HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:55:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Argument from authority

>From: "(jimmy donal wales)" <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

>I also have my doubts about the stability
>of the equilibrium he described, and about the empirical conditions
>which would allow such an equilibrium to emerge.

Could this be because the firms' incentive to undercut the convention outweighs
the benefits involved?

>Jason is right when he says that firms incur opportunity costs when
>they choose to behave in racist manners.  But he fails to understand
>that Jamie's model is perfectly consistent with that.  Firms incur
>opportunity costs whenever they do ANYTHING rather than some other
>thing.  Because unless you have infinite resources (you don't) then
>resources spent in one way can't be spent in another way.

True.  Looking back, I'm not sure why I made such a big deal about the basic
opportunity cost thing.  Regardless, I did make the argument a long ways back
that the costs of adhering to the covenant outweigh the benefits.  Again, this
claim was never really answered, although we've gone over that already.  Since
Jamie has all these things saved up, I'll refer interested third parties to his
record.

>Jamie's idea is interesting because it shows how a firm might act
>in a racist manner as an OPTIMAL strategy, EVEN WHEN the firm doesn't
>really have any INTRINSIC desire to be racist.

Yes.  Another good example would be statistical discrimination, which is FAR
more likely to be found in reality than Jamie's hypothetical example.

Thanks for the post.

>--Jimbo

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:05:41 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Interesting article if you're interested in a look inside the Perot
campaign prior to the July withdrawl from the race:  "Perot's Final
Days" by Marie Brenner in the October Vanity Fair (the one with
Madonna on the cover).  She does a good job of describing the tension
between "the professionals" (Rollins, Jordan, and their people) and
the Perot people.  A lot of paranoia, failure to listen to advice,
and so on.  Perot doesn't emerge from this article looking like the
most stable person around.

Press stories awaiting Perot when he returns to the race include:

"The Jewish-Professor stuff":  It is alleged the Perot had his daughter
Nancy's former boyfriend investigated.  The boyfriend, who is Jewish,
was a professor at Vanderbilt.  There are rumors that Perot wasn't too happy
with the relationship and actually rented the house across from the
man's house so that his security people could watch the professor.  This
summer, many reporters were working on this story, but were not able
to confirm it.  ABC apparently tracked down the professor who called
it a private matter, but a colleague told ABC that Perot was very
annoyed about the relationship.  If this story does get aired or
printed, it would certainly cause some problems for Perot with his
Jewish supporters.

"The Bobby Joe King stuff":  ABC, on the day that Perot withdrew, was
planning to air a story that an EDS Federal Systems employee, Bobby
Joe King, was fired in 1986 (when Perot was still head of the company)
because he told his supervisor that he had been hospitalized with an
H.I.V.-related pneumonia.  King lost all of his medical benefits.  He
had filed a suit (which was settled), but has since died.  The ABC piece
was said to disclose other examples of ill employees who were fired.  The
piece never ran, since Perot withdrew that day.

There also may be more on the well-reported incident with Branford
and Texas medicaid, his battle with former Pentagon official Richard
Armitage, possible involvement with the Shah's secret police and so
on.

Perot has shown that he doesn't react well to the press digging into
things like this--I wonder if he's grown a thicker skin since July,
or if he'll be making the same wild accusations about the press setting
him up if these stories get dragged out again.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:49:01 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Education and money

Michael:

I think you took my message the wrong way.  I am very well aware
of what it really breaks down to.  I was just expressing how it
was "justified" here.

Knowing what a professor really does and what they are paid for
that amount of work, I still am going to make it my career.

Is that suicidal, demented, masochistic,. . . .

:)
j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:16:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: H. 'You People' Ross 'I don't want to be a spo

        I think that Clinton has a great deal that he can say in the area
of foreign policy, but perhaps he ought to save it for the inauguration
speech, because right now it might do more harm than good.  Time is short
and he doesn't really need it so why shoot himself in the foot.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:46:00 EDT
From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: White House bitnet
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Janet:
>Does anyone know if the White House has a bitnet address?  Not just
>individuals who work there, but an address so that I can send a message
>to the President (or at least some aide in the President's office)?

Don't know if the White House has a bitnet address, but if they did, it
would explain why they were so slow to learn that the economy wasn't
doing well.  The economic news kept getting held up around PSUVM...:)

>--JEP

Gary W. Olson, bitnaut       "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
35 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:41:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Darn

Jimbo:

Sorry, but I've already deleted it.  Unlike some people on this list, I don't
have the memory allocation to keep all my mail stacked up for future
reference... :)

I will testify that your letter was snide.  And as I noted in my response, your
point was well taken. :)

If I could ask a favor though, you mentioned in your previous letter that
Jamie's hypothetical example would probably not occur in real life.  More
accurately, you said something like "I doubt that such a scenario would occur
in the real world."  (I remember the word "doubt" at least -- unlike some, I
try not to put words into people's mouths to make them sound more extreme than
they really are).

Anyway, since Jamie brought it up and all, I'd appreciate it if you'd again
repeat that statement for the record.  Thanks! :)

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:25:44 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More Ponderings on Brother Perot ... an essay
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              2 Oct 1992 09:29:27 -0500 from <CDELL%UMKCVAX1.BIT
              NET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:29:27 -0500 VALENTINE M. SMITH said:
>I think Ross causes the most trouble in California, Florida,
>Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Utah, Idaho, Oregon,
>New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Georgia and
>Kentucky, at the least, and perhaps Nebraska, Wyoming and Nevada too.

I can see the "rusted" states going his way but I thought states like
Utah were gimmees for the GOP?

>The numbers get complicated. By one electoral count I've made - the
>race is too close to call, with Texas being the margin of victory, by
>only a few votes either way over the 270 needed. Perot cannot win, it
>doesn't appear, but he could indeed become the "spoiler" he claimed
isn't this a double negative meaning it appears he can win?

>in July he did not want to be.

>The polls give him about 9% today, with 32 days to go. He is reported
>to be going to purchase a block of prime time (half hour) for
>$600,000. He wants a balanced budget, more confidence & participation

WMAQ has mentioned half-hour shows on all three networks so far and
more in the works as part of a "package deal".  I think he'd be far
better off purchasing entire commercial sections (national+local
station breaks) during the gaps at half-hour breaks.  As Siskel & Ebert
said about "Dances With Wolves" being 'too long' @ 3 hours:  "good movies
are never too long. (and bad ones are never too short)."  The same
could be said for his television time: buy many small chunks, say your
piece, and get out of the way.  Thirty minutes is twenty-five minutes
longer than the average American's attention span.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:02:00 EDT
From:         SPICE <GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Education and money

>I thought it was "those who can, do, those who can't, teach, and those
>who can't teach, administrate"


    No, no, no.  It's "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach, and those
   who can't teach, teach gym."  Now, I wouldn't mind adding "those who
   can't teach gym, administrate......


>MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu

g racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:31:19 BST
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: republican platform
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Kerry:
>Hi, y'all.
>Our library just received its copy of the Republican Party Platform (so

I always thought one caught a train from a platform. Quite a big thing
to fit in your library.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:28:13 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new tax scheme

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>> But I think I suspect what you mean by "fair."  You see,
>> I think the reasoning behind a flat tax being fair is not
>> sound or on solid grounds.  The first loop-hole to that
>> idea comes when you would propose deductions for the poor
>> (zero brackets) and for individuals.  Why should the next
>> guy who makes the same amount of money as I do pay less tax
>> just because he has 10 kids and I have two?

> Actaully, I don't recall ever proposing such exemptions.  In fact, I oppose
> them partly for the reasons you provide.

Let me get this straight.  You are saying a person who makes
say $5000 a year, lives in a room, and can barely afford food
and medicine should pay say $500 in taxes, right?  And you
call that "fair"?  And what would happen if that person doesn't
pay taxes?  We will confiscate his clothes (he doesn't have
any property), or throw him in jail?

>> Now some people say we have to pay taxes according to our
>> *abilities*.

> Specifically, those who advocate progressive income taxes generally say
> something like this.  In fact, many would say that its only "fair" that those
>who earn more ought to contribute relatively more to society (the state).  Why
> should this definition of "fair" be accepted as opposed to my own?  Again, I
> can't see any ultimate reason why it should.

"Fair" enough.  Then maybe the majority of people should decide what
is fair.

>> I have to disagree with you on that.  Are you saying property taxes
>> are also double taxation?

> Yes.

I see.  So sales taxes, state taxes, franchise taxes, taxes on
alcohol, school taxes, etc. are all double taxation, right?
I guess I can live with that *definition*.

Say the federal government charges a 20% flat tax today (10% for
defense and 10% for social programs).  No other kind of taxes
whatsoever.  That is what you want, right?  So you make $100,
pay $20 in taxes and are left with $80.  Now say because of a newly
adopted constitutional amendment, the federal government is banned
for collect taxes for social programs and states are left with that
privilege.  So now, under the new system, you make $100, feds
keep 10% and you are left with $90.  BUt now the state is collecting
another 10% tax (on your original income) for social programs and
you are left with $80.  So now according to you we are double taxed,
right?  Well, I guess a definition is a definition, but yours is
not cohesive and self consistent.

I always thought double taxation was being taxed for the same PURPOSE
twice and simply being taxed twice.

> Jason

>> p.s.  Will you please leave about 1-12 characters right margin so that
>> I can add quote signs to the beginning of your text?  Thank you.

> Sorry, but I'm not sure how to do this :(

That is right, I forgot.  THAT is taught in the graduate school
these days.  :-)

--KAT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Argument from Authority
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:20:12 GMT

An argument from authority:

I know quite a bit of game theory.  I know a lot of math.
I put the two together.  I'm a mathematical economist.
I'm a PhD student.

Jamie knows quite a bit about game theory.  He doesn't know much
math.  But he understands the concepts of game theory better than
many people who do know math. 

JasonZ knows almost no game theory.  He doesn't know much math
either.

I think that Jamie's story about racism is technically correct from
a game theoretic point of view.  I think that there are few really
easy policy implications.  I also have my doubts about the stability
of the equilibrium he described, and about the empirical conditions
which would allow such an equilibrium to emerge.

Jason is right when he says that firms incur opportunity costs when
they choose to behave in racist manners.  But he fails to understand
that Jamie's model is perfectly consistent with that.  Firms incur
opportunity costs whenever they do ANYTHING rather than some other
thing.  Because unless you have infinite resources (you don't) then
resources spent in one way can't be spent in another way.

Jamie's idea is interesting because it shows how a firm might act
in a racist manner as an OPTIMAL strategy, EVEN WHEN the firm doesn't
really have any INTRINSIC desire to be racist.  The key to comprehending
the result is also the key to comprehending basic game theory and
micro-economics based on it.  Basically, the idea is that strategic
interactions matter.

--Jimbo






Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:48:07 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Iowa ERA

Today, I heard on NPR that Iowans will vote on an ERA-like
amendment this election year.  The amendment substitutes
"men" with "men and women" in a phrase that says something
like, "all men and women are protected....," and add gender
to the list of attributes that cannot be used as a basis for
legal discrimination.

The opponents are charging that, if passed, this amendment may
be interpreted by the courts as women having rights to
indefinite number of abortions and homosexuals to engage in
homosexual behaviors.

In other words they are saying, if treated equally, that women
and homosexuals are entitled to abortion rights and homosexuals
behavior, respectively.  Now, let me type it slower this time:
if treated EQUALLY, women and homosexuals are entitled to abortion
and homosexual behaviors, respectively.  And this is coming from
the OPPONENTS of the ERA amendment.  How revealing!

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:06:36 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

Helloooo to all again,

Hello to the K=A*T,

>> Yeah, WHY? Please do tell.

Good heavens, have you fogotten so soon the previous postings on the debate
called 'Shall We Dance' where you stated that what I had posted was a 'fair
question' and replied the combination in the debate of a single and panel
situation seemed favorable to you?

I can post it again if you wish to see it again.

>> OK, let's think this over very slowly.

So you agree that Larry King is liberal.  That's okay, nothing wrong with
that, however, his show is not known to be a friend to the conservative
point of view.  He questions probably relect that view.

Bush may not be taking questions, but at least he is going on.  Let Clinton
have his field day, I believe it would be his show in this atmosphere, anyway.

BUT...here is where think even faster.

Where is the response to the open invitation that was offered since the
day after the Democratic National Convention to Mr. Clinton to appear on
the Rush Limbaugh radio show????  Even though Rush is anamatha(?) to you
his radio show is to conservatives what Larry's is to liberals.

The answer is certain why neither wish to be on the others show.

Rush has promised to ask him 'hard ball' questions, as much as the 'liberal
King' would ask.  Both appear to represent the questions that John Q. Public
would ask from both sides of the spectrum.

> Whick "deck" was that?

The one that Clinton jumped on so fast.  Any reasons why?

> Remember, this is politics.  No candidate would try and be fair.

Right, Baker knows that too, as I am  sure Clinton's strategy co-ordinator
does also, and I am sure the John Q. Public's would like to see balanced
debates also.

> The *bipartisan* Debate Commission, however, has the appearance of being
> impartial and fair.

Are you sure?  How do you know for certain?

> --KAT

Sue Clark

"You've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them.."  - James
Bak....no, Kenny Rogers.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:25:03 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      wasting away again in margaritaville

waste your vote on a third-party candidate?
did i see this correctly?
*waste* your vote?
i take grave exception to this attitude.  no one's vote is *waste*d.
(thomas pynchon fans, shut up a second, here.)
by voting for any third party candidate, you are voicing your opinion that
you do not like either of the two parties that are dominant.  you are
by no means *wasting* your vote.
it is this short-sighted attitude that has hindered 3rd party movements for
years and is one that the democrats and republicans devoutly hope that you
will buy into.

(my parents used to fight about this all the time.  my father would vote
party-line democrat and my mother republican and they would argue with
each other about "cancelling each other's vote" {?}. then they would tell me
that i was wasting my vote by voting libertarian.  just one big happy, that's
my family.)

anneliese.l
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:53:32 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Yoni:

Jeanne Kirkpatrick says she was never asked to be Perot's VP and she
wouldn't have said yes, if he had asked.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick is to smart to be a vice-president.  Or a president,
for that matter.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:53:09 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

>__________________________________________________________________________
>Anyone know James Stockwell?????  Perot not only just re-entered the race,
>but picked him as his VP.
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Sue Clark


James Stockdale was tapped to be Perot's running mate a while ago--he
just didn't make a big deal out of it.  As was posted earlier in the
week, he's a former Vietnam POW who was held for seven years, won
the Medal of Honor, etc.  He and his wife wrote a book that was
made into a TV movie.  He has criticized the government's handling
of the Vietnam War (my secretary says that she remembers him telling
Congress or someone that the North Vietnamese never fired on the
American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin).  From this afternoon's
news conference, it's clear that he's not the most dynamic
person (he seems to owe charisma).

I think that Perot's now in for it from the press.  Feeding frenzy time
as reporters are going to swarm over every rumor that involves Perot.  And
if you think he already appears to be sociopathic...just wait!

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:04:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

        It was also a book and I think a broadway play (which I should
know cause my father was a drama critic for Variety, but I don't so sue me).

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:48:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where is that letter, anyway?

Jimbo's last post reminded me of something.  Jamie keeps saying that I sent him
this really condescending (it was) letter filled with ad hominem attacks (it
was not).  Yet he has never bothered to actually forward a copy of this
offending letter to the list, even though I have specifically said that I had
intended for it to be distributed.  Thus, third parties have no way to judge
for themselves whether or not Jamie's interpretation is really accurate, or
whether his own biases are interfering in his judgement.

Jamie:  Since I know you have dillegently saved all of these letters, why don't
you post the one you found so offensive.  I've already conceded that it was
condescending, but no more so than many or your own posts are.  This would help
people make up their own minds on the matter.  Thanks!

Jason
From: KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: campaign commercials
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:13:16 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              29 Sep 1992 11:55:24 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

Fred & KAT:

I think of that particular ad as Bush's "Doogie Howser" commercial.  :-)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU