HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,soc.history,soc.culture.filipino
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:48:00 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <1992Apr16.161309.5956@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ak574@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David Choweller) writes:

>So, is one million a low estimate?  I read the Atlantic article (a good
>read, by the way) and the estimate is from U.S. officer.  So Gore Vidal's
>estimate is on the high side.  

It really depends on who you believe. Most of the authors who present an
even and well researched number tend to be well below 1,000,000.

>If Vidal is right, then the U.S. came
>close to matching Hitler's killing of 6 million Jews!  Amazing!

Sure, but what's 6,000,000 to the 18,000,000 million that actually died in
the Nazi Holocaust? Once the numbers get that big they just don't mean
anything any more. You can't get a reliable count and you certainly can't
comprehend what the numbers mean.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU  -  Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
____________________________________________________________________________
Channel Z. All static, all |   "Great pate, mom, but I've gotta motor if I'm
day, forever. - The B-52's |    gonna make it to the funeral."   - Heathers
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17346 alt.politics.elections:555 misc.taxes:2160 alt.society.civil-liberty:3301
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:23:41 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <rdippold.702689236@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>
>>the notion of individuals taking co's/corp'ns to court and suing if
>>they feel that the co. in question is polluting too much.
>
>Why sue?  If you can show they're damaging your property, they need to
>pay you restitution or go to jail, just as if they'd taken a crowbar
>to your car or house.
>
That sounds good as far as it goes but my concern is that determining
cause and effect in pollution cases is much more difficult than with
a mugger or a burglar.  The difficulties that nuclear test victims
are having in proving that the decimation of their families is due
to early bomb tests makes any kind of legal action highly problematic.
I like the idea of moving pollution enforcement away from its current
special category and making it a property/personal damage issue in
criminal law such as normal violent crime is but the delayed nature of
the injury creates serious problems.  Any suggestions here?
>
>-- 
>He who hesitates is a damned fool.   -- Mae West


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 00:57:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
(Greg Frazier) writes:
>If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
>more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
>gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.  Trying to
>re-structure society in one fell swoop just doesn't cut it for me
>(call me chicken).

Here here.

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Posting from Sameer Parekh (Zane) at ddsw1
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 04:15:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Sameer,  I understand you wanting to make a statement.  But this is
going to extract a pretty heavy emotional toll on your parents if
they are of the mind set that wants you to wear a suit.  This would
bust their balls in public.  Are you sure they deserve this?  You
will have a long life to make statements when they are not so publicly
exposed.  Could it wait?

Peace,

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17099 soc.men:8097 soc.women:8674 alt.rush-limbaugh:1080 alt.politics.correct:3584
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:41:36 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
  by Ron Sonenshine
  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
  --
  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.

  The thesis of [June Stephenson's "Men Are Not Cost Effective"], which
  was published in October, is that men are bankrupting the country by
  the cost of their incarceration. Nationwide, she said, 50,000 men are
  added to prison populations each year, and males account for 93 percent
  of all people incarcerated. According to the Criminal Justice Institute
  of New York, approximately 800,000 prisoners occupy the nation's prisons.
  The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that it costs from $12,000 to
  $24,000 per year to house an inmate.

  Stephenson believes that problems having to do with being born male are
  to blame for rising inmate populations--not poor housing, bad schools or
  single-parent families, as others have suggested.

  "I'm not saying all men are criminals. But most criminals are, in fact,
  men."

  She proposed that men--not women--should bear the cost of imprisonment,
  perhaps through a special tax.

  According to Stephenson, women outnumber men in only two of 25 crime
  categories listed by the U.S. Department of Justice--runaways and
  prostitution.

  "Boys are just geared for action," she said. "That's the testosterone."
  --
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (Was: Ross Perot)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:56:09 GMT


In article <rdippold.702686879@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>Yeah, but if all Libs cared about was winning, they would have allied
>with one of the major parties, probably within the republicans (social
>policy varies more within the parties than fiscal policy does,
>allowing more leeway on those issues).  This baffles those who say the
>LP is a joke because it doesn't do just that, but Ls just don't want
>to give up their principles for expediency.  How could a libertarian
>even admit to being in the same party as George Bush or Bill Clinton?

On second thought, the Libertarian Party isn't a joke; it seems to be
something analogous to vanity publishing.

By the way, I am certain that Milton Friedman supported Reagan/Bush.  I
realize that Friedman is not as hard-line as the Libertarian Party, but
what I have never seen is any serious rebuttal by a Libertarian to
the moderately pro-government stance that Friedman argues for in (say)
_Capitalism_and_Freedom_.  The only "refutation" I have heard is
something like "rights are rights are rights and you must never violate them
even if it is 'efficient' to do so, and anyway, modern economics is
all bogus since it rests on a neo-Kantian foundation."

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17428 talk.politics.guns:11395
From: jvh@nature.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:42:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s00cgINNo50
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu

In article <alberti.702715886@ux.acs.umn.edu> alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
]>I think it is outrageous that there are people out in the woods teaching
]>bears to shoot at defenseless hunters...  Next thing you know, they'll be
]>giving pistols to deer, and uzis to squirrels...
]>
]>What?  What's that...?  The right to bear arms, not arm bears...?
]>Oh, sorry...

	First time I've heard that one ...... this week.

	But seriously, it was pretty funny the first 20 times I heard it.

Joan V
From: bell@cassatt.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:15:51 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <1992Apr4.222713.2538@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1692@nic.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes:
>>	On C-SPAN yesterday (Thursday) in a meeting of the Board
>>of Editors of the New York Post, Jerry Brown indicated that he
>>was willing to adjust the tax system by upping the VAT 1% in order
>>to cushion or eliminate income taxes for those making under
>>$15,000.

>A VAT is more like a sales tax than an income or profits tax...
>some of the complaints about it's regressivity have merit, but
>that just means the social safety net has to be adjusted accordingly.

From the Brown flat-tax proposal available over the net:

For business, the basic tax is a simplified version of the value
added tax popular in other countries.  Our version would be much
better because it is so simple.  Each company would just take
its total sales and subtract its purchases from other taxpaying
companies to get its tax base.  The tax would then be calculated
by multiplying the tax base by 13%.

It *is* a tax on profits -- profits are the value added.

  -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu

(Not particularly advocating Brown -- just trying to guide the discussion
along the right lines.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Perot/Ethics (was NONE due to newsreader error)
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:49:40 GMT

>	His "admission" about drug use was first to say "I have never violated
>the laws of this state", then "I have never violated the laws of this nation",

So am I to believe that Bill Clinton NEVER drove over the speed limit?
He always came to a compleat stop.  Never walked across the street in
a non-cross walk area.   Are we not as citizans of the U.S.A. required
by law to follow the laws of counties we visit?  well, just a few
things to think about when reading that someone claims to have
"never violated the laws of this state".
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:04:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr4.020107.16938@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>By all means, go out and help Perot get on the ballot.  Then vote
>for Marrou and the other LP candidates if you want sustainable
>long term change.  If everyone who is thinking about voting for
>Perot just because they *think* he has a real chance would decide
>to vote for Marrou then Marrou would have a real chance too.
>Ultimately real change depends on people voting for what they want
>rather than for what they think they have to settle for.
>
>/June

  It seems like the people really slamming Perot on the net here are the
Marrou supporters.   I don't see Perot supporters going around slamming
the Libertarian party.  Let's leave the name-calling to the Democrats/Repub-
licans to bicker about.  If you candidate needs to drag Perot down in
order for him to look good, then he's probably not worth voting for.

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:09:17 GMT
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr7.151458.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
>
>1) it guarantees your right to own a musket.  (that's all the firearms they had
>back then)
>

Does this mean that freedom of speech does not apply to television, radio and 
other electronic medium?  Better break out that printing press or get a quill.

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,soc.history,soc.culture.filipino
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:16:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.161309.5956@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> davidch@zimmer.csufresno.edu writes:

>>which he gave the total body count at "only" one million rather than
>>three.  (He was, shall we say, less than pleased by the US' actions.)

>So, is one million a low estimate?  I read the Atlantic article (a good
>read, by the way) and the estimate is from U.S. officer.  So Gore Vidal's
>estimate is on the high side.  If Vidal is right, then the U.S. came
>close to matching Hitler's killing of 6 million Jews!  Amazing!

Well, there is something more than numbers involved.  The US conquest
of the Philippines is something more comparable to Hitler's invasion
of France, Poland and Russia, or the USSR's invasion of Poland and
Eastern Europe, or the carve-up of Africa by European powers.  All of
those caused vast numbers of casualties and are deplorable, yes.  But
just as we distinguish between theft and murder, and between different
degrees of murder, there is a difference between a war of conquest,
however brutal and unjustified, and the systematic extermination of
people inhabiting one's own country with whom one is not at war.  It's
not just a matter of numbers, but a matter of intent.  The US intent
in the Philippines (to oversimplify) was to own and control the
Philippines.  It might have been willing to kill to achieve that goal--
to kill many-- but if it could have ruled the Philippines without
a drop of blood being shed it would have done so.

Now, that goal is not admirable and we would rightly revile it.  But
the Nazi goal in perpetrating the Holocaust was the torture and
extermination of a particular group of people.  If they could have had
total world domination with or without killing the Jews, they would
have killed them.  If they could have killed them all with or without
causing them pain and humiliation, they would have chosen pain and
humiliation.  _That's_ what makes the Holocaust different: not just
the order of magnitude, but the fact that cruelty and mass murder
were an end rather than just a horrific, misguided means.

Mike



-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Accuracy in Media: Is this a legitimate group?
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:27:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Mar30.002442.26071@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <738@niktow.canisius.edu> tami@niktow.canisius.edu (Tami Crawford) writes:
>>
>>Does anybody know if the group "Accuracy in Media", which is supposed
>>is listed as a "media watchdog" is really dedicated to accuracy in
>>media or is there something else behind this group.
>
>AIM is dedicated to showing left-wing bias in the media; "Fairness
>and Accuracy In Reporting" is dedicated to showing right-wing biases
>in the media.  To that extent, they both have quasi-hidden agendas.
>-- 
	What's interesting is that they *both* find it!  >:-)>
IMHO if there's any systematic bias in American media it's centrist.  Ideas
and movements with small constituencies and/or "extremist" ideologies generally
get short shrift.  Ditto for most conspiracy theories, regardless of evidence.

>Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
>1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
>U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
>Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes

Chuck

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:51:22 GMT

sike@athena.mit.edu (Michael G Sheldon) writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.223541.2704@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@m4-035-4.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>|> ...  Drugs should be legalized.  The illegality of drugs
>|> creates crime, not the drugs.

>Then murder should be legalized?  By your reasoning, the illegality of murder
>creates crime, not the murder.

The analogy falls apart because murder itself is a criminal act wheras 
recreation drugs may be used without fraud or violence.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: arf@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:36:56 GMT

In article <15847@bunny.GTE.COM> chf0@gte.com writes:
>In article <gate.JF5RiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP>, ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:
>|>                           WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?
>|>                           The Alarming Facts
>|>
>|> ...few Americans outside the media establishment are aware of the
>|> Jewish hegemony in the media.
>
>It constantly amazes me how those who disagree with what the
>mainstream media is saying will eventually conclude that the media is
>run by a conspiracy of those they oppose:
>
>1. During Vietnam, the media was "the liberal media" bent on
>destroying US efforts in Vietnam.
>
>2. In 1988, I received a mass mailing from Dan Quayle's father,
>accusing the "liberal media" of bias against his son.
>
>3. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, there have been consistent
>charges that the media is "the mouthpiece of the government" and "a
>tool of big oil".
>
>4. Now we have Mr. Winston charging that the media is run mainly by
>Jewish interests.
>
>Perhaps the truth is that the mainstream media reports what it thinks
>the American public wants to hear, regardless of political
>considerations.

 
ARF says:

More likely, the truth is all of the above.

arf
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 02:31:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <2038@uswnvg.UUCP> dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:

>>Sheesh... Given enough information (or enough bullshit) one can
>>rationalize or explain away anything....

>[ Refrain of "Onward Christian Soldires" as djk takes up the Flag of Cramer
>and marches off into the sunset to do just that. ]

C'mon, sport; use your imagination.  Seems poetically ironic for the tune of
"We Shall Overcome" instead, now doesn't it??
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17392 rec.sport.hockey:9228
From: johnston@ug.cs.dal.ca (geoff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:25:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Apr8.130714.12076@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>[...]
>It's very demonstrable that the players are underpaid.  A New York Times
>magazine article on the guy who owns the Los Angeles Kings said that they
>were losing $2 million a year before Gretzky came (they were selling less
>than half of their tickets), but after The Trade, and paying Wayne a 
>$3 million/year salary, the Kings were showing a $5 million/year profit.
>
>In other words, Wayne Gretzky increased the *profits* (not the revenues)
>by ten million dollars all by himself, of which he sees about 30%.
>Now, who are the fans paying money to see?  Wayne, or Jerry Buss?  So
>why does the owner get twice as much as Wayne?
> 

True.  Wayne Gretzky probably is underpaid, but 3 million
per year isn't much to complain about.  The argument of increasing
profits through one player directly, as with Gretzky, applies
to a tiny percent of the players in the league.
Also, there are other reasons why the Kings pack the house,
although of course Gretzky is the main reason.  The
acquisition of Gretzky is the epitome of Bruce McNall's
approach to developing the Kings.  He gets the players
the fans want to see, and fills the stands.

By the way, isn't Wayne a part owner of the Kings?
(I thought that was part of his original trade deal).

But maybe I'm just thinking the the Toronto
Argos purchase by McNall, Gretz., John Candy last year (example 
of McNall's generosity to players ie. Rocket Ismail , and
also putting out a product people want to see)


-geoff
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: 7 WBAI: Harvard Harbors the Adolf Eichmann of Guatemala: Heinous Hector
Date: 10 Apr 1992 16:34:18 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Apr10.134438.25554@e2big.mko.dec.com>, cook@vcsesu.enet.dec.com (The Cookster!) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Apr9.202034.10430@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes...
|> 
|> >      It's too bad that there weren't enough of us to stop the
|> >      original Hitler, and the most recent one. You know, George Bush.]

Yeah, and the most recent Goebbels, too. You know, John DiNardo. (:-:)
[the one who truly believes the Hitler-ian notion that if you repeat something
enough times, you might actually get people to believe in it.]

-srinivas
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17549 talk.environment:1423 alt.activism:7455 rec.nude:2090