HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [t.p.drugs et al: USA] Socialist health care (was legalizing drugs)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:47:36 GMT

A repost from talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton:

From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Socialist health care (was legalizing drugs)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:27:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.233006.22715@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>However, I hope one aspect of socialized systems gets tried here: the local
>non-doctor health practitioner, quite possibly employed by the State.  I'm
>particularly thinking of the visiting nurses who barged into the house
>after the children were born, gave them a couple of thorough checkups (yes,
>Rob, I'm talking about you) and generally dispensed good advice.  Often the
>same woman who handed out iron and folic acid tablets during the pregnancy.

But we're talking the United Sates here.  The land of the free and the home
of the brave.  The only country on the planet where herbalism is banned.
Where there are laws being proposed to define vitamins beyond a certain 
potency as 'drugs', subject to the same ruthless enforcement as other
banned substances.  Where nutritional supplements are threatened with
the same treatment.  Furthermore, if you sell something and don't call it
a "nutritional supplement", and a magazine article appears saying that
it is a useful nutritional supplement, these proposed laws would fund the
FDA investigating for conspiracy to get around the laws.  No doubt they
would first seize your company's and the magazine's assets.  Here in the
land of the free, the FDA is already censoring medical journals that
talk about "unapproved" uses for drugs.  They don't want our researchers
to know about the information untill the FDA has already approved them.

I've just finished reading some of the heartbreaking testimony that lead
to DEA administrative law judge Francis L. Young's recommendation
to make marijuana a medicine.  I've also just read DEA administrator John
Law's overruling order, in which he attacked the professionalism of the judge,
attacked the politics of some of the sick people and their representatives, 
attacked the believability of the elderly folks who came forward to say
"my dear son's last year was made bearable by marijuana", ranted on about
how some of the people giving evidence were known to be marijuana users
before they were aware of their illneses, and generally made clear what
a bunch of hateful tyrants our "public servants" tend to be.  Bastards.

I don't want them in my life.  I certainly don't want them involved with
my healthcare.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:548 alt.politics.elections:23279 talk.politics.misc:59216
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Disenfranchising the Minor Party Voters
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:30:51 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <Nov.7.00.22.34.1992.29692@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math (Scott Cromar) writes:
>In the old Soviet Union they didn't count minor party votes either.

Have the votes been counted in the U.S. presidential election?  I have
seen a list with 95 % of the precincts reporting which had some
numbers, but there was no way to tell whether votes for other than the
government-supported candidates were counted in 1 %, 5 % or 95 % of
the precincts.

>When I lived in Guatemala during the 1986 election, results were shown
>for all serious candidates simultaneously (there were about 8 serious
>candidates).  I guess that means that as far as disenfranchising minor
>party voters, the US is somewhat less democratic than Guatemala but
>somewhat more democratic than the Soviet Union.

What's the difference to Soviet Union?

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:530 alt.politics.elections:22541 talk.politics.misc:58068
From: juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (The Road Warrior)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:22:24 GMT
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Nov4105236@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <JKP.92Nov4054720@nic.funet.fi> Jyrki Kuoppala <jkp@cs.hut.fi> writes:
>
>>Why aren't results from the U.S. presidential election for others than
>>the governing party and the court jester told?
>
>CNN promised to show the results (from AP) for the LP (and possibly other
>parties as well).
>
>Unsurprisingly, they lied.
>--
I saw CNN give their explanation for this, and believe it or not, it
wasn't their fault.  They planned to give full results, but could
not get them.  APPARENTLY IN MANY REGIONS POLLING CLERKS DO NOT
BOTHER TO COUNT THE VOTES FOR MINOR CANDIDATES ON ELECTION NIGHT!
CNN said they hope to have a count for Marrou, et. al. by today or
tomorrow.  
-- 
Jeff Uphoff -- "Uppie"     |  
                           |
juphoff@astro.phys.vt.edu  |  new .sig under construction...
juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:537 alt.politics.elections:22665 talk.politics.misc:58230
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:33:40 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <JKP.92Nov4054632@nic.funet.fi>
Jyrki Kuoppala <jkp@cs.hut.fi> writes:
 
>Why aren't results from the U.S. presidential election for others than
>the governing party and the court jester told?
>
>//Jyrki
 
Because nobody really cares.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:536 alt.politics.elections:22650 talk.politics.misc:58212
From: gt@prosun.first.gmd.de (Gerd Truschinski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:26:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.misc
Organization: GMD Berlin (FIRST)

In article <1d92jkINNg6m@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov4.172129.2604@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
|> >Frankly, you've been had.  The results you're quoting are not accurate.
|> >They take all the votes given to anyone but Bush, Clinton, and Perot
|> >and alocate them evenly to those three.  How ever many votes Bush was
|> >reported to have gotten, he got less.  Same with the other two.  That's
|> >what we've been complaining about.
|> >
|> 
|> Are you sure they do this?  I find this a little hard to believe that
|> they would actually inflate the vote totals for the three "major"
|> candidates.  I believe that they just ignore the votes for "other"
|> and compute the percentages based on the votes for the Bush, Clinton,
|> and Perot.
|> 
|> For instance: say 102,000 votes were cast; 43,000 for Clinton, 37,000
|> for Bush, 20,000 for Perot, and 2,000 for Marrou and others.  I could
|> see them reporting the percentages as 43%, 37%, and 20% and just
|> ignore the other 2,000 votes.  If what you are claiming is true they
|> would report the votes totals as 43,860 for Clinton, 37,740 for Bush,
|> and 20,400 for Perot.  If this is what was done it is down right dishonest.
|> -- 
|> -chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)

And take another step, forget about Perot (only 20%). So we have 
 54% for Clinton and 46% for Bush.
  But, winner take it all
   so 100% for Clinton ...

/gT/
From: rh@spock.camb.inmet.com (Rich Hilliard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Question on Presidential Transition
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:06:38 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.


Now that all the transition activities are in the news, I wondered,
who's paying for all these folks' time and other expenses?


PS - I know, I need a new signature quote ...



Rich Hilliard  
rh@inmet.com
Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team

Intermetrics, Inc.
733 Concord Avenue
Cambridge, MA  02138

617 661-1840  x4653

__________________________________________________

I'm a member of the League for Programming Freedom
(league@prep.ai.mit.edu)



	From Santa Monica to Cambridge, my opponents are cranking up
	their models, ready to test them on you.

				-- George Bush
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: How does the electoral college work?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:32:29 GMT


Sorry, bud, you were dead wrong.
The electoral college is, in fact, a group of people who
actually vote. The reasons for it are not quite how I believe you
outlined, but rather that there vote gathering techniques were
rather primitive at the time, and this was to guarantee that the
right person would win. It's a rather outdated system, but still
in place. Here's the specs on what happens:

The popular vote in each state is tallied. In all except Maine 
and Nebraska (see below), whoever wins the popular vote in the
state wins all the electoral votes. Generally, the party who's
candidate wins then picks the electors, and they meet in the
state capitol on Dec. 16th. The votes are then sealed and sent
to Washington where they sit in a safe until The President of the
Senate, the Vice President, reads the votes out to the newly 
inaugurated Congress. 
Maine does the same system, only by Congressional district, with 
the senators going to the winner. Nebraska has some sort of 
formula. Sine they're both so small, it doesn't matter.

This system was put in place mainly because they didn't have the 
relatively sophisticated and accurate methods we have for voting 
now, and this was a way to insure that whoever won the popular
wote in each state won in the nation, the assumption being that
whoever won the popular vote would when the presidency. Well, 
someone in the founding Fathers didn't do their math very well,
and it is possible to win without being the #1  popular vote
getter. Conceivably, in this last election, someone could have become
presidnet with less than 30% of the popular vote. Andrew Jackson
and JQ Adams both won when their opponents got more of the pop vote.
This is the reason why the system is seen as outdated, and there is a 
push to nationally go to the same system Maine has.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:532 alt.politics.elections:22551 talk.politics.misc:58078
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:44:15 GMT
Organization: AT&T

>In article <1992Nov4.172129.2604@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>As of last night, the Libertarians had about 1.8% of the popular vote.

I'd better clarify this right now.  He got nothing close to that.  We appear
to have done dismally.

When I called last night, very few numbers were in, but this is how it was 
shaping up.  For as hard as we campaigned this time, for as much attention
as we received (not much, but a lot compared to other years), for as well
received as we often were, who'd have guessed?  Few doubted that we would
pass one million.  There's still counting to be done, I guess, but few
think we'll come close.

Calling tonight, it turns out that we received increasing support in local
and state races in most areas.  It seems that a lot of people went into the
polls and voted for Perot, and then voted straight Libertarian.  I find
this very confusing, but there it is.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: liberte@cs.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
Subject: Re: How does the electoral college work?
Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Dept CS
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:07:27 GMT

(This should probably be moved to the .reform group.  Do I hear a second?)

In article <1992Nov11.223658.2659@rock.concert.net> barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber) writes:
   However, if we were on the popular vote only, the candidates would
   spend ALL of their time in big cities, trying to get every last
   vote out of them.  There would much less incentive, if any, to spend
   time in rural areas, where the food is grown...

This bias against minorities seems to be the big argument against a
popular vote.  Are there other arguments?

I would like this bias not to exist.  Maybe it doesn't - have there been
any studies that show rural areas really would be ignored in a popular
vote?  Would an intelligently run campaign ignore the rural areas?
Do only rural people care about the rural areas?  Would it make a difference
if the voters were more intelligent about how they voted?  Or would
an alternate voting scheme make a difference?

The claim of bias against minorities in a popular vote seems like a
coverup, but I can't say why.  It just seems that a popular vote is
ultimately superior, because it is the peoples' choice rather than some
haphazardly amplified view.

   I have been intrigued over the last few years with a
   voting strategy called "approval" voting, in which voters are
   allowed to vote for as many candidates as they would "approve" of,
   or would be willing to accept in the office.

YES! Approval voting definitely sounds superior to one vote per office.
How do we get it implemented?   Now that we have a strong showing by
a third party, perhaps all three parties will be more interested in
approval voting.

Dan LaLiberte
liberte@cs.uiuc.edu
(Join the League for Programming Freedom: lpf@uunet.uu.net)
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle."


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty] Re: Innocent until proven guilty?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:40:00 GMT

A repost from alt.society.civil-liberty:

From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Innocent until proven guilty?
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:01:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov12.035950.145069@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>[Concern over a common, ho-hum seizure case deleted.]

You're new around here, aren't you?

There is something highly unusual about the story you posted, and that is
that there is any investigation at all.  Generally, the cops just *say*
it's "drug money" and the fed and local cops split it.  Period.

It's up to the "civil seizure" vitcim to sue to get it back, and he has
to prove that he's NOT guilty.

This goes on all the time.  Routinely, DEA agents walk through airports
stopping people that fit a "drug courier profile" that includes things
like looking at a clock or watch; walking quickly; walking slowly; being
non-white; being among the first passengers off the plane; being among the
last passengers off the plane; being in the middle bunch of passengers off
the plane; looking at a uniformed officer; not looking at a uniformed
officer; going to or coming from a known source city for drugs (all cities
everywhere); going to or coming from a known destination city for drugs (all
cities everywhere)...

They then take any cash found on these people, and send them on their way.

They take cars, houses, land, anything they want anywhere they want in the
same way.  An anonymous tip is enough, but sometimes they don't even have
that much evidence.

If they pick on the wrong person, and it looks like he's got the resources
to sue and make a stink (lawyers say it's not worth it unless the property
seized is worth at least $100,000), then they: 1) seize the assets the
victim was going to use for the fight, 2) cut a deal where for a cash
settlement and a written promise not to talk to the press, the victim
can have his stuff back (in other words, they seize your house, and you
can have it back if you can borrow enough to buy it back from the cops),
or, increasingly, 3) kill him.  The unwashed masses don't know anything
about drugs, but they hate 'em.  The cops say "drugs", and the public says
"oh, whatever you did is ok then".

Over 80% of civil seizure victims are never charged with any crime.  Even if
they are, and are found not guilty, they still have to sue to get their
stuff back.  This is a civil matter, not a criminal one, so they have no
right to an attorney.  If they can't afford one, tough.

>This seems to me to be opposed to our system which presumes a person
>innocent until proven guilty.

We here in the U.S. used to have a system quite like that.  We used to live
under the rule of law, instead of the rule of men.  What country do you live
in?

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Disenfranchising the Minor Party Voters
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:11:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.223051.12793@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <Nov.7.00.22.34.1992.29692@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math (Scott Cromar) writes:
>
>>When I lived in Guatemala during the 1986 election, results were shown
>>for all serious candidates simultaneously (there were about 8 serious
>>candidates).  I guess that means that as far as disenfranchising minor
>>party voters, the US is somewhat less democratic than Guatemala but
>>somewhat more democratic than the Soviet Union.

just proves the old adage that freedom's just another word
for nothing left to lose

>
>What's the difference to Soviet Union?
>
>//Jyrki

well, maybe not

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The original amendments
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:10:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.045953.24160@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>	I saw on a recent post that one of the original proposals
>from James Madison was an amendment for conscientious objectors.
>Does someone have the text of this proposed amendment?

It wasn't a full amendment in and of itself. His proposed text
for what is now the Second Amendment read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall
be compelled to rended military service in person."

After it got out of committe, it read:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no
person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Rep. Gerry (a-F, Mass.) objected, on the grounds that this clause
could be used as an excuse by the government to disarm citizens
(e.g. by claiming that the protected right didn't apply to anyone
specified by the government as "religiously scrupulous"); he
proposed an alternate phrasing, "belonging to a religious sect
scrupulous of bearing arms."

Rep. Jackson (F, Ga[?]) objected, on the grounds that the provision
would unjustly require a part of the people to fight for their
country, while others could avoid this duty. He proposed the 
addition of the phrase, "upon paying an equivilent, to be established
by law" (e.g. anyone opting out on religious grounds would have to 
pay to hire someone to replace him.)

Rep. Sherman (?, ??) remarked that those with religious objections
to bearing arms also found hiring soldiers (what Jackson's proposal
amounted to) equally objectionable. 

After debate, it was determined to leave out the clause entirely
and trust to future governments acting responsibly and protecting
moral pacificts and providing for the national defense as best
suited the future circumstances.

>	BTW, if someone has the text of any other amendments I would
>appreciate it if you would post or send them to me as well. Thanks
>in advance.

I have the full text of Madison's full proposals, most of the proposed
amendments as they left committee, the full debates in the House
(the Senate worked under closed doors at the time...) the Amendments
as sent to the states and the state's official notices of ratification.
(All xeroxed out of Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress,
the 1789 incarnation of the Congressional Record. Elliot's Debates
should also have most of this.) However, at the moment, I lack the 
energy to type them all in...

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:07:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov10.124351.18707@osf.org>, buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:

> Wouldn't campaign reform be a better idea then?  Clinton and Perot
> seemed to be in favor of public financing of campaigns for federal
> positions.  This would seem to help in curbing the special interests
> and their money and help elected officials to concentrate on their
> jobs instead of eternally fundraising. 

As John Anderson found out, public financing is just a clever way to
benefit the Big Two parties at public expense while screwing any
challengers.

Note that at least one third party refuses public financing money
because of their principles, even if it is made available to them.

Whatever "campaign reform" is, public financing isn't it.  I'd
rather send my dollar directly to the candidate of my choice than
send it in to the IRS and have the government choose the recipient
of my largesse according to its own criteria.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Copyright laws and the Internet
From: nmgross@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu ( crayon )
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:31:50 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

Is this political? I dunno. It's Constitutional, so I'll start there.

I'm working a project about the Internet and copyright laws and all.
Just starting the research aspects of it actually. I'd like to
know what information people think would be helpful, what books
and articles I should read, etc. I'd also like personal opinions.
Is Dr. Tribe's work accpeted by most? Are there others with focused
energy into this?

Thanks, 
crayon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:49:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.035919.28497@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>Second: How are term limits gonna solve any problems? My feeling is
>that if the people in his area like the guy enough to keep voting him
>in, he should be there. 

Not necessarily: An encumbant has many advantages while campaigning. For
example, any money he saves in one race, he can save up and use two
years later. As a result, most Congressmen have "war chests" that let
them spend far more money than a serious challenger. Personally, I'd
prefer a limit on _consecutive_ terms (as in no more than three in a
row.) That would periodically remove these advantages while still 
allowing a popular politician (do they really exist?) to be continue
running for office indefinately.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
 

                              
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:959 alt.politics.clinton:16606 alt.politics.perot:5369