even forgotten about Marina; and if none of us was alive, it wasn't worth
living.
There was a moment when the pain was especially great. I withstood inhuman
pain, and realized that they were going to torment me for a long time to come
because I had showed myself to be so tenacious. I started to strangle myself,
and when I started to wheeze they realized that with my death I was going to
put an end to their pleasures, and they pulled my hands from my throat. The
person who injured and insulted me most painfully I remember him very well,
because he was the oldest in the group. He looked around 48. I know that he
has four children and that he considers himself an ideal father and person,
one who would never do such a thing. Something came over him then, you see,
even during the investigation he almost called me "daughter," he apologized,
although, of course, he knew that I'd never forgive him. Something like that
I can never forgive. I have never injured anyone with my behavior, with my
words, or with my deeds, I have always put myself in the other person's shoes,
but then, in a matter of hours, they trampled me entirely. I shall never
forget it.
I wanted to do myself in then, because I had nothing to lose, because no one
could protect me. My father, who tried to do something against that hoard of
beasts by himself, could do nothing and wouldn't be able to do anything.
I knew that I was even sure that he was no longer alive.
And Ira Melkumian, my acquaintance I knew her and had been to see her family a
couple of times--her brother tried to save her and couldn't, so he tried to
kill her, his very own sister. He threw an axe at her to kill her and put an
end to her suffering. When they stripped her clothes off and carried her into
the other room, her brother knew what awaited her. I don't know which one it
was, Edik or Igor. Both of them were in the room from which the axe was
thrown. But the axe hit one of the people carrying her and so they killed her
and made her death even more excruciating, maybe the most excruciating of all
the deaths of those days in Sumgait. I heard about it all from the neighbor
from the Melkumians' landing. His name is Makhaddin, he knows my family a
little. He came to see how we had gotten settled in the new apartment in Baku,
how we were feeling, and if we needed anything. He's a good person. He said,
"You should praise God that you all survived. But what I saw with my own eyes,
I, a man, who has seen so many people die, who has lived a whole life, I," he
says, "nearly lost my mind that day. I had never seen the likes of it and
think I never shall again." The door to his apartment was open and he saw
everything. One of the brothers threw the axe, because they had already taken
the father and mother out of the apartment. Igor, Edik, and Ira remained. He
saw Ira, naked, being carried into the other room in the hands of six or seven
people. He told us about it and said he would never forget it. He heard the
brothers shouting something, inarticulate from pain, rage, and the fact that
they were powerless to do anything. But all the same they tried to
do something. The guy who got hit with the axe lived.                                                                           I     I
After I had been unsuccessful at killing myself I saw them taking Marina and
Lyuda out of the bedroom. I was in such a state that I couldn't even
remember my sister's name. I wanted to cry "Marina!" out to her, but could
not. I looked at her and knew that it was a familiar, dear face, but couldn't
for the life of me remember what her name was and who she was. And thus
I saved her, because when they were taking her out, she, as it turns out, had
told them that she had just been visiting and that she and Lyuda were both
there by chance, that they weren't Armenians. Lyuda's a Russian, you can tell
right away, and Marina speaks Azerbaijani wonderfully and she told them that
she was an Azerbaijani. And I almost gave her away and doomed her. I'm glad
that at least Marina came out of this all in good physical health . . .
although her spirit was murdered . . .
At some point I came to and saw Igor, Igor Agayev, my acquaintance, in that
mob. He lives in the neighboring building. For some reason I remembered his
name, maybe I sensed my defense in him. I called out to him in Russian, "Igor,
help!" But he turned away and went into the bedroom. Just then they were
taking Marina and Lyuda out of the bedroom. Igor said he knew Marina and
Lyuda, that Marina in fact was Azerbaijani, and he took both of them to the
neighbors.
And the idea stole through me that maybe Igor had led them to our apartment,
something like that, but if he was my friend, he was supposed to save me.
Then they were striking me very hard--we have an Indian vase, a metal one,
they were hitting me on the back with it and I blacked out--they took me out
onto the balcony a second time to throw me out the window. They were already
sure that I was dead because I didn't react at all to the new blows. Someone
said, "She's already dead, let's throw her out." When they carried me out onto
the balcony for the second time, when I was about to die the second time, I
heard someone say in Azerbaijani: "Don't kill her, I know her, she's a
teacher." I can still hear that voice ringing in my ears, but I can't remember
whose voice it was. It wasn't Igor, because he speaks Azerbaijani with an
accent: his mother is Russian and they speak Russian at home. He speaks
Azerbaijani worse than our Marina does. I remember when they carried me in and
threw me on the bed he came up to me, that person, and 	I having opened my
eyes, saw and recognized that person, but immediately passed out cold. I had
been beaten so much that I didn't have the strength to remember him. I only
remember that this person was older and he had a high position. Unfortunately
I can't remember anything more.
What should I say about Igor? He didn't treat me badly. I had heard a lot
about him, that he wasn't that good a person, that he sometimes drank too
much. Once he boasted to me that he had served in Afghanistan. He knew that
women usually like bravery in a man. Especially if a man was in Afghanistan,
if he was wounded, then it's about eighty percent sure that he will be treated
very sympathetically, with respect. Later I found out that he had served in
Ufa, and was injured, but that's not in Afghanistan, of course. I found that
all out later.
Among the people who were in our apartment, my Karina also saw the Secretary
of the Party organization. I don't know his last name, his first name is
Najaf, he is an Armenian-born Azerbaijani. But later Karina wasn't so sure,
she was no longer a hundred percent sure that it was he she saw, and she
didn't want to endanger him. She said, "He was there," and a little while
later, "Maybe they beat me so much that I am confusing him with someone else.
No, it seems like it was he." I am sure it was he because when he came to see
us the first time he said one thing, and the next time he said something
entirely different. The investigators haven't summoned him yet. He came to see
us in the Khimik boarding house where we were living at the time. He brought
groceries and flowers, this was right before March 8th; he almost started
crying, he was so upset to see our condition. I don't know if he was putting
us on or not, but later, after we had told the investigator and they summoned
him to the Procuracy, he said that he had been in Baku, he wasn't in Sumgait.
The fact that he changed his testimony leads me to believe that Karina is
right, that in fact it was he who was in our apartment. I don't know how the
investigators are now treating him. At one point I wondered and asked, and was
told that he had an alibi and was not in our apartment. Couldn't he have gone
to Baku and arranged an alibi? I'm not ruling out that possibility.
Ill now return to our apartment. Mamma had come to. You could say that she
bought them off with the gold Father gave her when they were married: her
wedding band and her watch were gold. She bought her own and her husband's
lives with them. She gave the gold to a 14-year old boy. Vadim Vorobyev. A
Russian boy, he speaks Azerbaijani perfectly. He's an orphan who was raised by
his grandfather and who lives in Sumgait on Nizami Street. He goes to a
special school, one for mentally handicapped children. But I'll say this--I'm
a teacher all the same and in a matter of minutes I can form an opinion--that
boy is not at all mentally handicapped. He's healthy, he can think just fine,
and analyze, too . . . policemen should be so lucky. And he's cunning, too.
After that he went home and tore all of the pictures out of his photo album.
He beat Mamma and demanded gold, saying, "Lady, if you give us all the gold
and money in your apartment we'll let you live." And Mamma told them where
the gold was. He brought in the bag and opened it, shook out the contents, and
everyone who was in the apartment jumped on it, started knocking each other
over and taking the gold from one another. I'm surprised they didn't kill one
another right then.
Mamma was still in control of herself. She had been beaten up, her face was
black and blue from the blows, and her eyes were filled with blood, and she
ran into the other room. Father was lying there, tied up, with a gag in his
mouth and a pillow over his face. There was a broken table on top of the pil-
low. Mamma grabbed Father and he couldn't walk; like me, he was half dead,
halfway into the other world. He couldn't comprehend anything, couldn't see,
and was covered with black and blue. Mamma pulled the gag out of his mouth,
it was some sort of cloth, I think it was a slipcover from an armchair.
The bandits were still in our apartment, even in the room Mamma pulled Father
out of, led him out of, carried him out of. We had two armchairs in that room,
a small magazine table, a couch, a television, and a screen. Three people
were standing next to that screen, and into their shirts, their pants,
everywhere imaginable, they were shoving shot glasses and cups from the coffee
service--Mamma saw them out of the corner of her eye. She said, "I was afraid
to turn around, I just seized Father and started pulling him, but at the
threshold I couldn't hold him up, he fell down, and I picked him up again and
dragged him down the stairs to the neighbors'." Mamma remembered one of the
criminals, the one who had watched her with his face half-turned toward her,
out of one eye. She says, "I realized that my death would come from that
person. I looked him in the eyes and he recoiled from fear and went stealing."
Later they caught that scoundrel. Meanwhile, Mamma grabbed Father and left.
I was alone. Igor had taken Marina away, Mamma and Father were gone, Karina
was already outside, I didn't know what they were doing to her. I was left all
alone, and at that moment . . . I became someone else, do you understand? Even
though I knew that neither Mother and Father in the other room, nor Marina and
Lyuda under the bed could save me, all the same I somehow managed to hold out.
I went on fighting them, I bit someone, I remember, and I scratched another.
But when I was left alone I realized what kind of people they were, the ones
I had observed, the ones who beat Karina, what kind of people they were, the
ones who beat me, that it was all unnecessary, that I was about to die and
that all of that would die with me.
At some point I took heart when I saw the young man from the next building. I
didn't know his name, but we would greet one another when we met, we knew that
we were from the same microdistrict. When I saw him I said, "Neighbor, is that
you?" In so doing I placed myself in great danger. He realized that if I lived
I would remember him. That's when he grabbed the axe. The axe that had been
taken from my father. I automatically fell to my knees and raised my hands to
take the blow of the axe, although at the time it would have been better if he
had struck me in the head with the axe and put me out of my misery. When he
started getting ready to wind back for the blow, someone came into the room.
The newcomer had such an impact on everyone that my neighbor's axe froze in
the air. Everyone stood at attention for this guy, like soldiers in the
presence of a general. Everyone waited for his word: continue the atrocities
or not. He said, "Enough, let's go to the third entryway." In the third
entryway they killed Uncle Shurik, Aleksandr Gambarian. This confirms once
again that they had prepared in advance. Almost all of them left with him, as
they went picking up pillows, blankets, whatever they needed, whatever they
found, all the way up to worn out slippers and one boot, someone else had
already taken the other.
Four people remained in the room, soldiers who didn't obey their general. They
had to have come recently, because other faces had flashed in front of me over
those 2 to 3 hours, but I had never seen those three. One of them, Kuliyev (I
identified him later), a native of the Sisian District of Armenia, an
Azerbaijani, had moved to Azerbaijan a year before. He told me in Armenian:
"Sister, don't be afraid, I'll drive those three Azerbaijanis out of here."
That's just what he said, "those Azerbaijanis," as though he himself were not
Azerbaijani, but some other nationality, he said with such hatred, "I'll drive
them out of here now, and you put your clothes on, and find a hammer and nails
and nail the door shut, because they'll be coming back from Apartment 41."
That's when I found out that they had gone to Apartment 41. Before that, the
person in the Eskimo dogskin coat, the one who came in and whom they listened
to, the "general," said that they were going to the third entryway.
Kuliyev helped me get some clothes on, because l couldn't do it by myself.
Marina's old fur coat was lying on the floor. He threw it over my shoulders, I
was racked with shivers, and he asked where he could find nails and a hammer.
He wanted to give them to me so that when he left I could nail the door shut.
But the door was lying on the floor in the hall.
I went out onto the balcony. There were broken windows, and flowers and dirt
from flowerpots were scattered on the floor. It was impossible to find
anything. He told me, "Well, fine, I won't leave you here. Would any of the
neighbors let you in? They'll be back, they won't calm down, they know you're
alive." He told me all this in Armenian.
Then he returned to the others and said, "What are you waiting for? Leave!"
They said, "Ah, you just want to chase us out of here and do it with her
yourself. No, we want to do it to." He urged them on, but gently, not
coarsely, because he was alone against them, although they were still just
boys, not old enough to be drafted. He led them out of the room, and went
down to the third floor with them himself, and said, "Leave. What's the mat-
ter, aren't you men? Go fight with the men. What do you want of her?" And
he came back upstairs. They wanted to come up after him and he realized that
he couldn't hold them off forever. Then he asked me where he could hide me. I
told him at the neighbors' on the fourth floor, Apartment 10, we were on really
good terms with them.
We knocked on the door, and he explained in Azerbaijani. The neighbor woman
opened the door and immediately said, "I'm an Azerbaijani." He said, "I know.
Let her sit at your place a while. Don't open the door to anyone, no one knows
about this, I won't tell anyone. Let her stay at your place." She says, "Fine,
have her come in." I went in. She cried a bit and gave me some stockings, I
had gone entirely numb and was racked with nervous shudders. I burst into
tears. Even though I was wearing Marina's old fur coat, it's a short one, a
half-length, I was cold all the same. I asked, "Do you know where my family
is, what happened to them?" She says, "No, I don't know anything. I'm afraid
to go out of the apartment, now they're so wild that they don't look to see
who's Azerbaijani and who's Armenian." Kuliyev left. Ten minutes later my
neighbor says, "You know, Lyuda, I don't want to lose my life because of you,
or my son and his wife. Go stay with someone else." During the butchery in our
apartment one of the scum, a sadist, took my earring in his mouth--I had pearl
earrings on--and ripped it out, tearing the earlobe. The other earring was
still there. When I'm nervous I fix my hair constantly, and then, when I
touched my ear, I noticed that I had one earring on. I took it out and gave it
to her. She took the earring, but she led me out of the apartment.
I went out and didn't know where to go. I heard someone going upstairs. I
don't know who it was but assumed it was them. With tremendous difficulty I
end up to our apartment, I wanted to die in my own home. I go into the
apartment and hear that they are coming up to our place, to the fifth floor.
I had to do something. I went into the bedroom where Marina and Lyuda had
hidden and saw that the bed was overturned. Instead of hiding I squatted near
some broken Christmas ornaments, found an unbroken one, and started sobbing.
Then they came in. Someone said that there were still some things to take. I
think that someone pushed me under the bed. I lay on the floor, and there were
broken ornaments on it, under my head and legs. I got all cut up, but I lay
there without moving. My heart was beating so hard it seemed the whole town
could hear it. There were no lights on. Maybe that's what saved me. They were
burning matches, and toward the end they brought in a candle. They started
picking out the clothes that could still be worn. They took Father's sport
jacket and a bedspread, the end of which was under my head. They pulled on the
one end, and it felt like they were pulling my hair out. I almost cried out.
And again I realized I wasn't getting out of there alive, and I started to
strangle myself again. I took my throat in one hand, and pressed the other on
my mouth, so as not to wheeze, so that I would die and they would only find me
afterward. They were throwing the burned matches under the bed, and I got
burned, but I withstood it. Something inside of me held on, someone's hand was
protecting me to the end. I knew that I was going to die, but I didn't know
how. I knew that if I survived I would walk out of that apartment, but if
I found out that one of my family had died, I would die for sure, because I
had never been so close to death and couldn't imagine how you could go on
living without your mother or father, or without your sister. Marina, I
thought, was still alive: she went to Lyuda's place or someone is hiding her.
I tried to think that Igor wouldn't let them be killed. He served in
Afghanistan, he should protect her.
While I was strangling myself I said my good-byes to everyone. And then I
thought, how could Marina survive alone. If they killed all of us, how would
she live all by herself? There were six people in the room. They talked among
themselves and smoked. One talked about his daughter, saying that there was no
children's footwear in our apartment that he could take for his daughter.
Another said that he liked the apartment--recently we had done a really good
job fixing everything up--and that he would live there after everything was
all over. They started to argue. A third one says, "How come you get it? I
have four children, and there are three rooms here, that's just what I need.
All these years I've been living in God-awful places." Another one says,
"Neither of you gets it. We'll set fire to it and leave." Then someone said
that Azerbaijanis live right next door, the fire could move over to their
place. And they, to my good fortune, didn't set fire to the apartment, and
left.
Oh, yes, I just remembered. While they were raping me they repeated quite
frequently, "Let the Armenian women have babies for us, Muslim babies, let
them bear Azerbaijanis for the struggle against the Armenians." Then they
said, "Those Muslims can carry on our holy cause. Heroes!" They repeated it
very often.
- - - reference for #008 - - -
[1] _The Sumgait Tragedy; Pogroms against Armenians in Soviet Azerbaijan,
Volume I, Eyewitness Accounts_, edited by Samuel Shahmuradian, forward by
Yelena Bonner, 1990, published by Aristide D. Caratzas, NY, pages 118-145
--
David Davidian dbd@urartu.sdpa.org   | "How do we explain Turkish troops on
S.D.P.A. Center for Regional Studies |  the Armenian border, when we can't
P.O. Box 382761                      |  even explain 1915?"
Cambridge, MA 02238                  |              Turkish MP, March 1992
From: dbd@urartu.sdpa.org (David Davidian)
Subject: Accounts of Anti-Armenian Human Right Violations in Azerbaijan #008 B
Summary: Part B
Organization: S.D.P.A. Center for Regional Studies
Lines: 912
Accounts of Anti-Armenian Human Right Violations in Azerbaijan #008 Part B
Prelude to Current Events in Nagorno-Karabakh
(Part B of #008)
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                  |
| "Oh, yes, I just remembered. While they were raping me they      |
|  repeated quite frequently, "Let the Armenian women have babies  |
|  for us, Muslim babies, let them bear Azerbaijanis for the       |
|  struggle against the Armenians." Then they said, "Those         |
|  Muslims can carry on our holy cause. Heroes!" They repeated     |
|  it very often."                                                 |
|                                                                  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
...continued from PART A:
The six of them left. They left and I had an attack. I realized that the dan-
ger was past, and stopped controlling myself. I relaxed for a moment and the
physical pain immediately made itself felt. My heart and kidneys hurt. I had
an awful kidney attack. I rolled back and forth on top of those Christmas
ornaments, howling and howling. I didn't know where I was or how long this
went on. When we figured out the time, later it turned out that I howled and
was in pain for around an hour. Then all my strength was gone and I burst into
tears, I started feeling sorry for myself, and so on and so forth . . .
Then someone came into the room. I think I hear someone calling my name. I
want to respond and restrain myself, I think that I'm hallucinating. I am
silent, and then it continues: it seems that first a man's voice is calling
me, then a woman's. Later I found out that Mamma had sent our neighbor, the
one whose apartment she was hiding in, Uncle Sabir Kasumov, to our place,
telling him, "I know that they've killed Lyuda. Go there and at least bring
her corpse to me so they don't violate her corpse." He went and returned empty
handed, but Mamma thought he just didn't want to carry the corpse into his
apartment. She sent him another time, and then sent his wife, and they were
walking through the rooms looking for me, but I didn't answer their calls.
There was no light, they had smashed the chandeliers and lamps.
They started the pogrom in our apartment around five o'clock, and at 9:30 I
went down to the Kasumovs'. I went down the stairs myself. I walked out of the
apartment: how long can you wait for your own death, how long can you be
cowardly, afraid? Come what will. I walked out and started knocking on the
doors one after the next. No one, not on the fifth floor, not on the fourth,
opened the door. On the third floor, on the landing of the stairway, Uncle
Sabir's son started to shout, "Aunt Roza, don't cry, Lyuda's alive!" He
knocked on his own door and out came Aunt Tanya, Igor, and after them, Mamma.
Aunt Tanya, Uncle Sabir's wife, is an Urdmurt. All of us were in their
apartment. I didn't see Karina, but she was in their home, too, Lying
delirious, she had a fever. Marina was there too, and my father and mother.
All of my family had gathered there.
At the door I lost consciousness. Igor and Aunt Tanya carried me into the
apartment.
Later I found out what they had done to our Karina. Mamma said, "Lyuda,
Karina's in really serious condition, she's probably dying. If she recognizes
you, don't cry, don't tell her that her face looks so awful." It was as though
her whole face was paralyzed, you know, everything was pushed over to one
side, her eye was all swollen, and everything flowed together, her lips, her
cheeks . . . It was as though they had dragged her right side around the whole
microdistrict, that's how disfigured her face was. I said, "Fine." Mamma was
afraid to go into the room, because she went in and hugged Karina and started
to cry. I went in. As soon as I saw her my legs gave way. I fell down near the
bed, hugged her legs and started kissing them and crying. She opened the eye
that was intact, looked at me, and said, "Who is it?" But I could barely talk,
my whole face was so badly beaten. I didn't say, but rather muttered something
tender, something incomprehensible, but tender, "My Karochka, my Karina, my
little golden one . . . " She understood me.
Then Igor brought me some water, I drank it down and moistened Karina's lips.
She started to groan. She was saying something to me, but I couldn't
understand it. Then I made out, "It hurts, I hurt all over." Her hair was
glued down with blood. I stroked her forehead, her head, she had grit on her
forehead, and on her lips . . . She was groaning again, and I don't know how
to help her. She calls me over with her hand, come closer. I go to her. She's
saying something to me, but I can't understand her. Igor brings her a pencil
and paper and says, "Write it down." She shakes her head as if to say, no, I
can't write. I can't understand what she's saying. She wanted to tell me
something, but she couldn't. I say, "Karina, just lie there a little while,
then maybe you'll feel better and you can tell me then." And then she says,
"Maybe it'll be too late." And I completely . . . just broke down, I couldn't
control myself.
Then I moistened my hand in the water and wiped her forehead and eye. I dipped
a handkerchief into the water and squeezed a little water onto her lips. She
says, "Lyuda, we're not saved yet, we have to go somewhere else. Out of this
damned house. They want to kill us, I know. They'll find us here, too. We need
to call Urshan." She repeated this to me for almost a whole hour, Until I
understood her every word. I ask, "What's his number?" Urshan Feyruzovich,
that's the head of the administration where she works. "We have to call him."
But I didn't know his home number. I say, "Karina, what's his number?" She
says, "I can't remember." I say, "Who knows his number? Who can I call?" She
says, "I don't know anything, leave me alone."
I went out of the room. Igor stayed to watch over her and sat there, he was
crying, too. I say, "Mamma, Karina says that we have to call Urshan. How can
we call him? Who knows his telephone number?" I tell Marina, "Think, think,
who can we call to find out?" She started calling; several people didn't
answer. She called a girlfriend, her girlfriend called another girlfriend and
found out the number and called us back. The boss's wife answered and said he
was at the dacha. My voice keeps cracking, I can't talk normally. She says,
"Lyuda, don't panic, get a hold of yourself, go out to those hooligans and
tell them that they just can't do that." She still didn't know what was really
going on. I said, "It's easy for you to say that, you don't understand what's
happening. They are killing people here. I don't think there is a single
Armenian left in the building, they've cut them all up. I'm even surprised
that we managed to save ourselves. "She says, "Well, OK, if it's that serious
. . . " And all the same she's thinking that my emotions are all churned up
and that I'm fearing for my life, that in fact it's not all that bad. "OK,
fine, fine," she says, "if you're afraid, OK, as soon as Urshan comes back
I'll send him over."
We called again because they had just started robbing the apartment directly
under Aunt Tanya's, on the second floor, Asya Dallakian's apartment. She
wasn't home, she was staying with her daughter in Karabagh. They destroyed
everything there . . . We realized that they still might come back. We kept on
trying to get through to Aunt Tanya--Urshan's wife is named Tanya too and
finally we get through. She says, "Yes, he's come home, he's leaving for your
place now." He came. Of course he didn't know what was happening, either,
because he brought two of his daughters with him. He came over in his jeep
with his two daughters, like he was going on an outing. He came and saw what
shape we were in and what was going on in town and got frightened. He has
grown up daughters, they're almost my age.
The three of us carried out Karina, tossed a coat on her and a warm scarf, and
went down to his car. He took Karina and me to the Maternity Home. . . No,
first they took us to the po]ice precinct. They had stretchers ready. As
soon as we got out of the car they put Karina and me on stretchers and said
that we were in serious condition and that we mustn't move, we might have
fractures. From the stretcher I saw about 30 soldiers sitting and lying on the
first floor, bandaged, on the concrete floor, groaning . . . This was around
eleven o'clock at night. We had left the house somewhere around 1:30. When I
saw those soldiers I realized that a war was going on: soldiers, enemies
. . . everything just like a war.
They carried me into some office on the stretcher. The emergency medical
people from Baku were there. The medical attendant there was an older
Armenian. Urshan told him what they had done to Karina because she's so proud
she would never have told. And this aging Armenian . . . his name was Uncle
Arkady, I think, because someone said "Arkady, get an injection ready," he
started to fill a syringe, and turned around so as to give Karina a shot. But
when he looked at her face he became ill. And he was an old man, in his
sixties, his hair was all grey, and his moustache, too. He hugged Karina and
started to cry: "What have they done to you?!" He was speaking Armenian. "What
have they done to you?!" Karina didn't say anything. Mamma came in then, and
she started to cry, too. The man tried to calm her. "I'll give you a shot."
Mamma tells him, "I don't need any shot. Where is the government? Just what
are they doing? Look what they've done to my children! They're killing people,
and you're just sitting here!" Some teacups were standing on the table in
there. "You're sitting here drinking tea! Look what they've done to my
daughters! Look what they've turned them into!" They gave her something to
drink, some heart medicine, I think. They gave Karina an injection and the
doctor said that she had to be taken to the Maternity Home immediately. Papa
and Urshan, I think, even though Papa was in bad shape, helped carry Karina
out. When they put her on the stretcher, none of the medics got near her. I
don't know, maybe there weren't any orderlies. Then they came to me: "What's
the matter with you?" Their tone was so official that I wrapped myself tighter
in the half-length coat. I had a blanket on, too, an orange one, Aunt Tanya's.
I said, "I'm fine." Uncle Arkady came over and was soothing me, and then told
the doctor, "You leave, let a woman examine her." A woman came, an
Azerbaijani, I believe, and said, "What's wrong with you?" I was wearing my
sister Lyuda's nightshirt, the sister who at this time was in Yerevan. When
she was nursing her infant she had cut out a big hole in it so that it would
be easier to breast feed the baby. I tore the night shirt some more and showed
her. I took it off my shoulders and turned my back to her. There was a huge
wound, about the size of a hand, on my back, from the Indian vase. She said
something to them and they gave me two shots. She said that it should be
dressed with something, but that they'd do that in the hospital.
They put me on a stretcher, too. They started looking for people to carry me.
I raised up my head a little and wanted to sit up, and this woman, I don't
know if she was a doctor or a nurse, said, "Lie still, you mustn't move." When
I was lying back down I saw two policemen leading a man. His profile seemed
very familiar to me. I shouted, "Stop!" One of the policemen turned and says,
"What do you want?" I say, "Bring him to me, I want to look at him." They
brought him over and I said, "That person was just in our apartment and he
just raped me and my sister. I recognize him, note it down." They said,
"Fine," but didn't write it down and led him on. I don't know where they were
taking him.
Then they put my stretcher near where the injured and beaten soldiers were
sitting. They went to look for the ambulance driver so he would bring the car
up closer. One of the soldiers started talking to me, "Sister . . . " I don't
remember the conversation exactly, but he asked me were we lived and what they
did to us. I asked him, "Where are you from?" He said that he was from Ufa.
Apparently they were the first that were brought in. The Ufa police. Later I
learned that they suffered most of all. He says, "OK, you're Armenians, they
didn't get along with you, but I'm a Russian," he says, "what are they trying
to kill me for?" Oh, I remembered something else. When I went out onto the
balcony with Kuliyev for a hammer and nails I looked out the window and saw
two Azerbaijanis beating a soldier near the kindergarten. He was pressed
against the fence and he covered his head with his arms, they were beating him
with his own club. The way he cried "Mamma" made my skin crawl. I don't know
what they did to him, if he's still alive or not. And something else. Before
he attack on our house we saw sheets, clothes, and some dishes flying from the
third or fourth floor of the neighboring building, but I didn't think it was
Azerbaijanis attacking Armenians. I thought that something was on fire or they
were throwing something they didn't need out, or someone was fighting with
someone. It was only later, when they were burning a passenger car in the
yard, when the neighbors said that they were doing that to the Armenians, that
I realized that this was serious, that it was anti-Armenian.
They took Karina and me to the Sumgait Maternity Home. Mamma went to them too
and said, "I've been beaten too, help me." But they just ignored her. My
father went to them and said in a guilty voice, as though it was his fault
that he'd been beaten, and says, "My ribs hurt so much, those creeps have
probably broken my ribs. Please look at them." The doctor says, "That's not my
job." Urshan said, "Fine, I'll take you to my place and if we need a doctor,
I'll find you one. I'll bring one and have him look at you. And he drove them
to his apartment.
Marina and I stayed there. They examined us. I was more struck by what the
doctor said than by what those Azerbaijanis in our apartment did to us. I
wasn't surprised when they beat us they wanted to beat us, but I was very
surprised that in a Soviet medical facility a woman who had taken the
Hippocratic Oath could talk to victims like that. By happy--or unhappy--
coincidence we were seen by the doctor that had delivered our Karina. And she,
having examined Karina, said, "No problem, you got off pretty good. Not like
they did in Kafan, when you Armenians were killing and raping our women.
"Karina was in such terrible condition that she couldn't say anything--she
would certainly have had something to say! Then they examined me. The same
story. They put us in a separate ward. No shots, no medicinal powders, no
drugs. Absolutely none! They didn't even give us tea. All the women there soon
found out that in ward such and such were Armenians who had been raped. And
they started coming and peering through the keyhole, the way people look at
zoo animals. Karina didn't see this, she was lying there, and I kept her from
seeing it.
They put Ira B. in our ward. She had also been raped. True, she didn't have
any serious bodily injuries, but when she told me what had happened at their
place, I felt worse for them than I did for us. Because when they raped Ira
her daughter was in the room, she was under the bed on which it happened. And
Ira was holding her daughter's hand, the one who was hiding under the bed.
When they were beating Ira or taking her earrings off, gold, when she
involuntarily let go of her daughter's hand, her daughter took her hand again.
Her daughter is in the fourth grade, she's 11 years old. I felt really awful
when I heard that. Ira asked them not to harm her daughter, she said, "Do what
you want with me, just leave my daughter alone." Well, they did what they
wanted. They threatened to kill her daughter if she got in their way. Now I
would be surprised if the criminals had behaved any other way that night. It
was simply Bartholomew's Night, I say, they did what they would love to do
every day: steal, kill, rape . . .
Many are surprised that those animals didn't harm the children. The beasts
explained it like this: this would be repeated in 15 to 20 years, and those
children would be grown, and then, as they put it, "we'll come take the
pleasure out of their lives, those children." This was about the girls that
would be young women in 15 years. They were thinking about their tomorrow
because they were sure that there would be no trial and no investigation, just
as there was no trial or investigation in 1915, and that those girls could be
of some use in 15 years. This I heard from the investigators; one of the
victims testified to it. That's how they described their own natures, that
they would still be bloodthirsty in 15 to 20 years, and in 100 years--they
themselves said that.
And this, too. Everyone is surprised that they didn't harm our Marina. Many
people say that they either were drunk or had smoked too much. I don't know
why their eyes were red. Maybe because they hadn't slept the night before,
maybe for some other reason, I don't know. But they hadn't been smoking and
they weren't drunk, I'm positive, because someone who has smoked will stop at
nothing he has the urge to do. And they spoke in a cultured fashion with
Marina: "Little sister, don't be afraid, we won't harm you, don't look over
there [where I was], you might be frightened. You're a Muslim, a Muslim woman
shouldn't see such things." So they were really quite sober . . .
So we came out of that story alive. Each every day we have lived since it all
happened bears the mark of that day. It wasn't even a day, of those several
hours. Father still can't look us in the eyes. He still feels guilty for what
happened to Karina, Mother, and me. Because of his nerves he's started talk-
ing to himself, I've heard him argue with himself several times when he
thought no one is listening: "Listen," he'll say, "what could I do? What could
I do alone, how could I protect them?" I don't know where to find the words,
it's not that I'm happy, but I am glad that he didn't see it all happen.
That's the only thing they spared us . . . or maybe it happened by chance. Of
course he knows it all, but there's no way you could imagine every last detail
of what happened. And there were so many conversations: Karina and I spoke
together in private, and we talked with Mamma, too. But Father was never
present at those conversations. We spare him that, if you can say that. And
when the investigator comes to the house, we don't speak with Father present.
On February 29, the next clay, Karina and I were discharged from the hospital.
First they released me, but since martial law had been declared in the city,
the soldiers took me to the police precinct in an armored personnel carrier.
There were many people there, Armenian victims. I met the Tovmasian family
there. From them I learned that Rafik and their Uncle Grant had died. They
were sure that both had died. They were talking to me and Raya, Rafik's wife
and Grant's daughter, and her mother, were both crying.
Then they took us all out of the office on the first floor into the yard.
There's a little one-room house outside there, a recreation and reading area.
They took us in there. The women were afraid to go because they thought
that they were shooing us out of the police precinct because it had become
so dangerous that even the people working at the precinct wanted to hide.
The women were shouting. They explained to them: "We want to hide you
better because it's possible there will be an attack on the police precinct."
We went into the little house. There were no chairs or tables in there. We
had children with us and they were hungry; we even had infants who needed to
have their diapers changed. No one had anything with them. It was just awful.
They kept us there for 24 hours. From the window of the one room house you
could see that there were Azerbaijanis standing on the fences around the
police precinct, as though they were spying on us. The police precinct is
surrounded by a wall, like a fence, and it's electrified, but if they were
standing on the wall, it means the electricity was shut off. This brought
great psychological pressure to bear on us, particularly on those who hadn't
just walked out of their apartments, but who hadn't slept for 24 hours, or 48,
or those who had suffered physically and spiritually, the ones who had lost
family members. For us it was another ordeal. We were especially frightened
when all the precinct employees suddenly disappeared. We couldn't see a single
person, not in the courtyard and not in the windows. We thought that they must
have already been hiding under the building, that they must have some secret
room down there. People were panicking: they started throwing themselves at
one another . . . That's the way it is on a sinking ship. We heard those
people, mainly young people, whistling and whopping on the walls. We felt that
the end was approaching. I was completely terrified: I had left Karina in the
hospital and didn't know where my parents were. I was sort of calm about my
parents, I was thinking only about Karina, if, Heaven forbid, they should
attack the hospital, they would immediately tell them that there was an
Armenian in there, and something terrible would happen to Karina again, and
she wouldn't be able to take it.
Then soldiers with dogs appeared. When they saw the dogs some of the people
climbed down off the fence. Then they brought in about another 30 soldiers.
They all had machine guns in readiness, their fingers on the triggers. We
calmed down a little. They brought us chairs and brought the children some
little cots and showed us where we could wash our hands, and took the children
to the toilet. But we all sat there hungry, but to be honest, it would never
have occurred to any of us that we hadn't eaten for two days and that people
do eat.
Then, closer to nightfall, they brought a group of detained criminals. They
were being watched by soldiers with guard dogs. One of the men came back from
the courtyard and told us about it. Raya Tovmasian . . . it was like a
different woman had been substituted. Earlier she had been crying, wailing,
and calling out: "Oh, Rafik!," but when she heard about this such a rage came
over her! She jumped up, she had a coat on, and she started to roll up her
sleeves like she was getting ready to beat someone. And suddenly there were
soldiers, and dogs, and lots of people. She ran over to them. The bandits were
standing there with their hands above their heads facing the wall. She went up
to one of them and grabbed him by the collar and started to shake and thrash
him! Then, on to a second, and a third. Everyone was rooted to the spot. Not
one of the soldiers moved, no one went up to help or made her stop her from
doing it. And the bandits fell down and covered their heads with their hands,
muttering something. She came back and sat down, and something akin to a smile
appeared on her face. She became so quiet: no tears, no cries. Then that round
was over and she went back to beat them again. She was walking and cursing
terribly: take that, and that, they killed my husband, the bastards, the
creeps, and so on. Then she came back again and sat down. She probably did
this the whole night through, well, it wasn't really night, no one slept. She
went five or six times and beat them and returned. And she told the women,
"What are you sitting there for? They killed your husbands and children, they
raped, and you're just sitting there. You're sitting and talking as though
nothing had happened. Aren't you Armenians?" She appealed to everyone, but no
one got up. I was just numb, I didn't have the strength to beat anyone, I
could barely hold myself up, all the more so since I had been standing for so
many hours--I was released at eleven o'clock in the morning and it was already
after ten at night because there weren't enough chairs, really it was the
elderly and women with children who sat. I was on my feet the whole time.
There was nothing to breathe, the door was closed, and the men were smoking.
The situation was deplorable.
At eleven o'clock at night policemen came for us, local policemen,
Azerbaijanis. They said, "Get up. They've brought mattresses, you can wash up
and put the children to bed." Now the women didn't want to leave this place,
either. The place had become like home, it was safe, there were soldiers with
dogs. If anyone went outside, the soldiers would say, "Oh, it's our little
family," and things like that. The soldiers felt this love, and probably, for
the first time in their lives perceived themselves as defenders. Everyone
spoke from the heart, cried, and hugged them and they, with their loaded
machine guns in their hands, said, "Grandmother, you mustn't approach me,
I'm on guard." Our people would say, "Oh, that's all right." They hugged
them, one woman even kissed one of the machine guns. This was all terribly
moving for me. And the small children kept wanting to pet the dogs.
They took us up to the second floor and said, "You can undress and sleep in
here. Don't be afraid, the precinct is on guard, and it's quiet in the city."
This was the 29th, when the killing was going on in block 41A and in other
places. Then we were told that all the Armenians were being gathered at the
SK club and at the City Party Committee. They took us there. On the way I
asked them to stop at the Maternity Home: I wanted to take Karina with me.
I didn't know what was happening there. They told me, "Don't worry, the
Maternity Home is full of soldiers, more than mothers-to-be. So you can rest
assured. I say, "Well, I won't rest assured regardless, because the staff in
there is capable of anything."
When I arrived at the City Party Committee it turned out that Karina had
already been brought there. They had seen fit to release her from the hospi-
tal, deciding that she felt fine and was no longer in need of any care. Once
we were in the City Party Committee we gave free reign to our tears. We met
acquaintances, but everyone was somehow divided into two groups, those who
hadn't been injured, who were clothed, who had brought a pot of food with
them, and so on, and those, like me, like Raya, who were wearing whatever had
come their way. There were even people who were all made up, dolled up like
they had come from a wedding. There were people without shoes, naked people,
hungry people, those who were crying, and those who had lost someone. And of
course the stories and the talk were flying: "Oh, I heard that they killed
him!" "What do you mean they killed him!" "He stayed at work!" "Do you know
what's happening at this and such a plant? Talk like that.
And then I met Aleksandr Mikhailovich Gukasian, the teacher. I know him very
well and respect him highly. I've known him for a long time. They had a small
room, well really it was more like a study-room. We spent a whole night
talking in that study once. On March 1 we heard that Bagirov [First Secretary
of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan SSR] had arrived. Everyone ran to see
Bagirov, what news he had brought with him and how this was all being viewed
from outside. He arrived and everyone went up to him to talk to him and ask
him things. Everyone was in a tremendous rage. But he was protected by
soldiers, and he went up to the second floor and didn't deign to speak with
the people. Apparently he had more important things to do.
Several hours passed. Gukasian called me and says, "Lyudochka, find another
two or three. We're going to make up lists, they asked for them upstairs,
lists of the dead, those whose whereabouts are unknown, and lists of people
who had pogroms of their apartments and of those whose cars were burned." I
had about 50 people in my list when they called me and said, "Lyuda, your
Mamma has arrived, she's looking for you, she doesn't believe that you are
alive and well and that you're here." I gave the lists to someone and asked
them to continue what I was doing and went off.
The list was imprecise, of course. It included Grant Adamian, Raya Tovmasian's
father, who was alive, but at the time they thought him dead. There was Engels
Grigorian's father and aunt, Cherkez and Maria. The list also included the
name of my girlfriend and neighbor, Zhanna Agabekian. One of the guys said
that he had been told that they chopped her head off in the courtyard in front
of the Kosmos movie theater. We put her on the list too, and cried, but later
it turned out that that was just a rumor, that in fact an hour earlier she had
somehow left Sumgait for the marina and from there had set sail for
Krasnovodsk, where, thank God, she was alive and well. I should also say that
in addition to those who died that list contained people who were rumored
missing or who were so badly wounded that they were given up for dead.                                                                 3
All the lists were taken to Bagirov. I don't remember how many dead were
contained in the list, but it's a fact that when Gukasian came in a couple
of minutes later he was cursing and was terribly irate. I asked, "What's
going on?" He said, "Lyuda, can you imagine what animals, what scoundrels
they are! They say that they lost the list of the dead. Piotr Demichev
[Member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of the USSR] has just arrived, and we were supposed to submit the list to
him, so that he'd see the scope of the slaughter, of the tragedy, whether it
was one or fifty." They told him that the list had disappeared and they
should ask everyone who hadn't left for the Khimik boarding house all over
again. There were 26 people on our second list. I think that the number 26
was the one that got into the press and onto television and the radio, because
that's the list that Demichev got. I remember exactly that there were 26
people on the list, I had even told Aleksandr Mikhailovich that that was only
a half of those that were on the first list. He said, "Lyuda, please, try to
remember at least one more." But I couldn't remember anyone else. But there
were more than 30 dead. Of that I am certain. The government and the Procuracy
don't count the people who died of fright, like sick people and old people
whose lives are threatened by any shock. They weren't registered as victims of
the Sumgait tragedy. And then there may be people we didn't know. So many
people left Sumgait between March 1 and 8! Most of them left for smaller towns
in Russia, and especially to the Northern Caucasus, to Stavropol, and the
Krasnodarsk Territory. We don't have any information on them. I know that
there are people who set out for parts around Moscow. In the periodical
Krestyanka [Woman Farmer] there was a call for people who know how to milk
cows, and for mechanics, and drivers, and I know a whole group of people went
to help out. Also clearly not on our list are those people who died entering
the city, who were burned in their cars. No one knows about them, except the
Azerbaijanis, who are hardly likely to say anything about it. And there's
more. A great many of the people who were raped were not included in the list
drawn up at the Procuracy. I know of three instances for sure, and I of course
don't know them all. I'm thinking of three women whose parents chose not to
publicize what had happened, that is, they didn't take the matter to court,
they simply left. But in so doing they didn't cease being victims. One of them
is the first cousin of my classmate Kocharian. She lived in Microdistrict No.
8, on the fifth floor. I can't tell you the building number and I don't know
her name. Then comes the neighbor of one of my relatives, she lived in
Microdistrict 1 near the gift shop. I don't know her name, she lives on the
same landing as the Sumgait procurator. They beat her father, he was holding
the door while his daughter hid, but he couldn't hold the door forever, and
when she climbed over the balcony to the neighbors' they seized her by her
braid. Like the Azerbaijanis were saying, it was a very cultured mob, because
they didn't kill anyone, they only raped them and left. And the third one
. . . I don't remember who the third one was anymore.
They transferred us on March 1. Karina still wasn't herself. Yes, we lived for
days in the SK, in the cultural facility, and at the Khimik. They lived there
and I lived at the City Party Committee because I couldn't stay with Karina;
it was too difficult for me, but I was at peace: she had survived. I could
already walk, but really it was honest words that held me up. Thanks to the
social work I did there, I managed to persevere. Aleksandr Mikhailovich said,
"If it weren't for the work I would go insane." He and I put ourselves in gear
and took everything upon ourselves: someone had an infant and needed diapers
and free food, and we went to get them. The first days we bought everything,
although we should have received it for free. They were supposed to have been
dispensed free of charge, and they sold it to us. Then, when we found out it
was free, we went to Krayev. At the time, fortunately, you could still drop by
to see him like a neighbor, all the more so since everything was still clearly
visible on our faces. Krayev sent a captain down and he resolved the issue.
On March 2 they sent two investigators to see us: Andrei Shirokov and Vladimir
Fedorovich Bibishev. The way it worked out, in our family they had considered
only Karina and me victims, maybe because she and I wound up in the hospital.
Mother and Father are considered witnesses, but not victims.
Shirokov was involved with Karina's case, and Bibishev, with mine. After I
told him everything, he and I planned to sit down with the identikit and
record everyone I could remember while everything was still fresh in my mind.
We didn't work with the identikit until the very last day because the
conditions weren't there. The investigative group worked slowly and did poor
quality work solely because the situation wasn't conducive to working: there
weren't enough automobiles, especially during the time when there was a
curfew, and there were no typewriters for typing transcripts, and no still or
video cameras. I think that this was done on purpose. We're not so poor that
we can't supply our investigators with all that stuff. It was done especially
to draw out the investigation, all the more so since the local authorities saw
that the Armenians were leaving at the speed of light, never to return to
Sumgait. And the Armenians had a lot to say I came to an agreement with
Bibishev, I told him myself, "Don't you worry, if it takes us a month or two
months, I'll be here. I'm not afraid, I looked death in the eyes five times in
those two days, I'll help you conduct the investigation."
He and I worked together a great deal, and I used this to shelter Karina, I
gave them so much to do that for a while they didn't have the time to get to
her, so that she would at least have a week or two to get back to being her-
self. She was having difficulty breathing so we looked for a doctor to take x-
rays. She couldn't eat or drink for nine days, she was nauseous. I didn't eat
and drank virtually nothing for five days. Then, on the fifth day, when we
were in Baku already, the investigator told me, "How long can you go on like
this? Well fine, so you don't want to eat, you don't love yourself, you're
not taking care of yourself, but you gave your word that you would see this
investigation through. We need you." Then I started eating, because in fact I
was exhausted. It wasn't enough that I kept seeing those faces in our apart-
ment in my mind, every day I went to the investigative solitary confinement
cells and prisons. I don't know . . . we were just everywhere! Probably in
every prison in the city of Baku and in all the solitary confinement cells of
Sumgait. At that time they had even turned the drunk tank into solitary
confinement.
Thus far I have identified 31 of the people who were in our apartment. Mamma
identified three, and Karina, two. The total is 36. Marina didn't identify
anyone, she remembers the faces of two or three, But they weren't among the
photographs of those detained. I told of the neighbor I recognized. The one
who went after the axe. He still hasn't been detained, he's still on the
loose. He's gone, and it's not clear if he will be found or not. I don't know
his first or last name. I know which building he lived in and I know his
sisters' faces. But he's not in the city. The investigators informed me that
even if the investigation is closed and even if the trial is over they will
continue looking for him.
The 31 people I identified are largely blue-collar workers from various
plants, without education, and of the very lowest level in every respect.
Mostly their ages range from 20 to 30 years; there was one who was 48. Only
one of them was a student. He was attending the Azerbaijan Petroleum and
Chemical Institute in Sumgait, his mother kept trying to bribe the investiga-
tor. Once, thinking that I was an employee and not a victim, she said in front
of me "I'll set you up a restaurant worth 500 rubles and give you 600 in cash
simply for keeping him out of Armenia," that is, to keep him from landing in
a prison on Armenian soil. They're all terribly afraid of that, because if the
investigator is talking with a criminal and the criminal doesn't confess even
though we identified him, they tell him--in order to apply psychological
pressure--they say, "Fine, don't confess, just keep silent. When you're in an
Armenian prison, when they find out who you are, they'll take care of you
in short order." That somehow gets to them. Many give in and start to talk.
The investigators and I were in our apartment and videotaped the entire
pogrom of our apartment, as an investigative experiment. It was only then
that I saw the way they had left our apartment. Even without knowing who was
in our apartment, you could guess. They stole, for example, all the money and
all the valuables, but didn't take a single book. They tore them up, burned
them, poured water on them, and hacked them with axes. Only the Materials
from the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and James
Fenimore Cooper's Last of the Mohigans. Oh yes, lunch was ready, we were
boiling a chicken, and there were lemons for tea on the table. After they had
been in our apartment, both the chicken and the lemons were gone. That's
enough to tell you what kind of people were in our apartment, people who don't
even know anything about books. They didn't take a single book, but they did
take worn clothing, food, and even the cheapest of the cheap, worn-out
slippers.
Of those whom I identified, four were Kafan Azerbaijanis living in Sumgait.
Basically, the group that went seeking "revenge"--let's use their word for
it--was joined by people seeking easy gain and thrill-seekers. I talked with
one of them. He had gray eyes, and somehow against the back-drop of all that
black I remembered him specifically because of his of his eyes. Besides taking
part in the pogrom of our apartment, he was also involved in the murder of
Tamara Mekhtiyeva from Building 16. She was an older Armenian who had recently
arrived from Georgia, she lived alone and did not have anyone in Sumgait. I
don't know why she had a last name like that, maybe she was married to an
Azerbaijani. I had laid eyes on this woman only once or twice, and know
nothing about her. I do know that they murdered her in her apartment with an
axe. Murdering her wasn't enough for them. They hacked her into pieces and
threw them into the tub with water.
I remember another guy really well too, he was also rather fair-skinned. You
know, all the people who were in our apartment were darker than dark, both
their hair and their skin. And in contrast with them, in addition to the grey-
eyed one, I remember this one fellow, the one l took to be a Lezgin. I
identified him. As it turned out he was Eduard Robertovich Grigorian, born
in the city of Sumgait, and he had been convicted twice. One of our own. How
did I remember him? The name Rita was tattooed on his left or right hand. I
kept thinking, is that Rita or "puma," which it would be if you read the word
as Latin characters instead of Cyrillic, because the Cyrillic "T" was the one
that looks like a Latin "M." When they led him in he sat with his hands behind
his back. This was at the confrontation. He swore on every holy book, tried to
put in an Armenian word here and there to try and spark my compassion, and
told me that I was making a mistake, and called me "dear sister." He said,
"You're wrong, how could I, an Armenian, raise my hand against my own, an
Armenian," and so on. He spoke so convincingly that even the investigator
asked me, "Lyuda, are you sure it was he?" I told him, "I'll tell you one more
identifying mark. If I'm wrong I shall apologize and say I was mistaken. The
name Rita is tattooed on his left or right hand." He went rigid and became
pale. They told him, "Put your hands on the table." He put his hands on the
table with the palms up. I said, "Now turn your hands over," but he didn't
turn his hands over. Now this infuriated me. If he had from the very start
acknowledged his guilt and said that he hadn't wanted to do it, that they
forced him or something else, I would have treated him somewhat differently.
But he insolently stuck to his story, "No, I did not do anything, it wasn't
me." When they turned his hands over the name Rita was in fact tattooed on his
hand. His face distorted and he whispered something wicked. I immediately flew
into a rage. There was an ashtray on the table, a really heavy one, made out
of granite or something, very large, and it had ashes and butts in it.
Catching myself quite by surprise, I hurled that ashtray at him. But he ducked
and the ashtray hit the wall, and ashes and butts rained down on his head and
back. And he smiled. When he smiled it provoked me further. I don't know how,
but I jumped over the table between us and started either pounding him or
strangling him; I no longer remember which. When I jumped I caught the
microphone cord. The investigator was there, Tolya . . .I no longer recall his
last name, and he says, "Lyudochka, it's a Japanese microphone! Please . . .
" And shut off all the equipment on the spot, it was all being video taped.
They took him away. I stayed, and they talked to me a little to calm me down,
because we needed to go on working, I only remember Tolya telling me, "You're
some actress! What a performance!" I said, "Tolya, honestly . . . " Beforehand
they would always tell me, "Lyuda, more emotion. You speak as calmly as if
nothing had happened to you." I say, "I don't have any more strength or
emotion. All my emotions are behind me now, I no longer have the strength
. . . I don't have the strength to do anything." And he says, "Lyuda, how were
you able to do that?" And when I returned to normal, drinking tea and watching
the tape, I said, "Can I really have jumped over that table? I never jumped
that high in gym class."
So you could say the gang that took over our apartment was international. Of
the 36 we identified there was an Armenian, a Russian, Vadim Vorobyev, who
beat Mamma, and 34 Azerbaijanis.
At the second meeting with Grigorian, when he had completely confessed his
guilt, he told of how on February 27 the Azerbaijanis had come knocking. Among
them were guys--if you can call them guys--he knew from prison. They said,
"Tomorrow we're going after the Armenians. Meet us at the bus station at three
o'clock." He said, "No, I'm not coming." They told him, "If you don't come
we'll kill you." He said, "Alright, I'll come." And he went.
They also went to visit my classmate from our microdistrict, Kamo Pogosian. He
had also been in prison; I think that together they had either stolen a
motorcycle or dismantled one to get some parts they needed. They called him
out of his apartment and told him the same thing: "Tomorrow we're going to get
the Armenians. Be there." He said, "No." They pulled a knife on him. He said,
"I'm not going all the same." And in the courtyard on the 27th they stabbed
him several times, in the stomach. He was taken to the hospital. I know he was
in the hospital in Baku, in the Republic hospital. If we had known about that
we would have had some idea of what was to come on the 28th.
I'll return to Grigorian, what he did in our apartment. I remember that he
beat me along with all the rest. He spoke Azerbaijani extremely well. But he
was very fair-skinned, maybe that led me to think that they had it out for
him, too. But later it was proved that he took part in the beating and burning
of Shagen Sargisian. I don't know if he participated in the rapes in our
apartment; I didn't see, I don't remember. But the people who were in our
apartment who didn't yet know that he was an Armenian said that he did. I
don't know if he confessed or not, and I myself don't recall because I blacked
out very often. But I think that he didn't participate in the rape of Karina
because he was in the apartment the whole time. When they carried her into the
courtyard, he remained in the apartment.
At one point I was talking with an acquaintance about Edik Grigorian. From her
I learned that his wife was a dressmaker, his mother is Russian, he doesn't
have a father, and that he's been convicted twice. Well this will be his third
and, I hope, last sentence. He beat his wife, she was eternally coming to work
with bruises. His wife was an Armenian by the name of Rita.
The others who were detained . . . well they're little beasts. You really can't
call them beasts, they're just little beasts. They were robots carrying out
someone else's will, because at the investigation they all said, "I don't
understand how I could have done that, I was out of my head." But we know that
they were won around to it and prepared for it, that's why they did it. In the
name of Allah, in the name of the Koran, in the name of propagating Islam--
that's holy to them--that's why they did everything they were commanded to do.
Because I saw they didn't have minds of their own, I'm not talking about their
level of cultural sophistication or any higher values. No education, they
work, have a slew of children without the means to raise them properly, they
crowd them in, like at the temporary housing, and apparently, they were
promised that if they slaughtered the Armenians they would receive apartments.
So off they went. Many of them explained their participation saying, "they
promised us apartments."
Among them was one who genuinely repented. I am sure that he repented from the
heart and that he just despised himself after the incident. He worked at a
children's home, an Azerbaijani, he has two children, and his wife works at
the children's home too. Everything that they acquired, everything that they
have they earned by their own labor, and wasn't inherited from parents or
grandparents. And he said, "I didn't need anything I just don't know . . . how
I ended up in that; it was like some hand was guiding me. I had no will of my
own, I had no strength, no masculine dignity, nothing." And the whole time I
kept repeating, "Now you imagine that someone did the same to your young wife
right before your own eyes." He sat there and just wailed.
But that leader in the Eskimo dogskin coat was not detained. He performed a
marvelous disappearing act, but I think that they'll get onto him, they just
have to work a little, because that Vadim, that boy, according to his
grandfather, is in touch with the young person who taught him what to do, how
to cover his tracks. He was constantly exchanging jackets with other boys he
knew and those he didn't, either, and other things as well, and changed
himself like a chameleon so they wouldn't get onto him, but he was detained.
That one in the Eskimo dogskin coat was at the Gambarians' after Aleksandr
Gambarian was murdered. He came in and said, "Let's go, enough, you've spilled
enough blood here."
Maybe Karina doesn't know this but the reason they didn't finish her off was
that they were hoping to take her home with them. I heard this from Aunt Tanya
and her sons, the Kasumovs, who were in the courtyard near the entryway. They
liked her very much, and they had decided to take her to home with them. When
Karina came to at one point--she doesn't remember this yet, this the neighbors
old me--and she saw that there was no one around her, she started crawling to
the entryway. They saw that she was still alive and came back, they were
already at the third entryway, on their way to the Gambarians'. They came back
and started beating her to finish her. If she had not come to she would have
sustained lesser bodily injuries, they would have beat her less. An older
woman from our building, Aunt Nazan, an Azerbaijani, all but lay on top of
Karina, crying and pleading that they leave her alone, but they flung her off.
The woman's grown sons were right nearby; they picked her up in their hands
and led her home. She howled and cried out loudly and swore: God is on Earth,
he sees everything, and He won't forgive this.
There was another woman, too, Aunt Fatima, a sick, aging woman from the first
floor, she's already retired. Mountain dwellers, and Azerbaijanis, too, have a
custom: If men are fighting, they throw a scarf under their feet to stop them.
But they trampled her scarf and sent her home. To trample a scarf is
tantamount to trampling a woman's honor.
Now that the investigation is going on, now that a lot is behind us and we
have gotten back to being ourselves a little, I think about how could these
events that are now called the Sumgait tragedy happen? How did they come
about? How did it start? Could it have been avoided? Well, it's clear that
without a signal, without permission from the top leadership, it would not
have happened. All the same, I'm not afraid to say this, the Azerbaijanis,
let other worthy people take no offense, the better representatives of their
nations, let them take no offense, but the Azerbaijanis in their majority are
a people who are kept in line only by fear of the law, fear of retribution for
what they have done. And when the law said that they could do all that, like
unleashed dogs who were afraid they wouldn't have time to do everything, they
threw themselves from one thing to the next so as to be able to get more done,
to snatch a bit more. The smell of the danger was already in the air on
February 27. You could tell that something was going to happen. And everyone
who had figured it out took steps to avoid running into those gangs. Many left
for their dachas, got plane tickets for the other end of the country, just got
as far away as their legs would carry them.
February 27 was a Saturday. I was teaching my third class. The director came
into my classroom and said that I should let the children out, that there had
been a call from the City Party Committee asking that all teachers gather for
a meeting at Lenin Square. Well, I excused the children, and there were few
teachers left at school, altogether three women, the director, and six or
seven men. The rest had already gone home. We got to Lenin Square and there
were a great many people there. This was around five-thirty or six in the
evening, no later. They were saying all kinds of rubbish up on the podium and
the crowd below was supporting them stormily, roaring. They spoke over the
microphone about what had happened in Kafan a few days earlier and that the
driver of a bus going to some district had recently thrown a small Azerbaijani
child off the bus. The speaker affirmed that he was an eyewitness, that he had
seen it himself..The crowd started to rage: "Death to the Armenians! They must
be killed!" Then a woman went up on stage. I didn't see the woman because
people were clinging to the podium like flies. I could only hear her. The
woman introduced herself as coming from Kafan, and said that the Armenians
cut her daughters' breasts off, and called, "Sons, avenge my daughters!" That
was enough. A portion of the people on the square took off running in the
direction of the factories, toward the beginning of Lenin Street.
We stood there about an hour. Then the director of School 25 spoke, he gave a
very nationalist speech. He said, "Brother Muslims, kill the Armenians!" This
he repeated every other sentence. When he said this the crowd supported him
stormily, whistling and shouting "Karabagh!" He said, "Karabagh has been our
territory my whole life long, Karabagh is my soul. How can you tear out my
heart?" As though an Azerbaijani would die without Karabagh. "It's our
territory, the Armenians will never see it. The Armenians must be eliminated.
From time immemorial Muslims have cleansed the land of infidel Armenians, from
time immemorial, that's the way nature created it, that every 20 to 30 years
the Azerbaijanis should cleanse the land of filth." By filth he meant
Armenians.
I heard this. Before that I hadn't been listening to the speeches closely.
Many people spoke and I stood with my back to the podium, talking shop with
the other teachers, and somehow it all went right by, it didn't penetrate,
that in fact something serious was taking place. Then, when one of our
teachers said, "Listen to what he's saying, listen to what idiocy he's
spouting," we listened. That was the speech of that director. Before that we
listened to the woman's speech.
Right then in our group--there were nine of us--the mood changed, and the
subject of conversation and all school matters were forgotten. Our director of
studies, for whom I had great respect, he's an Azerbaijani . . . Before that I
had considered him an upstanding and worthy person, if there was a need to
obtain leave we had asked him, he seemed like a good person. So he tells me,
"Lyuda, you know that besides you there are no Armenians on the square? If
they find out that you're an Armenian they'll tear you to pieces. Should I
tell them you're an Armenian? Should I tell them you're an Armenian?" When he
said it the first time I pretended not to hear it, and then he asked me a
second time. I turned to the director, Khudurova, and said that it was already
after eight, I was expected at home, and I should be leaving. She answered,
"No, they said that women should stay here until ten o'clock,.and men, until
twelve. Stay here." There was a young teacher with us, her children were in
kindergarten and her husband worked shifts. She asked to leave: "I left my
children at the kindergarten." The director excused her. When she let her go I
turned around, said, "Good-bye," and left with the young teacher, the
Azerbaijani. I didn't see them after that.
When we were walking the buses weren't running, and a crowd from the rally ran
nearby us. They had apparently gotten all fired up. It must have become too
much for them, and they wanted to seek vengeance immediately, so they rushed
off. I wasn't afraid this time because I was sure that the other teacher
wouldn't say that I was an Armenian.
To make it short, we reached home. Then Karina told of how they had been at
the movies and what had happened there. I started telling of my experience and
again my parents didn't understand that we were in danger. We watched
television as usual, and didn't even imagine that tomorrow would be our last
day. That's how it all was.
At the City Party Committee I met an acquaintance, we went to school together,
Zhanna, I don't remember her last name, she lives above the housewares store
on Narimanov Street. She was there with her father, for some reason she
doesn't have a mother. The two of them were at home alone. While her father
held the door she jumped from the third floor, and she was lucky that the
ground was wet and that there wasn't anyone behind the building when she went
out on the balcony, there was no one there, they were all standing near the
entryway. That building was also a lucky one in that there were no murders
there. She jumped. She jumped and didn't feel any pain in the heat of the
moment. A few days later I found out that she couldn't stand up, she had been
injured somehow. That's how people in Sumgait saved their lives, their honor,
and their children: any way they could.
Where it was possible, the Armenians fought back. My father's first cousin,
Armen M., lives in Block 30. They found out by phone from one of the victims
what was going on in town. The Armenians in that building all called one
another immediately and all of them armed themselves with axes, knives, even
with muskets and went up to the roof. They took their infants with them, and
their old women who had been in bed for God knows how many months, they got
them right out of their beds and took everyone upstairs. They hooked
electricity up to the trap door to the roof and waited, ready to fight. Then
they took the daughter of the school board director hostage, she's an
Azerbaijani who lived in their building. They called the school board director
and told her that if she didn't help them, the 17 Armenians on the roof, to
escape alive and unharmed, she'd never see her daughter again. I'm sure, of
course, that Armenians would never lay a hand on a woman, it was just the only
thing that could have saved them at the time. She called the police. The
Armenians made a deal with the local police to go into town. Two armored
personnel carriers and soldiers were summoned They surrounded the entryway and
led everyone down from the roof, and off to the side from the armored
personnel carriers was a crowd that was on its way to the building at that
very moment, into Block 30. That's how they defended themselves.
I heard that our neighbors, Roman and Sasha Gambarian, resisted. They're big,
strong guys. Their father was killed. And I heard that the brothers put up a
strong defense and lost their father, but were able to save their mother.
One of the neighbors told me that after it happened, when they were looking
for the criminals on March 1 to 2 and detaining everyone they suspected,
people hid people in our entryway, maybe people who were injured or perhaps
dead. The neighbors themselves were afraid to go there, and when they went
with the soldiers into our basement they are supposed to have found
Azerbaijani corpses. I don't know how many. Even if they had been wounded and
put down there, after two days they would have died from loss of blood or
infection--that basement was filled with water. I heard this from the
neighbors. And later when I was talking with the investigators the subject
came up and they confirmed it. I know, too, that for several hours the
basement was used to store objects stolen from our apartment. And our neighbor
carried out our carpet, along with the rest: he stole it for himself, posing
as one of the criminals. Everyone was taking his own share, and the neighbor
took his, too, and carried it home. And when we came back, when everything
seemed to have calmed down, he returned it, saying that it was the only thing
of ours he had managed to "save."
Raya's husband and father defended themselves. The Trdatovs defended
themselves, and so did other Armenian families. To be sure there were
Azerbaijani victims, although we'll never hear anything about them. For some
reason our government doesn't want to say that the Armenians were not just
victims, but that they defended the honor of their sisters and mothers, too.
In the TV show "Pozitsiya" [Viewpoint] a military man, an officer, said that
the Armenians did virtually nothing to defend themselves. But that's not
important, the truth will come out regardless.
So that's the price we paid those three days. For three days our courage, our
bravery, and our humanity was tested. It was those three days, and not the
years and dozens of years we had lived before them, that showed what we've
become, what we grew up to be. Those three days showed who was who.
On that I will conclude my narrative on the Sumgait tragedy. It should be said
that it's not over yet, the trials are still ahead of us, and the punishments
received by those who so violated us, who wanted to make us into nonhumans
will depend on our position and on the work of the investigators, the
Procuracy, and literally of every person who lent his hand to the investiga-
tion. That's the price we paid to live in Armenia, to not fear going out on
the street at night, to not be afraid to say we're Armenians, and to not fear
speaking our native tongue.
October 15,1988
Yerevan
- - - reference for #008 - - -
[1] _The Sumgait Tragedy; Pogroms against Armenians in Soviet Azerbaijan,
Volume I, Eyewitness Accounts_, edited by Samuel Shahmuradian, forward by
Yelena Bonner, 1990, published by Aristide D. Caratzas, NY, pages 118-145
--
David Davidian dbd@urartu.sdpa.org   | "How do we explain Turkish troops on
S.D.P.A. Center for Regional Studies |  the Armenian border, when we can't
P.O. Box 382761                      |  even explain 1915?"
Cambridge, MA 02238                  |              Turkish MP, March 1992
From: Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Final Solution for Gaza ?
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1483500354:cdp:1483500364:000:1767
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cpr    Apr 26 17:36:00 1993
Lines: 38
Dear folks,
I am still awaiting for some sensible answer and comment.
It is a fact that the inhabitants of Gaza are not entitled to a normal
civlized life. They habe been kept under occupation by Israel since 1967
without civil and political rights.
It is a fact that Gazans live in their own country, Palestine. Gaza is
not a foriegn country. Nor is TelAviv, Jaffa, Askalon, BeerSheba foreign
country for Gazans. All these places are occupied as far as Palestinians
are concerned and as far as common sense has it.
It is a fact that Zionists deny Gazans equal rights as Israeli citizens
and the right to determine by themsevles their government. When Zionists
will begin to consider Gazans as human beings who deserve the same
rights as themselves, there will be hope for peace. Not before.
Somebody mentioned that Gaza is 'foreign country' and therefore Israel
is entitled to close its borders to Gaza. In this case, Gaza should be
entitled to reciprocate, and deny Israeli civilians and military personnel
to enter the area. As the relation is not symmetrical, but that of a master
and slave, the label 'foreign country' is inaccurate and misleading.
To close off 700,000 people in the Strip, deny them means of subsistence
and means of defending themselves, is a collective punishment and a
crime. It is neither justifiable nor legal. It just reflects the abyss
to which Israeli society has degraded.
I would like to ask any of those who heap foul langauge on me to explain
why Israel denies Gazans who were born and brought up in Jaffa to return
and live there ? Would they be allowed to, if they converted to Judaism ?
Is their right to live in their former town depdendent upon their
religion or ethnic origin ? Please give an honest answer.
Elias
From: Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Desertification of the Negev
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1483500361:cdp:1483500365:000:272
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cpr    Apr 26 17:41:00 1993
Lines: 10
Danhy,
As you think Bedouin will be surprised by the posted article, I
would be happy to have some feedback from Bedouin readers, if you
will. I cannot judge the accuracy of the article, but assumes that
it is no fabrication. Any critical review would be helpful.
Elias
From: A1RODRIG@vma.cc.nd.edu
Subject: What a HATE filled newsgroup!!!!
Organization: Bullwinkle Fan Club
Lines: 5
Is this group for real? I honestly can't believe that most of you expect you
or your concerns to be taken remotely seriously if you behave this way in a
forum for discussion. Doesn't it ever occur to those of you who write letters
like the majority of those in this group that you're being mind-bogglingly
hypocritical?
From: B8HA <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Israel's Expansion II
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: vm1.mcgill.ca
Organization: McGill University
In article <1993Apr22.093527.15720@donau.et.tudelft.nl> avi@duteinh.et.tudelft.nl (Avi Cohen Stuart) writes:
>From article <93111.225707PP3903A@auvm.american.edu>, by Paul H. Pimentel <PP3903A@auvm.american.edu>:
>> What gives Isreal the right to keep Jeruseleum?  It is the home of the muslim a
>> s well as jewish religion, among others.  Heck, nobody ever mentions what Yitza
>> k Shamir did forty or fifty years ago which is terrorize westerners much in the
>>  way Abdul Nidal does today.  Seems Isrealis are nowhere above Arabs, so theref
>> ore they have a right to Jerusaleum as much as Isreal does.
>
>
>There is one big difference between Israel and the Arabs, Christians in this
>respect.
>
>Israel allows freedom of religion.
>
>Avi.
>.
>.
Avi,
For your information, Islam permits freedom of religion - there is
no compulsion in religion.  Does Judaism permit freedom of religion
(i.e. are non-Jews recognized in Judaism).  Just wondering.
Steve
From: brow2812@mach1.wlu.ca (craig brown 9210 u)
Subject: Re: PBS Frontline: Iran and the bomb
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Lines: 93
In article <C5LIHI.389@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ebrahim@ee.umanitoba.ca (Mohamad Ebrahimi) writes:
>
>       I would like to share with netters a few points I picked up from the PBS
>    Frontline program regarding Iran's nuclear activities, aired on Tuesday
>    April 13. For the sake of brevity, I'll present them in some separate
>    points.
Already say it the other week on CBC Snoozeworld
>    1- As many other western programs, this program was laid on a bed of
>    misinformation throughout the program, to maximize the effect of the
>    program on the viewer. Some of the misinformations were as follows:
Yeah, I thought Bonanza was full of lies about the West...
>
>    - While the number of martyrs during the sacred defense against Iraqi
>    aggression has been officially announced to be about 117,000 and even most
>    radical counter-revolutionary groups claim that Iran and Iraq had a total
>    of one million dead, this program claims that Iran alone has one million
>    dead left from the war.
>
>    - The translation of Iranian officials' talks are not 100% true. For
>    example when Iranian head of Atomic Energy says that: " It hurts me to
>    see that Iran is the subject of these unfriendly propaganda." The
>    translator says: " It hurts to see that Iran is doing unfriendly
>    research."!
>
>    2- Almost all alleged devices or material bought or planned to be bought
>    by Iranians were of countless dual usage, while the program tries to
>    undermine their non-military uses, without any reference to Iran's
>    big population and its inevitable need to other sources of energy in
>    near future and its current deficit in electrical power.
Why the hell would such an oil rich (and hydroelectric potential to be
exploited) spend billions on a nuclear energy programme?
>    3- The whole program is trying to show the Sharif University of
>    Technology as a nuclear research center, while even the cameramen of the
>    program know well that in a country like Iran without a so tightly closed
>    society no one can make a nuclear bomb in a university! Taking in account
>    the scientific advancement of Sharif U. in engineering fields and its
>    potential role in improvement of Iran's industries and eventually the
>    lives of people, it is obvious that they are persuading other countries
>    to prevent them from further helping this university or other ones
>    in scientific and industrial efforts.
>
>    4- A key point in program's justifications is trying to disvalidate as
>    much as possible all efforts done by IAEA [*] in their numerous visits from
>    Iran's different sites. They say: "We are not sure if the places visited
>    by IAEA are the real ones or not" !, or " We can not rely on IAEA's
>    reports and observation, because they failed to see Iraq's nuclear
>    activities before" as if they didn't know that Iraq was trying to build
>    nuclear weapons!
Yeah, and we have every reason in the world to trust the Iranian regime.
After all, they've been *so* forward with us in the past....
>    5- As an extremely personal opinion, the most disgusting aspect of the
>    program was the arrogance of the member of US Senate foreign Affairs,
>    William Triplet, in his way of talking, as if he was the god talking
>    from the absolute knowledge!
Maybe he *is* God!
>       I hope all Iranians be aware of the gradual buildup against their
>    country in western media, and I hope Iranian authorities continue to
>    their wise and calculated approach with regard to international affairs
>    and peaceful coexistence with friendly nations.
hahahahahahaahah!
>Mohammad
>
>
>    [*] International Atomic Energy Agency
>
From: eldar@fraser.sfu.ca (Danny Eldar)
Subject: PBS Frontline documentary : "Memory of the camps"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 13
Yesterday, I watched an outstanding documentary on PBS prepared for Frontline
by the documentary consortia.  It is called "Memory of the camps" and shows some
"un-censored" pictures taken immediately after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen
and other death camps.
I recommend it to everybody.  Check with your PBS station for re-broadcast.
IT IS A MUST SEE documentary.
In the Seatle, Vancouver area KSTS-9 will re-broadcast the documentary
on Monday 01:30 am.
You can also order a copy from PBS Video 1-800-3287271.  The cost is $59.95.
Danny
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Deir Yassin
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 21
In article <1993Apr24.023039.1485@cs.rit.edu> bdm@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) writes:
>In article <1r94f9$ge3@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.VXF@forsythe.stanford.edu (Vic Filler) writes:
>>You have a lot to learn when it comes to historical methodology.
>
>That's true.  I try to learn from people who know more than me,
>not from useless farts.
And anyone who doesn't agree with you is, by your own definitions, a
"useless fart".  Just like any text that disputes your own "findings"
is always described as "flawed" or "biased".  In other words, you
trumpet the things you like and dismiss those that might embarass you.
We've seen you play these games here for a long time.
One thing is for sure: When it comes to "useless farts", you sure know
what you're talking about.
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Final Solution for Gaza ?
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 54
In article <1483500354@igc.apc.org> cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
>The Gaza strip, this tiny area of land with the highest population
>density in the world, has been cut off from the world for weeks.
Another CPR Non-Fact.
>The Israeli occupier has decided to punish the whole population of
>Gaza, some 700.000 people, by denying them the right to leave the
>strip and seek work in Israel.
Actually, they are free to leave and seek work in Egypt, except that
the Egyptians don't want them, either.  And who are you going to blame
if/when Gazans establish their own state of Gaza/Palestine?
>While Polish non-Jews risked their lives to save Jews from the
>Ghetto, no Israeli Jew is known to have risked his life to help
>the Gazan resistance. The only help given to Gazans by Israeli
>Jews, only dozens of people, is humanitarian assistance.
Actually, one such Jew who did risk his life to help Gazan Arabs was
hacked to death by Palestinean murderers just last week.  It seems
that the risk has been primarily from the Arabs "in need of help".
This is also true for telephone repairmen, traders who seek to buy
agricultural products from Gazans, Israeli soldiers who get involved
in fighting between feuding Palestinean groups that are as determined
to destroy each other as they are to destroy outsiders...
>The right of the Gazan population to resist occupation is
>recognized in international law and by any person with a sense of
>justice. A population denied basic human rights is entitled to
>rise up against its tormentors.
I just wanna see you try this here in the USA.  You know what's going
to happen.
>As is known, the Israeli regime is considering Gazans unworthy of
>Israeli citizenship and equal rights in Israel, although they are
>considered worthy to do the dirty work in Israeli hotels, shops
>and fields. Many Gazans are born in towns and villages located in
>Israel. They may not live there, for these areas are reserved for
>the Master Race.
Okay.  That's enough.  I'm not going to read this posting of yours any
further.
>Elias Davidsson Iceland
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Symbiotics: Zionism-Antisemitism
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 21
In article <1483500355@igc.apc.org> cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
>The first point to note regarding the appropriation of the history
>of the Holocaust by Zionist propaganda is that Zionism without
>anti-semitism is impossible. Zionism agrees with the basic tenet
>of anti-Semitism, namely that Jews cannot live with non- Jews.
That's why the Zionists decided that Zion must be Gentile-rein.
What?!  They didn't?!  You mean to tell me that the early Zionists
actually granted CITIZENSHIP in the Jewish state to Christian and
Muslim people, too?
It seems, Elias, that your "first point to note" is wrong, so the rest
of your posting isn't worth much, either.
Ta ta...
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Gaza and separation from Israel
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 33
In article <1483500357@igc.apc.org> Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:
>The Israeli Left's inability to cope with the challenges it is
>presented with by reality becomes obvious at those moments when
>the reality does not line up with the expectations of the left. We
>were able to see this clearly during the Gulf War.  Because of the
>Palestinian's popular solidarity with Iraq, Yossi Sarid -
>currently Minister of the Environment - made his infamous
>statement: "You look for me !", i.e., I'am not making any more
>efforts to speak with you. From Yossi Sarid's point of view,
>Palestinian reality during the Gulf War was not the lengthy curfew
>or the danger of hunger it brought with it, but whether or not the
>Palestinians accepted what was acceptable to the party. Similarly
>MERETZ, MK Deddi Tzuker, recently faced with criticism from
>residents of the West Bank town of Beit Sahour over his
>government's and his party's lack of action for human rights and
>peace, responded by asking those present at the discussion whether
>they would rather have a Likud government. From the Leftists'
>perspective this is the best government because it is THEIR
>government, regardless of what it does.
>
>These members of the Israeli Left have already decided how the
>future of the Occupied Territories will look, and they want to
>dictate to the Palestinians how to get there.
When someone starts criticizing the Leftists for not being Leftist
enough, we get a pretty clear idea of what they believe to be normal.
I hope that your not still calling yourself fair and unbiased, Elias.
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: B8HA000 <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: BB Confessions.
Lines: 46
Nntp-Posting-Host: vm1.mcgill.ca
Organization: McGill University
In article <1993Apr18.022218.17318@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> ahmeda@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Ahmed Abu-Abed) writes:
>
>In article <C5Hu6q.CG3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
>|> cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> >In a previous article, friedenb@sapphire.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) says:
>|>
>|> >>
>|> >>For all those interested, I would like to inform all that Binyamin Netanyahu
>|> >>(leader of the Israeli Likud party) will be interviewed on CNN tonight on
>|> >>Larry King Live.
>|>
>|>
>|> >didn't this guy go crying on the "zionist" tv confessing
>|> >that he committed adultary, and was cheating on his wife..
>|>
>|> >a typical jew leader, huh?
>|>
>|> Yes.  He is.  Actually, the typical Muslim/Arab leader hides the fact that he
>|> commited adultery by choosing a camel over his husband (or a small male child,
>|> whichever is more readily availible).
>|>
>|> >--
>|> >                  ___________________ cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu _____________
>|> >                 (______   _  |   _  |_
>|> >_____ H A M Z A ________) |-| |_ |-| | |
>|>
>|> Ed.
>|>
>
>But the irony is that the Jewish population has no problem in electing
>a leader who has CONFESSED  to having an extra marrital affair.
>
>This is a first.
>
>AA.
>.
>.
What else do you expect?  Israel is trying to portray itself
as the great democracy.  One requirement is to have a leader
who previously had an extra-marital affair (e.g. Bill Clinton)
It helps if your wife says it's OK.
Steve
From: mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger)
Subject: Re: More on ADL spying case
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Lines: 6
I don't think Yigal and his friends have had as much fun for years,
if ever, as they're getting over this ADL business.
The publicity is likely to generate some speaker's fees, too.
--Mark
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Israel's Expansion
Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 22
In <1993Apr19.024949.27846@nysernet.org> astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein) writes:
+>The Golan Heights is a serious security problem, and Israel obviously
+>will have to keep part of it and give up part of it.  (One should
+>remember that the Golan Heights had been part of the area that was to
+>be in Britain's Palestine Mandate, slated to become part of the Jewish
+>state, until Britain traded it to France for other considerations.  In
+>other words, it is an historical accident that it was ever part of
+>Syria.)
The Palestine mandate had no borders before
the borders were negotiated and drawn.  The most the Golan may have been
is on the list of what territories Britian would have liked to
see in the palestine mandate.
Until the mandates came into existance, there were no defined
boundaries between any of the various territories in the region.
If you have a source for any of these claims, then please
present it.
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Israel's Expansion
Lines: 147
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
In article <1993Apr18.212610.5933@das.harvard.edu>, adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
|>In article <18APR93.15729846.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA> B8HA000 <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:
|>
|>>1) Is Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon temporary?
|>
|>	Israel has repeatedly stated that it will leave Lebanon when
|>the Lebanese government can provide guarantees that Israel will not be
|>attacked from Lebanese soil, and when the Syrians leave.
Not acceptable. Syria and Lebanon have a right to determine if
they wish to return to the situation prior to the French invasion
where they were both part of the same "mandate territory" - read
colony.
Israel has no right to determine what happens in Lebanon. Invading another
country because you consider them a threat is precisely the way that almost
all wars of aggression have started.
|>>2) Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan
|>>temporary?
|>
|>	The three are very different issues.  Israel has stated
|>repeatedly that it will not give up the whole Golan, but may be
|>willing to give part of it to Syria as part of a peace agreement.
Again territorial expansion by force.
|>	Israel has already annexed areas taken over in the 1967 war.
|>These areas are not occupied, but disputed, since there is no
|>legitamate governing body.  Citizenship was given to those residents
|>in annexed areas who wanted citizenship.
The UN defines them as occupied. They are recognised as such by every
nation on earth (excluding one small caribean island).
|>	Israel should keep control of parts of the West Bank, IMHO.
|>The parts that should be kept are the westernmost mountain ridge,
|>which contain few arab towns, and many suburbs, as well as overlooking
|>the city of Tel Aviv.  The Eastern mountain ridge should be
|>abandonded.  This is where most of the arabs live and it is less
|>militarily relevant.  Israel should also maintain a presence in the
|>Jordan valley.
So the Adam thinks that peace is possible with continued occupation and
a continued military presence? That is a completely unsustainable situation
because the USA is bankrupt and simply cannot afford to finance the
Israeli ecconomy any more. There is no money for such an occupation.
|>>If so (for those of you who support it), why were so
|>>many settlers moved into the territories?  If it is not temporary,
|>>let's hear it.
|>
|>	There are a number of reasons for people to move (they were
|>not moved, but chose to move) into disputed areas.  Note that since
|>these moves were made by free willed human beings, not "settlers," I
|>will address two aspects of your question, why the government would
|>allow &/or encourage them to move, and second why they did move.
They were moved in as part of a deliberate policy to prevent the return
of the occupied territories. Machiavelli described the reasoning in the
Prince. The clear intention was to create a constituency which the Likud
beleived could not be deprived of the land stolen from the indigenous
population.
The pretexts under which the settlers aquired land was through the
redefinition of much land used in common as "public land". The assertion
that the village common on which the village depends for food belongs to
an invader simply because no individual has title is clearly an
excuse. When the land is used to build a condominium for aliens brought
in to occupy the land for a foreign power there is a clear breach of the
Geneva convention which stipulates that land use in occupied territories
must not be changed.
No amount of self justifying on the part of Likud and hard linner appologists
will change the fact that the majority of world governments, and all of
those that actually have any power have condemned this practice.
|>	The government had a number of reasons for encouraging people
|>to move across the green line.  They included security and politics.
|>
|>	The first reason was security.  A large Jewish presense makes
|>it difficult for terrorists to infiltrate.  A Jewish settlements also
|>act as fortresses in times of war.
Theyu also are a liability. We are talking about civilian encampments that
would last no more than hours against tanks,
|>	A second reason was political.  Creating "settlements" brought
|>the arabs to the negotiation table.  Had the creation of new towns and
|>cities gone on another several years, there would be no place left in
|>Israel where there was an arab majority.  There would have been no
|>land left that could be called arab.
Don't fool yourself. It was the gulf war that brought the Israelis to the
negotiating table. Once their US backers had a secure base in the gulf
they insrtructed Shamir to negotiate or else.
If the creation of settlements had gone on any longer the USA would have
cut the money supply.
|>	The fact that there are a hundered thousands Jews in place
|>changes the face of any peace settlement, and restricts what land can
|>be given away.
Not at all. They can chose to live in an arab state or return to Israel.
|>	Some of the communites created were religious.  They built
|>their neighborhoods in areas where there were jews until the riots of
|>the 30's and 40's.  There are communities like this in Hebron, Gaza,
|>and all over.  There are also communities built near religious sites.
The existence of a comunity does not give the right for another country
to annexe territory, not in Bosnia, not in the West Bank.
|>	The point is, there are many reasons people moved over the
|>green line, and many reasons the government wanted them to.  Whatever
|>status is negotiated for disputed territories, it will not be an "all
|>or nothing" deal.  New boundaries will be drawn up by negotiation, not
|>be the results of a war.
Unless the new boundaries drawn up are those of 48 there will be no peace.
Araffat has precious little authority to agree to anything else.
The real issue is not the land treaty but the trade treaty. Since the
Palestinians will remain heavily dependent on Israel indefinitely it
is this that will be the guarantor of peace. another factor will be the
return of lands confiscated by the Israeli state within Israel and the
dismantling of the shadow structures which allow discrimination against
non-Jews within what is nominaly a secular state.
The irony is that in return for a guarantee that the palestinian state has
a non descrimination law in order to protect the remaining settlers the
Israeli state is going to be forced inot the same position. This will mean
outlawing of discrimination such as that which prevents arabs from buying
or using much of the land.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: About this 'Center for Policy Research'...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu
I have read numerous posts over a period of several months, by
this anti-Israel fanatic, hiding in the shadow of the respectable
sounding name of the 'Center for Policy Research.'  Obviously, it
is no research center of any kind, unless 'researching' published
documents to find material to use against Israel makes it so.
Labeling a propaganda mill a research center is not surprising
in itself.  That is simply part of the propaganda process.  I was
curious if anyone knew who this anti-Israel fanatic hiding behind
his phoney 'research center' name is.  Is he an Arab?  Is he some
typical anti-semite hiding behind a veneer of 'anti-zionism?'  Is
he some Jew who perhaps lived in Israel and just couldn't make it
there, and is now taking his failure out on Israel?
Let's shed some light on this clown once and for all.  It will
help put his nonsense in the proper perspective.  And the readers
of this group who are more interested in fact than in anti-Israel
hyperbola can ignore this junk.
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, Apr 20
Organization: MCSNet Contributor, Chicago, IL
Lines: 111
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.mcs.com
NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, APR 19, 1993
Not because you were too busy but because
Israelists in the US media spiked it.
................
THOSE INTREPID ISRAELI SOLDIERS
Israeli soldiers have sexually taunted Arab women in the occupied Gaza Strip
during the three-week-long closure that has sealed Palestinians off from the
Jewish state, Palestinian sources said on Sunday.
The incidents occurred in the town of Khan Younis and involved soldiers of
the Golani Brigade who have been at the centre of house-to-house raids for
Palestinian activists during the closure, which was imposed on the strip and
occupied West Bank.
Five days ago girls at the Al-Khansaa secondary said a group of naked
soldiers taunted them, yelling: ``Come and kiss me.'' When the girls fled,
the soldiers threw empty bottles at them.
On Saturday, a group of soldiers opened their shirts and pulled down their
pants when they saw girls from Al-Khansaa walking home from school. Parents
are considering keeping their daughters home from the all-girls school.
The same day, soldiers harassed two passing schoolgirls after a youth
escaped from them at a boys' secondary school. Deputy Principal Srur
Abu-Jamea said they shouted abusive language at the girls, backed them
against a wall, and put their arms around them.
When teacher Hamdan Abu-Hajras intervened the soldiers kicked him and beat
him with the butts of their rifles.
On Tuesday, troops stopped a car driven by Abdel Azzim Qdieh, a practising
Moslem, and demanded he kiss his female passenger. Qdieh refused, the
soldiers hit him and the 18-year-old passenger kissed him to stop the
beating.
On Friday, soldiers entered the home of Zamno Abu-Ealyan, 60, blindfolded
him and his wife, put a music tape on a recorder and demanded they dance. As
the elderly couple danced, the soldiers slipped away. The coupled continued
dancing until their grandson came in and asked what was happening.
The army said it was checking the reports.
....................
ISRAELI TROOPS BAR CHRISTIANS FROM JERUSALEM
Israeli troops prevented Christian Arabs from entering Jerusalem on Thursday
to celebrate the traditional mass of the Last Supper.
Two Arab priests from the Greek Orthodox church led some 30 worshippers in
prayer at a checkpoint separating the occupied West Bank from Jerusalem after
soldiers told them only people with army-issued permits could enter.
``Right now, our brothers are celebrating mass in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre and we were hoping to be able to join them in prayer,'' said Father
George Makhlouf of the Ramallah Parish.
Israel sealed off the occupied lands two weeks ago after a spate of
Palestinian attacks against Jews. The closure cut off Arabs in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip from Jerusalem, their economic, spiritual and cultural centre.
Father Nicola Akel said Christians did not want to suffer the humiliation
of requesting permits to reach holy sites.
Makhlouf said the closure was discriminatory, allowing Jews free movement
to take part in recent Passover celebrations while restricting Christian
celebrations.
``Yesterday, we saw the Jews celebrate Passover without any interruption.
But we cannot reach our holiest sites,'' he said.
An Israeli officer interrupted Makhlouf's speech, demanding to see his
identity card before ordering the crowd to leave.
...................
If you are as revolted at this as I am, drop Israel's best friend email and
let him know what you think.
75300.3115@compuserve.com (via CompuServe)
clintonpz@aol.com         (via America Online)
clinton-hq@campaign92.org (via MCI Mail)
Tell 'em ARF sent ya.
..................................
If you are tired of "learning" about American foreign policy from what is
effectively, Israeli controlled media, I highly recommend checking out the
Washington Report.  A free sample copy is available by calling the American
Education Trust at:
(800) 368 5788
Tell 'em arf sent you.
js
From: shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday)
Subject: Re: Investment in Yehuda and Shomron
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 30
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: composer.think.com
In article <horenC5LDuz.5sE@netcom.com>, horen@netcom.com (Jonathan B. Horen) writes:
|>
|> While I applaud investing of money in Yehuda, Shomron, v'Chevel-Azza,
|> in order to create jobs for their residents, I find it deplorable that
|> this has never been an active policy of any Israeli administration
|> since 1967, *with regard to their Jewish residents*. Past governments
|> found funds to subsidize cheap (read: affordable) housing and the
|> requisite infrastructure, but where was the investment for creating
|> industry (which would have generated income *and* jobs)?
The investment was there in the form of huge tax breaks, and employer
benfits.  You are overlooking the difference that these could have
made to any company.  Part of the problem was that few industries
were interested in political settling, as much as profit.
|> After 26 years, Yehuda and Shomron remain barren, bereft of even
|> middle-sized industries, and the Jewish settlements are sterile
|> "bedroom communities", havens for (in the main) Israelis (both
|> secular *and* religious) who work in Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem but
|> cannot afford to live in either city or their surrounding suburbs.
True, which leads to the obvious question, should any investment have
been made there at the taxpayer's expense.  Obviously, the answer was
and still is a resounding no.
--
Shai Guday              | Stealth bombers,
OS Software Engineer    |
Thinking Machines Corp. |	the winged ninjas of the skies.
Cambridge, MA           |
From: shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday)
Subject: Re: Israel's Expansion
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 39
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: composer.think.com
In article <18APR93.15729846.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, B8HA000 <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:
|> Just a couple of questions for the pro-Israeli lobby out there:
|>
|> 1) Is Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon temporary?  For Mr.
|> Stein:  I am working on a proof for you that Israel is diverting
|> water to the Jordan River (away from Lebanese territory).
Yes it is, as has been evidenced by the previous two stages
of withdrawal from the area and by the reductions in troops.
Currently the troops are kept at a level consistent with light
and armored patrols.  No permanent installations have been
built in the area, nor are any planned.
As to the prodigal "water question",  you can continue to waste
your time looking for non-existent proof, or you can accept the
testimony of people here, some Lebanese, who have acknowledged
that they know of no evidence for these allegations.
|> 2) Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan
|> temporary?  If so (for those of you who support it), why were so
|> many settlers moved into the territories?  If it is not temporary,
|> let's hear it.
It depends which of those territories you refer to.
In general, settlers were moved into the territories because
at the time, in the context of the situations, it seemed the
logical move.  This is not to say that views don't change
or that mistakes are not made.  Currently, I would say that
the only "disputed territory" that does not appear to be temporary
is that of Eastern and northern Jerusalem.
|> Steve
|>
--
Shai Guday              | Stealth bombers,
OS Software Engineer    |
Thinking Machines Corp. |	the winged ninjas of the skies.
Cambridge, MA           |
From: pgf5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Garfiel Freeman)
Subject: Re: Israel's Expansion
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: pgf5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Garfiel Freeman)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 31
>because the USA is bankrupt and simply cannot afford to finance the
>Israeli ecconomy any more. There is no money for such an occupation.
>
>
>Don't fool yourself. It was the gulf war that brought the Israelis to the
>negotiating table. Once their US backers had a secure base in the gulf
>they insrtructed Shamir to negotiate or else.
>
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
Oh, why do you expose your ignorance?  The US has been running on debt for
the past four generations and has still financed what it pleases.
And after the Gulf War, Israel could do whatever it wanted after
not decimating Iraq after the Scud attacks.  It was encouraged, but
by no means forced, to negotiate.
Mr. Baker, to address all of your points would be impossible, but in a
nutshell, it is hypocritical for you to attack Israel's presence in
Lebanon without attacking Syria.  Syrian occupation has been hostile,
and amounts to annexation.  Israel's is clearly defensive.  If it
were not defensive, you would see all of Lebanon occupied, and governed by
Israel.  But that is not what Israel wants.
Pete
From: cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research)
Subject: Re: From Israeli press. Madness.
Lines: 8
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1483500342:cdp:1483500347:000:151
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cpr    Apr 17 15:37:00 1993
Before getting excited and implying that I am posting
fabrications, I would suggest the readers to consult the
newspaper in question.
Tahnks,
Elias
From: Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Unconventional peace proposal
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483500348:000:5967
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cpr    Apr 18 07:24:00 1993
Lines: 131
From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>
Subject: Unconventional peace proposal
A unconventional proposal for peace in the Middle-East.
---------------------------------------------------------- by
Elias Davidsson
The following proposal is based on the following assumptions:
1.      Fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, to
education, to establish a family and have children, to human
dignity, the right to free movement, to free expression, etc. are
more important to human existence that the rights of states.
2.      In the event of a conflict between basic human rights and
rights of collectivities, basic human rights should prevail.
3.      Between the collectivities defining themselves as
Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian-Arab, however labelled, an
unresolved conflict exists.
4.      This conflict has caused great sufferings for millions of
people. It moreover poisons relations between communities, peoples
and nations.
5.      Each year, the United States expends billions of dollars
in economic and military aid to the conflicting parties.
6.      Attempts to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict by traditional
political means have failed.
7.      As long as the conflict is perceived as that between two
distinct ethnical/religious communities/peoples which claim the
land, there is no just nor peaceful solution possible.
8.      Love between human beings can be capitalized for the sake
of peace and justice. When people love, they share.
Having stated my assumptions, I will now state my proposal.
1.      A Fund should be established which would disburse grants
for each child born to a couple where one partner is Israeli-Jew
and the other Palestinian-Arab.
2.      To be entitled for a grant, a couple will have to prove
that one of the partners possesses or is entitled to Israeli
citizenship under the Law of Return and the other partner,
although born in areas under current Isreali control, is not
entitled to such citizenship under the Law of Return.
3.      For the first child, the grant will amount to $18.000. For
the second the third child, $12.000 for each child. For each
subsequent child, the grant will amount to $6.000 for each child.
4.      The Fund would be financed by a variety of sources which
have shown interest in promoting a peaceful solution to the
Israeli-Arab conflict, including the U.S. Government, Jewish and
Christian organizations in the U.S.  and a great number of
governments and international organizations.
5.      The emergence of a considerable number of 'mixed'
marriages in Israel/Palestine, all of whom would have relatives on
'both sides' of the divide, would make the conflict lose its
ethnical and unsoluble core and strengthen the emergence of a
truly civil society. The existence of a strong 'mixed' stock of
people would also help the integration of Israeli society into the
Middle-East in a graceful manner.
Objections to this proposal will certainly be voiced. I will
attempt to identify some of these:
1.      The idea of providing financial incentives to selected
forms of partnership and marriage, is not conventional. However,
it is based on the concept of affirmative action, which is
recognized as a legitimate form of public policy to reverse the
perverse effects of segregation and discrimination. International
law clearly permits affirmative action when it is aimed at
reducing racial discrimination and segregation.
2.      It may be objected that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
is not primarily a religious or ethnical conflict, but that it is
a conflict between a colonialist settler society and an indigenous
colonized society that can only regain its freedom by armed
struggle. This objection is based on the assumption that the
'enemy' is not Zionism as ideology and practice, but
Israeli-Jewish society and its members which will have to be
defeated. This objection has no merit because it does not fulfill
the first two assumptions concerning the primacy of fundamental
human rights over collective rights (see above)
3.      Fundamentalist Jews would certainly object to the use of
financial incentives to encourage 'mixed marriages'. From their
point of view, the continued existence of a specific Jewish People
overrides any other consideration, be it human love, peace of
human rights.  The President of the World Jewish Congress, Edgar
Bronfman, reflected this view a few years ago in an interview he
gave to Der Spiegel, a German magazine. He called the increasing
assimilation of Jews in the world a <calamity>, comparable in its
effects only with the Holocaust. This objection has no merit
either because it does not fulfill the first two assumptions (see
above)
4.      It may objected that only a few people in
Israel/Palestine, would request such grants and that it would thus
not serve its purpose. To this objection one might respond that
although it is not possible to determine with certainty the effect
of such a proposal, the existence of such a Fund would help mixed
couples to resist the pressure of their respective societies and
encourage young couples to reject fundamentalist and racist
attitudes.
5.      It may objected that such a Fund would need great sums to
bring about substantial demographic changes. This objection has
merits. However, it must be remembered that huge sums, more than
$3 billion, are expended each year by the United States government
and by U.S. organizations to maintain an elusive peace in the
Middle-East through armaments. A mere fraction of these sums would
suffice to launch the above proposal and create a more favorable
climate towards the existence of 'mixed' marriages in
Israel/Palestine, thus encouraging the emergence of a
non-segregated society in that worn-torn land.
I would be thankful for critical comments to the above proposal as
well for any dissemination of this proposal for meaningful
discussion and enrichment.
Elias Davidsson Post Box 1760 121 Reykjavik, ICELAND
From: francesca_M._Benson@fourd.com
Subject: Serdar
Organization: 4th Dimension BBS
Lines: 5
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
You are such a LOSER!!!!
********************************************************************
System: fourd.com                                Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote:  Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
From: francesca_M._Benson@fourd.com
Subject: Serdar
Organization: 4th Dimension BBS
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Hey Serdar,
What are you retarded?
********************************************************************
System: fourd.com                                Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote:  Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
From: francesca_M._Benson@fourd.com
Subject: Serdar
Organization: 4th Dimension BBS
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
What an anal retentive you are wimp.
********************************************************************
System: fourd.com                                Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote:  Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
From: maler@vercors.imag.fr (Oded Maler)
Subject: Re: Binyamin Netanyahu on CNN tonight.
Nntp-Posting-Host: pelvoux
Organization: IMAG, University of Grenoble, France
Lines: 16
I have not seen but I guess would not liked it - to me he
represents the worst of both American and Israeli politics
- but this is a matter of taste.
As for the famous confession, it is currently believed (at
least by some people) that all this adultry affair was just
invented by him in order to impress the Likkud voters (and poor
jealous Hamazah) and appear as a "real" man.
--
===============================================================
Oded Maler, LGI-IMAG, Bat D, B.P. 53x, 38041 Grenoble, France
Phone:  76635846     Fax: 76446675      e-mail: maler@imag.fr
===============================================================
From: henrik@quayle.kpc.com
Subject: Re: ARMENIA SAYS IT COULD SHOOT DOWN TURKISH PLANES
Organization: NONE
Lines: 21
In article <1993Apr17.185118.10792@ee.rochester.edu>, terziogl@ee.rochester.edu (Esin Terzioglu) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr16.195452.21375@urartu.sdpa.org> dbd@urartu.sdpa.org (David Davidian) writes:
|> >04/16/93 1045  ARMENIA SAYS IT COULD SHOOT DOWN TURKISH PLANES
|> >
|>
|> Ermenistan kasiniyor...
|>
|> Let me translate for everyone else before the public traslation service gets
|> into it	: Armenia is getting itchy.
|>
|> Esin.
Let me clearify Mr. Turkish;
ARMENIA is NOT getting "itchy". SHE is simply LETTING the WORLD KNOW that SHE
WILL NO  LONGER sit there QUIET and LET TURKS get away with their FAMOUS
tricks. Armenians DO REMEMBER of the TURKISH invasion of the Greek island of
CYPRESS WHILE the world simply WATCHED.
From: francesca_M._Benson@fourd.com
Subject: Get a life
Organization: 4th Dimension BBS
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Hey Serdar,
What nationality are you anyway? You are the supreme geek of
geekdom of the usenet. You are laeding a totally useless and futile life on
your computer Mr. Wimpy. You are the epitamy of a coward.I can predict that
you will spend the rest of your useless, wastefull and pitifull life on the
Usenet.  What a wasted life.
********************************************************************
System: fourd.com                                Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote:  Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
From: dbd@urartu.sdpa.org (David Davidian)
Subject: Accounts of Anti-Armenian Human Right Violatins in Azerbaijan #009
Summary: Prelude to Current Events in Nagorno-Karabakh
Organization: S.D.P.A. Center for Regional Studies
Lines: 262
Accounts of Anti-Armenian Human Right Violatins in Azerbaijan #009
Prelude to Current Events in Nagorno-Karabakh
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                 |
| There were about six burned people in there, and the small      |
| corpse of a burned child. It was gruesome. I suffered a         |
| tremendous shock. There were about ten people there, but the    |
| doctor on duty said that because of the numbers they were being |
| taken to Baku. There was a woman's corpse there too, she had    |
| been . . . well, there was part of a body there . . . a         |
| hacked-off part of a woman's body. It was something terrible.   |
|                                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
DEPOSITION OF ROMAN ALEKSANDROVICH GAMBARIAN
Born 1954
Senior Engineer
Sumgait Automotive Transport Production Association
Resident at Building 17/33B, Apartment 40
Microdistrict No. 3
Sumgait [Azerbaijan]
What happened in Sumgait was a great tragedy, an awful tragedy for us, the
Armenian people, and for all of mankind. A genocide of Armenians took place
during peacetime.
And it was a great tragedy for me personally, because I lost my father in
those days. He was still young. Born in 1926.
On that day, February 28, we were at home. Of course we had heard that there
was unrest in town, my younger brother Aleksandr had told us about it. But we
didn't think . . . we thought that everything would happen outdoors, that they
wouldn't go into people's apartments. About five o'clock we saw a large crowd
near the Kosmos movie theater in our microdistrict. We were sitting at home
watching television. We go out on the balcony and see the crowd pour into Mir
Street. This is right near downtown, next to the airline ticket office, our
house is right nearby. That day there was a group of policeman with shields
there. They threw rocks at those policemen. Then they moved off in the
direction of our building. They burned a motorcycle in our courtyard and
started shouting for Armenians to come out of the building. We switched off
the light. As it turns out, their signal was just the opposite: to turn on the
light. That meant that it was an Azerbaijani home. We, of course, didn't know
and thought that if they saw lights on they would come to our apartment.
Suddenly there's pounding on the door. We go to the door, all four of us:
there were four of us in the apartment. Father, Mother, my younger brother
Aleksandr, and I. He was born in 1959. My father was a veteran of World War
II and had fought in China and in the Soviet Far East; he was a pilot.
We went to the door and they started pounding on it harder, breaking it down
with axes. We start to talk to them in Azerbaijani, "What's going on? What's
happened?" They say, "Armenians, get out of here!" We don't open the door, we
say, "If we have to leave, we'll leave, we'll leave tomorrow." They say, "No,
leave now, get out of here, Armenian dogs, get out of here!" By now they've
broken the door both on the lock and the hinge sides. We hold them off as best
we can, my father and I on one side, and my mother and brother on the other.
We had prepared ourselves: we had several hammers and an axe in the apartment,
and grabbed what we could find to defend ourselves. They broke in the door and
when the door gave way, we held it for another half-hour. No neighbors, no
police and no one from the city government came to our aid the whole time. We
held the door. They started to smash the door on the lock side, first with an
axe, and then with a crowbar.
When the door gave way--they tore it off its hinges--Sasha hit one of them
with the axe. The axe flew out of his hands. They also had axes, crowbars,
pipes, and special rods made from armature shafts. One of them hit my father
in the head. The pressure from the mob was immense. When we retreated into the
room, one of them hit my mother, too, in the left part of her face. My brother
Sasha and I fought back, of course. Sasha is quite strong and hot-tempered, he
was the judo champion of Sumgait. We had hammers in our hands, and we injured
several of the bandits--in the heads and in the eyes, all that went on. But
they, the injured ones, fell back, and others came to take their places, there
were many of them.
The door fell down at an angle. The mob tried to remove the door, so as to go
into the second room and to continue . . . to finish us off. Father brought
skewers and gave them to Sasha and me--we flew at them when we saw Father
bleeding: his face was covered with blood, he had been wounded in the head,
and his whole face was bloody. We just threw ourselves on them when we saw
that. We threw ourselves at the mob and drove back the ones in the hall, drove
them down to the third floor. We came out on the landing, but a group of the
bandits remained in one of the rooms they were smashing all the furniture in
there, having closed the door behind them. We started tearing the door off to
chase away the remaining ones or finish them. Then a man, an imposing man of
about 40, an Azerbaijani, came in. When he was coming in, Father fell down and
Mother flew to him, and started to cry out. I jumped out onto the balcony and
started calling an ambulance, but then the mob started throwing stones through
the windows of our veranda and kitchen. We live on the fourth floor. And no
one came. I went into the room. It seemed to me that this man was the leader
of the group. He was respectably dressed in a hat and a trench coat with a
fur collar. And he addressed my mother in Azerbaijani: "What's with you,
woman, why are you shouting? What happened? Why are you shouting like that?"
She says, "What do you mean, what happened? You killed somebody!" My father
was a musician, he played the clarinet, he played at many weddings, Armenian
and Azerbaijani, he played for many years. Everyone knew him. Mother says,
"The person who you killed played at thousands of Azerbaijani weddings, he
brought so much joy to people, and you killed that person." He says, "You
don't need to shout, stop shouting." And when they heard the voice of this
man, the 15 to 18 people who were in the other room opened the door and
started running out. We chased after them, but they ran away. That man left,
too. As we were later told, downstairs one of them told the others, I don't
know if it was from fright or what, told them that we had firearms, even
though we only fought with hammers and an axe. We raced to Father and started
to massage his heart, but it was already too late. We asked the neighbors to
call an ambulance. The ambulance never came, although we waited for it all
evening and all through the night.
Somewhere around midnight about 15 policemen came. They informed us they were
from Khachmas. They said, "We heard that a group was here at your place, you
have our condolences." They told us not to touch anything and left. Father lay
in the room.
So we stayed home. Each of us took a hammer and a knife. We sat at home. Well,
we say, if they descend on us again we'll defend ourselves. Somewhere around
one o'clock in the morning two people came from the Sumgait Procuracy,
investigators. They say, "Leave everything just how it is, we're coming back
here soon and will bring an expert who will record and photograph everything."
Then people came from the Republic Procuracy too, but no one helped us take
Father away. The morning came and the neighbors arrived. We wanted to take
Father away somehow. We called the Procuracy and the police a couple of times,
but no one came. We called an ambulance, and nobody came. Then one of the
neighbors said that the bandits were coming to our place again and we should
hide. We secured the door somehow or other. We left Father in the room and
went up to the neighbor's.
The excesses began again in the morning. The bandits came in several vehicles,
ZIL panel trucks, and threw themselves out of the vehicles like . . . a
landing force near the center of town. Our building was located right there. A
crowd formed. Then they started fighting with the soldiers. Then, in Buildings
19 and 20, that's next to the airline ticket office, they started breaking
into Armenian apartments, destroying property, and stealing. The Armenians
weren't at home, they had managed to flee and hide somewhere. And again they
poured in the direction of our building. They were shouting that there were
some Armenians left on the fourth floor, meaning us. "They're up there, still,
up there. Let's go kill them!" They broke up all the furniture remaining in
the two rooms, threw it outside, and burned it in large fires. We were hiding
one floor up. Something heavy fell. Sasha threw himself toward the door
shouting that it was probably Father, they had thrown Father, were defiling
the corpse, probably throwing it in the fire, going to burn it. I heard it,
and the sound was kind of hollow, and I said, "No, that's from some of the
furniture." Mother and I pounced on Sasha and stopped him somehow, and calmed
him down.
The mob left somewhere around eight o'clock. They smashed open the door and
went into the apartment of the neighbors across from us. They were also
Armenians, they had left for another city.
The father of the neighbor who was concealing us came and said, "Are you
crazy? Why are you hiding Armenians? Don't you now they're checking all the
apartments? They could kill you and them!" And to us :" . . . Come on, leave
this apartment!" We went down to the third floor, to some other neighbors'. At
first the man didn't want to let us in, but then one of his sons asked him and
he relented. We stayed there until eleven o'clock at night. We heard the sound
of motors. The neighbors said that it was armored personnel carriers. We went
downstairs. There was a light on in the room where we left Father. In the
other rooms, as we found out later, all the chandeliers had been torn down.
They left only one bulb. The bulb was burning, which probably was a signal
they had agreed on because there was a light burning in every apartment in our
Microdistrict 3 where there had been a pogrom.
With the help of the soldiers we made it to the City Party Committee and were
saved. Our salvation--my mother's, my brother's, and mine,--was purely
accidental, because, as we later found out from the neighbors, someone in the
crowd shouted that we had firearms up there. Well, we fought, but we were only
able to save Mother. We couldn't save Father. We inflicted many injuries on
the bandits, some of them serious. But others came to take their places. We
were also wounded, there was blood, and we were scratched all over--we got our
share. It was a miracle we survived. We were saved by a miracle and the
troops. And if troops hadn't come to Sumgait, the slaughter would have been
even greater: probably all the Armenians would have been victims of the
genocide.
Through an acquaintance at the City Party Committee I was able to contact the
leadership of the military unit that was brought into the city, and at their
orders we were assigned special people to accompany us, experts. We went to '
pick up Father's corpse. We took it to the morgue. This was about two o'clock
in the morning, it was already March 1, it was raining very hard and it was
quite cold, and we were wearing only our suits. When my brother and I carried
Father into the morgue we saw the burned and disfigured corpses. There were
about six burned people in there, and the small corpse of a burned child. It
was gruesome. I suffered a tremendous shock. There were about ten people
there, but the doctor on duty said that because of the numbers they were being
taken to Baku. There was a woman's corpse there too, she had been . . . well,
there was part of a body there . . . a hacked-off part of a woman's body. It
was something terrible. The morgue was guarded by the landing force . . . The
child that had been killed was only ten or twelve years old. It was impossible
to tell if it was a boy or a girl because the corpse was burned. There was a
man there, too, several men. You couldn't tell anything because their faces
were disfigured, they were in such awful condition...
Now two and a half months have passed. Every day I recall with horror what
happened in the city of Sumgait. Every day: my father, and the death of my
father, and how we fought, and the people's sorrow, and especially the morgue.
I still want to say that 70 years have passed since Soviet power was
established, and up to the very last minute we could not conceive of what
happened  in Sumgait. It will go down in history.
I'm particularly surprised that the mob wasn't even afraid of the troops. They
even fought the soldiers. Many soldiers were wounded. The mob threw fuel
mixtures onto the armored personnel carriers, setting them on fire. They
weren't afraid. They were so sure of their impunity that they attacked our
troops. I saw the clashes on February 29 near the airline ticket office, right
across from our building. And that mob was fighting with the soldiers. The
inhabitants of some of the buildings, also Azerbaijanis, threw rocks at the
soldiers from windows, balconies, even cinder blocks and glass tanks. They
weren't afraid of them. I say they were sure of their impunity. When we were
at the neighbors' and when they were robbing homes near the airline ticket
office I called the police at number 3-20-02 and said that they were robbing
Armenian apartments and burning homes. And they told me that they knew that
they were being burned. During those days no one from the police department
came to anyone's aid. No one came to help us, either, to our home, even though
perhaps they could have come and saved us.
As we later found out the mob was given free vodka and drugs, near the bus
station. Rocks were distributed in all parts of town to be thrown and used in
fighting. So I think all of it was arranged in advance. They even knew in
which buildings and apartments the Armenians lived, on which floors--they had
lists, the bandits. You can tell that the "operation" was  planned in advance.
Thanks, of course, to our troops, to the country's leadership, and to the
leadership of the Ministry of Defense for helping us, thanks to the Russian
people, because the majority of the troops were Russians, and the troops
suffered losses, too. I want to express this gratitude in the name of my
family and in the name of all Armenians, and in the name of all Sumgait
Armenians. For coming in time and averting terrible things: worse would
have happened if that mob had not been stopped on time.
At present an investigation is being conducted on the part of the USSR
Procuracy. I want to say that those bandits should receive the severest
possible punishment, because if they don't, the tragedy, the genocide, could
happen again. Everyone should see that the most severe punishment is meted
out for such deeds.
Very many bandits and hardened hooligans took part in the unrest, in the mass
disturbances. The mobs were huge. At present not all of them have been caught,
very few of them have been, I think, judging by the newspaper reports. There
were around 80 people near our building alone, that's how many people took
part in the pogrom of our building all in all.
They should all receive the most severe punishment so that others see that
retribution awaits those who perform such acts.
May 18, 1988
Yerevan
- - - reference - - -
[1] _The Sumgait Tragedy; Pogroms against Armenians in Soviet Azerbaijan,
Volume I, Eyewitness Accounts_, edited by Samuel Shahmuradian, forward by
Yelena Bonner, 1990, published by Aristide D. Caratzas, NY, pages 153-157
--
David Davidian dbd@urartu.sdpa.org   | "How do we explain Turkish troops on
S.D.P.A. Center for Regional Studies |  the Armenian border, when we can't
P.O. Box 382761                      |  even explain 1915?"
Cambridge, MA 02238                  |              Turkish MP, March 1992
From: shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday)
Subject: Re: Unconventional peace proposal
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 41
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: composer.think.com
In article <1483500348@igc.apc.org>, Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:
|>
|> From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>
|> Subject: Unconventional peace proposal
|>
|>
|> A unconventional proposal for peace in the Middle-East.
|> ---------------------------------------------------------- by
|> 			  Elias Davidsson
This could be accomplished by other criteria.  One must remember
that children often bring stress into households. As an alternative,
one could consider financial incentives for every sexual act performed
by two partners of different ethnic backgrounds.  The plan could
be entitled "PEACE INCOME SEXUAL SECURITY", or PISS for short.
Every time an Israeli gets screwed
by a Palestinian or visa versa, they would be eligible for income.
In keeping with the spirit of the times, condoms would be a tax deductible
expense.  This policy does not discriminate on a gender basis nor
would it apply to domestic animals of either nationality.
Joint Palestinan-Israeli teams would be obligated to ensure that all
acts were voluntary and promptly rewarded. The teams of Palestinian-Israel
Morals Patrols, or PIMPS, would receive a percentage of the financial
income in order to encourage their participation and add to their
incentive in locating suitable candidates.
|> I would be thankful for critical comments to the above proposal as
|> well for any dissemination of this proposal for meaningful
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Shouldn't that be insemination?
|> Elias Davidsson Post Box 1760 121 Reykjavik, ICELAND
--
Shai Guday              | Stealth bombers,
OS Software Engineer    |
Thinking Machines Corp. |	the winged ninjas of the skies.
Cambridge, MA           |
From: sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child)
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU WILL MISS, Apr 15
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>
>                      Yigal et al, sue ADL
>
Why do you title this "News you will miss" ?
There have been at least three front-page stories on it in the L.A. Times.
I wouldn't exactly call that a media cover-up.
> js
>
___Samuel___
Mossad Special Agent ID314159
Media Spiking & 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.
From: maler@vercors.imag.fr (Oded Maler)
Subject: Re: was: Go Hezbollah!!
Nntp-Posting-Host: pelvoux
Organization: IMAG, University of Grenoble, France
Lines: 31
In article <1993Apr15.152619.12664@src.honeywell.com>, amehdi@src.honeywell.com (Hossien Amehdi) writes:
|>
|> The way I see it, Israelis and Arabs have not been able to achieve peace
|> after almost 50 years of fighting because of the following two major reasons:
|>
|>  1) Arab governments are not really representative of their people, currently
|>     most of their leaders are stupid, and/or not independent, and/or
|>     dictators.
True, but maybe not the worst possible - see Algeria.
|>
|>  2) Israeli government is arrogant and none comprising.
|>
This was true (and I may add the adjective "stupid") until the Intifada.
Since then, no serious Israeli leader (including Shamir) really thinks
the the occupied territories worth the trouble. The only question became
the question of price and other quantitative detail. The best thing the
Palestinians can do for themselves these days is to stop the Intifada
and try to live as normally as possible (I know, it's hard under occupation).
Otherwise people might think that five years of stone throwing (as justified
as it may be) has caused the Palestinians an irreversible damage that
prevents them from running a normal state when the time comes. Currently
it serves no purpose and it's just a waste of human life and economic
resources.
--
===============================================================
Oded Maler, LGI-IMAG, Bat D, B.P. 53x, 38041 Grenoble, France
Phone:  76635846     Fax: 76446675      e-mail: maler@imag.fr
===============================================================
From: bf3833@pyuxe.cc.bellcore.com (feigenbaum,benjamin)
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, Apr 20
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Summary: Totally Unbiased Magazine
Lines: 134
In article <1qu7op$456@genesis.MCS.COM>, arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>
>             NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, APR 19, 1993
>
>           Not because you were too busy but because
>             Israelists in the US media spiked it.
>
>                      ................
>
>
>                   THOSE INTREPID ISRAELI SOLDIERS
>
>
>  Israeli soldiers have sexually taunted Arab women in the occupied Gaza Strip
>  during the three-week-long closure that has sealed Palestinians off from the
>  Jewish state, Palestinian sources said on Sunday.
>
>  The incidents occurred in the town of Khan Younis and involved soldiers of
>  the Golani Brigade who have been at the centre of house-to-house raids for
>  Palestinian activists during the closure, which was imposed on the strip and
>  occupied West Bank.
>
>  Five days ago girls at the Al-Khansaa secondary said a group of naked
>  soldiers taunted them, yelling: ``Come and kiss me.'' When the girls fled,
>  the soldiers threw empty bottles at them.
>
>  On Saturday, a group of soldiers opened their shirts and pulled down their
>  pants when they saw girls from Al-Khansaa walking home from school. Parents
>  are considering keeping their daughters home from the all-girls school.
>
>  The same day, soldiers harassed two passing schoolgirls after a youth
>  escaped from them at a boys' secondary school. Deputy Principal Srur
>  Abu-Jamea said they shouted abusive language at the girls, backed them
>  against a wall, and put their arms around them.
>
>  When teacher Hamdan Abu-Hajras intervened the soldiers kicked him and beat
>  him with the butts of their rifles.
>
>  On Tuesday, troops stopped a car driven by Abdel Azzim Qdieh, a practising
>  Moslem, and demanded he kiss his female passenger. Qdieh refused, the
>  soldiers hit him and the 18-year-old passenger kissed him to stop the
>  beating.
>
>  On Friday, soldiers entered the home of Zamno Abu-Ealyan, 60, blindfolded
>  him and his wife, put a music tape on a recorder and demanded they dance. As
>  the elderly couple danced, the soldiers slipped away. The coupled continued
>  dancing until their grandson came in and asked what was happening.
>
>      The army said it was checking the reports.
>
>                 ....................
>
>
>       ISRAELI TROOPS BAR CHRISTIANS FROM JERUSALEM
>
>  Israeli troops prevented Christian Arabs from entering Jerusalem on Thursday
>  to celebrate the traditional mass of the Last Supper.
>
>  Two Arab priests from the Greek Orthodox church led some 30 worshippers in
>  prayer at a checkpoint separating the occupied West Bank from Jerusalem after
>  soldiers told them only people with army-issued permits could enter.
>
>      ``Right now, our brothers are celebrating mass in the Church of the Holy
>  Sepulchre and we were hoping to be able to join them in prayer,'' said Father
>  George Makhlouf of the Ramallah Parish.
>
>      Israel sealed off the occupied lands two weeks ago after a spate of
>  Palestinian attacks against Jews. The closure cut off Arabs in the West Bank
>  and Gaza Strip from Jerusalem, their economic, spiritual and cultural centre.
>
>     Father Nicola Akel said Christians did not want to suffer the humiliation
>  of requesting permits to reach holy sites.
>
>      Makhlouf said the closure was discriminatory, allowing Jews free movement
>  to take part in recent Passover celebrations while restricting Christian
>  celebrations.
>
>      ``Yesterday, we saw the Jews celebrate Passover without any interruption.
>  But we cannot reach our holiest sites,'' he said.
>
>      An Israeli officer interrupted Makhlouf's speech, demanding to see his
>  identity card before ordering the crowd to leave.
>
>                    ...................
>
>
>
>  If you are as revolted at this as I am, drop Israel's best friend email and
>  let him know what you think.
>
>
>            75300.3115@compuserve.com (via CompuServe)
>            clintonpz@aol.com         (via America Online)
>            clinton-hq@campaign92.org (via MCI Mail)
>
>
>  Tell 'em ARF sent ya.
>
>                   ..................................
>
>  If you are tired of "learning" about American foreign policy from what is
>  effectively, Israeli controlled media, I highly recommend checking out the
>  Washington Report.  A free sample copy is available by calling the American
>  Education Trust at:
>                       (800) 368 5788
>
>                   Tell 'em arf sent you.
>
>  js
>
>
>
I took your advice and ordered a copy of the Washinton Report.  I
heartily recommend it to all pro-Israel types for the following
reasons:
1.  It is an excellent absorber of excrement.  I use it to line
the bottom of my parakeet's  cage.  A negative side effect is
that my bird now has a somewhat warped view of the mideast.
2.  It makes a great April Fool's joke, i.e., give it to someone
who knows nothing about the middle east and then say "April
Fools".
Anyway, I plan to call them up every month just to keep getting
those free sample magazines (you know how cheap we Jews are).
BTW, when you call them, tell 'em barf sent you.
Just Kidding,
Ben.
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.17R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: was:Go Hezbollah!
Distribution: world
Lines: 61
In <1993Apr16.130037.18830@ncsu.edu>, hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu (Brad Hernlem)  wrote:
# In article <2BCE0918.6105@news.service.uci.edu>, tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes:
# |> In article <Apr15.175334.72079@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@lance.colostate.edu writes:
# |> >
# |> >It is NOT a "terrorist camp" as you and the Israelis like
# |> >to view the villages they are small communities with kids playing soccer
# |> >in the streets, women preparing lunch, men playing cards, etc.....
# |> >SOME young men, usually aged between 17 to 30 years are members of
# |> >the Lebanese resistance.  Even the inhabitants of the village do not
# |> >know who these are, they are secretive about it, but most people often
# |> >suspect who they are and what they are up to.  These young men are
# |> >supported financially by Iran most of the time.  They sneak arms and
# |> >ammunitions into the occupied zone where they set up booby traps
# |> >for Israeli patrols.  Every time an Israeli soldier is killed or injured
# |> >by these traps, Israel retalliates by indiscriminately bombing villages
# |> >of their own choosing often killing only innocent civilians.
# |>
# |> This a "tried and true" method utilized by guerilla and terrorists groups:
# |> to conduct operations in the midst of the local populace, thus forcing the
# |> opposing "state" to possible harm innocent civilians in their search or,
# |> in order to avoid the deaths of civilians, abandon the search. Certainly the
# |> people who use the population for cover are *also* to blaim for dragging the
# |> innocent civilians into harm's way.
# |>
# |> Are you suggesting that, when guerillas use the population for cover, Israel
# |> should totally back down? So...the easiest way to get away with attacking
# |> another is to use an innocent as a shield and hope that the other respects
# |> innocent lives?
#
# Tell me Tim, what are these guerillas doing wrong? Assuming that they are using
# civilians for cover, are they not killing SOLDIERS in THEIR country? If the
# buffer zone is to prevent attacks on Israel, is it not working? Why is it
# further neccessary for Israeli guns to pound Lebanese villages? Why not just
# kill those who try to infiltrate the buffer zone? You see, there is more to
# the shelling of the villages.... it is called RETALIATION... "GETTING BACK"
# ..."GETTING EVEN". It doesn't make sense to shell the villages. The least
# it shows is a reckless disregard by the Israeli government for the lives of
# civilians.
Please clarify your standards for rules of engagement.  As I
understand it, Israelis are at all times and under all
circumstances fair targets.  Their opponents are legitimate
targets only when Mirandized, or some such?
I'm sure that this makes perfect sense if you grant *a*priori*
that Israelis are the Black Hats, and that therefore killing
them is automatically a Good Thing (Go Hezbollah!).  The
corollary is that the Hezbollah are the White Hats, and that
whatever they do is a Good Thing, and the Israelis only prove
themselves to be Bad Guys by attacking them.
This sounds suspiciously like a hockey fan I know, who cheers
when one of the players on His Team uses his stick to permanently
rearrange an opponent's face, and curses the ref for penalizing
His Side.  Of course, when it's different when the roles are
reversed.
--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich)
Subject: Why does US consider YIGAL ARENS to be a dangerous to humanity
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL
Lines: 20
In article <ARENS.93Apr13161407@grl.ISI.EDU> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal
Arens) writes:
>Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, April 13, 1993.  P. A1.
> ........
The problem if  transffering US government files about Yigal Arens
and some other similar persons does or does not violate a federal
or a local American law seemed to belong to some local american law
forum  not to this forum.
The readers of this forum seemed to be more interested in the contents
of those files.
So It will be nice if Yigal will tell us:
1. Why do American authorities consider Yigal Arens to be dangerous?
2. Why does the ADL have an interest in that person ?
3. If one does trust either the US government or the ADL what an
additional information should he send them ?
Gideon Ehrlich
From: gt1091a@prism.gatech.EDU (gt1091a gt1091a KAAN,TIMUCIN)
Subject: Re: Public Service Translation No.2
Keywords: effective Greek & Armenian postings
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 19
I see that our retarded translator, David, is still writing things that
don't make sense. Hey David I can see where you are.. May be one day,
We will have the chance to talk deeply about that freedom of speach of
yours.. And you now, killing or torture, these things are only easy
ways out.. I have different plans for you and all empty headeds like
you...
Lets get serious, DAVE, don't ever write bad things about Turkish people
or especially Cyprus.. If I hear a word from you again that I consider
to be a curse to my people I will retalliate...
Muccccukkk..
TIMUCIN.
--
KAAN,TIMUCIN
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt1091a
Internet: gt1091a@prism.gatech.edu
From: francesca_M._Benson@fourd.com
Subject: Argic
Organization: 4th Dimension BBS
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
I have one word for you LOSER!!!!
********************************************************************
System: fourd.com                                Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote:  Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Investment in Yehuda and Shomron
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 22
In article <1483500346@igc.apc.org> cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
>Those who wish to learn something about the perversion of Judaism,
>should consult the masterly work by Yehoshua Harkabi, who was many
>years the head of Israeli Intelligence and an opponent of the PLO. His
Your suggestion to learn something about "the perversion of Judaism"
from someone you claim has experience in Israeli intelligence and the
PLO is like a suggestion to learn something about the conspiracy of
Sesame Street from someone with experience in fashion design and
pizza-making.
>latest book was published in English and includes a very detailed analysis
>of Judeo-Nazism.
"Judeo-Nazism"?  CPR, you're in a league with Barf Shmidling himself.
You can take that as a compliment, if you see it that way.
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Investment in Yehuda and Shomron
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 12
In article <1993Apr18.183148.4802@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>	I think "house Jews," a reference to a person of Jewish
>ancestry who issues statements for a company or organization that
>condemn Judaism is perfectly sufficeint.
I believe that CPR is himself such a "house Jew".
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: oyalcin@iastate.edu (Onur Yalcin)
Subject: Re: ARMENIA SAYS IT COULD SHOOT DOWN TURKISH PLANES
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Lines: 38
In article <1993Apr19.155856.8260@kpc.com> henrik@quayle.kpc.com  writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.185118.10792@ee.rochester.edu>, terziogl@ee.rochester.edu (Esin Terzioglu) writes:
>|>
>|>..[cancellum]...
>|>
>
>
>Let me clearify Mr. Turkish;
>
>ARMENIA is NOT getting "itchy". SHE is simply LETTING the WORLD KNOW that SHE
>WILL NO  LONGER sit there QUIET and LET TURKS get away with their FAMOUS
>tricks. Armenians DO REMEMBER of the TURKISH invasion of the Greek island of
>CYPRESS WHILE the world simply WATCHED.
>
>
It is more appropriate to address netters with their names as they appear in
their signatures (I failed to do so since you did not bother to sign your
posting). Not only because it is the polite thing to do, but also to avoid
addressing ladies with "Mr.", as you have done.
Secondly, the island of which the name is more correctly spelled as Cyprus has
never been Greek, but rather, it has been home to a bi-communal society formed
of Greeks and Turks. It seems that you know as little about the history and
the demography of the island, as you know about the essence of Turkey's
military intervention to it under international agreements.
Be that as it may, an analogy between an act of occupation in history and what
is going on today on Azerbaijani land, can only be drawn with the expansionist
policy that Armenia is now pursuing.
But, I could agree that it is not for us to issue diagnoses to the political
conduct of countries, and promulgate them in such terminology as
"itchy-bitchy"...
Onur Yalcin
--
From: tsif@ellis.uchicago.edu (Michael Tsifansky)
Subject: Re: How many israeli soldiers does it take to kill a 5 yr old child?
Reply-To: tsif@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 30
In article <HM.93Apr12204254@dooley.cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
>
>   steel@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Nick Steel) writes:
>   |> Q: How many occupying israeli soldiers (terrorists) does it
>   |>    take to kill a 5 year old native child?
>   |>
>   |> A: Four
>   |>
>   |> Two fasten his arms, one shoots in the face,
>   |> and one writes up a false report.
>   |>
>   |> --
>
>Can Nick Steel provide documentation for this alleged incident ?
Probably not--he's just singing someone else's opera. He's good, too; perhaps he should get "The Best Supporting Singer..."
I can give you a Q/A account that is well documented (just go back and reread some of the articles that appeared after this "joke"):
Q: How many antisemites does it take to come up with another anti-Israeli
provocation on the net?
A: Just one. He'll fabricate a lie, and many more will applaud
I would much prefer if Mr. Steel would refrain from this kind of jokes in the
future. They're not just offensive. They also have a very negative effect on
the state of things between Jews and Arabs. So thanks for nothing, clown!
Mike.
From: aa624@Freenet.carleton.ca (Suat Kiniklioglu)
Subject: THE FUTILITY AND IMPOTENCE OF GREEK FOREIGN POLICY
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 34
there you go the greeks have been trying for over a year, even though
mr. mitsotakis was threatening the EC that if Macedonia was recognized
that the honourable papandreou would be back...
well i guess the europeans pulled the plug eh ..? theis is just one
other example about the corruptness and the "perversity" of greek
foreign policy objectives...
pity to those who have to live under the greek flag with "these"
political decision-makers...
MORE RECOGNITION FOR MACEDONIA.  Belgium, Germany, and Italy joined
Denmark on 15 April in recognizing the Republic of Macedonia, AFP
reports.  Each is an EC member state. Greece, which has blocked EC
recognition of Macedonia, noted that such recognition "does not
facilitate" negotiations between Athens and Skopje now underway in
New York.  Duncan Perry, RFE/RL, Inc.
the day will come when reuters will write "despite lengthy negotiations
and numerous attempts to reunite the island THE TURKISH REPUBLIC
OF NORTHERN CYPRUS " was recognized by...
your humble servant kubilay
From: stssdxb@st.unocal.com (Dorin Baru)
Subject: Re: was:Go Hezbollah!
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Lines: 35
(Brad Hernlem writes:
>Well, you should have noted that I was cheering an attack on an Israeli
>patrol INSIDE Lebanese territory while I was condemning the "retaliatory"
>shelling of Lebanese villages by Israeli and Israeli-backed forces. My "team",
>you see, was "playing fair" while the opposing team was rearranging the
>faces of the spectators in my team's viewing stands, so to speak.
>I think that you should try to find more sources of news about what goes on
>in Lebanon and try to see through the propaganda. There are no a priori
>black and white hats but one sure wonders how the IDF can bombard villages in
>retaliation to pin-point attacks on its soldiers in Lebanon and then call the
>Lebanese terrorists.
If the attack was justified or not is at least debatable. But this is not the
issue. The issue is that you were cheering DEATH. Read again your original
article. You find Israeli government responsible for those dead soldiers, that's
a reasonable (debatable) point, but feel satisfaction from dead bodies is
NOT REASONABLE  by any standards. No matter how you try to justify it.
I may understand your frustration against israeli occupation in S Lebanon.
But no matter what you say, I can not understand your satisfaction for dead
bodies.
I have a question for you. Let's assume a bosnian village, inhabited by serbs
untill a few (10-20) years ago, and later taken over by bosnian muslims (the means
are not very peaceful). Now, do you enjoy serbs coming and killing all (armed)
bosnian muslims ? I would not enjoy, but I would not enjoy ANY dead bodies -
israelis, lebanese or bosnians.
Dorin
From: bdm@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay)
Subject: Re: Dir Yassin (was Re: no-Free man propaganda machine: Freeman, with blood greetings from Israel)
Nntp-Posting-Host: virginia
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 123
In article <HM.93Apr17144348@yoda.cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
>In article <1993Apr13.141518.13900@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> hasan@McRCIM.McGill.EDU  writes:
>
>   CHECK MENAHEM BEGIN DAIRIES (published book) you'll find accounts of the
>   massacres there including Deir Yassen,
>   though with the numbers of massacred men, children and women are
>   greatly minimized.
There is no known writing directly attributable to Menachem Begin
which admits a massacre at Deir Yassin.  Thus, Hasan is wrong.
>As per request of Hasan:
>
>From _The Revolt_, by Menachem Begin, Dell Publishing, NY, 1977:
>
>[pp. 225-227]
>
>    "Apart from the military aspect, there is a moral aspect to the
>story of Dir Yassin. At that village, whose name was publicized
>throughout the world, both sides suffered heavy casualties. We had
>four killed and nearly forty wounded. The number of casualties was
>nearly forty percent of the total number of the attackers. The Arab
>troops suffered casualties neraly three times as heavy. The fighting
The word "troops" is unjustified.  There has never been any evidence
that there were any regular or irregular Arab forces in the village
apart from the villagers defending themselves.  According to the
Haganah observer Pa'il, the Irgun/Lehi forces suffered a lot of
casualties because they were incompetent soldiers.  When they ran
into trouble securing the central part of the village, a small group
of Palmach soldiers came and took it without a single casualty.
Begin's failure to even mention the Palmach is only one of the
major inaccuracies (to use a kind word) in his account.
Incidentally, "three times as heavy" may be correct, as there is
serious evidence that the Arab loss was closer to 120 lives than
to the oft-quoted 250 lives.  However, note that Begin compares
wounded Jews to dead Arabs.  He fails to mention the number of
wounded Arabs.  Guess why.
>was thus very severe. Yet the hostile propaganda, disseminated
>throughout the world, deliberately ignored the fact that the civilian
>population of Dir Yassin was actually given a warning by us before the
>battle began. One of our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed
>at the entrance to the village and it exhorted in Arabic all women,
>children and aged to leave their houses and to take shelter on the
>slopes of the hill.  By giving this humane warning our fighters threw
>away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their own
>risk in the ensuing battle.
As is thoroughly established by many sources, the loudspeaker truck
got stuck in a ditch too far from the village for it to provide a
usueful warning.
>A substantial number of the inhabitants
>obeyed the warning and they were unhurt. A few did not leave their
>stone houses - perhaps because of the confusion. The fire of the enemy
>was murderous - to which the number of our casualties bears eloquent
>testimony. Our men were compelled to fight for every house; to
>overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand grenades. And the
>civilians who had disregarded our warnings suffered inevitable
>casualties.
>
>    "The education which we gave our soldiers throughout the years of
>revolt was based on the observance of the traditional laws of war. We
>never broke them unless the enemy first did so and thus forced us, in
>accordance with the accepted custom of war, to apply reprisals. I am
>convinced, too, that our officers and men wished to avoid a single
>unnecessary casualty in the Dir Yassin battle. But those who throw
>stones of denunciation at the conquerors of Dir Yassin [1] would do
>well not to don the cloak of hypocrisy [2].
>
>    "In connection with the capture of Dir Yassin the Jewish Agency
>found it necessary to send a letter of apology to Abdullah, whom Mr.
>Ben Gurion, at a moment of great political emotion, called 'the wise
>ruler who seeks the good of his people and this country.' The 'wise
>ruler,' whose mercenary forces demolished Gush Etzion and flung the
>bodies of its heroic defenders to birds of prey, replied with feudal
>superciliousness. He rejected the apology and replied that the Jews
>were all to blame and that he did not believe in the existence of
>'dissidents.' Throughout the Arab world and the world at large a wave
>of lying propaganda was let loose about 'Jewish attrocities.'
>
>    "The enemy propaganda was designed to besmirch our name. In the
>result it helped us. Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel.
>Kolonia village, which had previously repulsed every attack of the
>Haganah, was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting.
>Beit-Iksa was also evacuated. These two places overlooked the main
>road; and their fall, together with the capture of Kastel by the
>Haganah, made it possible to keep open the road to Jerusalem. In the
>rest of the country, too, the Arabs began to flee in terror, even
>before they clashed with Jewish forces. Not what happened at Dir
>Yassin, but what was invented about Dir Yassin, helped to carve the
>way to our decisive victories on the battlefield. The legend of Dir
>Yassin helped us in particular in the saving of Tiberias and the
>conquest of Haifa."
It is worth noting how Begin disputes the standard myth that the
Palestinian Arabs fled as part of a calculated plan.
>[1] (A footnote from _The Revolt_, pp.226-7.) "To counteract the loss
>of Dir yassin, a village of strategic importance, Arab headquarters at
>Ramallah broadcast a crude atrocity story, alleging a massacre by
>Irgun troops of women and children in the village. Certain Jewish
>officials, fearing the Irgun men as political rivals, seized upon this
>Arab gruel propaganda to smear the Irgun. An eminent Rabbi was induced
>to reprimand the Irgun before he had time to sift the truth. Out of
>evil, however, good came. This Arab propaganda spread a legend of
>terror amongst Arabs and Arab troops, who were seized with panic at
>the mention of Irgun soldiers. The legend was worth half a dozen
>battalions to the forces of Israel. The `Dir Yassin Massacre' lie
>is still propagated by Jew-haters all over the world."
Apparently 90% of Israeli historians are Jew-haters.
>[2] In reference to denunciation of Dir Yassin by fellow Jews.
I have previously posted quotations by Irgun participants that
totally destroys Begin's whitewash.  I have no particular desire
to post it yet again.
Brendan.
(normally bdm@cs.anu.edu.au)
From: siegfried_r@spcvxb.spc.edu
Subject: Re: More on ADL spying case
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Lines: 36
In article <ARENS.93Apr13161407@grl.ISI.EDU>, arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
writes:
> Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, April 13, 1993.  P. A1.
> NEW DETAILS OF EXTENSIVE ADL SPY OPERATION EMERGE
> SAN FRANCISCO -- To the outside world, Roy Bullock was a small-time
> art dealer who operated from his house in the Castro District.  In
> reality, he was an undercover spy who picked through garbage and
> amassed secret files for the Anti-Defamation League for nearly 40
> years.
> .....
> The Anti-Defamation League, a self-described Jewish defense and civil
> rights organization, acknowledges it has long collected information on
> groups that are anti-Semitic, extremist or racist. The ADL's
> fact-finding division, headed by Irwinn Suall in New York, enjoys a
> reputation for thoroughness and has often shared its information with
> police agencies and journalists.
There is something almost comical in the fact that Yigal Arens is
important enough to have the ADL and G-d knows who else sifting through his
garbage (which happens to be legal; you throw it out, it ain't yours any more).
This brings to mind a few possibilities other than the ADL connection:
- it is all in Arens' mind.
- Bullock may have been working for Arens' friend in the PLO
- Arens' father (or is it brother?) Moshe Arens (former Israeli Defense
Minister) was spying on him.
- Arens hired Bullock to spy on him to get attention.
In any case, who cares?
Robert Siegfried
Computer Science Dept.
Saint Peter's College
Jersey City, NJ  07306
siegfried_r@spcvxa.spc.edu
From: zbib@bnr.ca (Sam Zbib)
Subject: RE:Legality of the jewish purchase
Nntp-Posting-Host: 47.141.0.106
Reply-To: zbib@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Lines: 67
(Amir Y Rosenblatt) writes
> Sam Zbib Writes
>>No one in his right mind would sell his freedom and dignity.
>>Palestinians are no exception. Perhaps you heard about
>>anti-trust in the business world.
>>
>>Since we are debating the legality of a commercial
>>transaction, we must use the laws governing the guidelines
>>and ethics of such transactions. Basic ANTI-TRUST law says
>>that, while you can purchase IBM stocks for the purpose of
>>investing, you can not acquire a large number of those
>>shares with the intent or controlling IBM. You can do so
>>only if you make your intentions CLEAR apriori . Clearly,
>>the Jews who purchased properties from palastenians had some
>>designs, they were not buying a dwelling or a real estate.
>They were establishing a bridgehead for the European Jews.
>>
>>The palastenians sold their properties to the Jews in the
>>old tradition of arab hospitality. Being a multi-ethnic /
>>multi-religious society, accepting the jews as neighbours
>>was no different, just another religion. Plus they paid fair
>>market value, etc... They did not know they were victims of
>>an international conspiracy. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist
>>myself, but this one is hard to dismiss).
>>
>Right now, I'm just going to address this point.
>When the Jewish National Fund bought most of its land,
>It didn't buy it from the Palestinians themselves, because,
>for the most part, they were tenant farmers (fallahin),
>living on land owned by wealthy Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
>The JNF offered a premium deal, so the owners took advantage of
>it.   It's called commerce.  The owners, however, made no
>provisions for those who had worked for them, basically shafting
>them by selling the land right out from under them.
>They are to blame, not the Jews.
>
>
Amir:
Why would you categorize the sale of land as shafting? was
it because it was sold to Jews? was it fair to assume that the
fallahin would be mistreated by the jews? is this the norm of
any commerce (read shafting) between arabs and  jews?
Your claim that the Lebanese/Syrian Landlords sold Palestine
(if true, even partially) omits the fact that the mandate
treaty put Lebanon and Syria under French rule, while
Palestine under british.  Obiviously, any such landlord
would have found himself a foreigner in Palestine and would
be motivated to sell, regardless of the price.
It is interesting though that you acknowledge that the
palestinians were shafted. Do many Israelis or Jews share
your opinion ?  Do you  absolve the purchaser from
any ethical commitments just because it wasn't written down?
All told, I did not see an answer in your response. The
question was whether the intent behind the purchase was
aimed at controlling the public assets (land,
infra-structure etc...). IMHO the Palestinians have grounds
to contest the legality of the purchase, say in world court.
Sam
My opinions are my own and no one else's
From: chrism@cirrus.com (Chris Metcalfe)
Subject: Nazi Eugenic Theories Circulated by CPR => (unconventianal peace)
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Lines: 85
Now we have strong evidence of where the CPR really stands.
Unbelievable and disgusting.  It only proves that we must
never forget...
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In article <1483500348@igc.apc.org> cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
>
>From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>
>Subject: Unconventional peace proposal
>
>
>A unconventional proposal for peace in the Middle-East.
Not so unconventional.  Eugenic solutions to the Jewish Problem
have been suggested by Northern Europeans in the past.
Eugenics: a science that deals with the improvement (as by
control of human mating) of hereditory qualities of race
or breed.  -- Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary.
>5.      The emergence of a considerable number of 'mixed'
>marriages in Israel/Palestine, all of whom would have relatives on
>'both sides' of the divide, would make the conflict lose its
>ethnical and unsoluble core and strengthen the emergence of a
>truly civil society. The existence of a strong 'mixed' stock of
>people would also help the integration of Israeli society into the
>Middle-East in a graceful manner.
This is nothing more than Feisal Husseini's statement that the
Zionist entity must be disolved by forcing it to "engage" the
surrounding "normal" Arab society.
"a strong mixed stock", "integration of Israeli society into
the Middle East in a graceful manner," these are the phrases
of Nazi racial engineering pure and simple.  As if Israeli
society has no right to exist per se!
>3.      Fundamentalist Jews would certainly object to the use of
>financial incentives to encourage 'mixed marriages'. From their
>point of view, the continued existence of a specific Jewish People
>overrides any other consideration, be it human love, peace of
>human rights.  The President of the World Jewish Congress, Edgar
>Bronfman, reflected this view a few years ago in an interview he
>gave to Der Spiegel, a German magazine. He called the increasing
>assimilation of Jews in the world a <calamity>, comparable in its
>effects only with the Holocaust. This objection has no merit
>either because it does not fulfill the first two assumptions (see
>above)
"the continued existance of a specific Jewish People overrides
any other consideration, be it human love, peace of human
rights."  Disolve the Jewish People and protect human values
such as love and peace; yes ve have heard this before Her Himmler.
Notice how the source of the problem seems to be accruing to
the Jews in this analysis.  Ya, Der Spiegal ist a gut sourcen...
>5.      It may objected that such a Fund would need great sums to
>bring about substantial demographic changes. This objection has
>merits. However, it must be remembered that huge sums, more than
>$3 billion, are expended each year by the United States government
>and by U.S. organizations to maintain an elusive peace in the
>Middle-East through armaments. A mere fraction of these sums would
>suffice to launch the above proposal and create a more favorable
>climate towards the existence of 'mixed' marriages in
>Israel/Palestine, thus encouraging the emergence of a
>non-segregated society in that worn-torn land.
Nice attempt to mix in a slam against U.S. aid to Israel.
>I would be thankful for critical comments to the above proposal as
>well for any dissemination of this proposal for meaningful
>discussion and enrichment.
>
>Elias Davidsson Post Box 1760 121 Reykjavik, ICELAND
Critical comment: you can take the Nazi flag and Holocaust photos
off of your bedroom wall, Elias; you'll never succeed.
-- Chris Metcalfe
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now we'll find out where you fans really stand...
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Unconventional peace proposal
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 85
In article <1483500348@igc.apc.org> cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
>
>From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>
>
>A unconventional proposal for peace in the Middle-East.
>---------------------------------------------------------- by
>			  Elias Davidsson
Of all the stupid postings you've brought here recently, it is
illuminating that you chose to put your own name on perhaps the
stupidest of them.
>The following proposal is based on the following assumptions:
>
>1.      Fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, to
>education, to establish a family and have children, to human
>dignity, the right to free movement, to free expression, etc. are
>more important to human existence that the rights of states.
Does this mean that you are calling for the dismantling of the Arab
states?
>2.      In the event of a conflict between basic human rights and
>rights of collectivities, basic human rights should prevail.
Apparently, your answer is yes.
>6.      Attempts to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict by traditional
>political means have failed.
Attempts to solve these problem by traditional military means and
non-traditional terrorist means has also failed.  But that won't stop
them from trying again.  After all, it IS a Holy War, you know....
>7.      As long as the conflict is perceived as that between two
>distinct ethnical/religious communities/peoples which claim the
>land, there is no just nor peaceful solution possible.
"No just solution possible."  How very encouraging.
>Having stated my assumptions, I will now state my proposal.
You mean that it gets even funnier?
>1.      A Fund should be established which would disburse grants
>for each child born to a couple where one partner is Israeli-Jew
>and the other Palestinian-Arab.
[...]
>3.      For the first child, the grant will amount to $18.000. For
>the second the third child, $12.000 for each child. For each
>subsequent child, the grant will amount to $6.000 for each child.
>
>4.      The Fund would be financed by a variety of sources which
>have shown interest in promoting a peaceful solution to the
>Israeli-Arab conflict,
No, the Fund should be financed by the Center for Policy Research.  It
IS a major organization, isn't it?  Isn't it?
>5.      The emergence of a considerable number of 'mixed'
>marriages in Israel/Palestine, all of whom would have relatives on
>'both sides' of the divide, would make the conflict lose its
>ethnical and unsoluble core and strengthen the emergence of a
>truly civil society.
Yeah, just like marriages among Arabs has strengthened their
societies.
>The existence of a strong 'mixed' stock of
>people would also help the integration of Israeli society into the
>Middle-East in a graceful manner.
The world could do with a bit less Middle Eastern "grace".
>Objections to this proposal will certainly be voiced. I will
>attempt to identify some of these:
Boy, you're a one-man band.  Listen, if you'd like to Followup on your
own postings and debate with yourself, just tell us and we'll leave
you alone.
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: henrik@quayle.kpc.com
Subject: Re: ARMENIA SAYS IT COULD SHOOT DOWN TURKISH PLANES
Organization: NONE
Lines: 57
In article <C5qu5H.1IF@news.iastate.edu>, oyalcin@iastate.edu (Onur Yalcin) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr19.155856.8260@kpc.com> henrik@quayle.kpc.com  writes:
|> >In article <1993Apr17.185118.10792@ee.rochester.edu>, terziogl@ee.rochester.edu (Esin Terzioglu) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|>..[cancellum]...
|> >|>
|> >
|> >
henrik] Let me clearify Mr. Turkish;
henrik] ARMENIA is NOT getting "itchy". SHE is simply LETTING the WORLD KNOW
henrik] that SHE WILL NO  LONGER sit there QUIET and LET TURKS get away with
henrik] their FAMOUS tricks. Armenians DO REMEMBER of the TURKISH invasion
henrik] of the Greek island of CYPRESS WHILE the world simply WATCHED.
Onur Yalcin] It is more appropriate to address netters with their names as
Onur Yalcin] they appear in their signatures (I failed to do so since you did
Onur Yalcin] not bother to sign your posting). Not only because it is the
Onur Yalcin] polite thing to do, but also to avoid addressing ladies with
Onur Yalcin] "Mr.", as you have done.
Fine. Please, accept my opology !
Onur Yalcin] Secondly, the island of which the name is more correctly spelled
Onur Yalcin] as Cyprus has never been Greek, but rather, it has been home to
Onur Yalcin] a bi-communal society formed of Greeks and Turks. It seems that
^^^^^^^^^^^
Onur Yalcin] you know as little about the history and the demography of the
Onur Yalcin] island, as you know about the essence of Turkey's
Onur Yalcin] military intervention to it under international agreements.
bi-communal society ? Then why DID NOT Greece INVADE CYPRUS ?
Onur Yalcin] Be that as it may, an analogy between an act of occupation in
Onur Yalcin] history and what is going on today on Azerbaijani land, can only
Onur Yalcin] be drawn with the expansionist policy that Armenia is now pursuing.
Buch of CRAP and you know it. Nagarno-Karabagh has ALWAYS been PART
of ARMENIA and it was STALIN who GAVE IT to the AZERIS. Go back and
review the HISTORY.
The Armenians in Nagarno-Karabagh are simply DEFENDING their RIGHTS
to keep their homeland and it is the AZERIS that are INVADING their
teritory.
Onur Yalcin] But, I could agree that it is not for us to issue diagnoses to
Onur Yalcin] the political conduct of countries, and promulgate them in such
Onur Yalcin] terminology as "itchy-bitchy"...
I was not the one that STATED IT.
However, I hope that the Armenians WILL force a TURKISH airplane
to LAND for purposes of SEARCHING for ARMS similar to the one
that happened last SUMMER. Turkey searched an AMERICAN plane
(carrying humanitarian aid) bound to ARMENIA.
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: was:Go Hezbollah!
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 23
In article <1993Apr19.192207.413@ncsu.edu> hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu (Brad Hernlem) writes:
>I think that you should try to find more sources of news about what goes on
>in Lebanon and try to see through the propaganda.
Thank you, Brad/Ali, for warning us about the dangers of propaganda.
It's funny, though, coming from you.
>There are no a priori
>black and white hats but one sure wonders how the IDF can bombard villages in
>retaliation to pin-point attacks on its soldiers in Lebanon and then call the
>Lebanese terrorists.
Who is it that executes these "pin-point attacks" on Israelis?  The
guys in the white hats or the ones in the black hats?  Neither?  You
mean that they are just civilians, farmers, teachers, school children?
Well, maybe they ARE terrorists, after all?  And maybe that
"propaganda" was correct, too?  Hmm?
--
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
From: maler@vercors.imag.fr (Oded Maler)
Subject: Re: FLAME and a Jewish home in Palestine
Nntp-Posting-Host: pelvoux
Organization: IMAG, University of Grenoble, France
Lines: 40
In article <C5HJBC.1HC@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr13.172422.2407@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> nabil@ariel.yorku.ca (Nabil Gangi) writes:
|>
|> >According to Exodus, there were 600,000 Jews that marched out of Egypt.
|>
|> This is only the number of adult males.  The total number of Jewish
|> slaves leaving Egypt was much larger.
|>
|> >The number which could have arrived to the Holy Lands must have been
|> >substantially less ude to the harsh desert and the killings between the
|> >Jewish tribes on the way..
|> >
|> >NABIL
|>
|> Typical Arabic thinking.  If we are guilty of something, so is
|> everyone else.  Unfortunately for you, Nabil, Jewish tribes are not
|> nearly as susceptible to the fratricidal murdering that is still so
|> common among Arabs in the Middle East.  There were no " killings
|> between the Jewish tribes on the way."
I don't like this comment about "Typical" thinking. You could state
your interpretation of Exodus without it. As I read Exodus I can see
a lot of killing there, which is painted by the author of the bible
in ideological/religious colors. The history in the desert can be seen
as an ethos of any nomadic people occupying a land. That's why I think
it is a great book with which descendants Arabs, Turks and Mongols can
unify as well.
|> Jake
|> --
|> Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com           Ten years from now, George Bush will
|> American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
|> My opinions only - employer has no opinions.    standard of a failed President.
--
===============================================================
Oded Maler, LGI-IMAG, Bat D, B.P. 53x, 38041 Grenoble, France
Phone:  76635846     Fax: 76446675      e-mail: maler@imag.fr
===============================================================
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: Israeli Expansion-lust
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide
Lines: 46
In article <1993Apr15.090735.17025@news.columbia.edu> ayr1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Amir Y Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <2528@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr13.002118.24102@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>It depends entirely on how you define 'war'. The actual fighting largely
>>predates the Arab invasions - after all Deir Yassin happened in midApril
>>well before the Arab invasion.
>How do you define war?  Do seiges and constant attacks on villiages
>count as acts of war, or is that only when the Jews do them?
I would hope that if you intend to have a reasonable discussion you might
wait until I express an opinion before deciding I should be flamed for it.
As for 'war' I am not sure how I would define it. If you just look at attacks
on villages then there is no way of deciding when it started. Would you
count the riots in the 20's and 30's? Violence but not war. I personally
think that 'war', as opposed to civil disturbance or whatever, requires
organisation, planning and some measure of regualr or semi-regular forces.
Perhaps the Arab Liberation Army counts. I could easily be convinced it was
so. From what I know they did not have a great deal of planning let alone
organisation. The Haganah and Palmach certainly did. That is not a cause
for criticism, it merely reflects the great organisation generally in the
'Zionist' camp.
>Of course, this isn't war, since it's only the Arabs attacking.
Now you are being silly aren't you? In any case the war did NOT start
with the invasion of the Arab Armies. You see we both agree on something.
And the previous posters were wrong, no?
>Just like last week when the Fatah launched Katyusha rockets
>against Northern israel.  Where does uprising end and war begin?
Again I am not sure, I doubt you want my opinion anyway, but I think
war requires organisation as I said before. It needs a group to command
and plan. If Fatah lauches rockets from Southern Lebanon (and are you
sure you have the right group - not the Moslems again?) then that sounds
like war to me. Stone throwing does not.
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.
From: hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu (Brad Hernlem)
Subject: Re: was:Go Hezbollah!
Reply-To: hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu (Brad Hernlem)
Organization: NCSU Chem Eng
Lines: 36
In article <93y04m18d459@witsend.uucp>, "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
|>   Please clarify your standards for rules of engagement.  As I
|>   understand it, Israelis are at all times and under all
|>   circumstances fair targets.  Their opponents are legitimate
|>   targets only when Mirandized, or some such?
|>
|>   I'm sure that this makes perfect sense if you grant *a*priori*
|>   that Israelis are the Black Hats, and that therefore killing
|>   them is automatically a Good Thing (Go Hezbollah!).  The
|>   corollary is that the Hezbollah are the White Hats, and that
|>   whatever they do is a Good Thing, and the Israelis only prove
|>   themselves to be Bad Guys by attacking them.
|>
|>   This sounds suspiciously like a hockey fan I know, who cheers
|>   when one of the players on His Team uses his stick to permanently
|>   rearrange an opponent's face, and curses the ref for penalizing
|>   His Side.  Of course, when it's different when the roles are
|>   reversed.
|>
|> --- D. C. Sessions
Well, you should have noted that I was cheering an attack on an Israeli
patrol INSIDE Lebanese territory while I was condemning the "retaliatory"
shelling of Lebanese villages by Israeli and Israeli-backed forces. My "team",
you see, was "playing fair" while the opposing team was rearranging the
faces of the spectators in my team's viewing stands, so to speak.
I think that you should try to find more sources of news about what goes on
in Lebanon and try to see through the propaganda. There are no a priori
black and white hats but one sure wonders how the IDF can bombard villages in
retaliation to pin-point attacks on its soldiers in Lebanon and then call the
Lebanese terrorists.
Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU)
From: hilmi-er@dsv.su.se (Hilmi Eren)
Subject: Re: ARMENIA SAYS IT COULD SHOOT DOWN TURKISH PLANES (Henrik)
Lines: 53
Nntp-Posting-Host: alban.dsv.su.se
Reply-To: hilmi-er@dsv.su.se (Hilmi Eren)
Organization: Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University
|>      henrik@quayle.kpc.com writes:
|>	The Armenians in Nagarno-Karabagh are simply DEFENDING their RIGHTS
|>        to keep their homeland and it is the AZERIS that are INVADING their
|>        territorium...
Homeland? First Nagarno-Karabagh was Armenians homeland today
Fizuli, Lacin and several villages (in Azerbadjan)
are their homeland. Can't you see the
the  "Great Armenia" dream in this? With facist methods like
killing, raping and bombing villages. The last move was the
blast of a truck with 60 kurdish refugees, trying to
escape the from Lacin, a city that was "given" to the Kurds
by the Armenians.
|>       However, I hope that the Armenians WILL force a TURKISH airplane
|>       to LAND for purposes of SEARCHING for ARMS similar to the one
|>       that happened last SUMMER. Turkey searched an AMERICAN plane
|>       (carrying humanitarian aid) bound to ARMENIA.
|>
Don't speak about things you don't know: 8 American Cargo planes
were heading to Armenia. When the Turkish authorities
announced that they were going to search these cargo
planes 3 of these planes returned to it's base in Germany.
5 of these planes were searched in Turkey. The content of
of the other 3 planes? Not hard to guess, is it? It was sure not
humanitarian aid.....
Search Turkish planes? You don't know what you are talking about.
Turkey's government has announced that it's giving weapons
to Azerbadjan since Armenia started to attack Azerbadjan
it self, not the Karabag province. So why search a plane for weapons
since it's content is announced to be weapons?
Hilmi Eren
Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University
Sweden
Hilmi-er@dsv.su.se
From: bf3833@pyuxe.cc.bellcore.com (feigenbaum,benjamin)
Subject: Re: Israel's Expansion II
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Summary: Hope Springs Eternal
Lines: 37
In article <1993Apr20.013037.20907@news.columbia.edu>, pgf5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Garfiel Freeman) writes:
> In article <19APR93.22304462.0062@VM1.MCGILL.CA> B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA (B8HA) writes:
> >So nice of you all to answer some questions.  And it so nice that most
> >of you feel that it would be in your hearts to give the Palestinians
> >some land - most of you focus on the fact that Israel annexed all
> >this land and it is a kind gesture to give some of it back.  Well,
> >I hope that after after a state run by Palestinians is established,
> >the first decision should be to make Jerusalem part of this state -
> >by annexing it of course.
> >
>
> >Steve
Steve,
If the Israelis are stupid enough to "allow" a second "Palestinian"
state (the first one is Jordon), then you will probably get your
wish - and the Israelis would get what's coming to them.
However, if the "Palestinians" were to somehow demonstrate that
they could govern themselves AND live in peace with their
Jewish neighbors, then they would have to give up the idea of
Jerusalem as a part of their state - and you would be disappointed.
>
> Israel has not annexed any of the West Bank, just Jeruselum.  Which
> will remain part of Israel forever!
>
>
Yashir Koach to this.
>
>
>
Ben.
From: shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday)
Subject: Re: Ten questions about Israel
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 67
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: composer.think.com
In article <1483500349@igc.apc.org>, cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes:
|>
|> From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>
|> Subject: Ten questions about Israel
|>
|>
|> Ten questions to Israelis
|> -------------------------
|>
|> I would be thankful if any of you who live in Israel could help to
|> provide
|>  accurate answers to the following specific questions. These are
|> indeed provocative questions but they are asked time and again by
|> people around me.
I lived there until July 1992 so I think that on the whole,
my input is relevant.
|> 1.      Is it true that the Israeli authorities don't recognize
|> Israeli nationality ? And that ID cards, which Israeli citizens
|> must carry at all times, identify people as Jews or Arabs, not as
|> Israelis ?
Those are two separate questions.  Obviously, Israeli authorities do
recognize Israeli nationality for some purposes, e.g. passports,
consular services, etc...  ID cards have a field of nationality
which is a subdivision of the above.  Ostensibly, this field
is provided for sevices provided by the religious departments
of the gov't, though this is not the general case.
|> 2.      Is it true that the State of Israel has no fixed borders
|> and that Israeli governments from 1948 until today have refused to
|> state where the ultimate borders of the State of Israel should be
|> ?
From its onset, Israel's borders have been shaped and reshaped by both
war and peace.  As such, the Israeli gov't has always felt that defining
its borders is a step that is meaningful only after peace treaties have
been conluded with its neighbors.  There is no plan for "ultimate borders"
(is this a game like "ultimate frisbee"?) extending into  other countries.
|> 3.      Is it true that Israeli stocks nuclear weapons ? If so,
|> could you provide any evidence ?
Aside from what Vaanunu provided, no.
|> 4.      Is it true that in Israeli prisons there are a number of
|> individuals which were tried in secret and for which their
|> identities, the date of their trial and their imprisonment are
|> state secrets ?
If that is true, then by virtue of the question's subject, it is
unanswerable.  Anyone who claims its validity. is claiming an oxymoron.
That having been said, I deny the above.
You go on to ask quite a number of questions that show an obvious
bias.  Questions of the sort "Is it true that you entered your
mother's vagina?" which are based upon some kernel of truth, though
phrased in a way as to render them repugnant and cast aspersions
upon Israel.  Incidentally, the answer to the above is usually yes,
unless you were born via a C-section.
--
Shai Guday              | Stealth bombers,
OS Software Engineer    |
Thinking Machines Corp. |	the winged ninjas of the skies.
Cambridge, MA           |
From: hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu (Brad Hernlem)
Subject: Re: was:Go Hezbollah!
Reply-To: hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu (Brad Hernlem)
Organization: NCSU Chem Eng
Lines: 31
In article <1993Apr19.214300.17989@unocal.com>, stssdxb@st.unocal.com (Dorin Baru) writes:
|> (Brad Hernlem writes:
|>
|>
|> >Well, you should have noted that I was cheering an attack on an Israeli
|> >patrol INSIDE Lebanese territory while I was condemning the "retaliatory"
|> >shelling of Lebanese villages by Israeli and Israeli-backed forces. My "team",
|> >you see, was "playing fair" while the opposing team was rearranging the
|> >faces of the spectators in my team's viewing stands, so to speak.
|>
|> >I think that you should try to find more sources of news about what goes on
|> >in Lebanon and try to see through the propaganda. There are no a priori
|> >black and white hats but one sure wonders how the IDF can bombard villages in
|> >retaliation to pin-point attacks on its soldiers in Lebanon and then call the
|> >Lebanese terrorists.
|>
|> If the attack was justified or not is at least debatable. But this is not the
|> issue. The issue is that you were cheering DEATH. [...]
|>
|> Dorin
Dorin, of all the criticism of my post expressed on t.p.m., this one I accept.
I regret that aspect of my post. It is my hope that the occupation will end (and
the accompanying loss of life) but I believe that stiff resistance can help to
achieve that end. Despite what some have said on t.p.m., I think that there is
a point when losses are unacceptable. The strategy drove U.S. troops out of
Lebanon, at least.
Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU)
From: henrik@quayle.kpc.com
Subject: Re: ARMENIA SAYS IT COULD SHOOT DOWN TURKISH PLANES
Organization: NONE
Lines: 52
In article <1993Apr20.110021.5746@kth.se>, hilmi-er@dsv.su.se (Hilmi Eren) writes:
henrik]  The Armenians in Nagarno-Karabagh are simply DEFENDING their
henrik]  RIGHTS to keep their homeland and it is the AZERIS that are
henrik]  INVADING their homeland.
HE]     Homeland? First Nagarno-Karabagh was Armenians homeland today
HE]     Fizuli, Lacin and several villages (in Azerbadjan)
HE]     are their homeland. Can't you see the
HE]     the  "Great Armenia" dream in this? With facist methods like
HE]     killing, raping and bombing villages. The last move was the
HE]     blast of a truck with 60 kurdish refugees, trying to
HE]     escape the from Lacin, a city that was "given" to the Kurds
HE]     by the Armenians.
Nagorno-Karabakh is in Azerbaijan not Armenia. Armenians have lived in Nagorno-
Karabakh ever since there were Armenians. Armenians used to live in the areas
between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and this area is being used to invade
Nagorno- Karabakh. Armenians are defending themselves. If Azeris are dying
because of a policy of attacking Armenians, then something is wrong with this
policy.
If I recall correctly, it was Stalin who caused all this problem with land
in the first place, not the Armenians.
henrik]  However, I hope that the Armenians WILL force a TURKISH airplane
henrik]  to LAND for purposes of SEARCHING for ARMS similar to the one
henrik]  that happened last SUMMER. Turkey searched an AMERICAN plane
henrik]  (carrying humanitarian aid) bound to ARMENIA.
HE]     Don't speak about things you don't know: 8 U.S. Cargo planes
HE]     were heading to Armenia. When the Turkish authorities
HE]     announced that they were going to search these cargo
HE]     planes 3 of these planes returned to it's base in Germany.
HE]     5 of these planes were searched in Turkey. The content of
HE]     of the other 3 planes? Not hard to guess, is it? It was sure not
HE]     humanitarian aid.....
What story are you talking about? Planes from the U.S. have been sending
aid into Armenian for two years. I would not like to guess about what were in
the 3 planes in your story, I would like to find out.
HE]     Search Turkish planes? You don't know what you are talking about.
HE]     Turkey's government has announced that it's giving weapons
HE]     to Azerbadjan since Armenia started to attack Azerbadjan
HE]     it self, not the Karabag province. So why search a plane for weapons
HE]     since it's content is announced to be weapons?
It's too bad you would want Turkey to start a war with Armenia.
From: henrik@quayle.kpc.com
Subject: Re: ARMENIA SAYS IT COULD SHOOT DOWN TURKISH PLANES
Organization: NONE
Lines: 41
In article <1993Apr20.131336@IASTATE.EDU>, oyalcin@IASTATE.EDU (Onur Yalcin) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr19.234534.18368@kpc.com>, henrik@quayle.kpc.com  writes:
|> > In article <C5qu5H.1IF@news.iastate.edu>, oyalcin@iastate.edu (Onur Yalcin)
OY] Henrik (?),
OY] Your ignorance manifests itself in an awkward form of intransigence. I'm not
OY] going to spend time to review with you the recent history of Cyprus.
Good !! Go back to your references and read it over and over ...
OY] If you are really interested, I can provide you with a number of references
OY] on the issue.  Just send me EMail for that.
You think I am that STUPID to ask you for REFERENCES !  NOT !
I have many GREEK friends that I could ask for the INFO if I
needed. I have already read many articles and DO NOT need
your help. Boy, how generous !!
OY] Relax! You're swinging fists into open air... I was *agreeing* with you,
OY] assuming that would be one of your points that you did not state! You may
OY] not be very much used to it, to be agreed with - that is, but take it more
OY] easily.  !:-)
Believe me, I am so relaxed ...
henrik]     However, I hope that the Armenians WILL force a TURKISH airplane
henrik]     to LAND for purposes of SEARCHING for ARMS similar to the one
[OY] 	No, Henrik, believe me: You don't hope that.
IF Armenia is goint to do that, then so be it.
henrik]         that happened last SUMMER. Turkey searched an AMERICAN plane
henrik]         (carrying humanitarian aid) bound to ARMENIA.
OY] Was that after or before one French plane changed its route to avoid
OY] inspection???
All I am saying is that the plane that was SEARCHED was an
AMERICAN and why Turkey DID NOT TRUST the U.S. that it was
mainly HUMANITARIAN AID CARGO.
From: mack@isl.Stanford.EDU (mack)
Subject: Re: News briefs from KH # 1026
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 19
farzin@apollo3.ntt.jp (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes:
>From:  Kayhan Havai # 1026
>--------------------------
>
>    [...]
>
>o Dr. Malekzadeh, the minister of health mentioned that
>  the population growth rate in Iran at the end of 1371
>  went below 2.7
I know nothing about statistics, but what significance does the
relatively small population growth rate have where the sampling period
is so small (at the end of 1371)? Is it adequete to suggest a trend or
is it just noise?
> - Farzin Mokhtarian
--mack
From: ilyess@ECE.Concordia.CA (Ilyess Bdira)
Subject: Remember those names come election time.
Keywords: usa federal, government, international, non-usa government
Nntp-Posting-Host: davinci.ece.concordia.ca
Organization: ECE - Concordia University
Lines: 77
In article <christopherU3AK245pe@clarinet.com> clarinews@clarinet.com (SID BALMAN Jr.) writes:
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Secretary of State Warren Christopher said Tuesday
there are better ideas to stop the human slaughter in the Balkans than
ordering American fighters to bomb the Serbs, but a frustrated senator
told him to do just that.
``We've not done a damn thing,'' Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., told
Christopher at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
``Preventive diplomacy is not in your capability right now in Bosnia-
Herzegovina.
Biden chastised the administration and its Republican predecessor for
what he characterized as a limp response to the Serbian policy of
``ethnic cleansing'' of Muslims, including rape and shelling of
civilians.
``The time has come for us and the world to stop bemoaning the fact
that all the options are bad ones,'' Biden said. ``They are all bad ones
and we ought to pick a couple.''
Biden also endorsed lifting an international arms embargo against the
former Yugoslavia so the Muslim-dominated Bosnian government might have
a chance to at least defend itself against the Serbs.
Christopher said this could give an opening role in the conflict to
****************************************************
the radical Islamic government of Iran.
***************************************
O, I C!
Biden endorsed bombing Serbian heavy weapons around the besieged
eastern town of Srebrenica.
``There's not a military person...who will not tell you that they
could today, if you gave them the order, take out the heavy weaponry
around Srebrenica,'' Biden said.
``If you did nothing else, nothing else but that, you would have
saved hundreds of women and children who are being absolutely massacred
right now.''
Military action ``is the only thing that's going to change the
equation,'' Biden said.
....................................
Despite the frustrations and pressure, Christopher had no enthusiasm
for American combat aircraft to strike Serb positions in Bosnia-
Herzegovina.
....................
>	``Clearly we are at a turning point in the Bosnia situation,''
>Christopher said. ``Air strikes are among those steps that are so
>complex because they tend to interfere with the humanitarian endeavours.
>I think there may be better options.''
Humanitarian as in feeding them and let them get raped and killed.
>political conflict. Clinton vowed during the presidential campaign to
*******(then)
>lift the arms embargo and to strike at Serbian heavy weapons with U.S.
>combat aircraft.
>	Christopher said airstrikes would likely ``increase the level of
*******************(Now)
>fighting and cause our allies to draw back'' or even ``pull out the
>humanitarian effort.''
>	Great Britain and France have balked at foreign military intervention
>in Bosnia-Herzegovina for fear that their peacekeeping troops on the
>ground may suffer Serbian retribution.
Why don't they get the hell out of there, they ared doing nothing to
protect the victims anyway.. Maybe becasue they have a different agenda.
>	Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., seemed to agree with Christopher's
*************************
>assessment and stressed the need not to build up Bosnian expectations
>for heavy U.S. military intervention.
>	``It's very important that expectations aren't raised high on the
>part of the beleagured Bosnians,'' she said.
>	Air strikes might have made a difference eight months ago, she said,
>but the strategic significance of that step now is questionable. Like
>Christopher, Kassebaum said it might jeopardize the humanitarian relief
>effort.
Now that they made sure the Bosnian (who were the only real subject of the
embargo last year, as everybody knows that the Serbs had an unlimited supply
of arms) wre massacred without having a chance to defend themselves, Now this
evil coldhearted snake is saying "it is too late to save them, so let them die.
From: sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child)
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU WILL MISS, Apr 15
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 46
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>In article <1qun1aINNik5@aludra.usc.edu> sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child) writes:
>>arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>                      Yigal et al, sue ADL
>>>
>>
>>Why do you title this "News you will miss" ?
>>
>>There have been at least three front-page stories on it in the L.A. Times.
>>
>>I wouldn't exactly call that a media cover-up.
>This may come as a surprise to you but there are a few americans who do not
>read the LA Times.
Is this the same Monolithic, Centrally Controlled Media that you're always
talking about? Do you mean to tell me that the LA Times is the ONLY major
paper to buck the Media Spiking Division's activities?
>The Defamation League has done a first class job of damage control..in what
>little is left of the world outside of LA.
Assumption: When one major newspaper prints three or more articles on the front
page regarding subject matter that is not strictly local, this is likely
to be considered an open story, and not a coverup.
Let's hear a roll call here. Anyone outside of the LA area seen articles on
this?
>js
___Samuel___
Mossad Special Agent ID314159
Media Spiking & Mind Control Division
Los Angeles Offices (therefore, evidently, incompetent)
--
_________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.
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Syria's Expansion
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Lines: 95
In article <C5qHyA.5Gn@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr18.212610.5933@das.harvard.edu>, adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>|>In article <18APR93.15729846.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA> B8HA000 <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>|>>1) Is Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon temporary?
>|>	Israel has repeatedly stated that it will leave Lebanon when
>|>the Lebanese government can provide guarantees that Israel will not be
>|>attacked from Lebanese soil, and when the Syrians leave.
>Not acceptable. Syria and Lebanon have a right to determine if
>they wish to return to the situation prior to the French invasion
>where they were both part of the same "mandate territory" - read
>colony.
And Lebanon has a right to make this decision without Syrian
troops controlling the country.  Until Syria leaves, and free
elections take place, its is rediculous to claim that the Lebanese
would even be involved in determining what happens to their country.
>Israel has no right to determine what happens in Lebanon. Invading another
>country because you consider them a threat is precisely the way that almost
>all wars of aggression have started.
I expect you will agree that the same holds true for Syria
having no right to be in Lebanon?
>|>	Israel has already annexed areas taken over in the 1967 war.
>|>These areas are not occupied, but disputed, since there is no
>|>legitamate governing body.  Citizenship was given to those residents
>|>in annexed areas who wanted citizenship.
>The UN defines them as occupied. They are recognised as such by every
>nation on earth (excluding one small caribean island).
The UN also thought Zionism is racism.  That fails to make it true.
>|>	The first reason was security.  A large Jewish presense makes
>|>it difficult for terrorists to infiltrate.  A Jewish settlements also
>|>act as fortresses in times of war.
>
>Theyu also are a liability. We are talking about civilian encampments that
>would last no more than hours against tanks,
They lasted weeks against tanks in '48, and stopped those
tanks from advancing.  They also lasted days in '73.  There is little
evidence for the claim that they are military liabilities.
They evidence is there to show that when infiltrations take
place over the Jordan river, the existance of large, patrolled
kibutzim forces terrorists into a very small area, where they are
usually picked up in the morning.
>|>	A second reason was political.  Creating "settlements" brought
>|>the arabs to the negotiation table.  Had the creation of new towns and
>|>cities gone on another several years, there would be no place left in
>|>Israel where there was an arab majority.  There would have been no
>|>land left that could be called arab.
>Don't fool yourself. It was the gulf war that brought the Israelis to the
>negotiating table. Once their US backers had a secure base in the gulf
>they insrtructed Shamir to negotiate or else.
Nonsense.  Israel has been trying to get its neighbors to the
negotiating table for 40 years.  It was the gulf war that brought the
arabs to the table, not the Israelis.
>|>	The point is, there are many reasons people moved over the
>|>green line, and many reasons the government wanted them to.  Whatever
>|>status is negotiated for disputed territories, it will not be an "all
>|>or nothing" deal.  New boundaries will be drawn up by negotiation, not
>|>be the results of a war.
>Unless the new boundaries drawn up are those of 48 there will be no peace.
>Araffat has precious little authority to agree to anything else.
Nonsense.  According to Arafat, Israel must be destroyed.  He
has never come clean and denied that this is his plan.  He always
waffles on what he means.
``When the Arabs set off their volcano, there will only be Arabs in
this part of the world.  Our people will continue to fuel the torch
of the revolution with rivers of blood until the whole of the
occupied homeland is liberated...''
--- Yasser Arafat, AP, 3/12/79
Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu
"If we had a budget big enough for drugs and sexual favors, we sure
wouldn't waste them on members of Congress..."   -John Perry Barlow
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Unconventional peace proposal
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Lines: 22
In article <1483500348@igc.apc.org> Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:
>1.      The idea of providing financial incentives to selected
>forms of partnership and marriage, is not conventional. However,
>it is based on the concept of affirmative action, which is
>recognized as a legitimate form of public policy to reverse the
>perverse effects of segregation and discrimination.
Other people have already shown this to be a rediculous
proposal.  however, I wanted to point out that there are many people
who do not think that affirmative action is a either intelligent or
productive.  It is demeaning to those who it supposedly helps and it
is discriminatory.
Any proposal based on it is likely bunk as well.
Adam
Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu
"If we had a budget big enough for drugs and sexual favors, we sure
wouldn't waste them on members of Congress..."   -John Perry Barlow
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Who should be spied on...
Keywords: hypocritical pig
Nntp-Posting-Host: gs135.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 62
In article <C5sDCK.38n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
>anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>>In article <4815@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:
>>>The readers of this forum seemed to be more interested in the contents
>>>of those files.
>>>So It will be nice if Yigal will tell us:
>>>1. Why do American authorities consider Yigal Arens to be dangerous?
>
>>ADL authorities seem to view a lot of people as dangerous, including
>>the millions of Americans of Arab ancestry.  Perhaps you can answer
>>the question as to why the ADL maintained files and spied on ADC members
>>in California (and elsewhere??)?  Friendly rivalry perhaps?
>
>Come on!  Most if not all Arabs are sympathetic to the Palestinian war
>against Israel.  That is why the ADL monitors Arab organizations.  That is
>the same reason the US monitored communist organizations and Soviet nationals
>only a few years ago.
>
The ADC is an organization of Arab-*AMERICANS*.
Let me see...you're saying that "most if not all" Arab-AMERICANS should be
spied on?  You're also saying that "most if not all" Arab-AMERICANS
should be views as a national security threat to Israel (and the US,
as you gratuitously imply in your reference to the WTC bombing, in
which no Arab-AMERICANS were involved)?  By inference, can we assume
that you think that anyone of Arab lineage anywhere in the world poses
a threat to Israel and, therefore, should be spied on?
Perhaps, then, on the basis of Pollard spy case (not to mention the
Rosenbergs, etc.) you think that all Jewish Americans should be spied
on by the ADC.
Oh, never mind; this whole spying case has obviously so
convoluted your sense of right or wrong in these matters that I have
no wish confuse you further.
>>Perhaps Yigal is a Greenpeace member? Or the NAACP? Or a reporter?
>>Or a member of any of the dozens of other political organizations/ethnic
>>minorities/occupations that the ADL spied on.
>
>All of these groups have, in the past, associated with or been a part of anti-
>Israel activity or propoganda.  The ADL is simply monitoring them so that if
>anything comes up, they won't be caught by surprise.
So the LA times reporter who had information about him
sold to the South African government was involved in "anti-Israel
activity or propaganda"? Are we to infer that the simple act of
reporting an event in a newspaper constitutes "anti-Israel
activity or propaganda"?  Or was it South Africa?  The LA
times reporter was based in South Africa, after all.
>
>
>>>Gideon Ehrlich
>>-anwar
>Ed.
>
-anwar again
From: mpye@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: Re: Media horrified at Perot investigating Bush!
<visser.709454466@convex.convex.com> <1992Jun25.151502.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> <visser.709530365@convex.convex.com>
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: acvax1
Nntp-Posting-User: cvads008
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
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over
Article-I.D.: cos.bob1.734037895
Distribution: world
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Lines: 34
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).
>
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Bill Conklin's letter to A.J.
Article-I.D.: oregon.5APR199315510067
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 46
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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).
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Traffic Case
Article-I.D.: oregon.5APR199315572465
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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).
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!
Article-I.D.: oregon.5APR199316063313
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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).
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: A demo of Nonsense Talk- and what about all the other lies?
Organization: Santa Cruz
Lines: 33
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu
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
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: The Evidence
Organization: Santa Cruz
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu
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.
>--
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, 3/23
Article-I.D.: genesis.1pqfbd$e6b
Organization: MCSNet Contributor, Chicago, IL
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.mcs.com
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.
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!
Article-I.D.: shelley.1pqi26INNl8j
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu
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
From: starowl@bolero.rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
Article-I.D.: rahul.C51D0n.3Fw
Reply-To: starowl@a2i.rahul.net
Organization: D Service Actuarial Consulting
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: bolero
X-Header: IGNORE ignore Ignore IgNoRe this line
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)
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Sick and tired (was Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter)
Article-I.D.: shelley.1pqiubINNmht
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu
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
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
Nntp-Posting-Host: eddie.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 12
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
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Who be Conservative on this.....
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 17
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
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Rodney King Trial, Civil Rights Violations, Double Jeopardy
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 37
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
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 37
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
From: jamesdon@infoserv.com (James A. Donald)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!
Organization: The Liberty Trust
Lines: 22
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.13
> 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."
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: na
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 43
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
From: hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
Organization: Wake Forest University
Lines: 4
NNTP-Posting-Host: ac.wfunet.wfu.edu
Wasn't it Tricky Dick who issued stern warnings to Bush & Clinton
not to 'Lose Russia'?  (a la 'Who lost China?')
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Price Controls for Medical Care (WAS Re: We're from the govt...)
Summary: "Loss leader" argument does not wash
Organization: Not Aging, Just Improving, Inc.
Lines: 76
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: richw@mks.com (Rich Wales)
Subject: Sick and tired (was Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter)
Reply-To: richw@mks.com (Rich Wales)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: na
Lines: 92
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
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Summary: "Talkin about my g-g-generation."
Lines: 41
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!
From: akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous)
Subject: Re: Chrysler bailout
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 79
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.
================================================================
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Lines: 32
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
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Nntp-Posting-Host: sysgem1.encore.com
Lines: 35
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
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Subject: Re: $50,000 Reward!
Organization: Specialix Inc.
Lines: 10
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?
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Motor Voter
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 12
>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
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Lines: 68
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
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: So Why Does Clayton Cramer Fixate on Molesting Children
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Lines: 32
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
From: jac2y@Virginia.EDU ("Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>")
Subject: Re: Damn Furriners Be Taken Over
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 34
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
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI Developer Docudramas
Lines: 27
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.
From: nadja@weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: ProLifer Or Terrorist Threat
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 16
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.
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
Nntp-Posting-Host: zeppelin.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 15
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
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Lines: 29
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
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Lines: 12
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com
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
From: gal2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Jacob Galley)
Subject: Clinton's sister, Shalala
Reply-To: gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 22
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
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?
Organization: WINCO
Lines: 59
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
Nntp-Posting-Host: eddie.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 73
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
From: rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy)
Subject: Re: So Why Does Clayton Cramer Fixate on Molesting Children
Organization: Howtek, Inc.
Reply-To: rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v2
Lines: 76
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.
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu
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
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Nntp-Posting-Host: 137.23.47.37
Lines: 21
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
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Article-I.D.: optilink.15209
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 42
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Article-I.D.: optilink.15210
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 29
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Article-I.D.: optilink.15213
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 20
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws
Article-I.D.: optilink.15216
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 91
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Article-I.D.: optilink.15218
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 25
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Hilter and homosexuals
Article-I.D.: optilink.15225
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 21
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)
Article-I.D.: optilink.15229
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 36
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Was Re: Top Ten Tricks...)
Article-I.D.: optilink.15232
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 37
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)
Article-I.D.: optilink.15236
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 54
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)
Article-I.D.: optilink.15238
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 16
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.
From: tak@leland.Stanford.EDU (David William Budd)
Subject: Re: Rodney King Trial, Civil Rights Violations, Double Jeopardy
Distribution: us
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 53
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.'"
! /    \/      |   |  \   \
|  / \____/|
From: schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz)
Subject: Re: 19th Century Capitalism
Organization: CalTech, Div. of Biology
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: anise.bio.caltech.edu
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
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
Summary: Constitutional Basis of Foreign Aid
Organization: Historical Accuracy, Inc.
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD
Lines: 50
Nntp-Posting-Host: descartes.tec.army.mil
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
From: riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Subject: Losers (Was Re: Stop putting down white het males.)
Keywords: racism, sexism, mysogyny
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD
Lines: 152
Nntp-Posting-Host: descartes.tec.army.mil
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
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 13
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??? |
From: zippy@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead)
Subject: Re: $50,000 Reward!
<1993Apr4.104122.11197@colorado.edu>
<1993Apr4.105514.11664@colorado.edu>
<5APR199313494915@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Organization: California State University, Chico
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu
In-reply-to: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu's message of 05 Apr 1993 12:49:00 PST
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"
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Hate Crimes Laws
Article-I.D.: midway.1993Apr6.043935.27366
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 40
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
From: edo2877@ucs.usl.edu (Ott Edward D)
Subject: E-MAIL
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Distribution: usa
Lines: 7
does anyone have the e-mail address for the white house. if so please send it to
me thanks a lot.
From: zippy@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction
<1993Apr5.144853.3842@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com>
Organization: California State University, Chico
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu
In-reply-to: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com's message of 05 Apr 1993 06:48:53 PST
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"
Subject: Re: New Funding Plan for the Military
From: medkeffjs@hirama.hiram.edu (Jeff Medkeff)
Organization: Hiram College
Nntp-Posting-Host: hirama.hiram.edu
Lines: 20
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.
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Trickle down (Was: 1937 was: Dan Quayle, genius
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 36
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		|
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Hate Crimes Laws
Article-I.D.: news.1993Apr6.052552.18045
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: unseen1.acns.nwu.edu
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
From: s5ugxk@almserv.uucp (Girish Kumtheker)
Subject: How many $$ beibg spent at Waco by BATF ??
Organization: Fannie Mae
Distribution: na
Lines: 18
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
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Why Is Tax Evasion Not Considered Unpatriotic?
Organization: WINCO
Lines: 32
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: response
Nntp-Posting-Host: spot.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 113
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
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 10
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      |
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues
Reply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 11
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)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Part 4 (Re: Looks like Clayton must retract
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca
Lines: 48
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 ...)
From: schwarze@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Hillary and Chealsea Don't Like Men in Uniform
Organization: CalTech, Div. of Biology
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: anise.bio.caltech.edu
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
From: cogsdell@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (tony c)
Subject: GUILTY .. or NOT GUILTY.........(comparitive fault law)
Article-I.D.: mentor.C51uAI.586
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 6
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.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 40
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 ...)
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues
Reply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 281
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)
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues
Reply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 10
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)
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC HEARINGS on Ballot Access, Vote Fraud and Other Issues
Reply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 10
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)
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Motor Voter
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Lines: 13
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:.
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds
Nntp-Posting-Host: solomon.technet.sg
Lines: 94
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
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: SECRET PURPOSE OF FALKLANDS WAR
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 918
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.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Supply-Sider Lightbulb Joke
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 16
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??? |
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 6
_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??? |
From: MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Article-I.D.: auvm.93096.030733MCARTWR
<1993Mar28.022903.13575@ncsu.edu> <93087.042722MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu>
<Mar28.195002.34060@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
<93087.190106MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu> <7166@pdxgate.UUCP>
<1993Apr5.233224.10069@lmpsbbs.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Lines: 53
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
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Availability With Russian Press 4.4.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 220
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Public Schedule of the President 4.5.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: Losers (Was Re: Stop putting down white het males.)
Summary: Just my $.02
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Keywords: racism, sexism, mysogyny
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Lines: 107
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.5.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 581
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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.
###
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks on Trip to Baltimore 4.5.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 74
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for Evidence, Mr. Cramer
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 46
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.
From: elliott@optilink.COM (Paul Elliott)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject
Summary: Why the "quote marks", Roy?
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products
Lines: 33
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."
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 42
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.
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 20
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
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent == Child Molestation
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 40
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
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.17i by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 35
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM.
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
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)
From: starowl@bolero.rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: How many heterosexuals are there?
Nntp-Posting-Host: bolero
Reply-To: starowl@a2i.rahul.net
X-Header: IGNORE ignore Ignore IgNoRe this line
Organization: D Service Actuarial Consulting
Lines: 11
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)
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Nntp-Posting-Host: sysgem1.encore.com
Lines: 116
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
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Distribution: world
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Lines: 18
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
From: popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX
Lines: 28
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
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Lines: 19
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
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Hate Crimes Laws
Nntp-Posting-Host: teal.csn.org
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Lines: 59
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
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu
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
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: US Government Sanctions Sacrilege
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Lines: 82
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
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Background BRiefing in Vancouver 4.4.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 993
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )
Nntp-Posting-Host: solomon.technet.sg
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Distribution: na
Lines: 29
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.
From: gdnikoli@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic)
Subject: Re: Damn Furriners Be Taken Over
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 59
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
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Organization: City University of New York
Lines: 31
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
From: n4hy@tang.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty!  1993
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research
Lines: 19
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tang.ccr-p.ida.org
In-reply-to: Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org's message of Mon, 5 Apr 93 20:12:35 GMT
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
Organization: Arizona State University
From: <CXNBK@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Celebrate Liberty! 1993
Lines: 5
Narrative, narrative, narrative. . .
C.B.
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge
Lines: 36
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
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
From: nickn@eskimo.com (Nick Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: Debating special "hate crimes" laws  (was How many homosexuals...)
Organization: Eskimo North (206) 367-3837 {eskimo.com}
Lines: 68
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
From: edo2877@ucs.usl.edu (Ott Edward D)
Subject: EMAIL
Keywords: E-mail Clinton
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Distribution: usa
Lines: 5
does anyone have Prez. Clinton`s e-mail address.
thanks a lot
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Lines: 254
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
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Lines: 65
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
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu
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?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)
Article-I.D.: usenet.1prvpu$mn9
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
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". :)
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Responses to Ed's Top Ten Lists
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 16
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
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"
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Haiti  AIDS/HIV IMMIGRANTS
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Lines: 23
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.
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Debating special "hate crimes" laws
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Lines: 61
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw12-326-1.mit.edu
In-reply-to: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
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>
From: gemmellj@merrimack.edu
Subject: e-mail to the hill ??
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA
Lines: 4
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.
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: Government-Mandated Energy Conservation is Unnecessary and Wastful, Study Finds
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Lines: 24
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
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 24
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??? |
From: dil8596@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Stop putting down white het males.
Nntp-Posting-Host: vaxb.isc.rit.edu
Reply-To: dil8596@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Lines: 33
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
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Subject: Re: Supply Side-revenue
Distribution: na
Lines: 22
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
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: Formal Rebuttal to the Presumption of Jurisdiction
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Lines: 17
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
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
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy
Article-I.D.: desire.1993Apr6.130430.8264
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 65
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.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )
Article-I.D.: desire.1993Apr6.125825.8263
Distribution: na
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 60
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.
From: roy@panix.com (Roy Radow)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 59
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.
From: acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng)
Subject: Re: hard times investments was: (no subject given)
Article-I.D.: news.C52t8L.5CH
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Lines: 10
Originator: acheng@shalom.ncsa.uiuc.edu
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?
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...
Article-I.D.: im4u.1pspp7INN3ea
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 307
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
...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:
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."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Subject: Re: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED, 3/23
From: sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child)
> <1pklht$krf@genesis.MCS.COM> <1pprtvINNctl@aludra.usc.edu> <1pqfbd$e6b@genesis.MCS.COM>
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
Lines: 47
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.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Defense against the detractors...
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 93
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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).
From: bernard@sirius.gte.com (Bernard Silver)
Subject: Re: Bill Conklin (et al) 's letter
<1993Apr3.231858.27507@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated
Lines: 27
In-reply-to: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu's message of 3 Apr 93 23:18:58 GMT
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
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 17
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
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Hilter and homosexuals
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 106
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
From: kme@node_17aa4.bnr.ca (Ken Michael Edwards)
Subject: Re: Economic Stimulus or Pork?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 73
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
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Lines: 22
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.
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons Not to Aid Russians
Nntp-Posting-Host: eddie.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 137
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
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Lines: 79
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
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Comments Overheard in the Secret Service Lounge
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Lines: 29
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com's message of Tue, 06 Apr 93 02:29:13 GMT
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
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Who be Conservative on this.....
Organization: Who, me???
Lines: 31
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
Subject: Re: CBS NY Times Poll on Health Care Alternatives
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu
Lines: 31
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
From: wiggins@cecer.army.mil (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Responses to Ed's Top Ten Lists
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs
Lines: 16
>>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        |
|===========================================================================|
From: stromer@eyore.unet.com (Philip H. Stromer)
Subject: Re: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...
Article-I.D.: unet.1993Apr6.221210.3054
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: eyore
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
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Supply Side-revenue
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Distribution: na
Lines: 22
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
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Lines: 47
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tk@pssparc2.mitek.com (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Supply Side Economic Policy (was Re: David Stockman )
Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX
Distribution: na
Lines: 36
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
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Lines: 45
Distribution: usa
<1993Apr5.193616.14521@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> <philC51D4F.G2J@netcom.com>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: phil@netcom.com's message of Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:24:14 GMT
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
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world
Lines: 37
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
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Lines: 44
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
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Organization: The Armory
Lines: 68
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.  *
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Organization: The Armory
Lines: 94
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.  *
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: New Environmental Group Launches.
In-Reply-To: eoneill@nyx.cs.du.edu's message of Sun, 4 Apr 93 23:02:33 GMT
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 17
*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.
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: ProLifer Or Terrorist Threat
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world
Lines: 22
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. :-)
From: batwood@SU1AB.Harris-ATD.com (Brett Atwood)
Subject: Re: I thought commercial Advertising was Not allowed
Nntp-Posting-Host: su1ab.ess.harris.com
Distribution: world
Reply-To: batwood@su1b.ess.harris.com
Organization: Harris (Government Communications System Division)
Lines: 4
|> [ debate deleted ]
I guess it is allowed.
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 530
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 19
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
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.
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Law and Economics
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Lines: 174
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw12-326-1.mit.edu
In-reply-to: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
[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>
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates
Lines: 47
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.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?)
Subject: Recent News
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Keywords:
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Lines: 35
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: General DataComm Ind. Inc., Middlebury, CT 06762
Lines: 51
Nntp-Posting-Host: esun228
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
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
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: WINCO
Lines: 41
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Was Re: Top Ten Tricks...)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 53
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
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Reserve officers say demographics ignored in nominations to close naval, marine reserve centers
Organization: R-node Public Access Unix - 1 416 249 5366
Lines: 53
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
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President Names Officials at Transp., Comm., Defen., OPIC
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 130
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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.
###
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Town Hall Meeting
Lines: 25
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
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"
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: A loathesome subject
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 18
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 56
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.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Professors Whining About Pay
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 53
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.
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Remarks at Summer Jobs Conference 4.14.93
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 378
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.14.93
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 996
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 60
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)
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Public Schedule 4.15.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: New Liberation News Service <nlns@igc.apc.org>
Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600108:000:9540
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!nlns    Apr 14 20:42:00 1993
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.
(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 ---
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: Is LA burning yet?
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 18
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??? |
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: War Powers Resolution on Bosnia 4.14.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 102
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
#  #  #
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Lines: 14
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.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]
Distribution: na
Organization: Chevron
Lines: 31
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" ?
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: But how do restrain unpleasant impulses?
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 46
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 20
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: beowulf.jpl.nasa.gov
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
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Gore throws out the first ball. And media coverage of it
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates
Lines: 30
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.
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President to Nominate Carter for Nuclear Security Post
Organization: HSH Associates
Lines: 28
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.
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Lines: 28
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.
From: c115184@cs.UAlberta.CA (Merth Eric William)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Red Army Fraction (RAF) communique
Nntp-Posting-Host: assn119.cs.ualberta.ca
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Lines: 19
>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.
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: Response to Paul Schmidt
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 64
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: SouthWest Mo State Univ
Lines: 32
NNTP-Posting-Host: vma.smsu.edu
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
>>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.
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Lines: 24
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
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Polls (was Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Lines: 37
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: libwca@emory.edu's message of 14 Apr 93 20:31:09 GMT
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
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved  Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over}
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lines: 31
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?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: The state of justice
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 23
Summary: GM's quest for 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.
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Lines: 53
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
From: tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Article-I.D.: lynx.1993Apr15.222023.1521
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Lines: 10
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
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Nntp-Posting-Host: sysgem1.encore.com
Lines: 46
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
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Lines: 36
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
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Representation of Territories? (Was: Re: The $11,250,000,000,000 lunch)
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
Distribution: tx
Lines: 17
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.
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights
Organization: NCSU
Lines: 71
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
From: thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 23
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     :
From: woody@cco.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 93
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu
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.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: A Rational Viewpoint ---> was Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Lines: 27
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 ...)
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Getting Off to an Early Start!
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Lines: 61
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
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 21
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 ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Lines: 20
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 ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Lines: 43
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 ...)
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Lines: 27
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
Organization: City University of New York
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re : BillaryKlintonKligue Illegal War
Lines: 5
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.
Organization: City University of New York
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Karadzic on Bosnia peace plan
Lines: 2
What does anyone think that Judge Wopner would do if Karadzic was
on trial before him?  (Nevah happen, but just a thought...)
Organization: City University of New York
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Most recent U.N. members?
Lines: 4
# 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.
Organization: City University of New York
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: UNITED NATIONS : Gettin' busy
Lines: 4
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.
Organization: City University of New York
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Model United Nations
Lines: 3
Just observed at the National Model United Nations here in NYC.
Just one word on it : AWSOME.
Peace, matt
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Kyle K. on Rodney King
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Lines: 12
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      |
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: The lessons of the NAZIs Re: David Irving - Scholastic fraud
Lines: 112
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
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
From: acunerbb@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (B. Bilal Acuner)
Subject: Turkish Preisident Turgut Ozal passed away
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 6
NNTP-Posting-Host: csugrad.cs.vt.edu
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
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 17
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      |
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Getting Off to an Early Start!
Nntp-Posting-Host: chopin.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 60
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
--
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 13
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
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 15
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
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Nntp-Posting-Host: chopin.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 17
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.
--
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 25
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
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car
Lines: 137
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
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"
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster
Lines: 323
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
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"
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense
Lines: 24
Organization: Pitzer College
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
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: The verdict is in (Rodney King)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 19
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)
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 10
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
From: william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Organization: Dept of TAM Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY
Lines: 19
Reply-To: william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: fractl.tn.cornell.edu
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.
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: bolero
Reply-To: starowl@rahul.net
Organization: D Service Actuarial Consulting
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 14
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
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhura.cc.rochester.edu
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
From: dowdy@tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu (Dowdy Jackson)
Subject: Re: Swimming pool defense
Nntp-Posting-Host: tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Lines: 23
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.
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 51
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
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 19
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.
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 33
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
From: mdouglas@netcom.com (Hokh'Ton)
Subject: Re: race and violence
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Lines: 93
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)
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 27
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
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 99
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
From: jar2e@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Virginia's Gentleman)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 11
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
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 22
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
From: gardinal@alishaw (Paolo Gardinali)
Subject: Re: New <bullshit> Study Out On Gay Percentage
Lines: 48
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
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Z Magazine: Health Care Reform (March 93)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Lines: 95
{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
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Lines: 134
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
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: ONE PAYER SYSTEM B.S.
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Distribution: na
Lines: 54
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
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Radio Interview in Pittsburgh 4.17.93
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 212
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Radio Address 4.17.93
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 178
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
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
From: redekop@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Tzoq Mrekazh)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Welsh Farm
Nntp-Posting-Host: obelix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca
Lines: 16
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 =
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Help fight the Clinton Administration's invasion of your privacy
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Lines: 16
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
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Distribution: world
Organization: Gordian Knot, Gloster,GA
Lines: 23
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
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project
Lines: 47
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  . . . .
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project
Lines: 61
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  . . . .
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: Limited governments versus failed governments
Organization: Just a Boomer, Inc.
Lines: 49
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: Feasibility considered
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 72
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Propaganda Re: re: fillibuster
Lines: 213
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
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"
From: alaramor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron C Laramore)
Subject: Re: race and violence
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Lines: 29
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
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Organization: GrinchCo
Lines: 52
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
Summary: Limited governments versus failed governments
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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
From: dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu (Douglas Young)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]
Distribution: na
Organization: California State University, Chico
Lines: 77
NNTP-Posting-Host: grotus.ecst.csuchico.edu
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.
---)----------                                                ----------(---
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster
Lines: 188
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
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"
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Diplomat License Plates
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 21
Distribution: va
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
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
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 147
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
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.
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Lines: 29
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
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
.
From: mdouglas@netcom.com (Hokh'Ton)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 39
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)
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
Distribution: tx
Lines: 14
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.
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you
Summary: Historical examples and the US Constitution
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 76
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company
Lines: 38
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: More on failed governments
Organization: Failed Libertarian Opportunities, Inc.
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: EIGHT MYTHS about National Health Insurance (Pt II)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Lines: 156
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
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Originator: ervan@dawn.cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 35
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
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Malpractice Not the Issue (Was Re: 8 MYTHS about National Health...)
Summary: Malpractice insurance and litigation don't explain US health probs
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 46
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Lines: 26
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      |
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 28
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
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 11
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
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 46
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.
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence
Organization: Manes and Associates, NYC
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 28
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
From: hampton@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: umcc.umcc.umich.edu
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
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Organization: GrinchCo
Lines: 29
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
Summary: More on failed governments
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 54
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.
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in facts?  Here's a few
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 19
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     +----
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Organization: GrinchCo
Lines: 73
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
Summary: Feasibility considered
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics
Lines: 57
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
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
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.
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill...giving out pubic hairs?!  Oh please!  PROVE IT!!
X-To: THEODORE A. KALDIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Lines: 100
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.
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: More on limiting libertarians
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 100
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
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
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Bush's WI (was Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 25
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
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.
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: rnitedace and violence
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Lines: 20
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw12-326-1.mit.edu
In-reply-to: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
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>
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nwfocus.wa.com
Comments:
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
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.
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: nw12-326-1.mit.edu
In-reply-to: william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu
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>
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 49
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
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.
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Kyle K. on Rodney King
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Lines: 31
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