientists do not believe ...
From: rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin)

In article <C5uDn9.Gr@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:

>|>Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global 
>|>warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 
>
>|Educated and open minded environmentalists do not.
>
>One of the most effective come backs I have seen in a long time.
>
>Everybody who disagrees with me is stupid and closed minded.

No, what it means is that I, like a majority of environmental scientists/researchers,
agree that El Nino/La Nina and the Southern Oscillations are the systems
involoved in that climatic phenomena categorized by humans as a drought(1988).

Furthermore, in response to an earlier message, the 1992 U.S. est. output of
sulfur dioxide (20 mill. tons) was equivalent to the entire output by the recent
eruption of Mt. Pinautubo(Sp.).  Currently world carbon dioxide levels set at approx.
360 ppm, in the past 120,000 years it has never gone above 280 (this info
was found using ice core samples from the joint French/Russian/U.S. Vostok
project).  Furthermore,  the background emmisions of chlorine compounds into
the atmoshpere is about 0.6 ppb annually, it now sits at 3.5.  This OVERWHELMING
data/info is found in the World Resources doc. published by Oxford University.

The ozone hole in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres keeps getting bigger
and stickin' around longer whilst skeptics ponder how wrong or corrupt all this
data from government and international scientific institutions is.  It is a pity, that,
if the skeptics are wrong and we base our complacency on their Limbaugh
psycho babble, then we will find ourselves strapped by limited options with
which to rectify the primal engineering of our industrial age.

<My employer doesn't subscribe to my opinions, just the data. - DISCLAIMER>  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179011
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Subject: Re: MAJOR BURGER CHAIN OFFERS...

In talk.politics.misc, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>
>        Janet, how do you like your hostages?
>
>        A1) Quick-fried to a crackly crunch.
>
>        A2) Baked to a delicate crunch.
>
   Would you like fries with that, sir?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179013
From: kmunn@tudorct.com (Kristofer  Munn)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In an article rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy) writes:
>
> [This is called NotQuotingTheEntireArticle (tm).  Try it...]
>
>which you refer, please note that many religious beliefs evolved from
>basic, pragmatic principles of day-to-day living. If we had lived

Certainly many religious beliefs seem to be positive principles for
everyday living.  Indeed, I believe it is the Islamic religion which
avoids alcohol (I apologize if I name the wrong religion) and that
is certainly a physical positive in many respects.  However, this
proves nothing.  Just because something is a "basic, pragmatic
principle of day-to-day living" TODAY doesn't mean it evolved from
the same.  Especially those beliefs and (mostly) positions held based
on interpretations of the religion.

Religious beliefs come from many places but most will be backed up
(after many levels of arguments) to "Because that's how it is written."
or "God says..."  Now I'm not faulting that but that is not a basic,
pragmatic principle as you mean it in this context.  It is a belief
based on faith, which by definition is not necessarily backed up by
logic.  Faith is a given.  God is a absolute truth when arguing from
religion.  Also, many religions would reject your thesis that their
beliefs simply come from these day-to-day principles.

In summation, if you wish to use religious arguments be prepared to
back them up with "It says in the [fill in religious document here],"
because most religions (things which at least I denote as religions)
are based on the writings of or teachings of [fill in religious
figure here].

NOTE: Religion is a charged topic and if I offended anyone regarding
	  my references to God, I apologize.  Please insert your own
	  sensible references, the argument should apply to nearly all
	  religions.
-- 
==============================================================================
Kristofer (kmunn@tudor.com) - The opinions expressed within are solely those
---------------------------   of the author and are subject to change when
confronted with new information and logical, coherent arguments.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179015
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Re: The earth also pollutes & some scientists do not believe ...

rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:

]Furthermore, in response to an earlier message, the 1992 U.S. est. output of
]sulfur dioxide (20 mill. tons) was equivalent to the entire output by the recent
]eruption of Mt. Pinautubo(Sp.).  Currently world carbon dioxide levels set at approx.
]360 ppm, in the past 120,000 years it has never gone above 280 (this info
]was found using ice core samples from the joint French/Russian/U.S. Vostok
]project).  Furthermore,  the background emmisions of chlorine compounds into
]the atmoshpere is about 0.6 ppb annually, it now sits at 3.5.  This OVERWHELMING
]data/info is found in the World Resources doc. published by Oxford University.

Good evidence.

]The ozone hole in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres keeps getting bigger
]and stickin' around longer whilst skeptics ponder how wrong or corrupt all this
]data from government and international scientific institutions is.  It is a pity, that,
]if the skeptics are wrong and we base our complacency on their Limbaugh
]psycho babble, then we will find ourselves strapped by limited options with
]which to rectify the primal engineering of our industrial age.

What ozone hole in the northern hemisphere?

What exactly will happen if we get an ozone hole in the upper atmosphere?
According to the senior chicken-little at NASA, as much more UV radiation
as if one moved 100 miles south.  Certainly not the calamity that is being
imagined by eco-lunatics.  

CO2 is going up.  So what.  There's no evidence that the increase is
due to burning fossil fuels, no evidence that increasing CO2 will increase
temperatures, and no evidience that raising temperatures will do anything
but good--ie make millions of acres of tundra into productive life-bearing
land.

Chris Burian---


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179016
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Waco Investigation Paranoia

V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
>And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
>this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.

It will be ironic in the extreme if Spector manages to uncover a
government conspiracy and cover-up in this case. Maybe he'll posit a
Magic Grenade that lit fires in three wings of the building at once.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179018
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr16.121720.13017@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (
Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>
>>     Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>
>>     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>     examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed
>*said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they
>considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>

Yes, and of course the Kinsey Report taken 50 years ago in much more liberal 
times regarding homosexuality.........

>The point being that what people say and what they acutally do
>may be different.
>
>It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not
>mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-)
>

Or smart enough to realize that that argument would have to apply to every 
survey regarding homosexuality.  Therefore, they would look stupid. (Actually, 
Idid see Bryant Gumble bring that point up.  Hee, hee).



>     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179020
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: A Rational Viewpoint ---> was Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:
>
>Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
>homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
>of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
>to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
>put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
>community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays 
>are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
>just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?" 
>
>Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)
>
>Dan

This is a very good point.  One that I have held for sometime.  We do not
allow people to develop on the paths that they choose or desire.  Even with
heterosexuals we tend to leave some hanging in the sense of knowledge and
information about sexuality and relationships.

It is very difficult for a young person to develop and build a positive
view of themself when they are constantly being told implicitly and explicitly
that they are wrong and immoral. 

The concepts about personal relationships are deeply embedded in emotionalism
and fear- these fears cover a wide range, but mostly jealousy and lack of trust
seem to be cornerstones of modern day American relationships.  We also set on
top of this the concepts of Madison Avenue attractiveness and standards and put
the pressure on to measure up.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179021
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Pat Robertson says ...


[In response to a report by CBN News correspondent Ken Lormond about a
meeting between Slick Willie and homosexual activists:]

Lormond: "But Clinton will not be attending a rally by homosexuals in
Washington later this month.  He will instead be out of town, on a
retreat with Senate Democrats."

Robertson: "Yeah, he'd better retreat."  [Laughter, followed by
sustained applause]

[Later, in a report by correspondent Deborah Whitsen on the fizzling
boycott instigated by homosexuals against Colorado:]

Whitsen: "Colorado ski resorts have seen record crowds this year
despite a call by homosexual activists for boycott of the state ...
There have been record snowfalls in the mountains this year, and the
skiers have been coming in droves ..."

Robertson: "And God said, let it snow ..."  [More sustained applause]
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179022
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: New 'GUESS' Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Clayton Cramer writes:
>#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>#male population.  
>
>Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
>to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
>willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
>promiscious)? 
>
>I didn't think that you did.
>
>--
>-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

It is obvious that Mr. Cramer has the 'ability' to take the 'leap of faith'.
I have listened to several of the men involved in this study, and even they
claim that the men involved will not 'tell the whole truth'.

I put little value in extrapolating from these types of 'studies' or 'surveys',
they have limited subsets of individuals, and there is alot of skewing due
to improper selection methods, and the bias of the people involved in the
studies on both sides- subject and researcher.

Would you admit to be part of a group that was not very well liked?  Would 
you admit to having had sex with other people at some considered abnormal
rate (this applies to heterosexual men).  In fact, as one gay man and one
straight man put it, "men lie about the number of partners, because that's
the thing to do"- our culture for the male almost requires this type of
response.  It may seem harmless and silly, but carries a large emotional
and mental price tag.

I hear college male students everyday talking about their 'supposed' 
conquest.  They just have to look good to one another, at least in their
eyes.  But also know that alot of this does go on, there are many college
males (hetero) having a lot of sex with different partners.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179024
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU
(Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Clayton Cramer writes:
>#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>#male population.
>
>Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
>to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
>willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
>promiscious)?
>

Oh yeah, and men just haaaaate to brag about "how many woman they've had."

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179025
From: lazlo@carina.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

> The idea that kerosene lamps would be all over the place (with
> electricity cut off) makes sense.  The idea that ramming tanks into the
> building would spill them and cause a fire makes sense.

As does the idea that a CS gas canister can get hot enough to ignite dry
baled hay.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179026
From: syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Tom Gillman)
Subject: Re: some scientists do not believe in the green house effect

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

>In <1993Apr21.094001.6254@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:

>|In article <26VB3B9w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says:
>|The word some sums it up, alot of scientist have concluded that without a
>|doubt Global Climate will/is occur(ring) and should be dealt with by source

>Without a doubt some warming will occur. However there is mucho disagreement
>on how much warming will occur.
>The original doomsdayers were claiming 10 to 15 degrees Farhenheit. Lately
>they have been saying 3-5 degrees. Newer studies hint that it might be less
>than a degree.

Of course, then there's the other side. An article in yesterday's Atlanta
Journal stated that there are many scientists who have misgivings that the 
data being used to determine whether or not global warming is occuring is
faulty. The point that the article made is that all long term temperature
dataa collected has been in urban areas, and that any heat rise can be
attributed to the growth and urbanization of the area. They called it
the "asphalt temperature trend". We have no real long term data on remote
areas, such as the middle of the Amazon rain forest, or the top of Mt. Everest
or the Gobi desert, for that matter. An accompanying article mentioned that
a group of scientists at NASA had developed a method for using a satellite
to collect temperature data globally, and that preliminary results showed
a slight downward trend attributed to the Mt Pinatubo eruption. It went
on to say that even with the current downward trend, there appeared to be
*NO* change in global temperatures using trend prediction methods for at
least the next 50 years.

I can quote the article verbatim if you like..
-- 
 Tom Gillman, Systems Programmer       | "AAAAAGGGGHHHH" 
 Wells Computer Center-Ga. State Univ. |    -- Any "Classic" Star Trek Security
 (404) 651-4503 syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu |       officer sometime during the show
 GSU doesn't care what I say on the Internet, why should you?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179027
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr20.215127.29919@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes...
>In article <1993Apr19.213012.23123@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>In article <1993Apr17.043704.23702@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes...
>>>In article <1993Apr17.023211.23547@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>>>In article <philC5Lru6.LxA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes...
>>>>>In article <1993Apr15.195139.29457@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>>>Why
>>>>did Ford go to the trouble of pardoning him if he did nothing wrong? 
> 
>>>Duh....  Garrett, you ignorant slut, read up on Watergate.
>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	So, are all you guys so unarticulate that you ALL must 
>>must call names? Are none of you above grade-school levels in intelligence?
> 
>Jesus, Garret, haven't you ever watched Saturday Night Live?  Not only
>are you a historical ignoramus, but you are also a cultural ignoramus.

What does Saturday Night Live have to do with anything? When they make fun
of someone they do it with a little bit of creativity and talent. You, on the
other hand, have a complete lack of creativity, talent, and verbal mechanics.
And if you think that SNL is culture, then it just shows where your intellectual
level is.

>>>What is generally
>>>accepted is that Nixon attempted to cover up the break in after it
>>>occurred.  It was actions in pursuit of that end that he was pardoned
>>>for.  You, of course, are so ignorant of history that you think that
>>>he was involved in the break in.
> 
>>I guess that makes you even dumber than me then because he was officially
>>accused of alot more than that. Let me list it for you:
> 
>>1) Obstructing justice.
> 
>As part of the coverup

Granted.
> 
>>2) Abusing his presidential powers
> 
>To do the coverup

Only in part. Let's not forget that Nixon personally authorized the
break-in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist.
> 
>>3) Subverting the constitutional rights of citizens
> 
>I challenge you to provided any evidence that Nicon was officially
>accused of thi.  If nothing else, it's meaningless.  How can you
>subvert someone's constitutional rights?  The verb doesn't go with the
>noun.  

Tell that to the House. That WAS the charge. Or are you going to challenge
me on that as well? Subverting the constitutional rights of citizens has
nothing to do with covering-up for Watergate. You have been proved wrong,
again. But I don't expect you to believe this since your arrogance has
replaced your reason.
> 
>>4) and willfully disobeying lawful subpoenas for White House records and
>>    tapes.
> 
>Part of the coverup.

Granted.
> 
>Garrett, please note that every charge you mention, except for the one
>that has no English meaning, was part of the coverup.
> 
Wrong again. You forgot about Ellsberg.

>>	BTW, why od you think he tried to cover it up? 
> 
>Loyalty to people who worked for him.

This would be funny, if it weren't so sad that you actually believe this.
In his "loyalty" he allowed the people who worked for him to take the 
rap, while he idly sat by and let it happen. If he REALLY was loyal to
the people who worked for them, he would have pardoned them before he 
resigned. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Death to all modifiers, he declared one day, and out of       Garrett Johnson
 every letter that passed through his hands went every      Garrett@Ingres.com
 adverb and adjective. The next day he made war on articles.
 The following day he blacked out everything in the letters
 but "a", "an", and "the".  - Joseph Heller's Catch-22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179028
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Watergate (was: Temper tantrums from the 1960's

In article <1993Apr20.215539.346@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes...
>In article <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>In article <philC5n67A.MBF@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes...
>>>In article <1993Apr17.013559.17391@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>Well it really doesn't matter anyway because I really don't care what liars
>>think of me anyway. What? Did I call you liars? You want proof? I'd be
>>glad to provide it. I'm really sure which ones of you said these things 
>>since you all sound the same anyway. 
> 
>>	One of you said "Nixon didn't start ANY secret wars."
> 
>>This is a lie. Nixon had full knowledge of the invasions of Laos and
>>Cambodia, and then lied to the American public about it.
> 
>Note, however, that these were military actions but not wars.

What a JOKE! You can't actually believe what you just said. Can you? We 
bombed and invaded these countries.

Notice the definition of war (from the American Heritage Dictionary):
	1) A state or period of armed conflict between nations or states.
This qualifies the invasions of Cambodia and Laos as wars.
> 
>>	One of you said "Nixon didn't use the office of the presidency
>>  for personal gain."
> 
>>This is a lie. The Senate committee issued an indictment that listed
>>Nixon's crimes. The relevant ones were: 
>>1) Violating his oath of office.
>>2) ABUSING HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS
> 
>Excuse me, but neither of these refer to personal gain.

Then let me explain this to you REALLY slowly. Why did he abuse the 
powers of his position? Could it have been to gain personal political 
power? Naw, that would be too obvious.
> 
>>	So now, you're BIG thing that you have been flogging me with
>>is that I mistook PRC for People's Republic of Cambodia. Since I knew
>>that Cambodia was socialist at the time, and since your comment was
>>right in middle of a conversation about Cambodia, I made the wrong
>>assumption that we were talking about the same thing.
> 
>Ah, but Garrett, anyone who has to make assumptions about the meaning
>of the initials PRC in a discussion about Asia is breathtakingly
>ignorant.  

And anyone who can only call names because his position is defensless is
breathtakingly ignorant and desperate. I noticed that you edited out the
other points were I proved you and Phil to be completely wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Death to all modifiers, he declared one day, and out of       Garrett Johnson
 every letter that passed through his hands went every      Garrett@Ingres.com
 adverb and adjective. The next day he made war on articles.
 The following day he blacked out everything in the letters
 but "a", "an", and "the".  - Joseph Heller's Catch-22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179029
From: mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble)
Subject: Re: Waco *is* Gov't fault (Was Re: Libertarian Party on CIA/FBI/ATF)

In article <C5wKyG.3Fy@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
> 
>In article <1993Apr21.104744.1@happy.uccs.edu>, etbeteille@happy.uccs.edu writes:
> 
>|>Here are *several* shreds of evidence that prove the Waco disaster
>|>is the government's fault:
>|>
>|>1)  They raided an American's property because of *rumors* about
>|>    Koresh's intentions with some converted, yet still 2nd-amendment
>|>    protected, firearms (a judge-approved warrant justifies nothing)
> 
>In a democracy under the rule of law a search warrant justifies a 
>search.
> 
>The US constitution does not justify murder of those attempting to 
>mount a search for illegally held weapons.

A search for illegally held weapons (IF there were any, no evidence yet
produced to this effect) does not justify firing into a house with
women and children, either. It also does not justify shooting first
without identifying oneself (the ATF and FBI have done this before, so
don't say they haven't, please) or producing a warrant.

Guess it depends on whose story one believes, huh?

> 
>|>2)  It took them *51 days* to think of a basic terrorist tactic, i.e.
>|>    tear gas (and this could only be justified in support of rescuing
>|>    any supposed `hostages' inside)
> 
>The Govt has a right to use lethal force in certain cases. Attempts to 
>capture dangerous criminals who are armed and threatening the lives of others

Which "others" are we talking about here?

>is one. In this case they used sub lethal force. 

"Sub lethal"? Excuse me, but those people are dead!!!

>|>3)  The gov't immediately imprisoned these so-called `hostages'
> 
>The children were held hostage. 

Evidence? So far the FBI has produced none. Don't hold your breath.

>The adults were wanted variously for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Only a few of those being held in chains and s(hackles are wanted . 
The rest are being held for the crime of being "material witnesses".

>|>4)  It took hundreds of gov't agents with tax-funded cellular phones
>|>    *ten minutes* to dial 9-1-1 for the fire department
> 
>They should not have called the fire dept at all. There was no role
>for them to play in a situation where those that might be rescued might
>well shoot at them.

It was not the Feds decision to make, but the firefighters.

>Calling the fire dept meant that WACO was deprived
>of a resource that might have been needed elsewhere should a situation 
>where it could have been used arisen.

This is true of ANY answer to a call for help from a fire department by
ANY citizen. Since fire departments do answer calls that "deprive 
resources that might be needed elsewhere" it is not a valid reason for
not calling them.

Further, since the Davidians had not been found guilty of any crime in
a court of law, they are subject to the same protection as any other
citizen. And las far as I know, even criminals in prison are not left to 
burn to death in a fire.

>|>5)  By cutting off the water supply in the surrounding area, the gov't
>|>    guaranteed that any fire at the compound would be fatal
> 
>Any fire started deliberately uising lamp oil is likely to be fatal.

I guess this is a matter of religious faith with you? The government
says it, so it must be so? Or haven't you been reading this thread well 
enough to notice that some of us here don't beleive their story?

>|>6)  No one had the foresight to station rescue vehicles nearby in the
>|>    first place
> 
>They are a scarce resource. A bunch of psychos cannot deprive the neighbourhood
>of a resource that might be required in a genuine case.

Patients in psychiatric hospitals are not left to die in fires, either.
Besides, as I explained, some of us here believe their distress might
have been genuine. Are you SO certain it wasn't?

>|>7)  The gov't conveniently forgot all that `freedom of religion' stuff
> 
>Freedom of religion does not include human sacrifice. Nor does it
>include other forms of murder.

There is no evidence that the Davidians committed human sacrifice 
either before of after the initial raid. And self-defense is not
murder.

>|>8)  The gov't arguably started (or at least fanned) the fire themselves 
> 
>The govt arguably is run by communists or the trilateral commission.

He did not say it was deliberate. Accidents do not require conspiracy
theories, only wanton disregard for human life. The initial raid alone
(agents firing blind into walls against all standards of law enforce-
ment procedure) proves they did not mind killing people.

>|>10) Finally, and this may be a stretch for some of you statists out there,
>|>    but Koresh's original reasons for holing up in such a compound may
>|>    have *something* to do with the continual interference from the gov't
>|>    -- new taxes, new regulations and increasing involvement in every
>|>    aspect of our personal and economic lives -- Life on a compound might
>|>    become the way of the future ... it might have to be
> 
>Let us hope that those who support Koresh are not allowed to enforce this upon
>the rest of us. 

No one here is "supporting Koresh". We are opposing the illegal use of
excessive violence by our government against our citizens. That is all.

>Their reasons for supporting the ownership of high power
>weaponry are clear enough they hope that this will be the catylist for
>the destruction of the fabric of society and allow them to enforce their
>nightmare vision of the future.

A society that believes it is OK to terrorize people for their religious
views will destroy itself in due time. It is the feds who disrupted the
"fabric of society" in Waco, not Koresh. It is the feds who forced a
nightmare onto the people of Mount Carmel.

>It would be a good thing for people to study history. 

On what basis do you assume we haven't? Don't you really mean
"It would be a good thing if people drew the same conclusions from
history that I do?" :-)

>In particular a group of militant...

"Militant" implies acts of aggression against one's neighbors. The
Davidians left their neighbors alone.

.religious heretics who left to set up such a community
>some time ago. A few years latter they had captured Medina and destroyed
>the idols in the Kabba. Within ten years the whole of Arabia was under
>Islam.

So what? The Mormons were considered a "cult" for years, and were chased
out of one place after another on much the same thinking as you are
advocating. When they finally got to "set up a community" they left
people alone. So far Americans haven't been put to the sword by Mormon
hordes crying to avenge Joseph Smith. :-)

>Just because a group of people start by saying that all they want is to be 
>left alone does not mean that that is how they will stay. 

It doesn't mean they won't either. Anyway, the whole purpose of a 
system of laws is to punish people for what they DO, not what they
MIGHT do. 

>The Pat Robertsons,
>Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggarts of this world are quite telling other
>people how to run their lives.

"Telling" is not the same as "forcing". When the police knock at my
door, I cannot make them go away by changing the channeI. As for Pat
and friends, I don't even WATCH their channel, since I am an atheist.
So far, not watching them tell me what to do hasn't gotten me killed :-)

> If you allow such people to get guns and
>point them in your face you are likely to find that they are running your
>life.

Right now, the only people sticking guns in anyone's faces is the 
government. And they are trying very hard to run my life. Or 
haven't you noticed?

>Phill Hallam-Baker

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble      | College Libertarians of Texas - UH Chapter |
| MECE3D@JETSON.UH.EDU   | Box 113, 4800 Calhoun, Houston, TX 77004   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    The true civilization is where every man gives to every other    |
|    every right that he claims for himself  --  Robert Ingersoll     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179030
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: Cults, Waco & Insanity

In article <C5w51C.H39@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>
patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes:
 
>
>Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Branch Davidian
>people immolated themselves in the manner described by the
>Federal authorities, why does the general consensus appear to
>be that they -- the BD -- were insane? Is it the manner of their
>behaviour before they died, or the fact they chose to kill
>themselves rather than submit to the Government?
>
>I ask this question because there is a tradition, and one that
>is highly regarded by many people, that several hundred Jews
>elected to throw themselves off a cliff at Masada rather than
>submit to Roman rule. The circumstances at Masada and those at
>Waco would seem in general terms quite similar, and yet so far
>as I'm aware nobody has seriously suggested that the Jews were
>insane.
>
>The point of this comparison is to question the use of the word
>'cult' in discussing the events at Waco. Why were the Davidians
>a cult, and not the Jews at Masada? What constitutes a cult? Is
>it the size of the membership, or a matter of respectability, or
>perhaps the length of time it's been in existence? Are the
>Catholics a cult? How about the Mormons or the Calvinists? Is
>a sect a respectible cult?
>
>Dictionary definitions aside, since popular usage seems to carry
>more weight, I suspect that the word 'cult' is used in a perjorive
>sense when speaking of groups like the Davidians. It is rather
>like the word 'boss' when used to describe someone unpopular --
>or someone the government wishes to *make* unpopular -- like, say,
>Castro: "the Communist boss of Cuba." One doesn't hear Clinton
>described as "America's Democratic [or Capitalist] boss."
>
>--
>
Well, for one thing most, if not all the Dividians (depending on whether
they could show they acted in self-defense and there were no illegal
weapons), could have gone on with their life as they were living it.
No one was forcing them to give up their religion or even their
legal weapons. The Dividians had survived a change in leadership
before so even if Koresch himself would have been convicted and
sent to jail, they still could have carried on.
 
I don't think the Dividians were insane, but I don't see a reason
for mass suicide (if the fire was intentional set by some of the
Dividians.) We also don't know that, if the fire was intentionally
set from inside, was it a generally know plan or was this something
only an inner circle knew about, or was it something two or three
felt they had to do with or without Koresch's knowledge/blessing, etc.?
I don't know much about Masada. Were some people throwing others over?
Did mothers jump over with their babies in their arms?
 
Richard
 
 
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179031
From: kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu
Subject: Re: Drugs And Crime: A New Approach

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes,
(missing the entire point of my post):

> kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu wrote:
>
> |Given that:
>
> |1. The trade in illegal drugs is responsible for
> |much of the crime which afflicts our nation.
>
> There is much evidence that it is the fact that the drugs are illegal, not
> the drugs themselves that have caused the violence. Witness prohibition
> and the violence that surrounded the trade in alcohol.

No joke.

> |2. People who want drugs (particularly people who
> |are predisposed to addiction) will find a way to get
> |them, whether or not they are legally available.
>
> This is suppossed to be an argument for keeping drugs illegal?

No,_you_jumped to_that_conclusion.  It's actually an argument as
to how to accomplish the societal good of discouraging drug use
without violating individual rights.

> |3. Despite current law enforcement efforts, drugs
> |are readily available to those who want them.
>
> This is suppossed to be an argument for keeping drugs illegal?

No. _You_missed the point.  The point is, the "War On Drugs"
is a failure, and is counterproductive.

> |4. Addiction to drugs, boh legal and illegal, is
> |responsible for a significant drain on the productive
> |resources of our country, and this occurs in a variety
> |of ways, from the cocaine-addicted babies who are
> |unable to learn, to the spread of disease among
> |addicts, to the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse
> |and tobacco smoking.
>
> The crack baby scenario has been thouroughly discredited. It
> just so happens that the symptoms seen in the crack babies are
> identical to fetal alcohol syndrome. And the mothers who admitted
> to taking crack also admitted to drinking heavily during pregnancy.
>
> In this country people are free to be stupid if they want to.

But, they are not free to be stupid and injure other people.
Admittedly, the fetal right-to-life is outside the scope of
this discussion.  However, it's ridiculous to assert, as you
apparently do, that cocaine has_no effect_on the developing
fetal nervous system.  Caffiene and nicotine have fetal effects
too, why should cocaine be any exception?

> |5. A general economic principle of government is
> |that whatever is subsidized you get more of, and
> |whatever is taxed you get less of.  To be most
> |effective in confronting the nation's drug problem,
> |some way must be found to utilize these additional
> |powers of government to make drug dealing and drug use
> |less attractive.
>
> So make the drugs legal, tax them and use the tax money to fund a program
> to tell people how studid drugs are. It has worked for the legal drugs.

If you had read my article before writing your knee-jerk response
you would have seen that this is exactly what I advocated.

> |While this country's current efforts to combat
> |legal drugs have succeeded in some respects, (there is
> |a greater awareness of the health consequences of
> |smoking, and designated-driver programs have helped
> |reduce drunk driving, for example), the same cannot be
> |said for the "war" on illegal drugs.  There remains a
> |core group of illegal drug users which support
> |international networks of smugglers, pushers, growers,
> |processors, kingpins, and gangsters.  These networks
> |and their "marketing activities," which include drive-
> |by shootings, corrupting law enforcement authorities,
> |and smuggling weapons, are directly or indirectly
> |responsible for a large proportion of the crimes
> |committed in our country every day.
>
> Each and every one of these problems is a direct result of the
> drug trade being illegal.

No shit, Sherlock.

[...]
> |Clearly, illegal drugs and rising crime are
> |linked.  It takes only a moment's reflection to
> |recognize how they are linked.  The link is money.  As
> |with this country's failed effort to prohibit alcohol
> |consumption, a black market has been created, in which
> |greedy local monopolies, like the gangsters of a
> |bygone era, have profited enormously from their
> |illegal trade.  The victims of this trade include not
> |only the innocent people unfortunate enough to be
> |caught in the crossfire, but, I would argue, the drug
> |users themselves.
>
> A great argument for making drugs legal.

Thank you.  How could you have missed the point so utterly?
What_have_you been smoking?

> |Here then is my proposal:
>
> |1. Possession and use of all presently illegal
> |drugs is decriminalized, but buying and selling them
> |remains illegal.  'Potheads' can grow their own
> |marijuana (as many already do today), other drug users
> |can legally import their poison of choice as long as
> |they pay the tariffs, and a barter economy of drug
> |experimenters develops.
>
> Your solution has done nothing to eliminate the violence in
> the drug trade.  BTW, how is someone going to import a drug
> if buying it is illegal.  I think you need to think your solution
> through a little more thouroughly.

Obviously, importers will not be buying drugs in the U.S., under
U.S. jurisdiction.  Use your remaining brain cells.

> |2. Because of the barter economy which supplies
> |the drug users, the black market profits that have so
> |enriched the drug lords dwindle.  If these drugs can
> |be obtained for 'free' or next to nothing, why buy
> |them?  Nevertheless, there will be those who will seek
> |to sell these "noncommercial" drugs even at relatively
> |low prices.  Therefore,
>
> You have failed to indicate how these drugs can be obtained for
> free or next to nothing. You have stated that the sale of them
> is illegal.

O.K., I'll spell it out for you.  "Barter economy" means that
drug users will be permitted to grow or synthesize chemically
anything they choose, or to buy it outside the U.S. and bring
it in, if it won't grow here.  They will also be permitted to
trade with other drug users for drugs other than the ones they
themselves grow or manufacture.  They will not, however be able
to legally sell their drugs for money.  Both manufacture and
importation of noncommercial drugs will be taxed, to discourage
their use. "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"

> |3. Law enforcement activity is concentrated on
> |those individuals who continue to buy and sell, and
> |also on the crimes committed by drug users too poor to
> |afford even low prices.  But here is where the
> |strategy begins to differentiate between the drug
> |dealers, the victimizers, and the drug users, their
> |victims.
>
> In most cities, this is already the strategy. It has already
> failed and is dragging the rest of us down with it.

Pardon me, but possession/use of these drugs is still a crime!
You cannot analogize the rates at which drug users would seek
treatment, and the comparative ease with which it could be
made available today, when these drugs are illegal to possess/use,
with what it would be were they_not_illegal to possess/use.
Decriminalizing possession and use makes treatment_much_easier.
Drug dealers are exploiting the weaknesses of those persons who
are prone to addiction, and as such, the drug users should be
left alone, not thrown in prison along with their victimizers.
Drug_dealers_are the criminals, and should be treated as such.
Drug addiction does not absolve you of responsiblity for your
criminal actions, however.

> |4. Upon arrest for_any_crime,_suspects are
> |permitted to choose whether or not they will undergo a
> |drug test.  Those who choose to cooperate are informed
> |that upon conviction for the crime they are accused
> |of, if they are found to be a drug user, they will be
> |institutionalized until they are clean, and only then
> |will they begin to serve their sentence.  If they
> |choose to cooperate and are already drug-free, they
> |can begin to serve their sentence right away.  Those
> |who choose not to undergo the drug test and are
> |convicted face stiffer fines and serve longer
> |sentences.
>
> This sounds a hell of a lot like self incrimination. Which is
> unconstitutional.  If drug use is legal in your scheme, why should
> the presence of drugs in anyones system influence the penalty they
> receive? Much too big brotherish for my tastes.

The drug test of an arrested suspect is voluntary, not coerced,
and does not therefore constitute violation of Amendment V.
Those convicted who are drug users, as evidenced by the test,
are in need of treatment for their problem.  Institutionalization
of these adddicted criminals is, I would argue, the best way to
help them straighten out.  If they refuse the test and are convicted,
their sentence can be appropriately harsher, since they, unlike the
addict, have no "excuse" for their crimes.

> |5. Institutionalization of drug using criminals
> |serves several purposes:
>
> |Drug using criminals (and this includes drunk
> |and/or 'stoned' drivers) are separated from their
> |sources of supply, thus reducing the total number of
> |drug users in society at large, and consequently
> |decreasing the demand for drugs on the street, putting
> |more of the remaining drug dealers out of business.
>
> Why should drug using criminals be treated any different from
> other criminals, you have already stated that drug use is legal.
>
> Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Why not?  My objective is to discourage drug use_and_criminal
behavior.  If fewer criminals do drugs out of fear of getting a
harsher sentence if they are convicted, why is that not a good
thing?  If fewer drug dealers (who are still criminals, BTW)
can find victims, why is that not a good thing?  If fewer drug
users, such as drunks, 'potheads,' etc., commit crimes out of
fear of being cut off from their sources of supply, why is that
not a good thing?

I'm certainly willing to debate my position.
You have to read it carefully though.

--Standard disclaimer-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320.711@compuserve.com**********************
 "I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the
    set, I go into the other room and read a book."--Groucho Marx

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179033
From: jwalbea@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you

In article <1993Apr18.192508.12442@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
|> >In article <1993Mar24.235606.15959@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:

|> >|> >> Steve proposes a system of checking what other nations are in to
|> >|> >> as criteria for what our government should try.

|> >|> > I counter that the limits of the constitution might be a better
|> >|> > place to check.
|> 
|> >|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to...
|> >|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
|> >|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I
|> >|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.
|> >
|> >You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your
|> >own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted
|> >but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not
|> >a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That 
|> >poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages 
|> >in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who
|> >think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you
|> >really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting
|> >the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?
|> 
|> Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general
|> welfare" in another portion of the constitution.
|> 
|> Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
|> taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL
|> WELFARE of the United States..."
|> 
|> I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they
|> said in the preamble.
|> 
|> >Just to make sure you've got the point, let's do a little experiment.  What
|> >if the constitution read as follows?
|> >Preamble: We the people, to promote the general Welfare, do ordain
|> >          and establish this Constitution for the United States of
|> >          America.
|> >Constitution:  The Federal Government shall have one function and one
|> >               function only - to provide for the defense of the nation.
|> >The government would not then have two functions: defense and Welfare.  
|> 
|> But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense
|> in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional
|> functions.  Right?

Steve I'm glad to see that you abandoned the preamble thing.  What; did
you do a word search to find Welfare somewhere else in the constitution?

[my comments and paraphrases in brackets]

Article I Section 8:  [in some ways the guts of the constitution]

The Congress shall have the Power:

1. To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 
       to pay the Debts [indebtedness as defined in the document]
       and provide for the common Defence [Defence as precisely defined]
       and general Welfare [as defined through the document, mostly in ways
                           [that limit the government.]
         of the United States; [but the above taxes shall be uniform through-
                               [out the U.S.]

    [so far the congress has been given the power to collect taxes uniformly]

    [ then ... ]

2.  To borrow Money [...]
3.  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, [interstate and Indian tribes]
4.  To [do uniform Naturalization and Bankruptcies]
5.  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and [etc.]
6.  To [punish counterfeiters]
7.  To establish Post Offices and post Roads
8.  To [provide patents and copyrights]
9.  To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10. To define and punish Piracies and [etc.]
11. To declare War, [and etc.]
12. To raise and support Armies,[but for no longer than two years at a stretch]
13. To provide and maintain a Navy, [notice no time limit on this one]
14. To [make the rules for the army and navy]
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws [etc.]
16. To provide for [training of the army except for some state stuff]
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation [in D.C]
18. To make all Laws [necessary to execute the foregoing "Powers"].

Your original instinct was right.  Looking to other nations for precedents
that support an expansive liberal agenda is much easier than looking to the
slim pickins found in the constitution.

-- 
Jim Albea                     jwalbea@jima.b17d.ingr.com



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179034
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: AM Press Briefing by Dee Dee Myers 4.20.93



	     

                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 20, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY DEE DEE MYERS

                          The Briefing Room


9:47 A.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Okay, today's schedule.  As you know, the 
President jogged this morning with Senator Wofford.  
	     
	     At 1:15 p.m., he will have a photo opportunity in the 
Rose Garden to present the Teacher of the Year Award.  At 1:30 p.m., 
he will meet with his principal advisors on Bosnia.  And at 5:00 
p.m., he'll meet with President Vaclav Havel.  There will be a photo 
op at the top of that meeting; no formal press conference afterwards.
	     
	     Any questions?
	     
	     Q	  Is he moving towards some major decision this week 
on Bosnia?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  As we've said, he's continuing to discuss 
his options.  He's been talking extensively with his foreign policy 
advisors, his Bosnia advisors, as well as with other world leaders.  
He'll try to contact President Mitterrand again today, and he'll 
continue to discuss it.  We don't have any specific timetable, but 
obviously the situation there is very serious.
	     
	     Q	  Has he called Janet Reno today or yesterday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe he's spoken to her today.
	     
	     Q	  Why does he have nothing to say about this publicly 
except on the piece of paper that was put out last night at 6:40 
p.m.?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He did.  He answered a question about it 
yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Before anything had happened.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Before anything happened.  He put out --
	     
	     Q	  Since something has happened he's had nothing to 
say.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's put out a statement on it last night.  
And we'll have more to say about it later today.
	     
	     Q	  In what forum is that going to be?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It will be at the photo in the Rose Garden.
	     
	     Q	  He will talk about Waco at that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, he'll have something to say.
	     
	     Q	  Is that something we can take live?
	     

	     MS. MYERS:  I think it will be brief.  We can talk a 
little later about the exact structure as we work it out.  But I 
don't know if it's something you'd want to take live.
	     
	     Q	  Will he take questions on Waco at that time as 
well?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll probably take a few.
	     
	     Q	  Is there any reason why he hasn't talked to the 
Attorney General?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'll have to double-check.  I don't know 
that he hasn't talked to her this morning.
	     
	     Q	  And she didn't come here this morning to see him or 
anyone else?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  And he didn't talk yesterday?
	     
	     Q	  What's the reaction to her resignation statement 
that she made last night?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  She was asked a question about it, and she 
answered the question.  The President has absolutely no intention of 
asking for the Attorney General's resignation.  He stands behind her 
100 percent.  As you know, he was informed about the decision.  He 
takes full responsibility for that, and stands 100 percent behind 
Attorney General Reno.
	     
	     Q	  The question now arises -- yesterday we were told 
that he was briefed on this, but we never got a firm idea of how much 
he knew of what the plan was and the justification for the plan and 
the justification of the timing.  Was he fully informed on all of 
that, all of this about the increasing levels of violence inside the 
compound that made them want to go now, the feeling that nothing else 
was going to succeed, et cetera?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He talked with the Attorney General about 
the decision, about -- she talked to him about the factors that led 
to her decision.  He raised no objections.  He supports her decision 
to go forward with it.  He was fully briefed.
	     
	     Q	  Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but looking back 
now, does the President, does the White House feel that the decision 
he signed off on proved to be the right way to go when you look at 
what actually happened?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think everybody feels bad when life is 
lost.  But I don't think that that is reason to second-guess the 
decision.  He stands behind the decision that was made.  He was 
informed about it.  He was fully briefed about it and he stands 100 
percent behind the Attorney General, the Justice Department and the 
FBI.  It's a difficult operation and there's -- it had already gone 
on for more than seven weeks.  Four federal agents had lost their 
lives in the line of duty -- let's not forget that.  
	     
	     This was a very difficult situation and all the 
decisions involved were very difficult.  But all the agents on the 
ground, the FBI, the Justice Department all recommended moving 
forward with this.  They thought, given the circumstances, it was the 
best possible course of action.  There's just no point in second-
guessing those decisions.  Now, I think that there's a reason --
	     
	     Q	  Why not?  They have to --
	     

	     MS. MYERS:  No, not to second-guess the decisions.  I 
think it's important to take a look at it, to have an investigation.  
I think the President will talk some about that later today.  But at 
this -- from this vantage point, to second-guess those decisions, 
it's not useful.
	     
	     Q	  You sound like he's going to order an investigation 
of what happened and whether --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think he'll have more to say about that 
later, yes.
	     
	     Q	  He will order an investigation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll have more -- yes -- he'll have more to 
say about an investigation.
	     
	     Q	  What kind of investigation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll have more to say about it later.
	     
	     Q	  But in the Monday morning quarterbacking, surely 
there is some soul-searching now as to whether it was the right 
decision.  You can't say that we did the best we could when it turned 
out to be a rather -- a debacle.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:   I think we'll -- obviously, we'll review 
the situation and all the factors that lead to a very tragic outcome.  
I don't think anybody disputes that the outcome was tragic.  But, 
again, the President stands behind the decisions that were made and 
we'll take a look at the factors that contributed to that.
	     
	     Q	  What was the FBI Director's role in this?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, he was obviously involved in setting 
up the operation.  He signed off on it, as did the agents that were 
on the ground that were working with him.  I don't believe he spoke 
to the President, but I'll double-check that.
	     
	     Q	  But he was very closely involved in every aspect of 
planning and so forth?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I would refer you to the FBI on exactly what 
aspects he was involved with.
	     
	     Q	  Will Janet Reno be coming over to the White House 
today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There's no planned meeting.  I don't believe 
that she'll be here.
	     
	     Q	  She won't be at this event at 1:15 p.m.?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, no plans to be.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think that there's going to be a jumping on 
on the part of political opposition to make something out of this in 
terms of -- to the President's detriment politically?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I would certainly hope that people 
wouldn't try to use this tragedy for political reasons.  Obviously, I 
think, again, that it's useful to look at the facts, to reevaluate 
the facts, and I think the President will move forward with that.  
But I think people understand that this was a difficult series of 
decisions; that it was a very difficult situation; that it was caused 
by a man who was a cult leader who was involved in the death of four 
federal agents.   And I think it's most tragic that a lot of innocent 

children lost their lives in this.  I don't think anybody disputes 
the tragedy of the outcome.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what was the White House role in handling 
the, I guess, public relations aspect  in the aftermath?  Who was 
talking -- who here at the White House was talking with people at 
Justice to set up Reno's news conference, to do all that sort of 
thing?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the Attorney General handled her end 
of the situation herself and made the decision to go ahead with the 
news conference once there was a point at which there was enough 
information, I think, to talk with some accuracy about what had 
transpired during the day.  Obviously, people here at a number of 
levels were keeping in touch with people at the Justice Department 
and at the FBI to try to keep informed about what was happening 
there.
	     
	     Q	  But Reno said that she didn't talk to the 
President, and there seemed to be an indication she hadn't talked to 
anybody at the White House.  So who --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There were people talking on a staff-to-
staff level.
	     
	     Q	  I understand.  But who at the Justice Department 
was handling that for Reno?  Who was talking to the White House?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There were a number of people.  As you know, 
Webb Hubbell is the liaison to the White House, and I know he talked 
to a number of people here.  There were a number of people at a 
number of different levels involved.  I don't want to get into 
exactly who had what conversations with whom, but there were a number 
of conversations.  Obviously, the Justice Department was working to 
keep the White House informed, the press informed to the best of its 
ability as events unfolded throughout the day.
	     
	     Q	  Did Webb Hubbell talk to the President?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.  I don't know if he 
talked -- he may have at one point.
	     
	     Q	  And was the White House role just to seek 
information about what happened, or was it to direct the public 
information campaign that followed?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It was both to keep abreast of the situation 
so the President could be on top of it, but I think the Justice 
Department managed its press relations on it.  We were obviously very 
interested in what was happening there throughout the day, and the 
President was following it very closely throughout the day.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, on that, though, if the President was 
following it so closely and he had talked the night before with Janet 
Reno, why wouldn't he talk to her at all since then?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I don't know if he's talked to her 
this morning.  Again, he's kept fully aware of what has been going on 
throughout the day.  He stands 100 percent behind her decisions.  
He's been fully supportive of her, as he said yesterday morning 
before events transpired and yesterday afternoon in a written 
statement.
	     
	     Q	  But wouldn't he want to convey those thoughts to 
her personally yesterday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  One more time, I don't know if they've 
spoken this morning.

	     
	     Q	  No, yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  Clearly there's a perception that she was left hung 
out to dry all day yesterday.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That's just not true.  I think we said 
throughout the day that the President takes full responsibility, that 
he stands -- I don't know how much clearer we can be.  The President 
stands foursquare behind the Attorney General on this.  He accepts 
full responsibility for the events that transpired.  He believes that 
Janet Reno, the Justice Department, and the FBI acted as best they 
could, given the circumstances and the facts that were evident at the 
time.  I don't know what else he can say to show that he supports her 
1,000 percent.
	     
	     Q	  One of the best indications of that is to pick up 
the phone and tell her.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I don't know whether they've spoken 
this morning.
	     
	     Q	  Why can't we find out?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, we can.  I can't do it standing here 
right now.
	     
	     Q	  You've got six people here.  All they've got to do 
is pick up the phone.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Helen, we'll get back to you.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, when the President spoke with the Attorney 
General on Sunday, is it safe to assume that either she volunteered 
or he inquired about whether there was a possible downside to 
increasing pressure on the Davidians?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that they discussed the situation.  
Again, I'm not going to get into the specific details of what exactly 
she told him, but I think that he was aware of the risks involved.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the President yesterday morning said it 
was entirely her decision.  She then said that she told him what was 
happening and he said, okay.  Does the President regard it that he 
gave the go-ahead or that she gave the go-ahead?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think what they both said yesterday was 
that she made a decision based on all the available facts.  She 
informed him about that and he raised no objections.  Again, I don't 
know how much clearer we can be about that.
	     
	     Q	  And he said, okay.  The issue is over the 
responsibility.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He said, okay.
	     
	     Q	   Does okay mean --

	     MS. MYERS:  The President accepts ultimate 
responsibility.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the President's investigation that he's 
going to announce -- would that be conducted by someone outside the 
administration?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     

	     Q	  It would be internal -- is it meant to preclude any 
congressional investigation?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, it's meant simply to follow up on the 
incidents that occurred yesterday.
	     
	     Q	  And you would, I assume, therefore, cooperate fully 
with any congressional hearings that would be held?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  To the best of our ability.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, there are two reports out this morning.  
One that the Justice Department, or FBI, or whomever, apparently had 
a bug planted inside the complex.  And the other is that the children 
may have been injected with some kind of poison that may have either 
left them unconscious or maybe even killed them before the fire.  
What do you know about those two --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing more than I've seen in news accounts 
this morning.  We may get more on it later, but at this point, I know 
-- I'm not sure anybody knows any more than what was reported by 
people who came out of the compound.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President received any report today in 
terms of fatalities and actually what was going on -- what they've 
been able to find out on in the compound now?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's been briefed.  I don't think that 
they've gotten into the compound yet.  They were still waiting for it 
to cool off.  I don't think there's much beyond what's been reported 
in the news accounts.  But he has been kept up-to-date on it.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the President stands behind Attorney 
General Reno, but does he feel that she perhaps got bad advice from 
the so-called experts?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He believes that she made -- he stands 
behind the decision that she made.  It was the unanimous decision of 
her advisors, of the FBI, of the agents on the ground, and he 
supports that.
	     
	     Q	  What about the validity of the decisions made on 
the ground?  Does he back those --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's not going to second-guess decisions 
made.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, you just said, he stands behind the 
decision which she made.  Normally, in a situation like this, the 
President says, I  made the decision.  But you're saying she made the 
decision?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm saying that the President was briefed 
about the decision.  He okayed it and he accepts full responsibility 
for it.
	     
	     Q	  But then why do you keep using the terminology, the 
decision that she made, rather than the decision that he made --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Because, as he said yesterday, she evaluated 
the facts based on evidence presented to her by Justice Department 
and FBI, which is part of the Justice Department, and made a decision 
and then briefed the President on that decision.  That is how the 
chain of command works.  She briefed him.  He signed off on it.  The 
operation went forward, and the President accepts full 
responsibility.
	     

	     Q	  In that chain of command analogy there, I want to 
go back to Sessions a moment.  Do you know if this was a plan that 
came through him to Reno, or was it presented to her around him or 
with his involvement?  What was his involvement?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, you'd have to go to the Justice 
Department for the specific interaction between the Attorney General 
and the Director.
	     
	     Q	  Does the President stand behind Director Sessions?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He supports -- again, I don't know how many 
different ways I can say this -- he supports the decisions made by 
the Justice Department and the FBI.  He fully supports the Attorney 
General in this.  I'm not stepping away from the Director of the FBI, 
I want to -- but Janet Reno is the one who briefed him, the one who 
made the decisions as the head of the Justice Department.  As you 
know, the Director of the FBI reports to the Attorney General.  The 
Attorney General made the decision.  She informed the President about 
those decisions.  He okayed it.  He didn't raise any objections to 
it, and he accepts full responsibility.
	     
	     Q	  Do you have, based on what you know here at the 
White House, any concerns about William Sessions' performance during 
this --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Nothing to suggest that, no.
	     
	     Q	  Along those same lines, just in your initial review 
of the situation, how much do you think the problems might have come 
from not having a Justice Department that's fully staffed and having 
an FBI Director who is still quite uncertain about his status?    
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I just don't think that had anything to do 
with it.  I think the agents on the ground -- the operation went 
forward.  I'm not going to speculate on that.
	     
	     Q	  Did the White House express any alarm that Janet 
Reno chose to speak to the live network media before she chose to 
speak to Clinton?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:   No.  She was carrying forward her 
responsibility to inform the public about the events of yesterday.  I 
think she did a very admirable job.  The President agrees with that.
	     
	     Q	  Before Sunday, how often was the President briefed 
on the situation in Waco?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He was kept updated on a regular basis, on a 
daily basis.
	     
	     Q	  Who briefed the President?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I'm not going to get into exactly who, 
what conversations he had with whom, but he was kept up-to-date on 
the events in Waco.  He has daily briefings on a number of issues.
	     
	     Q	  No, no, was this a regular briefing conducted by a 
White House staff person, or was it by a Justice Department person?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's briefed regularly by a White House 
staff on a number of issues.  Again, I'm not going to get into 
exactly who briefs him on what subjects.
	     
	     Q	  Another subject?
	     
	     Q	  On another subject.
	     

	     
	     Q	  Now we're going to do gays in the military.  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I welcome it.
	     
	     Q	  How close are you to signing the biodiversity 
treaty?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  As you know, the President's giving a speech 
on Earth Day tomorrow.  We'll have more to say about it then.
	     
	     Q	  Any details on where or when that speech is yet?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's at 11:30 a.m. and I don't know where 
yet.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, is this a major policy address?  How would 
you characterize the speech tomorrow?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I would characterize it as a Earth Day 
speech.  I wouldn't look for any major departures from his past 
positions on these things.  But, again, I don't want to get too much 
into what he's going to talk about tomorrow.
	     
	     Q	  On or off campus?
	     
	     Q	  Is this at a location outside the White House?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It will be somewhere in Washington.  We 
don't know exactly where yet.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what foreign leaders has the President 
talked to since Friday on the situation in Bosnia? 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Only Prime Minister Major.  And again, he'll 
try to reach President Mitterrand again this morning.
	     
	     Q	  David Owen said yesterday and Joe Biden said today 
-- both of them agree that the peace process is not going to work, 
that the Serbs are not going to sign on.  Does the administration 
still believe that it can work and that they will sign on?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Obviously, the ultimate goal is some sort of 
peaceful resolution to the conflict in Bosnia.  As you know, the 
administration is considering a wide variety of options at this 
point.  The situation there in and around Srebrenica and the rest of 
Eastern Bosnia is quite serious.  And the President will meet with 
his Bosnian advisors today and continue to press forward on this.
	     
	     Q	  Is that a question they're going to try to be 
deciding whether or not the peace plan remains viable?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, they'll be reviewing a number of 
options, including the peace plan.
	     
	     Q	  Does the group that he's meeting with today include 
Reg Bartholomew?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe he's here.  But it will be 
among the usual -- Secretary Christopher, Secretary Aspin, General 
Powell.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, do you have anything on the apparent 
encounter by U.S. F-15s over Bosnia today -- some aircraft violating 
the no-fly zone?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I don't.  I'll get back to you on that.

	     
	     Q	  Will the President be meeting with every one of the 
leaders coming to town for the Holocaust Museum?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He will.  He'll be meeting, as you know, 
with Vaclav Havel today and with Lech Walesa tomorrow, and then with 
the rest of the group tomorrow afternoon.
	     
	     Q	  As a group, or one by one?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe it's as a group.  Now, Havel and 
Walesa asked for meetings early and these have been on the agenda for 
quite some time.  But he will meet with all of the foreign heads of 
state that are here.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, has the President decided whether he 
supports the gay and lesbian civil rights act?  And has anything been 
worked out for him to address the march on Sunday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think he'll probably have a letter or some 
kind of a statement to the march.  We haven't worked out the exact 
details of that.
	     
	     Q	  Not a live phone hook-up?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Probably not, given the logistics of getting 
to Boston.  The speech, as you know, is at 4:00 p.m.  The answer to 
the other part of your question is, no, he hasn't taken a position on 
it.
	     
	     Q	  You said that speech in Boston was at 4:00 p.m.?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I believe so, yes.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know what it's on?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll still working out --
	     
	     Q	  General Vessey's coming back tonight from Vietnam.  
When will he be meeting with the President?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No specific meeting is scheduled.  We'll 
talk to him at some point and see.  We look forward to his report, 
but exactly how he'll make that report is unclear.
	     
	     Q	  So he's not going to come immediately to the White 
House?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  The AIDS czar -- how close are you?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Still working on it.
	     
	     Q	  Drug czar?
	     
	     Q	  Do you expect it before the march?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't have a time line on it.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President ask Senator Mitchell to try the 
Lloyd Cutler ploy to break the filibuster?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.
	     
	     Q	  Why not?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's just not going to.

	     
	     Q	  Are Senate Democrats here at this hour?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, that's tomorrow -- tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
	     
	     Q	  Update on the stimulus, possible scaling down --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  As you know, the Senate will vote on 
amendments today.  We'll continue to talk.  The President is 
committed to some kind of a jobs package; we'd like to see it passed.  
And we'll continue in conversations throughout the day and see where 
we end up.
	     
	     Q	  When this briefing is over can you give us word 
through the speaker or whatever whether the President's talked to 
Janet Reno?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll be happy to.
	     
	     Q	  It's become a pressing question for the last 
several hours.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, just this minute that I've been here, 
and I haven't had a chance to follow up on it, Helen.
	     
	     Q	  Does he have an opinion on Hatfield?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I mean, obviously, he prefers -- he offered 
a compromise package of $12.2 billion.  He believes that that's the 
best alternative, believes that he's obviously willing to take a 
second look at the package.  And I think the Senate will vote on that 
today, and we're hopeful that the President's bill, which will be the 
Mitchell amendment, will be the one that will be approved.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, is there any White House official that 
will be at the march on Sunday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Somebody will be there representing the 
President.  I don't know who yet.
	     
	     Q	  Well, has it been decided how he's going to 
address?  Is it going to be a videotape or a phone call?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think it will probably be a letter, but 
there hasn't been a final decision on that yet.
	     
	     Q	  The official will read the letter, is that what it 
sounds like?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
	     
	     Q	  Lloyd Bentsen came in here this morning.  Do you 
know what was that about?  Was that about this Waco thing?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, actually it wasn't.  It may have come 
up, but it was about economic issues.
	     
	     Q	  On health care -- is the 17th of May still the 
target?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That's still the target.
	     
	     Q	  And there's talk about a Joint Session of Congress 
speech at the end of May --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We haven't resolved exactly how the 
President will present the health care plan to the people.  I 
wouldn't rule that out as an option, but no decisions have been made.

                                 END10:08 A.M. EDT


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179035
From: Gordon O. Perkins <gperkins@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Does Perot Pay 7% In Income Taxes?


I am seeking any press references to how much tax Perot pays in income taxes. 
I've heard the figure of 7 percent, since he gets most of his 
his income from federal and municipal bond interest. Anybody read a reliable
report somewhere? Thanks!


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179036
From: jburton@acenet.auburn.edu (John E. Burton Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dangerous Ideological position there

In <C5q6Kx.C9H@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>In article 26032@cbnews.cb.att.com, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>	"LESSONS FROM TIANANMEN SQUARE" by Neal Knox reprinted from
>>	Guns & Ammo, September 1989
>>
>>	Why the Second Amendment is so important, even in todays more
>>	"progressive" era.  Included is a description of the 1932
>>	Bonus March in Washington, DC in which Gen. Douglas MacArthur
>>	opposed with military force unemployed WWI veterans lobbying for
>>	the government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.


>Larry,

>Now you can't SERIOUSLY suggest that the US Government
>would be affraid of a bunch of Vets, and would UP and
>call out the Military to PROTECT them just because the
>US Government UP and decided to forget a generation of
>veterans.........

>Now what was that some liberal was saying about the
>advantages of a conscripted armed forces which we need
>not actually pay for services render.......



You should be aware that the US Army was called to "fight"
(and did) WW I veterans (bonus marchers) who marched on
DC demanding bonuses they were promised for service.
Becaues of the depression, they wanted them early.

John Burton    jburton@acenet.auburn.edu
MY OPINIONS, NOT MY EMPLOYER'S





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179037
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

Alan Morgan (alanm@efi.com) wrote:
: In article <15437@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
: 
: >You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
: >straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
: 
: Okay Claytoon, let us say that hypothetically I agree with you that
: gay men are much more promiscuous than straight men.  Why does
: this indicate they are screwed up people?
: 
: BTW - It occurs to me that since, in my experience, men are much more
:       interested in sex than women and want to have sex much earlier
:       in a relationship than women do, that homosexuals would have 
:       sex more often simply becuase their partner is of a like mind.
:       i.e. heterosexual men would be more promiscuous if they could.

It's my observation that women are more likely to me more strongly
indoctronated into now wanting sex that are men.
Also there are definite double standards for men and women who are
promiscuous.

Could there also be a factor of communication being more direct in 
homosexual relationships and culture.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179038
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?

In article <1993Apr20.202749.9007@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>
>Wow, I hadn't realized how VENOMOUS this was getting!  Be careful here...the
>problem isn't the rich but the values and the systems that make the rich
>rich.

  But the "values and systems that make the rich rich" all basically
  amount to freedom of choice. 

  In New England in 1800 the entire economy was based on the small family
  farm.   Farm economy households were economically diversified, producing
  not only agricultural goods but also "manufactured" goods, especially 
  cloth.  Many farm women carded, spun, and/or wove, producing not only
  cloth for their own family but also to sell, generating extra income.

  But about this time the Industrial Revolution was underway in England
  and by the 1820's it had moved to the US, in both cases in the form 
  of textile mills.  These mills could produce cloth far more efficiently
  and cheaply than people at home.  

  The result was that an important source of home income was wiped out
  and many of these women were compelled by economic circumstance to 
  go to work in these same mills in Lowell, Mass, or Nashua, NH, where
  they worked 73 hour weeks in deafening, dangerous conditions, living 
  regimented lives and being exposed to cotton-dust and infectious dis-
  eases due to the work.

  Now people didn't *HAVE* to buy the cheaper factory-made cloth. 
  They were free to keep buying the home-made variety and support
  their local economy . . . 

> Things are designed in such a way that in order to go with the system
>and make money, everything ELSE we care about goes to shit.

  . . . but (sorry for the cliche), "it takes two to tango".   The big
  rich corporations achieved that wealth because we buy their stuff.
  It used to be the case that the business center of a town was also 
  its social center.  You KNEW the merchants you did business with 
  or even local kids working behind the counter.   You would see
  people on the street whom you knew and you could stop for a chat.

  Nowadays local merchants are going out of business and people shop 
  at huge anonymous malls serving regional populations of hundreds of
  thousands or millions.  You have no particular relationship with the
  companies you do business with, and feel no particular commitment
  to them, nor they to you.   Major components of what defines a "com-
  munity" have been destroyed.   On the other hand the products we buy
  at these malls are a lot cheaper due to economies of scale and foreign
  manufacture, and they are probably of better, or at least more consistent,
  quality.


>                                                           I have to
>constantly remind myself that the goal of human society is not to make
>money.  Money doesn't make us happy; it just prevents certain things making
>us more unhappy.
>
>Therefore, don't shoot the rich.  Shoot the conservatives!

  Don't blame the conservatives for this.  Everyone makes their own
  individual choice and the liberals and the fence-sitters are just
  as guilty of pretending there are no social and cultural consequences
  to economic choices.


---peter


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179039
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

In <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

|In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...

|>	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
|>is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
|>will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
|>these people were.

|	Just look at the history of Koresh and his folowers. They captured
|	the Mount Carmel complex a few yearss ago in a gun battle with a
|	rival BD sect, leaving more than one person dead. They weren't 
|	exactly the most peace loving bunch.

I wonder where you have been getting your mis-information from. Straight
from the BATF itself?

Koresh and his followers did not -capture- the compound a few years ago, it
has always been theirs. A few years ago their was an argument over who should
lead the group, a gunfight erupted *one* person died. Koresh was charged
with the murder. When the sheriff came to arrest him, the sheriff knocked
on the dorr and showed Koresh the warrant (a tactic that the BATF might try
learning). Koresh and the others charged peacibly surrendered to the sherrif.
A trial ensued, the others were found innocent, and the jury hung on Koresh's
charge.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179041
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
: 
: >It's quite possible that a buyer and seller will both
: >trust some third party more than either trust the other, and
: >will desire the moderation of that third party.  But if a random
: >third party assumes the right to interfere in a transaction contarary
: >to the wishes of the primary participants, odds are pretty good the
: >results will be detrimental.
: 
: So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce
: third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples
: where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two
: primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help?
: 
A third party should be able to use persuasion to sway the transaction.
If, on the other hand, we condone the use of force or threat of violence 
by the third party, then we are in trouble.  A fourth party could say 
that it knows better than parties 1, 2, and 3.  And a fifth party... and 
so on.  Who wins?  The one that can use the force or threat of force the
best.  In other words "Might makes right."  Let's abandon such
aggressive tactics and work from voluntary cooperation and respect from 
others.  That is what libertarians want.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179042
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks in Photo Op with Vaclav Havel




	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     

	     
                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH VACLAV HAVEL
	     
	     
                           The Oval Office 
	     

5:00 P.M. EDT


	     Q	  Mr. President, President Havel is here for the 
Holocaust Museum opening, and you toured the museum last night.  All 
this focus on the Holocaust, how does that weigh on your decision-
making process as far as Bosnia is concerned?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think the Holocaust is the most 
extreme example the world has ever known of ethnic cleansing.  And I 
think that even in its more limited manifestations, it's an idea that 
should be opposed.  You couldn't help thinking about that.  That's 
not to compare the two examples.  They're not identical; everyone 
knows that.  But I think that the United States should always seek an 
opportunity to stand up against -- at least to speak out against 
inhumanity.
	     
	     Q	  Sir, how close are you to a decision on more 
sanctions on Bosnia?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, of course, we've got the U.N. 
vote.  Ambassador Albright was instrumental in the U.N. vote to 
strengthen the sanctions and they are quite tough.  And we now are 
putting our heads at the business of implementing them and looking at 
what other options we ought to consider.  And I don't have anything 
else to say, except to tell you that I spent quite a bit of time on 
it and will continue to over the next several days.
	     
	     Q	  Following your meeting today, sir, are you any 
closer to some sort of U.S. military presence there?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I have not made any decisions.
	     
                                 * * *                               
	     
	     
	     Q	  President Clinton, why have you decided to meet 
with Mr. Havel?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I'm just honored that he would 
come and see me.  I'm glad he's here in the United States for the 
dedication of the Holocaust Museum.  He is a figure widely admired in 
our country and around the world, and a very important person in 
Europe, and a very important person to the United States.  So I'm 
hoping that we'll have a chance to talk about the new Czech republic 
and what kinds of things we can do together to support the causes we 
believe in.

                                 END5:05 P.M. EDT


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179043
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children


In a previous article, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) says:

>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the
>>>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and
>>>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.
>>
>>
>>       Or the contempt to ignore it.
>
>Yup, that was quite contemptuous of the President to make a decision that
>12% disagree with...

       Your ignorance is showing.  The BATF warrant was unsealed.

       The entire operation was illegal from day ONE.

       And Clinton and Reno supported it.  86 people are dead.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179044
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


In a previous article, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:

>In <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>|In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...
>
>|>	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
>|>is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
>|>will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
>|>these people were.



         The BATF warrant was unsealed yesterday.

         The entire operation was illegal from day ONE.


       No authority for a "no-knock" raid.
       No authority to use the Texas helicopters.
       No authority to search for a "drug lab".  More ATF lies.


       Clinton and Reno are lying fucks.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179046
From: ddn@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.d.nason)
Subject: Waco


I don't want to attack anyone's personal opinions and thus have not
included any articles - but it seems to me incredibly ridiculous
and pompous for someone to sit back with the benefit of hindsight
and point fingers at Clinton, Reno, the FBI, or whomever.

First of all, it is a knee-jerk judgement.  The facts are quite
muddled at this point and will likely be for quite a while.

Secondly, things do not improve by pointing blame and accusatory
fingers.  Pointing fingers is a destructive action.  If everyone
sat around pointing fingers all the time, nothing would get done
and nothing would ever get any better.  And despite the tragedy,
we can learn something from this - if it is approached in a 
constructive manner.  Doesn't it seem that working together is
more productive than working against one another?

Thirdly, it seems incredibly hypocritical to place blame given
the benefit of hindsight - something that those who made the
decisions did not have the benefit of.  Why not give them the courtesy
of acknowledging that they did the best they could with the
data they had - in a very, very difficult situation.  Some
responses have gone so far to suggest that the actions were done
without regard for the lives of the people in the compound - give
me a break.

Be part of the solution - not the problem.

And that's MY opinion -

david


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179047
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Healthcare Professionals to Review Healthcare Reform Options

In article <1r7cftINNrbt@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes:
>
>
>THE WHITE HOUSE
>
>
>
>Office of Communications
>_________________________________________________________________
>For Immediate Release	      	   	Contact: Bob Boorstin
>Thursday, April 22, 1993      	   	Phone: 202-456-7151
>                                 
>
>         HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO REVIEW CLINTON PROPOSAL
>                          AS IT DEVELOPS


  Too many MDs on the list and not enough RNs in my opinion.

  Doug

-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179048
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r7prg$hpq@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.031648.2886@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
[...]

>
>You are speculating that the FBI purposely started the fire?!?!?  Please,
>if you've got such a ridiculously extraordinary claim, and have no evidence
>whatsoever, at least give us a speculatory reason why the FBI would want to
>do such a thing.
>
>The possibility that the fire was started accidentally is much more reasonable,
>but we don't have anything but contradictory anecdotal evidence right now.
>-- 
>*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___


Mr. Kuo: I don't recall seeing your byline around much before (at least
on t.p.m). Let me clue you in on this newsgroup. t.p.m is populated
largely by people whose hatred for the U.S. government, especially
the government of Mr. Clinton, is literally boundless. To these
people, the suggestion that agents of the U.S. government would carry
out a spectacular massacre of its own citizens, in full view of TV
cameras, is not an 'extraordinary claim'. It's just another day in
the life of these United States.

They don't have to suggest any reason why the FBI would want to
publicly massacre citizens. Have you seen 'The Crying Game'? 

	"It's in their nature".


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179049
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Median??? Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1qvb5aINNmoi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:

>> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:

>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low

> Note this contradictory title-  Gay Activity Low.

Vocabulary test: Please define the following words:

   a) contradictory
   b) ambiguous
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179050
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15446@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> Elf Sternberg:

>> But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we say about
>> these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated gay
>> potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or, more
>> accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social
>> sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.

>> Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.

> I can't speak for Kaldis; but "force of religion and social sanction"
> played no part in my sexual preferences.  Neither had much influence on
> me as a teenager.

You might as well have.  You certainly would not have been in error if
you would have.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179051
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr19.201836.12436@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>>> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>>> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
>>>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>>              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .

>> The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.

> You smack of idiocy, T*d. I don't suppose you've heard of Pythagoras
> before?

I have indeed heard of Pythagoras, but I don't know that he was ever
disparaged as a "bean eater".  In the American Southwest and West
(e.g., Texas, California, Colorado), the term "bean eater" is
sometimes used as a slur against those of Hispanic heritage (generally
Mexicans, in those parts) -- much like how the Irish in the Northeast
are perceived (by some) as voracious beer guzzlers.
-- 
  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
  as this would hold such views??? |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179053
From: munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tomas o munoz)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

|> The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with 
|> a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person.
|> In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes 
|> him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the
|> hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically
|> threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would
|> release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would
|> pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.

Just out of curiosity, what else was there to do in this situation?
Wait another 51 days/weeks/months/years???

Was there anything indicating that these children and the other
people were going to get out alive?

-- 
Tom Munoz 
==================================================================
Thought for the day: "One million microfiche = one fish"
 ___________      ___     ____    ____  
/_________ /|   /___/ \  /__ /\  /___/|  
|___   ___|/  /  _  \ /| |   \ \/   | | 
    |  | |   |  | |  | | |    \/    | | 
    |  | |   |  | |  | | |  |\  /|  | |  
    |  | |   |  |_|  |/  |  | \/ |  | |  
    |__|/     \_____/    |__|/   |__|/ munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov 
==================================================================


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179054
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: AM Press Briefing by Dee Dee Myers 4.23.93


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 23, 1993



                            PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY DEE DEE MYERS


                          The Briefing Room


10:35 A.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  At 1:00 p.m., we're having a press 
conference, Bill, in the East Room.  And then Saturday the President 
will leave here at roughly 8:00 a.m. and fly down to Jamestown.  He 
will spend the day there, overnight at Camp David. 
	     
	     On Sunday, it's unclear exactly what time he'll leave 
Camp David and fly to Boston.  He'll leave from Hagerstown. The press 
plane will leave from Washington. 
	     
	     He will meet with some --
	     
	     Q	  What kind of a plane is that he's taking?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  That he's taking?  He'll probably take a C-
20.
	     
	     Q	  From Hagerstown?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  From Hagerstown.  Air Force One doesn't fly 
out of Hagerstown, apparently.
	     
	     Q	  How will the pool travel?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The pool will have to meet him ahead of 
time.  So I guess the pool will travel with the press plane and wait 
for him at the airport.  There is currently no provision -- and I'll 
double-check, because there's currently no provision -- I think 
that's standard operating practice.
	     
	     Q	  The pool is not going to meet him and watch him get 
on the plane at Hagerstown?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.
	     
	     Q	  What time does he have to be in Boston?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's going to meet there with a group of 
citizens, mostly people who supported us during the campaign, at 
around 1:30 p.m.  We're still working out the final times.
	     
	     Q	  At the airport?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, it will be at the Boston Harbor Hotel.  
	     And then he will also meet with some -- a youth group 
that authored something called Project 21.  The speech to the 
publishers is actually at 3:15 p.m.  It will be followed by Q&A.  And 
then after the speech and Q&A, he'll attend a reception with the 
publishers, and then return to Washington from Boston.  And that's it 
for the weekend.
	     
	     Q	  Has the President seen the report from -- or the 
letter, communication from the foreign service officers; also, 
obviously, the communication from Madeleine Albright?  And what is 
his reaction to their call on him?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, obviously, the letter was written to 
Secretary Christopher.  I believe Secretary Christopher received the 
letter on Saturday.  He reviewed it and met with the authors on 
Monday to discuss their views.  He believes it's an important part of 
the policy-making process and is taking their views into account as 
we go forward in the development of the Bosnia policy.
	     
	     Q	  What is the President's reaction?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The President hasn't seen the letter.  It 
was something that was directed towards Secretary Christopher.  In 
terms of -- he hasn't seen specifically the letter, but in terms of 
their concerns generally, what the President has said is that there 
are a lot of options on the table now, including ones that weren't 
there before.  And I think he's, as is everybody, gravely concerned 
about the situation in Bosnia.
	     
	     Q	  Is he influenced by that?  I mean, how does he feel 
about the fact that all of the specialists in that area -- those desk 
officers --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Many of the specialists in that area -- I 
think that that is clearly part of the process.  It's something -- 
their views will clearly be considered.  I think Secretary 
Christopher met with the group immediately to discuss their views.  I 
think he believes that there ought to be room for opinions and that 
those opinions ought to be considered, particularly from people who 
work closely on the issues.
	     
	     Q	  What do you mean, there are options on the table 
that weren't there before?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the President said last week that 
there were options, such as lifting the arms embargo to the Bosnian 
Muslims, that had been previously off the table that are now being 
considered.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, in terms of those options, Madeleine 
Albright is saying that potentially there could be unilateral action 
by the U.S. if the Europeans did not go along.  Is that on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I can't discuss anything that would -- 
any conversations that would have happened between Ambassador 
Albright and the President.  But I think the President has said he 
would certainly -- is working with our European allies.  He's had a 
number of conversations with European leaders and is trying to build 
some consensus there.  
	     
	     Q	  Will he reach a decision -- will he have anything 
specific to say today?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.  I mean, in term of there will be no new 
announcement of policy today.
	     
	     Q	  Does your statement mean he has ruled out 
unilateral action?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's continuing to consult with our allies 
at this point.  He has said -- I think he's been fairly clear about 
it, that the he believes that the U.S. needs to act in concert with 
its allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  On that point, does he believe that the U.S., 
though, does have built-in authority from the United Nations already 
to take unilateral action?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think the U.N. Resolution 770 makes 
it clear that you can act unilaterally in support of any humanitarian 
relief effort.  I think the broader point is that anything we do, any 
options that we decide to pursue we will make sure that it is 
consistent with U.N. authority, and if it's not, we'll work with our 
allies to make sure that we get it.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, then how does the White House someone as 
distinguished as Elie Wiesel, who says that not enough is being done 
to stop the atrocities going on in Bosnia?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that that's why we're considering 
additional options.  I think that Mr. Wiesel's comments yesterday 
were quite compelling.  The situation in Bosnia is tragic.  The 
President is very concerned about it.  He has -- I think President 
Clinton has worked very hard  to take further actions to continue to 
isolate Serbia in the world community.  Clearly, we're considering 
other options because the President is concerned that perhaps it's 
not enough.
	     
	     Q	  In terms of what you were just talking about, it 
sounds like Resolution 770 justifies unilateral action by the U.S. to 
protect humanitarian --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think it -- I wouldn't use the word 
justify.  It permits unilateral action by any country in protecting 
the delivery of humanitarian relief.  But I think that's just an 
explanation of the resolution.  I think any action that we take will 
be consistent with U.N. resolutions or we'll work with our allies to 
make sure that it is permissible or we'll get further action.
	     
	     Q	  The President and other officials have ruled out 
unilateral U.S. action in Bosnia in the past.  You're declining to do 
that this morning.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I said the President has said repeatedly 
that he wants to act in concert with our allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  That doesn't mean that he won't act alone, which 
has been said before explicitly.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't mean to imply a change in policy.  
The President has said all along that he wants to act in concert with 
our allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  One other little question.  Did he know about this 
letter from the foreign service officers before it hit the papers?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.  Secretary Christopher 
-- they may have had a private conversation about it.  The President 
has not seen it.
	     
	     Q	  They met on Monday, right?  Christopher met --
surely, he must have brought that up --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, they may have talked privately about 
it, but --
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what you're saying is that the Albright 
recommendation has been rejected, is that correct?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I didn't say that at all.  I said I 
won't -- I said I wouldn't comment on any conversations or 
communications.
	     
	     Q	  She's advocating unilateral action and you're 
saying, in effect, that we will not take unilateral action.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I am not confirming anything that Madeleine 
Albright may or may not have recommended.
	     
	     Q	  Given the sometimes delicate, complicated and 
frustrating nature of negotiations with the allies on this issue, 
does the President find this kind of letter from 12 foreign service 
officers of the State Department helpful to that process, hurtful to 
that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that their views are obviously being 
considered.  The Secretary received that memo on Saturday and two 
days later he met with them in order to have a more thorough airing 
of their views, of the basis for their views, to discuss in greater 
detail the options that they had presented in the letter.
	     
	     Q	  Doesn't it put some kind of pressure on --
additional pressure on him now from within his own administration to 
act regardless of what the allies may or may not do?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think clearly there's a broad policy 
review underway now.  And the President and his advisors are 
considering a number of options, including some of those outlined in 
the letter from the folks over at the State Department.  Now, no 
decisions have been made on that yet, but I think that there is a 
through review underway, and that their opinions are being very 
seriously considered.
	     
	     Q	  If I can just follow up, I guess what I'm looking 
for is what was his reaction to this letter?  Did he say, good, this 
bolsters my position?  Or did he say, damn, this is just what I don't 
need right now?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think he said this helps contribute 
substantively to the debate.  It's important that all views be 
considered and aired thoroughly, that before he makes a decision he 
wants to have the best possible advice and information possible, and 
this, I think in many ways, furthers that goal.
	     
	     Q	  So internal advice to a Cabinet official or the 
President -- it's all open now, and you wouldn't take any umbrage or 
say that they were out of line?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think that the fact that Secretary 
Christopher met with them to discuss their views and make sure they 
had an opportunity to have a more complete conversation about it is 
conclusive evidence that their views are welcome.
	     
	     Q	  Does the policy review include what Madeleine 
Albright has suggested, and what Joe Biden and others have suggested, 
which is that the previous U.N. resolutions authorize unilateral 
action -- military action -- for the delivery of humanitarian --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think all options are on the table.
	     
	     Q	  The unilateral option is on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think all options are on the table.
	     
	     Q	  We've had two different --
	     
	     Q	  Isn't that a change, Dee Dee?
	     
	     Q	  That would be a change of policy.
	     
	     Q	  Particularly if it includes ground troops, which 
has been specifically ruled out.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think the President has been -- well, no.  
I don't -- that is not --
	     
	     Q	  Are you talking about all options?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  All options -- I think the President has 
been fairly clear about that.  So let me just review again what he 
has said.  He has said that -- the President has said all options are 
on the table, with the exception of the introduction of ground 
troops, which he has never suggested.  He has ruled that out from the 
beginning.
	     
	     Q	  Hasn't he ruled out unilateral action of any sort?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He has said that he doesn't believe the U.S. 
can solve the problems in the former Yugoslavia by itself.  I think 
that there are a number of very complicated options on the table 
right now.  I don't think that -- again, I don't want to comment on 
specific options that are being considered other than in the broad 
categories that we've already said -- things like lifting the arms 
embargo against the Bosnian Muslims, things that I think we've talked 
about in broad terms.  This is a very complicated situation.  The 
options being presented and considered are very complicated.
	     
	     Q	  Air strikes on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I think that's been fairly clearly 
pointed out that that's something that's being discussed.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, are ground troops on the -- 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, ground troops are not being considered.
	     
	     Q	  You said there was not going to be -- you said you 
were not announcing a change of policy.  Then you said everything is 
on the table.  We're confused.  Are unilateral actions on the table?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  All I can tell you is what the President has 
said -- that he doesn't believe -- that he wants to act in concert 
with the allies on this.
	     
	     Q	  Wants to, but he's willing to -- I mean, if they 
don't go along --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He's continuing to consult with our allies 
on this.  He's continuing to have discussions.  He's continuing to 
press them for further action.  And I think that's clear.  The 
conversation is ongoing.  We're going to continue to work with them 
to find the best possible solution and next step on this.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, the allies have taken the position that to 
conduct any kind of air strikes in Bosnia would have the opposite 
effect of ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid; that they feel 
that their troops on the ground monitoring the delivery of that aid 
would become vulnerable and the Bosnians --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I'm not sure that's the consistent -- I 
mean, I'm not sure who you're referring to.
	     
	     Q	  The British and the French.
	     
	     Q	  Yes, the British and French.  They've taken the 
position that the delivery of humanitarian aid would be jeopardized 
by any kind of air strikes against the Bosnian military.  Does the 
U.S. believe differently from that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The President has had conversations with 
both Mitterrand and Major, as you know.  I think that there is a 
thorough review of policy going on in those countries as well.  And I 
don't want to comment on the nature of the President's discussions 
other than to say that he's continuing to consult with our allies as 
we move forward and he's continuing to press them for further action.  
And I think that process is ongoing.
	     
	     Q	     the other day voted against any military 
intervention yesterday.  Does the President regard that as the end of 
the line or does he does still hold out some possibility of 
unilateral action?  The allies have been very, very plain that they 
do not want to do anything.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The consultations are ongoing.  That's all I 
can tell you at this point.
	     
	     Q	  Are you saying that there won't be any announcement 
on Bosnia today in the press conference?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, that is not the intention of the press 
conference.
	     
	     Q	  What is the intention?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's an opportunity to take questions.  He 
may have a brief -- I'm sure he'll have a brief opening statement, 
but it is not an opportunity to outline a new policy on Bosnia.  That 
will not happen.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us what the subject of the opening 
statement is?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's sort of a general statement of where we 
are.
	     
	     Q	  After the first hundred days, you mean?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's not a long statement.  I mean, this is 
just generally.  Don't look for any major policy pronouncements.
	     
	     Q	  Do you know what the opening statement is?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  But it's -- perhaps later today I'll be able 
to tell you with more certainty -- I think that's still under review.  
But the overriding purpose of this -- it's not a mystery; it's not 
meant to be.  It's just to take questions.
	     
	     Q	  It would be helpful to know whether -- what the 
opening statement is on.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Since the major purpose here is just to take 
questions, it's not completely resolved yet.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, one policy that was expected last week and 
that the White House, you and George seemed to indicate we might get, 
would be an AIDS czar.  Will he announce that today?  And what's the 
delay on that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think we meant to imply -- I think 
we said it would happen soon.  I don't think we meant to imply with 
any certainty that it would be this week.  It is coming soon.  I 
don't anticipate that happening today.
	     
	     Q	  What's the delay?  Isn't this the perfect time to 
announce an AIDS czar?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know that it's a delay.  I think the 
process is ongoing to find the best possible person and to go through 
the necessary background checks, and to make sure that we've crossed 
the t's and dotted the i's before we make an announcement.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, what are Zoe Baird's qualifications for 
the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board?  And why wasn't her 
appointment announced here?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  The qualifications -- I don't know if 
there's a specific list; I'll have to check and see.  I think there 
are a number of people there on the board with different backgrounds.  
Many of them have long histories in intelligence or other government 
service.  I think there's a broad variety of views across political 
spectrum and across backgrounds that are represented there.  We never 
made a formal announcement other than the Chairman of the Board, 
which is Admiral William Crowe.
	     
	     Q	  Why would he appoint her, though, if the American 
people and many in the Senate rejected her for another government 
job?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe that the American people 
ever had -- voted on her.  And I certainly -- she was never rejected 
in the Senate.  She never went up there for a hearing.  But the 
President believes she's a very competent person.  He's said that -- 
Zoe Baird -- do you understand what the question is?  Zoe Baird is on 
the President's Foreign Intelligence --
	     
	     Q	  You said she never went up there for a hearing?
	     
	     Q	  Her nomination was withdrawn after public outrage 
over violating federal laws?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Right, she never -- she was never -- but you 
said she was rejected by the Senate.  I was just simply trying to 
point out that she was never voted on by the Senate.
	     
	     Q	  So you don't think that is any problem?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think there's any problem.
	     
	     Q	  She has been appointed to this board, is that a 
fact?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Does she need confirmation for this?  Does she need 
confirmation to be a member of the --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.  It's a presidential appointment.
	     
	     Q	  Usually, announcements are made here at the White 
House.  Was there a decision not to announce her publicly?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We didn't make an announcement.  People who 
asked were told who  the members of the board were.  We didn't make 
an official announcement.  If anybody's interested in that we can 
certainly put out the list of names.
	     
	     Q	  I'd like to know.
	     
	     Q	  Don't such board members -- don't you normally as a  
matter of -- routinely put out releases on all these boards and 
presidential appointment regardless of their dimension?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not always.  But, again, I'm happy to put 
this out.
	     
	     Q	  Isn't that the standard practice?
	     
	     Q	  That was past practice.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Again, I'm happy to put it out.  We'll put 
out a list of the members of the board today.
	     
	     Q	  Dee Dee, I don't want to try to fail to let you get 
out of this swamp but -- (laughter) -- all I really want to know is 
hasn't it been the practice in this administration for such 
announcements to be made routinely?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I think generally but not always.  And we're 
happy to put that out today.
	     
	     Q	  What is the board, what is her title, what is the 
size of the board?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  There is roughly a dozen members on the 
board.  It is a civilian board, although their are some, obviously, 
retired military personnel on the board that provide input into 
intelligence policy for the President.  Again, the chairman of that 
board is Admiral William Crowe.
	     
	     Q	  And did he recommend Baird?
	     
	     Q	  What's the name of the board?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's the President's Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board, PFIAB.
	     
	     Q	  What's her qualification -- that she had employed 
an illegal alien?  Is that -- (laughter) -- 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Do you want an answer to the question or you 
just want to make a joke?
	     
	     Q	  Let me phrase it another way.  Why shouldn't this 
appointment be viewed as a pay-back for the difficulty she had a 
couple of months ago?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Because it's not.  
	     
	     Q	  What's her experience in foreign intelligence?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  She's an experienced attorney, someone who 
the President believes is very competent and qualified.  And I think 
part of the mission of this board is to provide civilian input.  Not 
everybody on the board is supposed to be an intelligence expert; that 
is not the board's mission.  It is to provide civilian input for the 
President as he makes decisions regarding intelligence matters.  He 
believes she's very qualified, very competent person, enormously 
talented and has said that throughout.
	     
	     Q	  Is this just a figment of my overactive 
imagination, or was there discussion early on about abolishing the 
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't think so.  On December 24th, when he 
announced all of his foreign policy advisors he announced that he 
would -- had appointed Admiral Crowe as the head of the board.  So I 
don't believe there's ever been any --
	     
	     Q	  Earlier than that, during the transition.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No, I don't believe so.  It was announced, 
again, on December 24th.  Admiral Crowe couldn't be there, but it was 
announced. 
	     
	     Q	  Are members paid?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so, but I'll double-check.
	     
	     Q	  On another subject, on Waco, how do you explain the 
discrepancy between the federal reports of the autopsies of the 
bodies that are coming out of Waco and the state?  I guess it's the 
Texas Ranger reports.  
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Most of the information is coming -- the 
federal information is coming from the site.  Clearly, there's been 
some discrepancies and the Justice Department is looking into it.  
Officials in the Justice Department were told, I believe the day 
before yesterday, that there were several bodies found with bullet 
holes.  I think there's some discrepancy about that, and the Justice 
Department is looking into it.
	     
	     Q	  Is the President going to get involved in trying to 
sort out what seems to be becoming a jurisdictional morass down 
there, with some people withdrawing, others saying they're in charge, 
but others -- Justice, FBI, Texas Rangers -- all grabbing a piece of 
this?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know that he's going to try to 
mediate the dispute.  I mean, I'll let you know if there's anything 
he intends to do about it.  But as you know, there are several levels 
of investigation ongoing, and we're hopeful that they can work 
together. 
	     
	     Q	  Is there any one agency or official down there in 
charge of everything?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  I'll have to get back to you 
on that.
	     
	     Q	  What is the subject matter of Sunday's speech?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's going to be fairly general.  I don't 
think it's going to be any specific announcements.  I think it's 
going to be sort of a --
	     
	     Q	  Does he have a topic that he's going to talk about?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We're still working on it.  But I wouldn't 
look for any announcements of, like, the drug czar or something like 
that.
	     
	     Q	  Is it sort of a 100 days speech, sort of "my 
excellent adventure for 100 days"?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not exactly, but I think he'll take a little 
bit broader look about what's happened in the last --
	     
	     Q	  Foreign, domestic?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  A little bit of both, but I think a lot of 
domestic.
	     
	     Q	  And overview. 
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Yes, more of an overview than a specific 
policy announcement.  
	     	  
	     Q	  Has there been an agreement yet on a forum by which 
the President will address the gay rights march on Sunday?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It will be a letter read to the crowd by 
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
	     
	     Q	  Is that available?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not yet, but it will be.  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Are you going to put it out here or --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  We'll probably put it out here on Sunday.
	     
	     Q	  Travel next week?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Unclear.
	     
	     Q	  What was the question?
	     
	     Q	  Likely?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't --
	     
	     Q	  Likely?  Possible?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Possible.
	     
	     Q	  What's possible?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Travel.
	     
	     Q	  George mentioned yesterday campaign finance reform 
and national service legislative proposals next week.  Do you have 
days yet for them?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Not yet.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us which order?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Campaign finance reform first; national 
service later in the week.
	     
	     Q	  Is there any coverage tomorrow in Williamsburg?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  And any report in the aftermath of the day?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Any readout from the day?
	     
	     Q	  Readout.
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  It's possible.  Jeff Eller will be down 
there.  I think he can go through what the President did during the 
day.  We don't expect any photo op or anything, other than departure 
here in the morning.
	     
	     Q	   Dee Dee, the President has not made a regular 
practice, as some of his predecessors have, of going to Camp David.  
In fact, he's been there -- what -- once or twice?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  Twice.
	     
	     Q	  Why this weekend?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He went two weekends ago, as you know, on 
the way home from his father-in-law's funeral.  I think that they 
found it to be a good experience and a nice way for them to spend 
some time together as a family.  And this is just an opportunity to 
do the same.
	     
	     Q	  There's no march there.
	     
	     Q	  It has nothing to do with the march here?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Since he's going to be in town Sunday morning now 
instead of in Jamestown, have you thought about him making a quick 
pass-by, fly-over -- (laughter) --
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  He'll fly straight to Boston.
	     
	     Q	  Flying straight did you say?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  George took a question yesterday on Waco.  The 
President had said on Tuesday in the Rose Garden that there was a 
minor disagreement on tactics between the military advisors and the 
FBI.  And the question was whether you knew exactly what that was and 
whether it related to the use of the particular kind of tear gas.  Do 
you have an answer on that?
	     
	     MS. MYERS:  I don't.  I'll check.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

                                 END10:59 A.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179055
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Waco Investigation

Do we know yet who will be holding the hearings? And, if so, do
we know who is on the committee of question askers? I'm sure
many of us have potential questions we'd like to send to them.
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179056
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.

1. You haven't shown any disproportionate involvement.

2. The Janus Report, which came out recently, gives 9% as the percentage
of exclusively or predominantly gay men.

3. No one is presumably going to say they're gay if they're not. But
some no doubt are going to hide their homosexuality in surveys. Thus
the 1-2% is a lower limit.

I still say that weighing all the evidence gives a most likely percentage
between 5 and 7%.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179058
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Press Conference 4.23.93



	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 23, 1993     

	     
                  PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
	     
	     
                            The East Room 


1:00 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Terry, do you have a question?
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, there's a growing feeling that the 
Western response to bloodshed in Bosnia has been woefully inadequate.  
Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel asked you yesterday to do something, 
anything to stop the fighting.  Is the United States considering 
taking unilateral action such as air strikes against Serb artillery 
sites?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first let me say, as you know, for 
more than a week now we have been seriously reviewing our options for 
further action.  And I want to say, too, let's look at the last three 
months.  Since I became President I have worked with our allies and 
we have tried to move forward, first on the no-fly zone, on 
enforcement of it, on the humanitarian airdrops, on the war crimes 
investigation, on getting the Bosnian Muslims involved in the peace 
process.  We have made some progress.  And now we have a very much 
tougher sanctions resolution.  And Leon Fuerth, who is the National 
Security Advisor to the Vice President, is in Europe now working on 
implementing that.  That is going to make a big difference to Serbia.
	     
	     And we are reviewing other options.  I think we should 
act.  We should lead -- the United States should lead.  We have led 
for the last three months.  We have moved the coalition.  And to be 
fair, our allies in Europe have been willing to do their part.  And 
they have troops on the ground there.
	     
	     But I do not think we should act alone, unilaterally, 
nor do I think we will have to.  And in the next several days I think 
we will finalize the extensive review which has been going on and 
which has taken a lot of my time, as well as the time of the 
administration, as it should have, over the last 10 days or so.  I 
think we'll finish that in the near future and then we'll have a 
policy and we'll announce it and everybody can evaluate it.
	     
	     Q	  Can I follow up?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Do you see any parallel between the ethnic 
cleansing in Bosnia and the Holocaust?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think the Holocaust is on a whole 
different level.  I think it is without precedent or peer in human 
history.  On the other hand, ethnic cleansing is the kind of 
inhumanity that the Holocaust took to the nth degree.  The idea of 
moving people around and abusing them and often killing them solely 
because of their ethnicity is an abhorrent thing.  And it is 
especially troublesome in that area where people of different ethnic 
groups live side by side for so long together.  And I think you have 
to stand up against it.  I think it's wrong.
	     
	     We were talking today about all of the other troubles in 
that region.  I was happy to see the violence between the Croats and 
the Muslims in Bosnia subside this morning, and I think we're making 
progress on that front.  But what's going on with the Serbians and 
the ethnic cleansing is qualitatively different than the other 
conflicts, both within the former Yugoslavia and in other parts of 
the region.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, by any count, you have not had a 
good week in your presidency.  The tragedy in Waco, the defeat of 
your stimulus bill, the standoff in Bosnia.  What did you do wrong 
and what are you going to do differently?  How do you look at things?  
Are you reassessing?  (Laughter.)
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't really believe that the 
situation in Bosnia -- it's not been a good week for the world, but I 
don't know that the administration could have made it different.
	     
	     On the stimulus package, I'd like to put it into the 
larger context and remind you that in this 100 days we have already 
fundamentally changed the direction of an American government.  We 
have abandoned trickle-down economics.  We've abandoned the policies 
that brought the debt of this country from $1 trillion to $4 trillion 
in only a decade.  
	     
	     The budget plan, which passed the Congress, which will 
reduce the deficit and increase investment, has led to a 20-year low 
in mortgage rates, dramatically lower interest rates.  There are 
probably people in this room who have refinanced their home mortgages 
in the last three months, or who have had access to cheaper credit.  
That's going to put tens of billion dollars coursing throughout this 
economy in ways that are very, very good for the country.  And so we 
are moving in the right direction economically.
	     
	     I regret that the stimulus did not pass, and I have 
begun to ask -- and will continue to ask not only people in the 
administration, but people in the Congress whether there is something 
I could have done differently to pass that.  Part of the reason it 
didn't pass was politics; part of it was a difference in ideas.  
There are really people still who believe that it's not needed.  I 
just disagree with that.  
	     
	     I think the recovery -- the economists say it's been 
underway for about two years, and we've still had 16 months of seven-
percent unemployment, and all the wealthy countries are having 
trouble creating jobs.  So I think there was an idea base -- an 
argument there, that while we're waiting for the lower interest rates 
and the deficit reduction and the investments of the next four years 
to take effect, this sort of supplemental appropriation should go 
forward.
	     
	     Now, I have to tell you, I did misgauge that because a 
majority of the Republican senators now sitting in the Senate voted 
for a similar stimulus when Ronald Reagan was President in 1983, and 
voted 28 times for regular supplemental appropriations like this.  I 
just misgauged it.  And I hope that I can learn something.  I've just 
been here 90 days.  And, you know, I was a Governor working with a 
contentious legislature for 12 years, and it took me a decade to get 
political reform there.  So it takes time  to change things.  But I 
basically feel very good about what's happened in the first 100 days 
with regard to the Congress.
	     
	     Q	  Waco --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, with regard to Waco I don't have 
much to add to what I've already said.  I think it is a -- I want the 
situation looked into.  I want us to bring in people who have any 
insights to bear on that.  I think it's very important that the whole 
thing be thoroughly gone over.  But I still maintain what I said from 
the beginning, that the offender there was David Koresh.  And I do 
not think the United States government is responsible for the fact 
that a bunch of fanatics decided to kill themselves.  And I'm sorry 
that they killed their children.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, to follow up partly on Helen on your 
stimulus package and on your political approach to Capitol Hill, Ross 
Perot said today that you're playing games with the American people 
in your tax policy.  He was strongly critical of your stimulus 
package.  He said he's going to launch an advertising campaign 
against the North American Free Trade Agreement.  How are you going 
to handle his political criticism?  Will it complicate your efforts 
on the Hill with your economic plan?  And do you plan to repackage 
some of the things that have been in your stimulus program and try to 
resubmit them to the Hill?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me answer that question first.  
We're going to revisit all of that over the next few days.  I'm going 
to be talking to members of Congress and to others to see what we can 
do about that.  With regard to the economic plan, I must say I found 
that rather amazing.  I don't want to get into an argument with Mr. 
Perot.  I'll be interested to hear what his specifics are, but I 
would -- go back and read his book and his plan.  There's a 
remarkable convergence except that we have more specific budget cuts, 
we raise taxes less on the middle class and more on the wealthy.  
But, otherwise, the plans are remarkably similar.  
	     
	     So I think it would be -- I'll be interested to see if 
maybe perhaps he's changed his position from his book last year and 
he has some new ideas to bring to bear.  I'll be glad to hear them.
	     
	     Q	  To follow up, sir, how do you plan to handle his 
political criticism?  He's launched a campaign against you.  Do you 
think you can sit back and just --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I will ask you to 
apply the same level of scrutiny to him as you do to me.  And if he's 
changed his position from the positions he took in the campaign last 
year, then we need to know why and what his ideas are.  Maybe he's 
got some constructive ideas.  
	     
	     I think the American people have shown that they're very 
impatient with people who don't want to produce results.  And the one 
thing I think that everybody has figured out about me in the last -- 
even if they don't agree with what I do -- is that I want to get 
something done.  I just came here to try to change things.  I want to 
do things.  And I want to do things that help people's lives.  So my 
judgment is that if he makes a suggestion that is good, that is 
constructive, that takes us beyond some idea I've proposed that will 
change people's lives for the better, fine.  But I think that that 
ought to be the test that we apply to everyone who weighs into this 
debate and not just to the President.

	     Q	  Mr. President, to go back to Bosnia for a minute.  
You continue to insist that this has to be multilateral action, a 
criteria that seems to have hamstrung us when it comes to many 
options thus far and makes it look as if this is a state of 
paralysis.  The United States is the last remaining superpower.  Why 
is it not appropriate in this situation for the United States to act 
unilaterally?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the United States -- surely you 
would agree, that the United States, even as the last remaining 
superpower, has to act consistent with international law under some 
mandate of the United Nations.

	     Q	  But you have a mandate and --

	     THE PRESIDENT:  They do, and that is one of the things 
that we have under review.  I haven't ruled out any option for 
action.  I would remind all of you, I have not ruled out any option, 
except that we have not discussed and we are not considering the 
introduction of American forces into continuing hostilities there.  
We are not.  

	     So we are reviewing other options.  But I also would 
remind you that, to be fair, our allies have had -- the French, the 
British and the Canadians -- have had troops on the ground there.  
They have been justifiably worried about those.  But they have 
supported the airdrops, the toughening of the sanctions.  They 
welcomed the American delegation now in Europe, working on how to 
make these sanctions really work and really bite against Serbia.  And 
I can tell you that the other nations involved are also genuinely 
reassessing their position, and I would not rule out the fact that we 
can reach an agreement for a concerted action that goes beyond where 
we have been.  I don't have any criticism of the British, the French 
and others about that.
	     
	     Q	  Would that be military action?
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, several of the leading lights in 
your administration, ranging from your FBI Director to your U.N. 
Ambassador, to your Deputy Budget Director to your Health Services 
Secretary, have issued statements in the last couple of weeks which 
are absolutely contradictory to some of the positions you've taken in 
your administration.  Why is that?  Are you losing your political 
grip?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Give me an example. 
	     
	     Q	  Example?  Judge Sessions said that there was no 
child abuse in Waco.  Madeleine Albright has said in this morning's 
newspapers, at least, that she favors air strikes in Bosnia.  All of 
these are things you said that you didn't support.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I don't know what -- we 
know that David Koresh had sex with children.  I think that is 
undisputed, is it not?  Is it not?  Does anybody dispute that?  Where 
I come from that qualifies as child abuse.  And we know that he had 
people teaching these kids how to kill themselves.  I think that 
qualifies as abuse.  And I'm not criticizing Judge Sessions because I 
don't know exactly what he said.
	     
	     In terms of Madeleine Albright, Madeleine Albright has 
made no public statement at all about air strikes.  There is a press 
report that she wrote me a confidential letter in which she expressed 
her -- or memo -- in which she expressed her views about the new 
direction we should take in response to my request to all the senior 
members of my administration to let me know what they thought we 
ought to do next.  And I have heard from her and from others about 
what they think we ought to do next.  And I'm not going to discuss 
the recommendations they made to me, but in the next few days when I 
make a decision about what to do, then I will announce what I'm going 
to do.  So I wouldn't say that either one of those examples qualifies 
speaking out of school.
	     
	     Q	  How about the Value Added Tax, Mr. President?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  What was that?
	     
	     Q	  The Value Added Tax -- Mrs. Rivlin and Miss Shalala 
both said that they thought that that was a good idea.
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't mind them saying they think it's 
a good idea.  There are all kinds of arguments for it on policy 
grounds.  That does not mean that we have decided to incorporate it 
in the health care debate.  No decision has been made on that.  And I 
have no objection to their expressing their views on that.  We've had 
a lot of people from business and labor come to us saying that they 
thought that tax would help make their particular industries more 
competitive in the global economy.  I took no -- that wasn't taking a 
line against an administration policy.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, a week ago a group of gay and 
lesbian representatives came out of a meeting with you and expressed 
in the most ringing terms, their confidence in your understanding of 
them and their political aspirations, and their belief that you would 
fulfill those aspirations.  Do you feel now that you will be able to 
meet their now enhanced expectations?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't know about that.  And I 
don't know what their -- it depends on what the expectations are.  
But I'll tell you this:  I believe that this country's policies 
should be heavily biased in favor of nondiscrimination.  I believe 
when you tell people they can't do certain things in this country 
that other people can do, there ought to be an overwhelming and 
compelling reason for it.  I believe we need the services of all of 
our people, and I have said that consistently.  And not as a 
political proposition.  The first time this issue came up was in 1991 
when I was in Boston.  I was just asked the question about it.
	     
	     And I might add -- it's interesting that I have been 
attacked -- obviously, those who disagree with me here are primarily 
coming from the political right in America.  When I was Governor, I 
was attacked from the other direction for sticking up for the rights 
of religious fundamentalists to run their child care centers and to 
practice home schooling under appropriate safeguards.  I just have 
always had an almost libertarian view that we should try to protect 
the rights of American individual citizens to live up to the fullest 
of their capacities, and I'm going to stick right with that.
	     
	     Q	  Are you concerned, sir, that you may have generated 
expectations on their end and criticism among others that has 
hamstrung your administration in the sense of far too great emphasis 
on this issue?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, but I have not placed a great deal 
of emphasis on it.  It's gotten a lot of emphasis in other quarters 
and in the press.  I've just simply taken my position and tried to 
see it through.  And that's what I do.  It doesn't take a lot of my 
time as President to say what I believe in and what I intend to do, 
and that's what I'll continue to do.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, getting back to the situation in 
Bosnia -- and we understand you haven't made any final decisions on 
new options previously considered unacceptable.  But the two most 
commonly heard options would be lifting the arms embargo to enable 
the Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves and to initiate some limited 
air strikes, perhaps, to cut off supply lines.  Without telling us 
your decision -- presumably, you haven't made any final decisions on 
those two options -- what are the pros and cons that are going 
through your mind right now and will weigh heavily on your final 
decision?  
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm reluctant to get into this.  There 
are -- those are two of the options.  There are some other options 
that have been considered.  All have pluses and minuses; all have 
supporters and opponents within the administration and in the 
Congress, where, I would remind you, heavy consultations will be 
required to embark on any new policy.
	     
	     I do believe that on the air strike issue, the 
pronouncements that General Powell has made generally about military 
action, apply there.  If you take action, if the United States takes 
action, we must have a clearly-defined objective that can be met.  We 
must be able to understand it and its limitations must be clear.  The 
United States is not, should not, become involved as a partisan in a 
war.  
	     
	     With regard to the lifting of the arms embargo, the 
question obviously there is if you widen the capacity of people to 
fight will that help to get a settlement and bring about peace?  Will 
it lead to more bloodshed?  What kind of reaction can others have 
that would undermine the effectiveness of the policy?
	     
	     But I think both of them deserve some serious 
consideration, along with some other options we have.
	     
	     Q	  Do you think that these people who are trying to 
get us into war in Bosnia are really remembering that we haven't 
taken care of hundreds of thousands of veterans from the last war and 
we couldn't take care of our prisoners and get them all home from 
Vietnam?   And now many of them are coming up with bills for 
treatment of Agent Orange.  How can we afford to go to any more of 
these wars?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that's a good argument 
against the United States itself becoming involved as a belligerent 
in a war there.  But we are, after all, the world's only super power.  
We do have to lead the world  and there is a very serious problem of 
systematic ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, which could 
have not only enormous further humanitarian consequences -- and 
goodness knows there have been many -- but also could have other 
practical consequences in other nearby regions where the same sorts 
of ethnic tensions exist.

	     Q	  Did you make any kind of agreement with Boris 
Yeltsin to hold off either on air strikes or any kind of aggressive 
action against the Serbs until after Sunday?  And in general, how has 
his political situation affected your deliberation on Bosnia?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I have not made any agreement, and 
he did not ask for that.  We never even discussed that, interestingly 
enough.  The Russians, I would remind you, in the middle of President 
Yeltsin's campaign, abstained from our attempt to get tougher 
sanctions through the United Nations in what I thought was the proper 
decision for them and one that the United States and, I'm sure, the 
rest of the free world very much appreciated. 

	     Q	  Do you wish, Mr. President, that you'd become more 
involved in the planning of the Waco operation?  And how would you 
handle that situation differently now?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't think as a practical matter that 
the President should become involved in the planning of those kinds 
of things at that detail.  One of the things that I'm sure will come 
out when we look into this is -- the questions will be asked and 
answered, did all of us who up the line of command ask the questions 
we should have asked and get the answers we should have gotten?  And 
I look forward to that.  But at the time, I have to say, as I did 
before, the first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once 
we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military 
be consulted because of the quasi, as least, military nature of the 
conflict given the resources that Koresh had in his compound and 
their obvious willingness to use them.  And then on the day before 
the action, I asked the questions of the Attorney General which I 
have reported to you previously, and which at the time I thought were 
sufficient.  I have -- as I said, I'm sure -- I leave it to others to 
make the suggestions about whether there are other questions I should 
have asked.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, what is your assessment of Director 
Sessions' role in the Waco affair?  And have you made a decision on 
his future?  And if you haven't, will you give him a personal hearing 
before you do decide?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I have no assessment 
of his role since I had no direct contact with him.  And I mean no 
negative or positive inference.  I have no assessment there.  I stand 
by what I said before about my general high regard for the FBI.  And 
I'm waiting for a recommendation from the Attorney General about what 
to do with the direction of the FBI.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, since you said that one side in 
Bosnia conflict represents inhumanity that the Holocaust carried to 
the nth degree, why do you then tell us that the United States cannot 
take a partisan view in this war?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I said that the principle of 
ethnic cleansing is something we ought to stand up against.  That 
does not mean that the United States or the United Nations can enter 
a war, in effect, to redraw the lines, geographical lines of 
republics within what was Yugoslavia, or that that would ultimately 
be successful.
	     
	     I think what the United States has to do is to try to 
figure out whether there is some way consistent with forcing the 
people to resolve their own difficulties we can stand up to and stop 
ethnic cleansing.  And that is obviously the difficulty we are 
wrestling with.  This is clearly the most difficult foreign policy 
problem we face, and that all of our allies face.  And if it were 
easy, I suppose it would have been solved before.  We have tried to 
do more in the last 90 days than was previously done.  It has clearly 
not been enough to stop the Serbian aggression, and  we are now 
looking at what else we can do.
	     
	     Q	  Yesterday you specifically criticized the Roosevelt 
administration for not having bombed the railroads to the 
concentration camps and things that were near military targets.  
Aren't there steps like that that would not involve conflict --direct 
conflict or partisan belligerence that you might consider?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  There may be.  I would remind you that 
the circumstances were somewhat different.  We were then at war with 
Germany at the time and that's what made that whole incident so --
series of incidents -- so perplexing.  But we have -- as I say, we've 
got all of our options under review.
	     
	     Q	  The diplomatic initiative on Haiti is on the verge 
of collapse.  What can you do to salvage it short of a full-scale 
military operation?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you may know something I don't.  
That's not what our people tell me.  I think Mr. Caputo and 
Ambassador Pezzullo have done together a good job.  The thing keeps 
going back and forth because of the people who are involved with the 
de facto government there.  It's obvious what their concerns are.  
They were the same concerns that led to the ouster of Aristide in the 
first place, and President Aristide, we feel, should be restored to 
power.  We're working toward that.  I get a report on that -- we 
discuss it at least three times a week, and I'm convinced that we're 
going to prevail there and be successful.  
	     
	     I do believe that there's every reason to think that 
there will have to be some sort of multilateral presence to try to 
guarantee the security and the freedom from violence of people on 
both sides of the ledger while we try to establish the conditions of 
ongoing civilized society.  But I believe we're going to prevail 
there.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, would you care to make your 
assessment of the first 100 days before we make one for you?  
(Laughter.)
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I'll say if -- I believe, first of 
all, we passed the budget resolution in record time.  That was the 
biggest issue.  That confirmed the direction of the administration 
and confirmed the commitments of the campaign that we could both 
bring the deficit down and increase investment, and that we could do 
it by specific spending cuts and by raising taxes, almost all of 
which come from the highest income people in this society --reversing 
a 12-year trend in which most of the tax burdens were borne by the 
middle class, whose incomes were going down when their taxes were 
going up, while the deficit went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion, the 
total national debt, and the deficit continued to go up.
	     
	     We have a 20-year low in interest rates from mortgages. 
We have lower interest rates across the board.  We have tens of 
billions of dollars flooding back into this economy as people 
refinance their debt.  
	     
	     We have established a new environmental policy, which is 
dramatically different.  The Secretary of Education has worked with 
me and with others and with the governors to establish a new approach 
in education that focuses on tough standards, as well as increasing 
opportunity.  We have done an enormous amount of work on political 
reform, on campaign finance and lobbying reform.  And I have imposed 
tough ethics requirements on my own administration's officials.  
These things are consistent with not only what I said I'd do in the 
campaign, but with turning the country around.  The Vice President is 
heading a task force which will literally change the way the federal 
government operates and make it much more responsive to the citizens 
of this country.  
	     
	     We are working on a whole range of other things.  The 
welfare reform initiative, to move people from welfare to work.  And, 
of course, a massive amount of work has been done on the health care 
issue, which is a huge economic and personal security problem for 
millions of Americans.  
	     
	     So I think it is amazing how much has been done.  More 
will be done.  We also passed the Family Leave bill.  A version of 
the motor voter bill -- that has not come out of conference back to 
me yet.  And everything has been passed except the stimulus program.  
So I think we're doing fine and we're moving in the right direction.  
I feel good about it.
	     
	     Q	  Sir, a follow-up.  Wouldn't you say, though, that 
one of your biggest initiatives, aid to Soviet Russia, is now 
practically finished -- if we can't pass a stimulus bill in our own 
country, how can we do it for them?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me recast the question a little bit.  
It's a good question -- (laughter) -- it's a good question, but to be 
fair we've got to recast it.  We have already -- the first round of 
aid to the Soviet -- to non-Soviet Russia, to a democratic Russia, is 
plainly going to go through, the first $1.6 billion.  The aid that we 
agreed with our partners in the G-7 to provide through the 
international financial institutions, which is a big dollar item, is 
plainly going to go through.  The question is, can we get any more 
aid for Russia that requires a new appropriation by the United States 
Congress?  And that is a question I think, Mary, that will be 
resolved in the weeks ahead, in part by what happens to the American 
workers and their jobs and their future.  I think the two things will 
be tied by many members of Congress.

	     Q	  The tailhook report came out this morning, 
documenting horrendous and nearly-criminal conduct on the part of the 
Navy.  How much did you discuss the incident and what might be done 
about it with your nominee to be the Secretary of the Navy?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  First, let me comment a little on that.  
The Inspector General's report details conduct which is wrong and 
which has no place in the armed services.  And I expect the report to 
be acted on in the appropriate way.  I also want to say to the 
American people and to all of you that the report should be taken for 
what it is, a very disturbing list of allegations which will have to 
be thoroughly examined.  It should not be taken as a general 
indictment of the United States Navy or of all the fine people who 
serve there.  It is very specific in its allegations, and it will be 
pursued.  

	     The only thing I said to the Secretary-Designate of the 
Navy and the only thing I should have said to him, I think, is that I 
expected him to take the report and to do his duty.  And I believe he 
will do that.

	     Q	  Mr. President, to back to Russia for just a minute.  
The latest poll show that Mr. Yeltsin will probably win his vote of 
confidence.  But there seems to be a real toss-up on whether or not 
voters are going to endorse his economic reforms.  

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I understand that.  

	     Q	  Can you live with a split -- (laughter) -- can you 
live with a split decision, though, or do you need both passed in 
order to then build support for Russian aid?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I believe -- the answer to your question 
is, for the United States, the key question should be that which is 
posed to any democracy, which is who wins the election.  If he wins 
the election, if he is ratified by the Russian people to continue as 
their President, then I think we should do our best to work with him 
toward reform.
	     
	     You know, we had a lot of other countries here for the 
Holocaust Museum dedication -- their leaders were here.  Leaders from 
Eastern Europe, leaders from at least one republic of the former 
Soviet Union; all of them having terrible economic challenges as they 
convert from a communist command and control economy to a market 
economy in a world where there's economic slowdown everywhere.  And 
in a world in which there's economic slowdown and difficulty, all 
leaders will have trouble having their policies be popular in a poll 
because they haven't produced the results that the people so 
earnestly yearn for.  You can understand that.  
	     
	     But if they have confidence in the leadership, I think 
that's all we can ask.  And the United States will -- if the Russian 
people ratify him as their President and stick with him then the 
United States will continue to work with him.  I think he is a 
genuine democrat -- small d -- and genuinely committed to reform.  I 
think that we should support that.

	     Q	  Mr. President, Mr. Perot has come out strongly in 
what is perceived behind the line against a free trade agreement --
NAFTA.  How hard are you going to fight for this free trade agreement 
and when do you expect to see it accomplished?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think we'll have the agreement ready 
in the fairly near future.  You know, our people are still working 
with the Mexican government and with the Canadians on the side 
agreements.  We're trying to work out what the environmental 
agreement will say, what the labor agreement will say, and then what 
the fairest way to deal with enforcement is.  
	     
	     The Mexicans say, and there is some merit to their 
position, that they're worried about transferring their sovereignty 
in enforcement to a multilateral commission.  Even in the United 
States, to be fair, we have some folks who are worried about that --
about giving that up.  On the other hand, if we're going to have an 
environmental agreement and a labor standards agreement that means 
something, then there has to be ultimately some consequences for 
violating them.  So what we're trying to do is to agree on an 
approach which would say that if there is a pattern of violations --
if you keep on violating it past a certain point -- maybe not an 
isolated incident, but a pattern of violation -- there is going to be 
some enforcement.  There must be consequences.  And we're working out 
the details of that.
	     
	     But I still feel quite good about it.  And this is just 
an area where I disagree with Mr. Perot and with others.  I think 
that we will win big if we have a fair agreement that integrates more 
closely the Mexican economy and the American economy and leads us 
from there to Chile to other market economies in Latin America, and 
gives us a bigger world in which to trade.  I think that's the only 
way a rich country can grow richer.  If you look at what Japan and 
other countries in the Pacific are doing to reach out in their own 
region, it's a pretty good lesson to us that we had better worry 
about how to build those bridges in our own area.  
	     
	     So this is an idea battle.  You know, you've got a lot 
of questions and I want to answer them all, but let me say not every 
one of these things can be distilled simply into politics -- you 
know, who's for this and who's for that, and if this person is for 
this, somebody else has got to be for that.  A lot of these things 
honestly involved real debates over ideas, over who's right and wrong 
about the world toward which we're moving.  And the answers are not 
self-evident.  And one of the reasons that I wanted to run for 
President is I wanted to sort of open the floodgates for debating 
these ideas so that we could try to change in the appropriate way.  
So I just have a difference of opinion.  I believe that the concept 
of NAFTA is sound, even though, as you know, I thought that the 
details needed to be improved.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, there was a tremendous flurry of 
interest earlier this month in the Russian document that purported to 
show that the Vietnamese had held back American prisoners.  General 
Vessey has now said publicly that while the document itself was 
authentic, he believes that it was incorrect.  Do you have a personal 
view at this point about that issue?  And more broadly, do you 
believe that, in fact, the Vietnamese did return all the American 
prisoners at the time of the Paris Peace Accord?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  First let me say, I saw General Vessey 
before he went to Vietnam and after he returned.  And I have a high 
regard for him and I appreciate his willingness to serve his country 
in this way.  As to whether the document had any basis in fact, let 
me say that the government of Vietnam was more forthcoming than it 
had been in the past and gave us some documents that would tend to 
undermine the validity of the Russian documents claim.
	     
	     I do not know whether that is right or wrong.  We are 
having it basically evaluated at this time, and when we complete the 
evaluation, we'll tell you.  And, of course, we want to tell the 
families of those who were missing in action or who were POWs.  I 
think that we'll be able to make some progress in eliminating some of 
the questions about the outstanding cases as a result of this last 
interchange, but I cannot say that I'm fully satisfied that we know 
all that we need to know.  There are still some cases that we don't 
know the answer to.  But I do believe we're making some progress.  I 
was encouraged by the last trip.
	     
	     Q	  I'd like to follow up on that.  Before the U.S. 
normalizes relations, allows trade to go forward, do you have to be 
personally sure that every case has been resolved or would you be 
willing to go forward on the basis that while it may take years to 
resolve these cases, the Vietnamese have made sufficient offerings to 
us to confirm good faith?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  A lot of experts say you can never 
resolve every case, every one, that we couldn't resolve all the cases 
for them and that there are still some cases that have not been 
factually resolved, going back to the Second World War.  But what I 
would have to be convinced of is that we had gone a long way toward 
resolving every case that could be resolved at this moment in time, 
and that there was a complete, open and unrestricted commitment to 
continue to do everything that could be done always to keep resolving 
those cases.  And we're not there yet.  
	     
	     Again, I have to be guided a little bit by people who 
know a lot about this.  And I confess to being much more heavily 
influenced by the families of the people whose lives were lost there, 
or whose lives remain in question than by the commercial interest and 
the other things which seem so compelling in this moment.  I just am 
very influenced by how the families feel.
	     
	     Q	     your economic stimulus package, are you doing 
some kind of reality check now and scaling back some of your plans, 
your legislative plans for the coming year, including the crime bill, 
the health care initiative and other things?  Are there any plans to 
do that?  And also, did you underestimate the power of Senator Bob 
Dole?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, what I underestimated was the extent 
to which what I thought was a fairly self-evident case, particularly 
after we stayed below the spending caps approved by this Congress, 
including the Republicans who were in this Congress last year -- when 
we had already passed a budget resolution which called for over $500 
billion in deficit reduction.  When they had voted repeatedly for 
supplemental appropriations to help foreign governments, I thought at 
least four of them would vote to break cloture, and I underestimated 
that.  I did not have an adequate strategy of dealing with that.  
	     
	     I also thought that if I made a good-faith effort to 
negotiate and to compromise, that it would not be rebuffed.  Instead, 
every time I offered something they reduced the offer that they had 
previously been talking to the Majority Leader about.  So it was a 
strange set of events.  But I think what happened was what was a 
significant part of our plan, but not the major part of it, acquired 
a political connotation that got out of proportion to the merits, so 
that a lot of Republicans were saying to me privately, "Mr. 
President, I'd like to be for this, but I can't now.  And we're all 
strung out and we're divided."  
	     
	     And I think we need to do a reality check.  As I said, 
what I want to know -- let me go back to what I said -- what I want 
to know from our folks and from our friends in the Senate on -- and 
Republicans or Democrats -- is what could I have done differently to 
make it come out differently.  Because the real losers here were not 
the President and the administration.  The real losers were the 
hundreds of thousands of people who won't have jobs now.  We could 
have put another 700,000 kids to work this summer.  I mean, we could 
have done a lot of good things with that money.  And I think that is 
very, very sad.  And it became more political than it should have.  
But the underlying rationale I don't think holds a lot of water --
that it was deficit spending.  That just won't wash.
	     
	     Q	     and redo --
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No.  I mean, you know, for example --you 
mentioned the crime bill.  I think it would be a real mistake not to 
pass the crime bill.  I mean, the crime bill was almost on the point 
of passage last year.  And they were all fighting over the Brady 
Bill.  Surely, surely after what we have been through in this country 
just in the last three months, with the kind of mindless violence we 
have seen, we can pass a bill requiring people to go through a 
waiting period before they buy a handgun.  And surely we can see that 
we need more police officers on the street.  
	     
	     That's another thing that -- I really believe that once 
we move some of that money -- not all, but some of it up into this 
jobs package to make some of the jobs rehiring police officers on the 
street who'd been laid off, that would be a compelling case.  I mean 
people are scared in this country and I think we need to go forward. 
I feel very strongly that we need to go forward on the crime bill.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, back to the tailhook report for a 
second.  That report contained very strong criticism of the Navy's 
senior leadership in general, but did not name any of the senior 
officers.  Do you believe that the senior officers who are implicated 
in this, including Admiral Kelso who was there one night in Las 
Vegas, should they be disciplined and do you believe the public has a 
right to know the names of the senior officers?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  You should know that under the rules of 
law which apply to this, I am in the chain of command.  There is now 
an Inspector General's report and the law must take its course.  If I 
were to answer that question I might prejudice any decisions which 
might be later made in this case.  I don't really think -- I think 
all I can tell you is what I have already said.  I was very disturbed 
by the specific allegations in the Inspector General's report, and I 
want appropriate action to be taken.  
	     
	     Until the proper procedures have a chance to kick in and 
appropriate action is taken, I have been advised that because I am 
the Commander-in-Chief I have to be very careful about what I say so 
as not to prejudice the rights of anybody against whom any action 
might proceed or to prejudice the case in any other way either pro or 
con.  So I can't say any more except to say that I want this thing 
handled in an appropriate and thorough way.
	     
	     Q	  Mr. President, could I ask you for a clarification 
on Bosnia?  You said that you were not considering introduction of 
American forces.  Does that include any air forces as well as ground 
forces, sir?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I said ground forces.
	     
	     Q	  You said ground forces.  Could I ask you, sir, if 
you fear that using U.S. air strikes might  draw the United States 
into a ground war there?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  I just don't want to discuss our 
evaluation of the options anymore.  I've told you that there's never 
been a serious discussion in this country about the introduction of 
ground forces into an ongoing conflict there.
	     
	     Q	  With hundreds of thousands of gays in Washington 
this weekend for the march, did you ever reconsider your decision to 
leave town for this weekend?  Did you ever consider in any way 
participating in some of the activities? 
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Why not?
	     
	     THE PRESIDENT:  Because I -- and, basically, I wouldn't 
participate in other marches.  I think once you become President, on 
balance, except under unusual circumstances, that is not what should 
be done.  But more importantly, I'm going to the American Society of 
Newspaper Editors, a trip that presumably most of you would want me 
to make, to try to focus anew on what I think are the fundamental 
issues at stake for our country right now.  And I expect that I will 
say something about the fact that a lot of Americans have come here, 
asking for a climate that is free of discrimination; asking, 
basically, to be able to work hard and live by the rules and be 
treated like other American citizens if they do that, and just that.  
And that's always been my position -- not only for the gays who will 
be here, but for others as well.  
	     
	     Thank you very much.

                                 END1:48 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179060
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT

In article <onrC5xzu4.IIF@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>[...]
>of course the last MOW was the same thing but [the media] ignored us.
>I guess that was just labor pains.
>perhaps they will ignore us again, in which case we will come in
>even largeer numbers next time.

Local media hasn't said much, if anything, about the MOW.  Also, when
I called a straight friend in Arlington to tell him I would be on his
doorstep this weekend, he didn't know anything at all about the march.
This is a gay-sympathetic person who notices things like this.  I
thought it was strange that he was unaware of what was happening.  It
made me wonder just how much coverage is getting to "mainstream" America.

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |  Head like a hole, black as your soul.
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  I'd rather die
                                     |  Than give you control.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |               - Nine Inch Nails

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179062
From: pcalitri@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (pat calitri)
Subject: Re: Are Americans sexually repressed?

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
>of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
>recent works suggest.

Oh, please, enlighten us all. What articles in particular are you
quoting from? I'm doing my Masters in Psychopathology and it would
interest me greatly in seeing these articles that you know exist
(yet I know nothing about). I'm sure I could give them to people
doing their PhD's. With information like this, they'll have their
degree in no time.  (sprinkle sarcasm where applicable)

Don't bother with the little-girl-is-raped-by-her-daddy-and-is-now-
a-lesbian-because-of-it studies. They have always been under critical 
scrutiny as to their validity. (Correlation != causation).

========================= Fluffy the Wonder Bunny ============================
       Sex is not the answer, sex is the question. Yes is the answer.
==============================================================================
   Behind each "Have a nice day" is a "Go fuck yourself." ---Ralph Cherubini
==============================================================================
      The other night I was lying in bed, looking up at the stars, and
              I wondered, "Where the FUCK is my ROOF ?!?"
====================== pcalitri@descartes.waterloo.edu =======================
  Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature and join the fun!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179063
From: rogerd@netcom.com (Roger D.)
Subject: Re: Clayton is an asshole (but we all already know that)

:      Here's a hypothetical question...  If Clayton said something like "all
: those niggers are really stupid."  (Please don't be offended, I'm not racist
: but merely using an example of Clayton's malign logic).  And then said he
: read a report that a lot of blacks in inner cities dropped out of school, I
: bet he wouldn't have your support.  Yet he can claim that all homosexuals are
: dishonest, evil, lying child molesters without *PERSONALLY* having a single
: homosexual friend or acquaintance and you'll sit there and support him.

:      God created a place for bigots.  It's called Hell and Clayton is going
: to burn there for a long time.  I pray for him to find in his heart the
: Christian values he espouses so that he can learn to love his gay brothers
: and sisters, because anyone with so much hatred in his soul coulld never
: be righteous.

There is a difference between supporting Claytons opinions and supporting
his right to speak.  I want you to know that you cannot educate and/or
elevate ones understanding by calling him names.  Clayton has an opinion
which in his mind is as valid as any opinion anyone else on the net has.
If you were to walk up to black person to talk about blacks in the inner
city and began the conversation with "Those niggers in th.......".  You
would lose the attention of that black person by the time you spoke your
second word.  All name calling and derisive remarks do is turn off the
audience you are trying to address.  Clayton is guilty of that and as
such has distracted attention away from his message to bits and pieces
of his conversation.  I don't understand why people want to repeat his
mistakes!

-- 
==================================================
=	rogerd@netcom.com - - rogerd@aqm.com	 =
=						 =
=	  Hanging by the tips of my finger	 =
=	    at the edge of the internet		 =
==================================================


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179066
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Waco

In article <C5u66A.BFH@cbnews.cb.att.com> ddn@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.d.nason) writes:

>Thirdly, it seems incredibly hypocritical to place blame given
>the benefit of hindsight - something that those who made the
>decisions did not have the benefit of.  Why not give them the courtesy
>of acknowledging that they did the best they could with the
>data they had - in a very, very difficult situation.

  What is your proof that they "did the best they could"?   Unless
  they had strong evidence that the children were in IMMEDIATE danger
  then "the best they could" have done was to SHOW RESTRAINT.

  Some of us DID predict this outcome, or at least suggested a
  strong possibility of it.  I, for one, said that in the event of
  an assault against the building the CHILDREN were the ones in danger
  either from the assault itself or from a "Jonestown" (my phrase
  a week after the seige started) style suicide.  And as I pointed
  out then, and repeatedly over the objections of people on the net 
  who disagreed with me, an adult may freely choose suicide but they
  have no right to impose this choice on their children.

  Now, while I don't expect the FBI to pay any attention to what I 
  have to say on this, I *DO* expect them to figure it out on their
  own or to take the advice of experts.  The cult specialist inter-
  viewed in yesterday's Boston Globe said he was repeatedly "stonewalled"
  by the FBI when he pointed out to them that their confrontational
  tactics played perfectly into Koresh's mad view of the world and so 
  increased the chance of a tragic outcome.

>Some responses have gone so far to suggest that the actions were
>done without regard for the lives of the people in the compound - give
>me a break.

  Give *US* a break!   Pumping teargas for 45 minutes into a compound 
  filled with CHILDREN?!!   This doesn't seem to show much regard for 
  their lives or safety.   "Nontoxic teargas" is an oxymoron.  Children
  have tiny respiratory passages which are easily blocked by the secretions
  induced by teargas; moreover teargas can easily cause fatalities in anyone
  subject to laryngospasms, asthma, or heart disease.

  If a madman is holding a gun to a hostage, someone who provokes the 
  madman by attacking him bears nearly as much repsonsibility for the
  death of the hostage as the madman himself.  These kinds of situations
  have to be handled *delicately* - not by surrounding a place with
  tanks and heavily armed personnel and blaring rock music from loud-
  speakers at all hours.   That approach is idiotic.  


>Be part of the solution - not the problem.

  The solution is to greatly reduce the authority of the "the authorities".
  The Feds showed themselves here, as they have so many times in the
  past, to be a gang of trigger-happy, impulsive, yahoos who cause more
  trouble than they prevent.    Their confrontational approach reinforced
  every single message Koresh was giving his followers, virtually guarantee-
  ing that whatever crazy solution Koresh proposed would be followed
  willingly.   This was pointed out here, on Compuserve, in the press,
  just about every place except in the Justice Department where it seems
  a n.i.h. philosophy prevails.  
  
          
---peter



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179067
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Remarks by the President on Waco w/ Q&A 4.20.93

In article <1r2g4oINNqa7@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes:
>
>                           THE WHITE HOUSE
>
>                    Office of the Press Secretary
>______________________________________________________________
>For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     
>
>	     
>                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
>            IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS 
>
>
>1:36 P.M. EDT
>	     
>	     
>	     THE PRESIDENT:  On February the 28th, four federal 
>agents were killed in the line of duty trying to enforce the law 
>against the Branch Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled 
>weaponry and ammunition, and placed innocent children at risk.  
>Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51-day 
>standoff ensued.  
>	     
>	     The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every 
>reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without 
>bloodshed and further loss of life.  The Bureau's efforts were 
>ultimately unavailing because the individual with whom they were 
>dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably 
>insane.      
>

The Stacy Koon-Lawrence Powell defense!  The decisions of Janet
Reno and Bill Clinton in this affair are essentially the moral
equivalents of Stacy Koon's.  Reno and Clinton have the advantage
in that they investigate themselves. 

Gerald

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179068
From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE

In article <visser.735172473@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>
>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>	More "gridlock" talk from another relic of the past.  The
>Selective Service system creates jobs and is an investment in 
>the future of america......and whats wrong with that?
>
  Do we want to 'create jobs'? or do we want jobs created that are productive
  in our supply/demand economy? If your answer is the former then we can
  just round up all jobless people and pay them to build sandcastles in
  the desert. If you answer the latter then I fail to see how another
  bureaucracy produces anything.

>	We need jobs because at this point in the recovery, the economy
>should have generated 10 billion jobs and since it has not, the
>government has to step in and help.  Shutting down selective service
>would cost "good jobs" and we can't do that.  
>
>	What we really need is to involve selective service in a more
>closely directed manner.  We need the selective service involved
>in environmental protection, high-speed rail, commuter aircraft, 
>civil rights, national service and health care.  Every dollar
>we put into selective service now will get us $10 less spending
>in future.
>
>	I really believe now to think about it that selective service
>is long-past due for the creation of a cabinet position.
>
>
>	Your not beyond hope, just get back on america's side and
>start doing your part for change.  What Bill needs from you
>now is support for the economic stimulus and health care reform.
>You need to devote all your energies to fighting gridlock and
>supporting change.  Get on the team.  After all, the evil has
>been banished from washington and the time for complaint 
>is past being neccessary.
>
>	And remember, Bill Clinton cares.  He may someday even have
>a town meeting in your city.  If your an appropriate sort of 
>person, if you phrase your questions properly and show the
>proper respect and awe, you might have the chance to ask Mr,
>President your question in person.
>
>
  Oh, i get it. This is sarcastic, right?



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179069
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <116288@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
>>involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
>>about "10%" to keep politicians scared.
>
>1. You haven't shown any disproportionate involvement.
>
>2. The Janus Report, which came out recently, gives 9% as the percentage
>of exclusively or predominantly gay men.

  I thumbed through the Janus Report in a bookstore recently looking
  for a clue about their methodology.   They were very unclear about
  it, but as far as I could tell they relied on their professional
  associates in the psychotherapy profession to provide the subjects,
  interviews, and numbers.    If so, this would hardly represent an
  average cross-section.    I posted to Usenet at the time asking for
  more data about their methodology but answer came there none.  (I
  must have been out of my mind for even asking for factual information
  on Usenet!)


>3. No one is presumably going to say they're gay if they're not. But
>some no doubt are going to hide their homosexuality in surveys. Thus
>the 1-2% is a lower limit.

  This is the problem.  People have to have a lot of confidence in 
  the anonymity of a study before they can counted on to speak 
  freely about stuff like that.    But I agree that if someone's 
  going to lie it will be in the direction of a gay person claiming
  to be straight rather than the other way around.


>I still say that weighing all the evidence gives a most likely percentage
>between 5 and 7%.

  I don't see why there's any more evidence for this figure than any
  other.    It seems totally arbitrary.  



---peter


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179070
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: Waco and Panama

In article <1993Apr21.224506.922@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>I completely agree with you.  The *illegal* invasion of Panama was
>something Mr. Bush never did have to answer for.  Remember, not
>only did a lot of Panamanian civilians get killed, but more than
>a few American soldiers died too.  All this for arresting a petty
>dictator.  Here's the icing on the cake:  to my knowledge the flow
>of drugs from Panama hasn't slowed down at all with the removal of
>Noriega.  So, what good did it do to remove him from power?  The
>cigarette cops and the FBI killing the Branch Davidians in Waco is
>equally reprehensible.
>
>BTW, I've cross-posted this article to t.p.d. because I want to
>hear from knowledgable people on whether or not the arrest of
>Noriega affected the drug trade in any way.

The arrest of Noriega did not have any major adverse effect on the
drug trade going through Panama. Money laundering continues to be
Panama's main industry. In fact, it is bigger now than before Noriega
was arrested [1]. Panama's current administration also has ties with
the Colombian cocaine cartels [2]. And large amounts cocaine still
flow through Panama on a regular basis [3].

Oh well...

Sources (from the book _Drugs in America_ by Vincent Bugliosi):
[1] IRS Criminal Investigations Divison
[2] _New York Times_
[3] U.S. State Department

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179071
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)

In article <C5wx0u.II8@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.010657.18469@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes...
>> 
>>I've come to learn to suspect anything in the American press about
>>our "system".  If much or some of it were true, you'd have to take
>>us for idiots for tolerating it.  And given that our insurance was
>>installed during a period when there were only Liberal and Tory
>>governments federally and provincially, and the socialists are still
>>chafing, they would've pressed for real socialized medicine to fix
>>things ... think about it.  After all, we are using the U.S. as a
>>metric to make comparison ... both for keeping-up-with-the-Joneses
>>as for confirming that we did something right.
>
>True, but remember that most of the Canadian-bashing exists because American
>proponents of your system make it look like it walks on water. Even you don't
>go that far.

Sorry, but I'd have to differ.  The Canadian-bashing wrt to the health 
insurance system is largely with little evidence or prompting.  Having
kept up with this debate on the net for some months, just about all the
criticism of the Canadian system has misquoted or misinterpreted even
the anti-Canadian propaganda put out by the American insurance industry
and the AMA.  

In a few cases, such as Mr. Case, the critiques are well-reasoned and
worthy of response.  Most others are misinformed, illogical,
or just plain dumb.  I don't think the same can be said of the "American
proponents" of the Canadian system, much less of the Canadian proponents.

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179073
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.20.93




	     


                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 20, 1993


                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

	     
                          The Briefing Room


12:36 P.M. EDT
	     
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know, the President is going 
to come out at 1:15 p.m.  With your indulgence, I think what we'd 
like to do is have the President award the National Teacher's Award 
first and then have the teacher leave, or whatever, and then he'll 
make a statement on Waco and take a couple questions.  So if we can 
just hold off going live and all that until that's done, it probably 
will work out a lot better. 
	     
	     Q	  If you'll give us the time.  That's the problem.
	     
	     Q	  We've got a two-minute warning problem.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, it is a problem.  It's about 
1:15 p.m.
	     
	     Q	  The teacher would walk off and then --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's -- I'm just trying 
to work this out here.  I think that's the best way to handle it.
	     
	     Q	  Can I ask you a series of questions about the way 
the President handled the notifications yesterday? 
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.
	     
	     Q	  Did you, for instance, talk to the Justice 
Department about who would come out and discuss what had happened in 
Waco and whether it should be the Attorney General or the President?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Why don't we just take a step even 
farther back from that and look at the whole sequence of events on 
the contact between the Justice Department and the White House.  As 
you know and as we've said, the President spoke with the Attorney 
General on Sunday, Sunday afternoon.  They had a good discussion, 
about 15 minutes.  The Attorney General informed the President of 
what she wanted to do.  He raised no objections.  Obviously, she had 
the implicit authority from the President to go forward.  He raised 
no objections.  She went forward.  They had a discussion of a general 
nature about the incident.
	     
	     Again, yesterday morning around 11:00 a.m., the 
President spoke with the Attorney General again.  They had a brief 
discussion over what was happening in Waco.  As you know, this was 
before the fire broke out at the compound.  And I think that was why 
there was some -- just some confusion.  I think that she was 
confusing in her minds before and after the fire, not the actual day 
when they spoke.  
	     
	     Then there was a number of contacts at a number of 
different levels in the White House yesterday afternoon between the 
Justice Department and the White House.  They were informing us of 

their decisions, what they would like to do.  There was an FBI 
briefing in Waco.  The Attorney General had her press conference.  
The President then issued a statement after that.
	     
	     Frankly, yesterday afternoon, you know, there was a fair 
amount of confusion over exactly what was happening on the ground in 
Waco, and I think that we wanted to be very careful not to have the 
President say anything until we had a much better sense of what was 
actually happening on the ground.  Once we were fairly clear on what 
was happening on the ground in Waco, the President issued a 
statement.  He spoke with the Attorney General again yesterday 
evening.
	     
	     Q	  At what hour was that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It was quite late.  I believe it 
was after he returned from the Holocaust Museum.  He took a tour of 
the Holocaust Museum last night.
	     
	     Q	  And he went out to dinner.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe briefly.  Yes, he went to 
dinner and then he spoke with the Attorney General last night.  I 
don't know the exact time; I think it was relatively late.  And he 
just said, I think as Dee Dee has reported, that he just wanted to 
tell her that he thought she handled a difficult situation very well, 
that she did a good job in a tough situation, and that she should try 
and get some sleep.  He then, again, spoke with her this morning 
about the follow-up in Waco, and about what they're going to do this 
afternoon.  As you know, the President will have an announcement to 
make at 1:15.
	     
	     Q	  Did he ever talk with Webb Hubbell yesterday, last 
night, or this morning?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, no.
	     
	     Q	  Was Webb Hubbell the point man for the White House?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Webb Hubbell is the general White 
House Liaison and several people talked to Webb.  The Attorney 
General was running the operation.
	     
	     Q	  Did he tell her that she should sleep well, that 
she had done a good job?  Or he just tell her that she should get 
some sleep?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think sleep well -- done a good 
job -- I don't know the exact words.  I think that sounds right.
	     
	     Q	  I mean, sleep well has implications as to 
conscience and whether she should feel badly about it or not.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I mean, I think everybody 
feels badly when you have a situation when --
	     
	     Q	  I understand that, but whether the issue of blame 
is brought up in that phraseology.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's the spirit -- no, it 
has nothing to do with that.  The spirit with which it was offered 
was that the entire administration and certainly the Attorney General 
had to face a very difficult decision, a very difficult situation 
yesterday.  And that he thought that she had handled it well, as best 
as she could and --
	     
	     Q	  Well, does he think it was mishandled?

	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- it was just speaking of warm 
words to a friend.
	     
	     Q	  Does he think the situation was mishandled?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President --
	     
	     Q	  In retrospect?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President stands  by the 
decisions of the law enforcement agencies, the decisions of the 
Attorney General.  He accepts full responsibility.  At the same time, 
I think that we all want to look to the future and figure out what 
exactly happened, do a full review, and make sure we do what we can 
to make sure this doesn't happen -- this kind of thing doesn't happen 
again, or at least we know how to handle it.
	     
	     Q	  How much did he know about what she was going to go 
ahead with?  I know that she made the case to him -- explained --
outlined the case for action.  Did she say to him on Sunday precisely 
what action?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think it was specific 
operational detail as to what was going to happen.  I think that they 
had a general discussion about the action, about the advisability of 
action.  I think, as she noted, he asked a few general questions just 
trying to get a sense of how things were considered.  But it wasn't 
minute-by-minute detail of how the operation --
	     
	     Q	  Well, was it, "we are going in."  Is it, "we're 
going to use tear gas"?  I mean, what?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe it was that we want to go 
in and take some action that would increase the pressure on those in 
the compound, and hopefully spur them towards some sort of movement 
out.
	     
	     Q	  George, was there ever a conscious political 
decision made, or even a discussion about distancing the President 
from --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I mean, we were in 
close contact with the Justice Department.  The President accepts 
responsibility for this.  At the same time -- I mean, we just wanted 
to be very, very clear about how this happened and be as factual as 
we could be on how the decisions were made.  It is the responsibility 
of those on the ground to make recommendations.  The Attorney General 
has operational control over this.  The President obviously accepts 
responsibility for all of this, and he stands by the Attorney 
General.
	     
	     Q	  George, there was a report on the television today 
-- and I don't know more than that -- one of the members of the cult 
had said going into a courthouse that the FBI had started the fire 
and not themselves.  There was also a picture yesterday on the TV of 
a smashing into the building  where the fire broke out.  And my 
question is, is the White House absolutely certain that this fire was 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  All the evidence we have is that 
this fire was started by David Koresh and those inside the compound 
-- every bit of evidence we have.
	     
	     Q	  Did the President ask the Attorney General why do 
this now, why this particular date, and did he ask about possible 
consequences of either death or injury?

	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know the specific 
questions.  He had general questions about how the decision was going 
about being made.
	     
	     Q	  Those are general questions and did he ask 
generally, why now?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he asked, have you 
considered all of the consequences; have you considered the 
recommendations?  I don't know if he asked the question, "why now?  "  
I don't know if he asked that specific question.
	     
	     Q	  Did she tell him why now in terms of the stuff 
that's come out since then about the information provided by the 
listening device about Koresh getting increasingly more violent?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I'm not certain how much 
specific detail they got into.  I know that she generally said that 
this is the recommendation she's prepared to make, I mean, the 
decision she's prepared to make.  It's based on the recommendations 
she was receiving from the field and after intensive questioning of 
those involved.  Again, I do not know how precisely detailed it was 
beyond that.
	     
	     Q	  What is the President's understanding why 
yesterday?  One of the people who went into the compound a couple 
weeks ago came out over the weekend with some speculation that he may 
have told law enforcement people something that precipitated this 
action.  Why yesterday?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  This is the first I've heard.  I 
think what we can go to is what the FBI and the Attorney General has 
said.  There were indications that those inside the compound were at 
some danger.  It was clear that the negotiations had broken down and 
it was the judgment of the experts involved in the negotiations that 
the situation was not going to get any better at all.  
	     
	     There was also some concern over the vulnerability of 
the agents themselves who had been working long beyond the time that 
these teams normally have to work.  And as the Attorney General has 
said, there was some concern over the fact that they did not have 
replacements in place who could stand in for them, and there was a 
concern over the safety.  
	     
	     All of these factors came into play.  They also 
considered the advice of a number of psychologists and other experts 
on David Koresh and those in the compound.  I would just go back to 
what the Attorney General has said.  You have to make the best 
judgment you can, given the information you have at the time.  They 
did.  Obviously, we all regret the loss of life.  It's a terribly 
unfortunate situation.  We all wish it could have turned out 
differently, but that doesn't take away from the judgments that were 
made at the time.
	     
	     Q	  George, when did the President know that they were 
going to use tear gas?  Was it before the assault on the compound?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't know.  I don't believe 
he was given a lot of detail on exactly how the operation would go.  
I just don't know.
	     
	     Q	  Along that point, George, can you say whether the 
plan was presented to the President by the Attorney General as a way 
to end the standoff one way or the other yesterday?
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was presented as a way 
to increase the pressure on those in the compound and, we all hoped, 
as a way to move some of those out and bring it in -- it wasn't 
presented as tomorrow is D-Day, this is it.
	     
	     Q	  Is the President satisfied that, A, he had all this 
relevant information necessary to make a decision, and B, that Janet 
Reno had all the relevant information necessary to make a decision?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, I think he's satisfied that 
they were acting on the best advice and the best information they 
had, and he's not second-guessing it in any way whatsoever.
	     
	     Q	  George, was there a 12-hour gap between 
conversations between the President and the Attorney General?  In 
other words, they spoke at 11:00 a.m. and they didn't speak again 
until Clinton got back from dinner at --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's likely, yes.
	     
	     Q	  Did he call her?  What time did she call?  Was 
there a gap between when she called him?  I mean, was he at dinner 
when she called and --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no, no.  I think he called her 
last night.  I couldn't swear to it, but I believe he called her last 
night.  He just wanted to talk to her.
	     
	     Q	     what was going on?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not that I know of, no.
	     
	     Q	  What do you know about the situation now?  Everyone 
has perished who -- except eight or nine?  And do you know any of the 
other details?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know any more details than 
the FBI reported in Waco.
	     
	     Q	     watching CNN or how was he keeping track of what 
is going on?  If he wasn't talking to his Attorney General, how was 
he keeping track of what was going on here?  I mean, with all due 
respect to CNN, is that how he was doing it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  There was also -- as I said, 
several people in the White House were in constant contact with their 
counterparts at Justice to have the full and complete information.
	     
	     Q	  Who were those contacts?  I mean, was it Mack 
McLarty, Webb Hubbell?  How was the President being kept informed?  
That's not a --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe Mack was in contact with 
Webb.  I spoke with several people at the Justice Department.  I 
believe Bruce Lindsey spoke with people at the Justice Department.  
Either Bernie or Vince was also in contact at different times during 
the day with people at the Justice Department.  We were fully briefed 
and fully informed.
	     
	     Q	  We were told this morning that the President may 
have spoken -- a chance that he may have spoken with Webb.  Do you 
know if that's true or not?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's a chance he may 
have.  I don't believe he did, but I think there's certainly a chance 
that he may have at some point.  I don't believe he did.  I think 
that the last contact he had during the day yesterday directly with 

the Justice Department was the 11:00 a.m. phone call with the 
Attorney General.  But the White House was fully informed on a 
minute-to-minute basis of what was happening in Waco and what was 
happening at the Justice Department.
	     
	     Q	  George, who decided that the briefing would be done 
by the Attorney General?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Attorney General.
	     
	     Q	  Did you or did the White House communications staff 
-- were you ever involved with that decision?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  We were told about it.
	     
	     Q	  Did you ask her to go on Nightline and MacNeil-
Lehrer and all that stuff?  Was that part of --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.
	     
	     Q	     there was no advice from the White House at all 
about her -- she was on all night, all day.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, and she did a very good job. 
	     
	     Q	  Why did you decide to have the President's reaction 
to the situation be only a written statement, which is traditionally 
the White House's way of distancing the President from the issue, not 
having him appear as personally saying anything?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, that wasn't the intent at 
all.  As I said, we had to -- we wanted to wait until we had all of 
the information at hand.  The President is also making a statement 
today.  The President made a statement yesterday morning.  The 
President has been fully involved --
	     
	     Q	  After this turned into less than a successful 
operation, the only statement from the President was what was on 
paper after the Attorney General had already given what amounted to 
the major facts in this.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, it was the first statement 
from the President, not the only statement from the President, number 
one.  
	     
	     Q	  After the --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Number two -- well, the first.  
Number two, the Attorney General --
	     
	     Q	  He gave a statement early in the morning when the 
thing was starting to move --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.  And he gave one yesterday 
and he's giving one today.  Now, the second point --
	     
	     Q	  It just happens this was a written statement with 
no sort of communications policy or thought process involved?  It was 
the President wants to put out a written statement?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Knowing what we knew at the time, 
we thought it was appropriate for the President and he thought it was 
appropriate to put out a written statement expressing his regret and 
expressing his support for the Attorney General's --
	     
	     Q	  Why was it not appropriate for him to personally do 
something?

	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, he did personally do so.  
That is his statement.  It's a statement under his name.
	     
	     Q	  George, yesterday during the briefing you didn't 
say the President took full responsibility for what happened --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I certainly did.
	     
	     Q	  No, what you said was --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's just not right, Susan.
	     
	     Q	  Well, I think you can go back to the transcript, I 
mean, unless I miss something --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'd love to.
	     
	     Q	     Janet Reno said that she took full 
responsibility and you said that she made the decision, that the FBI 
--
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  And the President takes 
responsibility.  Absolutely.
	     
	     Q	  Took responsibility -- all right.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Check the transcript.
	     
	     Q	  Considering how little was known about what was 
going on inside the compound and, even now, how little is known, why 
is Washington calling this a mass suicide?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think that knowing what we 
know now and given all of the actions of David Koresh before and 
during, it is painfully clear that those there were under his 
control.
	     
	     Q	  It's stretching it a little bit where the kids are 
concerned, though, isn't it, George?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that that is an entirely 
different matter.  I mean, I think that David Koresh must bear 
responsibility for the deaths of those children, absolutely.  But he 
clearly was intent on creating some kind of an apocalyptic incident, 
and that's what he did.
	     
	     Q	  You're still operating completely on assumption, 
right?  I mean, you have no evidence, or you know of no evidence that 
this was mass suicide.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We have evidence that those inside 
the compound set fire to the compound, which led to the deaths of 
those inside.
	     
	     Q	  I didn't quite hear it.  This might be Ann's 
question, I didn't quite hear it.  But at what time did Clinton 
himself put out a statement on this?  I know Dee Dee said some stuff 
on this at 6:00 p.m., but the President put out --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  At 6:35 p.m., 6:40 p.m.
	     
	     Q	  Right after the evening news went on the air?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, right when we had all the 
information.  We were working on it.
	     

	     Q 	  Dee Dee confirmed this morning that the 
investigation the President is going to announce is going to be an 
administration-run investigation.  Why not have someone from the 
outside to make sure that it's not colored by those who would have a 
political stake, particularly those at the ATF whose actions have 
already been --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that clearly the ATF and 
the Justice Department will bear responsibility for the 
investigation.  That's not to rule out, as is often in investigations 
like this, having some sort of independent involvement as well.  But 
it will be run by the Treasury and Justice. 
	     
	     Q	  Are you confident that you will not have any 
problem getting --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.
	     
	     Q	  George, did the President reach out to anybody else 
to get advice after the meeting with Janet Reno?  And who else in the 
White House sat in on that meeting?  Anyone else from Justice?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe anybody else was 
there at the time.  It was a phone call on Monday, it wasn't a 
meeting.
	     
	     Q	  Sunday.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sunday.  It was a phone call, it 
wasn't a meeting.  I believe he might have been there with Bruce, but 
beyond that, I think he just talked to the Attorney General.
	     
	     Q	  George, you said that in that phone call, she said 
that we want to go in and take action, as you said, that will force 
him out.  What did he think she was talking about?  If he didn't know 
about tear gas, what exactly was his idea of what he was approving?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he was approving an action 
to increase the pressure on --
	     
	     qQ	   It didn't matter how she did that?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no.  I mean --
	     
	     Q	  What information did he have in terms of how this 
would proceed?  Presumably he would have wanted to know, not minute-
by-minute, but in a general sense --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he knew that this was the 
recommendation of those on the ground and the recommendation of the 
law enforcement agencies.  I just don't know --
	     
	     Q	  What is "this" -- when you say that "this" was the 
recommendation --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The action to increase pressure.  I 
don't know exactly what he was told -- whether he was going to be 
told that the tank was going to go up to the left wall and punch a 
hole in the window, or whether he was just told generally that they 
were moving forward in a way that would increase the pressure.  I 
just don't know.
	     
	     Q	  It's hard to imagine him not asking, though.
	     
	     Q	     that Janet Reno presented him with as her best 
advice about what they should go forward with, he would have agreed?
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He was -- he did ask some general 
questions about the advice and recommendation he gave.  At the same 
time -- and I would repeat -- that this was based on the unanimous 
recommendation of the law enforcement agencies involved.
	     
	     Q	  George, it would seem that this question about just 
exactly in what detail the President was informed about the nature of 
the operation is going to come up again here and elsewhere.  Can you 
take that question and --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  Yes.
	     
	     Q	     get the answer and come back to us with all of 
it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  Can you tell us that there was never a meeting -- a 
strategy session -- where you and others decided, we will put out a 
written statement from the President and we will have Janet Reno be 
on all of these television broadcasts?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Never.  Never.
	     
	     Q	  And you never called the Justice Department and 
said to anyone or Janet Reno, "you're the one who needs to be out 
front explaining this"?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not once.
	     
	     Q	  It just happened that way that she was the 
spokesman, that no one ever saw Bill Sessions until --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  She made a decision as Attorney 
General that it was important for her as the operational officer in 
charge, as the person who made the decision, to go out and take the 
questions on this tragic incident.
	     
	     Q	  She had no guidance from the White House at all?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We certainly didn't object.
	     
	     Q	  But did you -- (laughter) -- no, I'm sure you 
didn't object, but did you suggest it?  Was this a plan --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No. Absolutely not.
	     
	     Q	     a strategy?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Did she clear it?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.
	     
	     Q	  Did she notify you?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We certainly knew about it.
	     
	     Q	  What happened to this great detailed process you 
have for clearing and talking to every public information officer and 
every -- under every rock and every place in government that 
something as major as this could have occurred without a discussion 
between you and the public information people at least at the Justice 
Department?
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Attorney General made the 
decision and the Attorney General wanted to go forward.  It seemed 
like a good decision.  It was a good decision.  She did a good job.
	     
	     Q	  Let me ask it this way, George, if in hindsight how 
you would handle it?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was handled very well.
	     
	     Q	  You wouldn't change a thing if --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Change what?
	     
	     Q	  The way the White House handled any part of it -- 
from start to finish.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think that's an awful broad 
question and we're certainly going to have a review.  One of the 
reasons for the investigation is to look for ways in the future that 
something like this -- see what we can learn from an incident like 
this and see what we can learn about how to handle them.  If you're 
talking specifically about the issue of the press conferences, no, 
there -- wouldn't make any change at all.
	     
	     Q	  Two questions:  First of all, on her going on TV, 
no White House people or outside media consultants came up with this 
idea?  It's just very reminiscent of what you guys did during the 
campaign.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  How so?
	     
	     Q	  I'm thinking of like watching Clinton on Nightline 
after the draft story; watching Clinton on --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There's absolutely no comparison.  
Yesterday there was a law enforcement incident.  The incident ended 
in tragic deaths of many, many people.  The Attorney General was 
involved in that decision.  The Attorney General made the decision to 
do that.  She felt it was her responsibility in the interest of 
public information to go out and take the questions of the press in 
order to make sure that all of the questions were answered, and she 
did a fantastic job.
	     
	     Q	  The second question is, did -- as someone who knows 
Clinton as well as you do, can you understand why it's sort of hard 
to believe that he might not have asked some detailed questions about 
what she intended to do?  In other words, she came and she said, I'm 
going to put pressure on them.  It's hard not to see Clinton, who's 
fairly intelligent and inquisitive, asking how.
	     
	     Q	  What kind?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Both the Attorney General said that 
he did ask questions, he did ask general questions.  I don't have a 
minute-by-minute account of the conversation.
	     
	     Q	  How long a conversation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was about 15 minutes.
	     
	     Q	  Telephone conversation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  George, was the federal cost of this standoff ever 
a consideration in terms of stepping up the pressure --
	     

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe so, no.
	     
	     Q	  George, you keep saying that the President takes 
full responsibility, but then you refer to it as her decision.  Does 
the President not accept the fact that as Commander-In-Chief, it is 
ultimately his decision?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know what this has to do 
with Commander-In-Chief.  This was a law enforcement action, not a 
military action.  And he clearly takes responsibility for the 
decisions of the law enforcement agencies involved taken in his 
government.  I mean, I think there's just no ambiguity about that.
	     
	     Q	  But is he accepting it as his decision as well as 
hers, or is he saying it's her decision?  There's a difference.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As a matter of fact, it was her 
decision.  He did not object to that decision.  He clearly takes full 
responsibility. 
	     
	     Q	  George, this briefing has gone on just a little 
over 15 minutes, and as you can see a lot of things can be exchanged.  
What exactly did they spend 15 minutes talking about if it was just 
very general?  That's a long period of time in a phone conversation.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It is an awful long phone 
conversation.  It was a very important phone conversation.  I think 
Brit has asked that we take the question, and I've said that I would.
	     
	     Q	  One of the things Reno said last night is that the 
buck stops here.  I think that was her direct quotation.  Does the 
President agree with that in this case?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President says he accepts full 
responsibility.  I think what the Attorney General was saying is that 
she made a decision, that she's going to accept all the 
responsibility that comes to her.  And she's not shrinking from that 
at all, but neither is the President. 
	     
	     Q	  At any point in the conversation last night between 
the President and the Attorney General or this morning, did she ever 
offer her a resignation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge. 
	     
	     Q	  Even before the fire was out yesterday, there were 
some Republicans on Capitol Hill calling for an investigation.  Is 
the White House at all concerned about the timing of those requests 
trying to make political hay out of this situation?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  And I don't want to cast any 
questions about the motives of those who are requesting 
investigation.  We want an investigation, and we'll have a full and 
complete investigation.
	     
	     Q	  In what forum will you answer Brit's question?  
Will you put out a written statement?  Will you -- the wires?  How 
will you answer the question that you've taken?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.
	     
	     Q	  George, can you remind us what the President was 
doing all yesterday afternoon, where he was, and what meetings he was 
involved in?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'll have to try and remember.  He 
had a series of meetings with different members of the staff during 

the afternoon.  He was certainly monitoring the situation in Waco and 
getting periodic reports on that as well.  He did see some on CNN as 
well.  I believe he saw a fair amount of the FBI press briefing as 
well.
	     
	     Q	  And those reports would have come to him from Mack 
McLarty, would they -- do you think?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Mack talked to him, Bruce talked to 
him, I talked to him.
	     
	     Q	  George, to follow Helen's question, in their 
conversation this morning did they discuss at all her statement last 
night in response to the question about whether she would resign?  
Did he say, I don't know why you felt the need to say that?  I'm here 
to reassure you that you don't have to do this?  Did that come up at 
all?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if it even came up 
that specifically.  I know that the bulk of the conversation was 
discussing where do we go from here and what form the investigation 
--
	     
	     Q	   The didn't talk at all about her kind of 
remarkable comment last night about --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I believe she was asked a 
question.
	     
	     Q	  And her response was, if the President wants me to, 
I will.
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Which would be, I think, the 
standard response that most Cabinet members would give.  I mean, it's 
a conditional statement.
	     
	     Q	     have a need to talk about whether -- personally 
about whether the President wanted her --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they talked about 
it.  I mean, what I learned about the conversation was that it was 
largely about the investigation itself.  And this just didn't come 
up.  I did not ask the question if they talked about --
	     
	     Q	  Will you take that with the Brit package?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Certainly.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Q	  George, for the record, does the President want her 
to resign?  I know Dee Dee answered this morning --
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely not.  He supports Janet 
Reno.  She's a good Attorney General.  She's done a good job.  She 
handled a difficult situation extremely well.
	     
	     Q	  George, does the President feel that he and Janet 
Reno were let down by the unanimous professional advice from the law 
enforcement experts on the ground?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  And the President is not 
second-guessing that decision and those recommendations in any way.  
That is not to say that he doesn't regret the loss of life.  
Everybody regrets the loss of life in this situation.  But the best 
judgments were made in a difficult situation based on the best 
information we had.
	     

	     Q	  George, the 15-minute conversation was the one on 
Sunday, is that correct?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
	     
	     Q	  How long was the one at 11:00 a.m. yesterday 
morning?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  I'll take that 
question, too.
	     
	     Q	  Were these outside experts that they were 
consulting with, or experts within the ATF and the FBI?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  You'd have to ask them.  I'm just 
not sure.  I know that there were several experts.
	     
	     Q	  And also, why weren't there replacements for these 
people?  Is the unit that small?  
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I think it is a very small 
highly-specialized unit.  But I think it's one of the kinds of things 
that the investigation will examine.
	     
	     Q	  George, isn't there a factor here involving the FBI 
Director?  Normally, a president, when he wants to get information, 
doesn't only asks the Attorney General.  I know the chain of command.  
But presidents talk to their FBI directors.  In this case, throughout 
this entire siege, he has not felt that he could pick up the phone 
and talk to Bill Sessions, who is from Waco, and get expertise from 
him on what to do and what not to do?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he talked to the FBI 
Director well in the beginning of the situation when it first broke 
out in Waco.  At the same time, the Attorney General bears the 
ultimate responsibility and he was getting fully briefed from the 
Attorney General.
	     
	     Q	  Don't you think the ambiguous situation that 
Director Sessions is in has some impact on the way the President is 
briefed and on the way that all of this evolved?
	     
	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I mean, it's perfectly 
appropriate that he be briefed by the Attorney General and that the 
Attorney General has supervisory authority over the FBI Director, and 
that's following the chain of command.
	     
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you .

                                 END                    1:03 P.M. EDT
	     
#60-04/20
	     


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179075
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


In article <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
> In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...
> 
> >	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
> >is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
> >will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
> >these people were.
> 
> 	Just look at the history of Koresh and his folowers. They captured
> 	the Mount Carmel complex a few yearss ago in a gun battle with a
> 	rival BD sect, leaving more than one person dead. They weren't 
> 	exactly the most peace loving bunch.

Koresh & some of his followers were tried and found *innocent* of
all charges following that shootout.  Were you unaware of this or
did you purposly leave out this fact?


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179076
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares..


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares....**PAID** Maternity leave...

F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares....**PAID** Maternity leave...

=================================================================== 
Duration of nationally provided PAID maternity leave in weeks, 1988 
=================================================================== 

============================================ 
COUNTRY          WEEKS  COUNTRY        WEEKS 
============================================ 
United Kingdom      40  Germany           14 
Finland             38  Ireland           14 
Denmark             28  Japan             14 
France           16 28  Spain             14 
Italy               22  Netherlands       12 
Norway              20  Sweden            12 
Canada           17-18  Switzerland     8-12 
Austria             16  United States      0 
Belgium             14 

Source: International Labor Organization, "Work and Family: The Child Care 
Challenge," Conditions of Work Digest, vol. 7, February 1988. 

******************************************************************
From page 11 of: 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New      
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.     

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.     
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2    
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
[Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)] 

    ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.     
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The     
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But     
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.'' 

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations     







Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179077
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu sez:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the
>impact, not from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?
>
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.

There's this minor thing called "interest of finality/repose".  What
it means is that parties aren't dragged into court over and over again
because the losing side "discovers" some "new" evidence.  I don't know
about you, Brett, but I suspect GM had the resources to find just
about as many expert and fact witnesses as it wanted before the trial
started.  Letting them re-open the case now is practically an
invitation to every civil litigant on earth to keep an ace in the hole
in case the verdict goes against him.

BTW, in federal criminal cases, Rule 33 does permit a motion for a new
trial "based on . . . *newly discovered* evidence" if made within 2
years of the verdict.  (Emphasis mine.)  If you're trying to make a
backhanded point about criminal justice in a discussion that has
little to do with criminal trials -- as the estimable David Brock did
in his amusing WSJ piece last week -- save your breath.



>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be 
>believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

Yup.  Which is why they shoulda been brought around the first time
through. 


>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
>	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

Unless there's some reason to believe that this supposed bias predated
the trial (as opposed to being a product of it), and that GM was
unfairly prevented from discovering it (by venireman concealment or
otherwise), why should GM be allowed to complain?

-- 
MORAL: Always Choose the Right Sort of Parents 
       Before You Start in to be Rough
                                        - George Ade
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179078
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1993Apr15.170239.8211@hemlock.cray.com>
	rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite
>evidence of his inocents.

I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who
was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book
is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays
caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179079
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test

In article <C5L4rp.EBM@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>> I really don't want to waste time in
>>> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>>> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!  
>>
>>  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
>>not eager to make a fool of myself.
>
>Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about
>and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you
>wish.
>
>The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits
>so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along
>with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced
>organized crime specifically; etc, etc

Ahhh, the classic Truth By Blatant Assertion technique.  Too bad it's
so demonstrably false.  Take a look at Great Britain sometime for a 
nice history on drug criminalization.  The evidence there shows that
during periods of time when drugs (such as heroin) were illegal, crime
went up and people did die from bad drugs.  During times when drugs
were legalized, those trends were reversed.

>
>If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into
>why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group
>was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little
>research.

Now this is a great example of an ironclad proof.  Gosh, I'm convinced.
( :-} for the humor impaired).  First, assert something for which you
have no evidence, then dodge requests for proof by claiming to know
what this group was intended for.  As to research, if you'd done any
at all, you'd realize that there is plenty of reason to believe that
legalizing drugs will have many benefits to society.  There are some
plausible arguments against it, too, but they aren't enough to convince
me that criminalization of drugs is the answer.  I'm willing to be
convinced I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt the likes of you can do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179080
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Subject: Re: The state of justice

In article <1qn73aINNmq9@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:

> I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who
> was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book
> is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays
> caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.

And I recommend the movie _The Thin Blue Line_, which is about the
same case.  Not as much legal detail, but still an excellent film.  It
shows how very easy it is to come up with seemingly conclusive
evidence against someone whom you think is guilty.
--
Matthew Austern                       Maybe we can eventually make language a
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             complete impediment to understanding.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179081
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?)
Subject: Bush's WI (was Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative

In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes...
>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be 
>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
> 
>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
>	bill.

I guess your strength isn't in math. Clinton hasn't been president for
6 months. In other words, it's BUSH'S Wiretapping Initiative.
> 
>	I strongly urge you to begin considering your future.
>	I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport
>	in the mail soon.
> 
>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you 
>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while 
>	you are still able.
> 
Have you?
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179082
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie

In article <VEAL.731.734985604@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@
alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:>
>>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>
>>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
>>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
>>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
>>have in Europe)
>>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
>>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
>>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, 
>
>       The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase.
>There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase
>incrementally.
>
I was a graduate student in the early 1980s, and we had a conference on 
Reaganomics where Jerry Jordan, then a member of the Council of Economic 
Advisors, was a speaker.  I had the pleasure of driving him back to the 
airport afterwards, and since taxes were the main topic of discussion I 
thought I would ask him about the VAT.  I have favored it for these reasons 
you mention, that the income base is too hazy to define, that it taxes 
savings and investment, that it is likely to be more visible.  He agreed, 
and reported that the CEA at that time was in favor of VAT.  So why not 
propose it?  I asked.  He replied that the Reagan White House feared that 
the Democrats would introduce VAT *in addition to* the income tax, rather 
than in lieu.  Better not to give them any ideas, he said.

Pretty prescient.

>       (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of
>Europe's that makes it "visible?")
>
Yes, any Canadian readers, please tell us if the tax is displayed on price 
stickers (I'm relatively certain it is not in Europe).

--King "Sparky" Banaian                 |"It's almost as though young
kbanaian@pitzer.claremont.edu           |white guys get up in the
Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College      |morning and have a big smile
Latest 1993 GDP forecast:  2.4%         |on their face ... because,
                                        |you know, Homer wrote the
                                        |_Iliad_."  -- D'Souza

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179083
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks by the President: Teacher of the Year Award






                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993     

                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
           DURING PRESENTATION OF TEACHER OF THE YEAR AWARD
	     
                           The Rose Garden 


1:25 P.M. EDT


	     THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Please be seated.  I 
want to say, first, how delighted I am to be here with Secretary 
Riley and with Senator Graham.  The three of us served as governors 
together during the 1980s when we worked constantly on strategies to 
improve our schools, when we led often difficult and long efforts to 
upgrade the standards in American education and to improve the 
quality of instruction our children were receiving.  
	     
	     There were no two governors whom I admired more during 
that period than the two who now stand on this stage with the Teacher 
of the Year.  And I think both of them would join me in saying that, 
after all the testimony has been heard and all the bills have been 
passed and the funds have been raised and allocated, it all comes 
down to what happens between the teacher and the students in the 
classroom.
	     
	     That's why today's ceremony honoring the National 
Teacher of the Year is so important.  Tracey Leon Bailey is one 
recognition all across our country for highly advanced and innovative 
science programs.  He's developed and introduced into Florida's 
classrooms cutting-edge programs in molecular biology and DNA 
fingerprinting -- subjects usually taught only in college and, I 
might add, probably only dimly understood here in the Nation's 
Capital.  (Laughter.)
	     
	     Within three years of being hired by a satellite high 
school, Mr. Bailey's institution had one of the strongest science 
programs in the entire state of Florida, and it won numerous national 
and international awards.  These advanced programs aren't just for a 
favored few.  Tracey Bailey has inspired all kinds of students, 
including those previously known as low-achieving or at-risk to reach 
for excellence and to attain it.  This is what our students need and 
what our country needs. 
	     
	     Today, we know that a good future with high wages and 
rich opportunities rests on the foundation of quality education for a 
lifetime.  The basics aren't enough anymore.  All our kids need 
competence in math and science and advanced problem-solving.  That's 
why Tracey Bailey's accomplishments are so important and why I am so 
pleased and proud to participate in recognizing and honoring these 
accomplishments. 
	     
	     Tracey, you represent the best in the United States.  
I'm glad to recognize you today and to formally present you with this 
Apple Award as the Teacher of the Year for 1993.  (Applause.)  
	     
	     MR. BAILEY:  Thank you, Mr. President.  It is indeed a 
great honor and a tremendous responsibility to represent the nation's 
2.5 million teachers.  And we appreciate the support that you have 
shown for education, and we're looking forward to working with you to 
help redesign and improve our nation's schools.  
	     
	     We know that the quality of our children's education 
will directly impact the future of our economic and social landscape 
in the years to come.  And we thank you so much for your continued 
support and commitment to our children's education.  Thank you again.  
(Applause.)

	     THE PRESIDENT:  In closing, I would like to also welcome 
the education leaders in Florida who are here, those representing the 
national education groups who have also come.  I'd like to recognize 
Tracey's congressman, Representative Jim Bacchus in the back, himself 
a great advocate of education.  And I'd like to remind all of you 
that the ultimate purpose of the National Teacher of the Year Award 
is to find a way for the rest of us to express our appreciation to 
people all across this country who give their lives to our children, 
all of the teachers of this country who get up every day and do their 
best to try to advance the cause of learning for all the children of 
America.  They are, in so many ways, our most important public 
servants.
	     
	     Thank you very much.  (Applause.)
	     
                                 END1:29 P.M. EDT




Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179084
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: WACO burning



It is interesting, sometimes, to listen to U.S. news as seen through
the eyes of another country.......

B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London,
reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.

Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
spin-doctors censoring such information?

The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
were british citizens.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179085
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Waco


In a previous article, ddn@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.d.nason) says:

>give me a break.

      Give ME a break, chum.  Are you telling me that Clinton and
      Reno DID NOT KNOW that the BATF actions were ILLEGAL, adn
      in VIOLATION of their warrant?


>Be part of the solution - not the problem.


     The problem is Clinton.  YOU be part of him.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179086
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: WACO burning


In a previous article, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:

>
>
>reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
>making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
>lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
>people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.


      This is pretty much what Koresh's lawyers were told by the
      remaining survivors on Larry King LIve.  In addition, parts 
      of the unsealed warrant were mentioned.  It surely sounds 
      as if the BATF were in VIOLATION from day ONE.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179087
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes...

>It is interesting, sometimes, to listen to U.S. news as seen through
>the eyes of another country.......

>B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London,
>reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when
>making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene
>lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the
>people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.

>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
>spin-doctors censoring such information?

	It was on CBS yesterday. The explanation is reasonable enough.
	Then again, if the fire was accidental, why didn't more
	people get out?

>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
>were british citizens.

	That's true. I think there were several Australians in the 
	group as well.

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179088
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Phill says Koresh == Hitler, was Welcome to Police State USA

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>|>>the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could
>|>>hear it.
>|>
>|>They _had_ a sure-fire method: keep them bottled up and talk them to death or
>|>surrender without giving him justification for some looney-tune religious
>|>stunt.
>|>
>|>Phil, I've been reading your postings for months and I'm convinced that you
>|>will back anything, no matter how damaging it may be to yours or anyone
>|>else's rights if you think it will hurt people you don't like.  It's people
>|>with that attitude that set up the preconditions for the Holocaust, a process
>|>that is in place _now_ in this country, even if the tattered, pitiful remains
>|>of the Constitution is slowing its progress.  This isn't a Libertarian issue,
>|>others may argue that line, but from a strictly Constitutional view of a
>|>democratic gov't, what the FBI and BATF did was wrong, wrong, wrong, even if
>|>their _reasons_ for trying to arrest Koresh were 100% right.  _Anything_ that
>|>leads to the deaths of 17 children, if nothing else touches your stoney
>|>heart, is _wrong_ no matter who pushed the button.  For God's sake, man, get
>|>your morality back.

>The person who murdered 17 children was Koresh. He kept them there and 
>brought about their deaths deliberately.

>You may consider that I am a complete bastard and a not very nice chap.
>Thats quite true. I don't pretend to be. Being nice is what amateurs
>try to do. If you want to talk politics you are talking hard decisions
>such as whether the lives of the troops should be risked attempting
>to rescue the children. Anyone who has held the office of President
>of the United States since FDR has held the threat that if the USA
>or its allies were to be threatened then the USA would risk nuclear 
>Holocaust in order to protect freedom. Beleive it or not, that is not
>the sort of threat that nice chaps make. Do they have a gun nutters
>section of the US version of CND by any chance?


>There are cases where society has to be protected from
>madmen such as Koresh or Hitler. If it were not for the consideration
>of the 17 children in there the question of the tactics to be used would
>not be a matter of anything but academic significance. It is not for
>the govt to prevent people from commiting mass suicide.

>The latest reports are that cult members were shot attempting to
>leave the compound by Koresh loyalists during the fire. If proven
>that would entail the final nail in the coffin of those who want to
>promote Koresh as some sort of role model or hero.

>I need hardly add that it is Koresh that has created the Holocaust in
>this case by the deliberate arson of the ranch appocalypse.

Let me see if I got this right.

Group of religious plinter schismatics erect a compound
and after at least fifty years of peaceful co-existance
with the outside community (having shoot outs only with
each other) - this makes them dangerous.  Prior history
would seem to indicate they are only dangerous to themselves.

Last I knew there was no National Branch Davidian Party
blaming the debacle in VeitNam on Foreign Meddlers and
three-two beer, calling for the Rounding up of Meat Packers,
Growers and Slaughter Houses.

You want tough political choices - how about letting odd balls
be odd balls?  (I know, this requires tolerance for 
those that go into Government - but we all know people
who have no useful skills.)


ith the death of the children everybody is getting
real upset - what about the other 40 plus people?
I suppose that you consider children to be property
of the state with the family as custodians. (In the
States its the other way around - children are parental property.)
If what you consider a Corrupt Government demands that
you send you children into _their_ tender care - I
suppose that you will obey the State and turn you children
over to their care.  Sorry - I am not as enamoured of the
womb to tomb cradle that is IngSoc.

Gotta go, the beach is calling.
chus
pyotr

-- 
pyotr@halcyon.com Sometimes Pyotr Filipivich, sometimes Owl. 
April 19, 1993 - You realize that this makes twice in two
months that the Government had a Perfect Plan that went awry?


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179089
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Subject: CLINTON: Fact Sheet on Russian Statement 4.23.93




                         The White House


                  Office of the Press Secretary

---------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release                             April 23, 1993



                     Background Information:

                    Advancing U.S. Relations 
        with Russia and the other New Independent States 

                         April 23, 1993


At the Vancouver summit, President Clinton and President Yeltsin 
agreed to pursue a number of measures designed to implement an 
economic and strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia.  
Since then, President Clinton has directed that a number of steps 
be taken to move this process forward.  The Administration is 
announcing a number of steps today in order to underscore its 
deep commitment to a new and closer partnership with Russia based 
on its government's commitment to reform.


Executive Review of Cold War Laws

President Clinton and President Yeltsin discussed the 
desirability of reviewing and updating U.S. laws and regulations 
to reflect the end of the Cold War.  Congress has already acted 
to revise many laws to reflect the fact that a communist Soviet 
Union has been replaced by a democratic Russia and other 
independent states.  However, many laws and regulations remain 
that contain language and restrictions that fail to reflect the 
end of the Cold War and that unnecessarily undermine relations 
with Russia and the other new independent states.

The President today has ordered an Executive review of laws and 
regulations so that, where appropriate and consistent with U.S. 
security and other national interests, such provisions can be 
revised or removed.  He has asked Ambassador-at-large Strobe 
Talbott to coordinate this review on an expedited basis.  The 
President has indicated that he will welcome congressional 
efforts to help this review proceed as quickly as possible.

This review will weigh all considerations that pertain to 
revision of such provisions, and the initiation of the review may 
help to remedy some of the circumstances that have justified such 
provisions in the past.  For example, because the Russians are 
eager to have their status changed under the Jackson-Vanik 
legislation, President Yeltsin personally assured President 
Clinton in Vancouver that he would look into individual cases 
involving continuing restrictions on emigration from Russia.  By 
addressing such issues, this review can help strengthen the bonds 
of trust and partnership between the U.S. and Russia, and between
the U.S. and the other new independent states.


Review of COCOM

It is also time to consider expeditiously with America's allies 
the future of another Cold War institution -- the Coordinating 
Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM).  The United 
States has begun a thorough review of how to reorient export 
controls to the post-Cold War world, in which Russia is no longer 
viewed as a potential adversary, but as a potential ally in 
combatting the proliferation of sensitive technology.

Steps to Improve the Security Relationship

The President also has taken steps to move ahead on a range of 
efforts discussed in Vancouver that can strengthen U.S. security 
and improve our security relationship with the Russians and the 
other states.


Accelerated Deactivation of Nuclear Weapons

In Vancouver, the two Presidents discussed accelerating the 
process of deactivating nuclear strategic systems scheduled for 
elimination under the START I Treaty.  President Clinton has 
directed the Department of Defense to complete this process well 
in advance of the seven year reduction period outlined in START 
I.  In addition, the United States, together with Russia and the 
other relevant states of the former Soviet Union, will be 
exploring programs under Nunn-Lugar to help them to accelerate 
this process.


Multilateral Test Ban

The two Presidents agreed at Vancouver that negotiations on a 
multilateral nuclear test ban should commence at an early date, 
and that the two governments would consult with each other 
accordingly.  The United States looks forward to beginning 
consultations with Russia, our allies, and other states, on the 
specific issues related to this negotiation.  The United States 
expects to start this consultative process within the next two 
months.    


Detargeting

The two Presidents also began a dialogue on the issue of nuclear 
targeting at Vancouver.  As the United States and Russia move 
into a new relationship of strategic partnership, there is a need 
to reexamine many of the assumptions and means employed in the 
past to safeguard U.S. security against a nuclear adversary.  The 
Administration is beginning a comprehensive review of measures 
that could enhance strategic stability, including recent 
proposals for detargeting nuclear missiles.   

Other Measures to Create a New Security Relationship

In response to the incident involving a collision between US and 
Russian submarines last month, Secretary Aspin will be ready to 
discuss ways to avoid such incidents in the future with Russian 
Defense Minister Grachev during his visit to the United States in 
late May.

Secretary Aspin will also be prepared to move forward with 
Defense Minister Grachev in May to develop a combined training 
program between our two military forces and to prepare for joint 
exercises in peacekeeping, such as that authorized by the UN 
Security Council.  The United States looks forward to broadening 
such training and exercises to include other peacekeeping 
contributors, in order to improve inter-operability, readiness, 
and planning for multilateral peacekeeping operations.  The US 
and Russia are working together to convene a May Ministerial 
Meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss proposals for 
enhancing the UN's peacekeeping capability and to move 
consideration of the Secretary-General's Agenda for Peace from 
the discussion to the implementation phase.  The U.S. is also 
working with the Russians to focus specifically on improvements 
in the financing and management of UN operations.  The purpose of 
these initiatives will be to cooperate on peacekeeping for our 
participation in UN or CSCE sponsored actions.


Multilateral and Bilateral Partnership with Reform

Finally, the Administration continues to move ahead on a range of 
initiatives aimed at striking a partnership with economic and 
political reformers throughout Russia and the other states.  The 
Administration is continuing work with our G-7 partners to 
assemble the package of multilateral assistance that Secretaries 
Bentsen and Christopher recently negotiated in Tokyo.  And the 
Administration is continuing consultation with Congress over the 
further efforts the U.S. will take to assist the process of 
reform in Russia and the other states.

                           *    *    *

The Administration believes these steps can increase American 
security while improving the relationship between the U.S. and 
Russia, and between the U.S. and the other new independent 
states.

                               -30-



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179091
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)

(misc.legal trimmed)

In article <C5uqsM.3I9@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

> Let me explain some possible "means" to libertarian-style government
> one last time.

> If the dominate philosophy of a society held that it was OK to kill your
> neighbor for sport, no government system (except a strong tyranny by the
> minority) could keep the people from killing each other.

> The dominate philosophy in our society holds that it is OK for people to
> steal and coerce each other as long as it's done by vote or through the
> government machine.  Libertarians realize what this legal stealing and
> coercion does to a society.

> So just as a society of non-murderers would not vote for the "right" to
> murder, a society of non-coercers would not vote for the ability to
> coerce.

> If libertarianism became the dominate philosophy, the people would do a
> good job of restraining government (to the extent that libertarianism
> was dominate).

> So means #1 is educating the people to become libertarian.

Well, that's the obvious conclusion, given your train of logic.  The
corollary then is that it must be a waste of time for the party to run
candidates until the educational program has shown some results.

Followups to a.p.l.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179092
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Waco *is* Gov't fault (Was Re: Libertarian Party on CIA/FBI/ATF)

In article <C5wKyG.3Fy@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

> |>1)  They raided an American's property because of *rumors* about
> |>    Koresh's intentions with some converted, yet still 2nd-amendment
> |>    protected, firearms (a judge-approved warrant justifies nothing)

> In a democracy under the rule of law a search warrant justifies a 
> search.

And this search procedure must also follow the rule of law.

> The US constitution does not justify murder of those attempting to 
> mount a search for illegally held weapons.

It may, if necessary, when the search is executed in an illegal and
violent fashion.

> The Govt has a right to use lethal force in certain cases. Attempts to 
> capture dangerous criminals who are armed and threatening the lives of others
> is one. 

These "criminals" were threatening the lives of NO ONE -- they were fired 
on FIRST, according to a number of accounts.

> In this case they used sub lethal force. 

Wrong.  Firing a gun at someone is lethal force, even if no one is hit.
Of course, they DID hit AND kill people.

> The children were held hostage. The adults were wanted variously for murder
> and conspiracy to murder.

You are silly.  There are no such warrants in existence, Phill.

> |>4)  It took hundreds of gov't agents with tax-funded cellular phones
> |>    *ten minutes* to dial 9-1-1 for the fire department

> They should not have called the fire dept at all. There was no role
> for them to play in a situation where those that might be rescued might
> well shoot at them. Calling the fire dept meant that WACO was deprived
> of a resource that might have been needed elsewhere should a situation 
> where it could have been used arisen.

Thanks, Phill, for another example of that great socialist sensitivity.
"Obey the government or die."

*PLONK*
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179093
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout

rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes...
>In article <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>> In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...

>> >	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone
>> >is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens"
>> >will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat"
>> >these people were.

>> 	Just look at the history of Koresh and his folowers. They captured
>> 	the Mount Carmel complex a few yearss ago in a gun battle with a
>> 	rival BD sect, leaving more than one person dead. They weren't 
>> 	exactly the most peace loving bunch.

>Koresh & some of his followers were tried and found *innocent* of
>all charges following that shootout.  Were you unaware of this or
>did you purposly leave out this fact?

	The fact is that Koresh and his followers involved themselves
	in a gun battle to control the Mt Carmel complex. That is not
	in dispute. From what I remember of the trial, the authories
	couldn't reasonably establish who fired first, the big reason
	behind the aquittal.

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179094
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Not talking to soldiers, part II

In article <C5trFx.B38@csulb.edu>, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>	Janet, some advice: go with the SEALs/Delta Force/Green Berets next
>>time and talk nicely to the generals.
> 
>   This might be illegal without a very specific Presidential declaration
> or even a change in law. In general (sic), U.S. military troops are not
> permitted to be used for domestic policing operations.

	Do you mean besides the National Guard?

	Outside of military reservations?

	Besides national emergencies?

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179095
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Waco

Do all those who are saying the government is responsible for the death
of those in the compound also say that the Isrealis are responsible
for the death of the Isreali athletes at the Olympics? Hey, the
Palestinians and the Dividians COULD have given up peacefully ('yeah,
and monkey could fly out my butt' - Wayne).
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179097
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Subject: Re: Waco Burnout


Doesn't seem like those responsible for the assault were very concerned
about the welfare of the children inside.  Seems like they were more
interested in flexing their muscle before the media.  My reasoning?
Just ask yourself this one question:

Suppose the scenario was slightly different and we had Chelsea Clinton
being kidnapped by terrorists, holed up in a compound for 51 days.
Do you think Clinton, Reno, the FBI, and the ATF would be so eager
to use a show of force?

Nuff said.


-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179098
From: asper@calvin.uucp (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1r1pn6$nap@lll-winken.llnl.gov> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
>This, too, is ridiculous.  In no way can the provoker be considered
>to have played more than an exceedingly minor role.  A person
>who kills is ultimately responsible for his own actions.
>

Finally, someone seems to be making sense in this thread.

Alan


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179099
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <fern.735342004@camelot> fern@camelot.bradley.edu (Jill Rosencrans) writes:
>In <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have 
>>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning 
>>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>>into killing the children.
>
>she "provoked" koresh?  excuse me, but David Koresh killed 
>the inhabitants of that compound, not a gov't official.  These people 
>were controlled by koresh...he killed them a long time ago
>when he refused to release the children and other "hostages" as you 
>call them in your comparison.

    This is the first I hear that Koresh refused to release
    someone.  In fact, a lot of people, including children, came out
    during the stand-off.

    How do you know Koresh killed his followers?  The FBI said
    he had had no such plans (and they had the place bugged), Koresh's 
    attorney said the same thing, and the survivors claimed that the 
    fire was started by goverment agents.







-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179102
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: WACO burning


In article <1r7bh0$cc2@nwfocus.wa.com>, turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley) writes:

|>goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
|>
|>>In article <16BB87EF1.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:
|>>> 
|>>>Yes we've heard that the survivors are now saying that. We've also
|>>>seen the videotape which shows that the fire started in two or
|>>>three different places which weren't near the tank.
|>
|>>    I have not seen the tape on CNN.  Which network did you see it on?
|>
|>I saw the film on CNN *as* it happend. It was clear from that tape that
|>the fire started in ONE location. Right where the tank was attacking,
|>and then had pulled back. 

No, this is not true. the CNN pictures show two sites clearly and a third is
barely distinguished. 

If you have a tape you should note that there are two towers at either end
of the building, a big one and a little one. What appears to be merely a 
long shot of the big tower with the tank in front is in fact the little
tower. You can tell beacuse the flag in the foreground switches sides from the
right of the picture to the left.

The third site is visible as the flames clearly come from a point obscured by
the small tower. You need a tape and a good slow motion video to see this.



Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179103
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <1993Apr20.135819.14473@e2big.mko.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes...
>> 
>>In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
>>|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
>> 
>>|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:

[unrelated text deleted]


>>|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
>>|>a mile of the compound?
>> 
>>Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
>>has a range of 3000 meters.
>
>
>  What crap, Phil. 50mm? Wrong. To give you a clue as to how big 50mm is, the
> F-16 fighter aircraft have 20mm gattling guns used to shoot down other 
> aircraft. A 50mm gun would be somewhere in the `cannon' realm. They might
> have had .50 calibre but definitely not 50mm. 
>
>

I think that Phil needs to get out a ruler and see exactly how big 50mm rounds
are - roughly 2" diameter.  The type of stuff used in Anti-Aircraft gunnery.
.50 calibre is much smaller, but the 3000m effective range (~2mi) sounds about
right. Maybe he just got the two confused..... The FBI's reasoning was sound,
but the note from PH-B was factually wrong.

Tom H.

>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Paul R. Busta	                                    Busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com
> Salem,N.H.                                   
> 603-894-3962
>
>
>           "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
>                       violent revolution inevitable..."
>


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------



Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179105
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Waco Investigation Paranoia

In <16BB98B5A.V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes:

+>Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely
+>responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will
+>show that Koresch is responsible' bs. In an investigation of this
+>size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the
+>investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up.

	The place has burned to the ground.  The FBI and company
have the whole area cordoned off and have already arrested 
reporters for being at the site and taking pictures.

	All your going to get in terms of a story is what the FBI, ATF
and the Texas Rangers decide to release.  



+>And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations,
+>this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.
 
	When the Philadephia cops dropped their bomb on MOVE and
managed to burn down an entire neighborhood many people said 
the same thing.  Dead men and rubble tell no tales that the
police dont want them to tell.  

	You can judge the real political mood on this from the
fact that Congressperson Pat Scroder is a 100% supporter of
the FBI's actions.  She was on television this week saying that
the cost of the operation in Waco was a valid reason for the
storming and gassing of the compound.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179106
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: The Government Is LYING


Yesterday, the FBI was saying that at least three of the bodies had
gunshot wounds, indicating that they were shot trying to escape the
fire.  Today's paper quotes the medical examiner as saying that there
is no evidence of gunshot wounds in any of the recovered bodies.

At the beginning of this siege, it was reported that while Koresh
had a class III (machine gun) license, today's paper quotes the
government as saying, no, they didn't have a license.

Today's paper reports that a number of the bodies were found with
shoulder weapons next to them, as if they had been using them while
dying -- which doesn't sound like the sort of action I would expect
from a suicide.

Our government lies, as it tries to cover over its incompetence
and negligence.  Why should I believe the FBI's claims about
anything else, when we can see that they are LYING?

This system of government is beyond reform.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179107
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.163758.17886@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15491@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <852@esun179.gdc.com>, piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt) writes:
# ## Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for
# ## the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes
# ## (such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing
# ## to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?
# ## 
# ## -garison
# 
# #What do you mean?  If adults want to get together for sodomy in
# #private, that's their business.
# 
# And that's precisely what they do.  So what's your problem with the queer
# population, boyo?  The only difference between us is what we do in
# private--who we love.
# 
# ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

Do it in private, and it won't be a problem.  But the reason that
the homosexual activists are so hot on antidiscrimination laws is
that they want:

1. To be able to wear that lovely chiffon evening gown to work, and
not have people get disgusted;

2. To be able to wear their NAMBLA T-shirt and not worry about
getting fired;

3. To be able to have access to young boys, so that they start
making the next generation of homosexuals.

If your right to privacy is what makes sodomy laws unconstitutional
(a position that I agree with), then keep it private, and there
won't be a problem.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179108
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association

From article <pdb059-220493112512@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>, by pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew):
> In article <philC5v0vo.7Ju@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
> wrote:

#> A very well put together post. I disagree with several key points, but the
#> post is an excellent one with which to "engage in discourse":

I agree wholeheartedly.  Paul, you have handled this so well,
I think that you could write ballot materials.

> Thank you.  I'd hoped to avoid the rancor that has characterized much
> of the debate on this issue.  I'm also not going to prolong the debate
> on this.  I wanted to respond to a couple of the points you make, but
> this will be my last posting on this.

No, don't stop!

#> Right to Equal Opportunity (lets call it REO) involves coercion in all cases
#> (by definition).

> One question:  is it your position that there is no REO?  Or just that
> this is a lesser right to FOA?

Good question.  It just depends.  How's that for an answer?  :-)
Seriously, I believe that it depends on wether or not you are
talking about a governmental employer or not.  In this case, I
believe that there should be absolutely no discrimination,
direct or indirect, period.  I feel this way not because it would
offend my moral sensibilities (which it of course would), but
because the government is a coercive entity which we cannot
escape.  It boggles my mind that in my lifetime, there were
"whites only" drinking fountains in some parks, but no fountains
for others, yet the taxes garnished to support those fountains
certainly were not applied to "whites only."  In essence, we
cannot escape the coercive state.  Even Randy Weavers have to pay
property tax.  On the other hand, private employers are not a
monopoly, and their businesses should be run by them, and not by
the government, unless they elect to turn their affairs over to
that government.

#> Why? Says who? Why can mom & pop have FOA, but IBM be forced, and force is
#> the correct word here, to have REO?

> In the case of the mom & pop store, their FOA is directly affected.  They,
> as individuals, will have to associate with whomever they hire.  In the
> case of IBM, I ask again, whose FOA are we protecting?  I do not accept
> that IBM, as a corporate entity, has a right to FOA.

But if the mom & pop store is affected by who they hire,
isn't IBM?  There is a slippery slope here.  In Santa Cruz
(where a number of loony anti-discrimination laws exist),
a guy sued a restaurant for not hiring him because he had
every imaginable kitchen utensil dangling from his earlobe,
and his tatoos were very distracting.

#> Suddenly, by arm waving, by magic, a landlord does not have FOA. And on
#> what basis does the FOA of the landlord "disappear"?

#> It seems that vague terms like "no contact with tenants" suffice.

> On the basis that the landlord has no contact with his/her tenants.  If
> the landlord doesn't associate with his tenants, then how can he complain
> that his FOA is being violated?

I have a lot of interaction (all positive) with my tenants,
so I guess that that isn't an issue.  But say I were to buy
a unit in another town, and have it managed by a third party.
Let's say that I have a real aversion to Christians because
of the stuff that they buy into hook line and sinker, and
because of the lunatic schmucks that they try to get elected.
I don't want any of those fish symbols hanging in the window
of a house that I own.  Should the government intervene?  If
I was Elie Weizel and the only rental applicant was Tom
Metzger, should I be forced to rent this distant unit to him?

#> The companies on the Fortune 500, for example, are all privately owned. They
#> can give you a list of all of their owners. They have no "anonymous",
#> unknown to them, owners.

> "Publicly owned" in the sense that their stock is publicly traded and that
> the shares of stock are owned by a generic, and ever-changing "public".

Yes, and the neat thing about this is that unlike the mom &
pop store, you and I can buy shares in IBM, and have influence
over their decision making policies if we don't like them.

Anyway, Paul, keep up the good work.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- AOL: BigCookie@aol.com -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
"I'm gonna crush you!" - Andre the Giant, 1946-1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179109
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5w5CB.Ct4@rahul.net>, starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes:
> On 22 Apr 93 10:39:15 GMT, Theodore A. Kaldis observed:
> : alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
# : # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
# : # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
# : # addressed lesbians?
# 
# : I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a
# : homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian.
# : There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the
# : aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants.
# 
# The last time I checked homosexual men and women were both human.

I think Mr. Kaldis was using the expression in the slang sense,
though I agree it is NOT an appropriate expression to use in this
context.

# They both prefer to engage in sexual acts with people of the same
# gender.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the "trademark behaviour"
# of either homosexual men or homosexual women, except in the minds of
# misinformed folk, clueless folk, and bigots.
# 
# So what makes homosexual men and homosexual women different animals?
# 
# Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama

1. That homosexual men are extremely promiscuous, and homosexual women
are, if any more promiscuous than heterosexual women, it's not by
much.

2. That homosexual men are overrepresented among child molesters 
(about 30% of child molestation is done by homosexual or bisexual
men), while homosexual women don't appear to be similarly over-
represented.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179110
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <C5wA0D.IvA@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <Apr.22.06.39.15.1993.27912@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr21.222523.21713@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
# ## Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
# ## he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
# ## addressed lesbians?
# #
# #I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a
# #homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian.
# #There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the
# #aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants.
# 
# So it has nothing to do with your morals, its just that you wouldn't
# have anything to wack off to if you didn't have tapes of Lesbians
# going at it....
# 
# I think we are getting closer to the truth now.

No, we are getting at Mr. Foard's sickness.  This may surprise
homosexuals, but lots of people in this country do NOT spend their
time watching pornography and masturbating.  Some of us have 
real lives, instead of sexual compulsions.  But I don't expect
a homosexual to understand that.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179111
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.142032.26340@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright) writes:
> In article <Apr.22.06.39.15.1993.27912@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> |> In article <1993Apr21.222523.21713@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
# |# # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
# |# # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
# |# # addressed lesbians?
# |# 
# |# I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a
# |# homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian.
# |# There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the
# |# aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants.
# 
# Obviously.  A homosexual male is of the XY chromosome pair and the lesbian
# is of XX.  Besides, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?  Since
# Mr Cramer is _very_ straight, he most probably gets off to the thought of
# lesbians, like the majority of adolescent males.
# 
# |#   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
# |  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |

I hate to disappoint you, but that's not the case.  I don't "get off"
on lesbian sex, nor am I an adolescent.  Now, when I was an adolescent,
I believed that homosexuals were just like everyone else.  But I've
learned since then.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179112
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
> Did anyone notice that Clinton was smiling and making jokes just before
> this press conference? Considering the number of people killed, this 
> seems very inappropriate to me.

Why?  He, Reno, and the FBI got what they wanted -- a reminder of
who is the boss in America -- the thugs who work for the government.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179113
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.165002.18208@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15501@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I used to think that homosexuals were OK -- but havng now gotten a
# #chance through USENET to know quite a few, I've realized that I was
# #misled in my youth.  Homosexuals are vicious, screwed-up, often
# #really evil people.
# 
# That's a load of shit.  If you really have the naivete to believe that the
# bozos over on soc.motss characterize our entire populace, you need to LIVE a
# little.  Try soc.bi, for example...you'll find almost exclusively a bunch of

Yet, the characteristics of soc.motss fit quite well with the other
evidence that is available.  High promiscuity, child sexual abuse
history, support for child molestation advocacy groups like NAMBLA,
S&M, etc.

# well-adjusted, friendly, humanistic people.  And, in any case, I think
# you'll find that most people are quite different from the persona they
# present on USENET.  For all I know, you're a wonderful, enlightened human
# being taking the role of hatemonger for satirical effect.
# 
# Somehow I doubt it, though....

Hatemonger: someone who reminds people of why homosexuals are dying
in such large quantities of AIDS -- because their sexual compulsions
prevented them from keeping their number of sexual partners below
four digits.

# ## I've got a few clues for you.  (a) I'm not working to pass any laws.  (b)
# 
# #It's being done in your name.
# 
# And that makes it my responsibility, I see.  Suppose I kill someone in the
# name of Clayton Cramer.  How does that make you a murderer?

If I know about it, and don't express my disapproval, it certainly
would make you suspicious about me, wouldn't it?

# #My morals aren't yours.  I wouldn't march in a parade with a group
# #that advocates child molestation.  It doesn't stop homosexuals.
# 
# I wouldn't march in a parade with a group like that either.  And if you're
# talking about NAMBLA, I think you'll find that they DO NOT advocate child
# molestation.  I also think you'll find that the VAST MAJORITY of homosexuals

They advocate sex between adults and children, with NO lower limit on
age.  But that's right, homosexuals don't believe that an adult sodomizing
a five year old is child molestation.

# will have no truck with that group anyway.

Fooled me.  They march in a number of gay parades around the country.

# ## #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# ## #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
# ## 
# ## But not between members of the same sex, right?  How can you live with such
# ## hypocrisy?
# ## 
# ## ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
# 
# #Sure.  Whatever consenting adults want to do in private is none of
# #the government's business.  YOU are the ones that want more laws
# #telling me what to do in private.
# 
# Quit lumping me in with groups.  The fact is that homophobia is an evil,
# unjustified prejudice, just like racism or sexism.  You can't reject all but
# one of those.
# 
# Drewcifer

It is NOTHING like racism or sexism.  You CHOOSE to be a homosexual.
My distaste for homosexuality is because of what homosexuals DO.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179114
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage

In article <1993Apr22.165729.18393@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15511@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## Sigh.  You're absolutely right.  We have no political power whatsoever. 
# 
# #If only that were true.  In California, homosexuals have enough power
# #to impose their morals on others.
# 
# The only "moral" we're imposing is one which you supposedly embrace already:
# every human being's right to be treated as such.

I don't expect to be hired based on my sexual orientation.  If someone
decides he wants a gay-only staff of employees, that's his business.
I won't force him to hire heterosexuals; please don't force me to
hire homosexuals.

# ## Therefore, we should be oppressed and ignored and denigrated, right?  I
# 
# #You aren't oppressed in California.
# 
# But it's OK to oppress us, that's what you're saying!

No.  I'm saying it's none of the government's business what two
consenting adults do in private.  You don't believe that, unfortunately.

# ## certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir, because if she heard how
# ## disparaging you are towards political minorities, and if she had any shred
# ## of self-respect, she'd be out the door.
# 
# #Why do you keep insulting women and blacks by comparing them to
# #homosexuals?
# 
# This sort of crap makes me so fucking sick that I can't even bring myself to
# touch it.  You're a fuckwit with no perspective, no valid life experience,
# and no true knowledge of the human condition.  I see no point in trying to
# convince you politely that we're not all like the ones you've met, because
# you're showing no willingness at all to be open-minded enough to accept that
# your stupid generalizations have exceptions.  You are an intellectual waste,
# and the reason you believe the worst of homosexuals is that you bring out
# the worst in them.
# 
# ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!

And you are yet another reminder of the emotional instability of
homosexuals.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179115
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Why didn't they come out?

After the initial gun battle was over, they had 50 days to come out
peacefully. They had their high priced lawyer, and judging by the
posts here they had some public support. Can anyone come up
with a rational explanation why the didn't come out (even after
they negotiated coming out after the radio sermon) that doesn't
include the Davidians wanting to commit suicide/murder/general mayhem?
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc
Document_id: 179116
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno killed the Waco children

In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu>
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for
>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have
>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything
>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning
>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh
>into killing the children.
 
Janet Reno, the FBI, et al were nothing but pawns in Koresh's game.
He was a madman who was going to hurt the children, and everyone
else in the compound no matter what the FBI did.
 
>The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with
>a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person.
>In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes
>him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the
>hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically
>threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would
>release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would
>pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.
 
Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions
with the result of the police trying to take the place by
force and the result being the death of the hostages and the
gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of
the blame landing squarely on the police.
 
In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down
from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages
other terrorists and hostage takers.
 
Richard

