HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:50:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.144908.20951@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>Ack.  I can see it now: "Use our new ACME Interstate Highway.  Yes,
>with ACME you go faster!" ;)
>
>I don't see how technological improvements and competition would make
>a difference in the case of highways.  Without parallel, competing
>roads people wouldn't have a choice as to whose road they could drive
>on.  That's the problem we're currently having with things like local
>phone service and (for the moment) cable TV.  It promotes arbitrary
>price increases to the point of extortion and there's no incentive to
>improve the service (i.e. condition of the roads).


I haven't come up with a reasonable solution to the roads issue, but
as regards local phone and cable TV: the governing body (usually the
city government) reviews the offers of the different companies
offering service and picks that which is suitable (determined by
price, personnel, offers, etc.)  If the company doesn't work out, then
ditch them and pick up a new one.  You'll see that even now there are
several cable companies which vie for different markets.  The
incentive is built-in--if the people complain to their gov't., the
looters will be booted.


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18818 alt.politics.bush:14684 sci.econ:9465 talk.politics.misc:64699
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Date: 17 Dec 1992 16:25:58 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

mccarty@add.itg.ti.com (Rick McCarty) writes:

| This announcement from Texas Instruments might be of interest...

| AVI allows a car to be identified by a TIRIS transponder, which carries a
| unique identification code and is embedded in a card placed on a dashboard or
| attached to a license plate. With AVI, cars can travel through a toll
| collection area without stopping. The system automatically assesses the
| appropriate charge. The process takes a fraction of a second and can be done
| at
| highway speeds.

I have yet to see the following subissue discussed, but I find it very
important.

It would be trivial to make this a debit system as well as a credit
system.  In other words, not only could one have a unique transponder
permanently attached to her car for billing purposes, but those who
did not wish to have their car electronically identifiable should be
able to purchase (with deposit) a transponder worth $X of travel. 
Whenever this transponder went through the booth, the account would
be debited the appropriate amount, and a new transponder purchased
(anonymously!) when the account ran to zero.

I hope to high heaven that this option is available, and that
electronic tolls don't become simply one more means and excuse
for the government to keep tabs on its residents.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 22:16:42 GMT

harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>I don't see how technological improvements and competition would make
>a difference in the case of highways.  Without parallel, competing
>roads people wouldn't have a choice as to whose road they could drive
>on.  That's the problem we're currently having with things like local
>phone service and (for the moment) cable TV.  It promotes arbitrary
>price increases to the point of extortion and there's no incentive to
>improve the service (i.e. condition of the roads).

Greg:

"The people" (a trademark of America) would have a choice.  You're
contemplating the idea from the viewpoint of "ownership" and there is
another viewpoint "maintenance", i.e. a company is leased the use of
the roadway.  They maintain it, they earn income from it but they never
own it.

It does not promote arbitrary price increases any more than permitting
you to decide what salary you want arbitrarily increases your income.  If
the price goes too high not only will use decrease but they will lose
their contract to maintain the road.

And on a side note, "extortion" by the cable companies ?  You either pay
us or we kill you ?  You mean "you either pay us or we won't supply the
service" sort of like "you pay us or you can't have that beer" the
grocery store mafia is so fond of harassing us with. <g>

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: michaell@snake16.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:13:53 GMT


Mr. Galvanek and I are "discussing" the qualifications of UW-Chancellor
Donna Shalala for DHHS.  I'm a student at UW-Madison.           


In article <758@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>The bottom line is that running any university is no accomplishment of epic
>proportion in my opinion.  And doing so brings nothing in the way of 
>experience to the task of running a department the size and scope of DHHS.

Hey -- they are looking for new chancellor's here, now that Shalala's going
to DHHS, why not apply if it is so easy?   Not that I'd want you to destroy
my University, but I highly doubt you could do it.  I'm sure I couldn't.
								      

>
>Yes, so UW-Madison is X largest school, so what?  Stack the largest of them
>up against a Fortune 500 company and it's still a little bit of nothing in
>Terms of real world employement and administrative problems.

Sure it is.  Universities have a major impact -- balancing the various
interests, making sure students apply to their school, balancing budgets,
fundraising, and making sure all the students get good, solid, well-rounded
educations.

We'll see how she does, but I think the experiences here are applicable, and
obviously the President-elect, clearly no idiot no matter what your
political-philosophical persuasion, agrees.


Michael Lee
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:12:30 GMT

In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed 
>to put together anything that even modestly resembels [sic] "America".

This guy just doesn't have a clue, does he?

Fewer than half of the cabinet members have been appointed.

What really bugs people like Galvanek is that nearly all of Clinton's
appointees so far have been widely praised by people in all parts
of the political spectrum:  right, center, and left.  Furthermore,
his appointees have the merit, unusual in the last two administrations,
of being experts in their fields.

May I remind you, Mr. Galvanek of Reagan's stellar appointments
such as James Edwards for Energy Secretary?  Where was your
indignation then.  (Edwards was a South Carolina dentist.  As
a Boston Globe article in 1981 dryly put it, "He is noted for
knowing nothing about energy.")

And how about Ed Meese as Attorney General?  Remember, Meese once
said, "If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."

>PSG
>-- 
>America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
>Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
>we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
>is rebuilt, communism lives and it's [sic] advocates are working
>for Bill Clinton! 

Phone call for Mr. Galvanek... I believe it's the John Birch Society.

Jeff


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:59:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.005002.1365@unet.net.com> steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
>In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>In article <1144.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
>>>nothing to do with racism.  Bill's cabinet will be the most diverse
>>>cabinet ever, and it's good to see.
>>>                                                                          
>>
>>Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed 
>>to put together anything that even modestly resembels "America".  Unless
>>of course you actually believe that the majority of Americans that self
>>identify as conservative are really closet liberals who favor socialism
>>     
>
>[Two paragraphs of sniveling condescending unsubstantiated drivel deleted]
>
>This sounds like whining from someone too young to have experienced
>the successes of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the 
>Great Society.  Before each of those administrations, conservatives were
>dooming them to failure.  Only sour grapes and/or ignorance can account 
>for calling a President's term a failure before it has even begun.
>History will be the final judge of the success or failure of Bill
>Clinton's presidency.  It would be foolish to judge history before it 
>has occurred.  As Ben Franklin once said, "Experience is a dear school 
>and fools will learn in no other."


I would agree it is foolish to prejudge an administration without
foundation, but conservatives are judging the likely success of
Clinton's admin. on, I think, primarily, two things:

One, that they believe his plans as outlined in the campaign to have
an inconsistent internal logic (e.g. not raising taxes on the middle
class, but raising an additional $150 billion when the tax increase on
the wealthy will only raise $10 billion.)

Two, that, the fundamental ideological thrust on which these plans are
based have little historical success or logical consistency.  The
plans you cite above as successful are, I contend, simply not.  

Many of the New Deal plans, such as social security, may have been
successful when enacted, but were not intended by the initiators to
last this long.  The Great Society failed miserably with its attempts
at urban revitalization, if the current state of our cities is any
indication.  It did, however, succeed in TVA-type programs for
Appalachia, and of course, the primary reason for its enactment, to
boosting Johnson's popularity for the 2nd term race.

Care to disagree?  Bring in some data that reports the success of
these plans.  The above responses to your point are sketchy as
well--it would do well to present further, detailed arguments to
support the assertions on either side.
David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Latest Clinton picks
X-Xxdate: Fri, 11 Dec 92 13:53:07 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:56:42 GMT

In article <1gaekdINNg7t@tamsun.tamu.edu> Fred Seals 5-2298,
fred@johnd.tamu.edu writes:
>I sure hope that Slick Willie takes many more Texas Democrats.  The more
of these liberals
>he takes out of our state the better off Texas and Texans will be.  God
save the nation.

You know...blanket statements like this drive me crazy. I have seen
representatives and senators from both parties that did a good job
for their constituency. Furthermore, statements claiming that all
democrats are liberals are naive and pointless. Lloyd Bentsen has
been an outstanding public servant. Furthermore, his views are
quite moderate to conservative despite the ridiculous stereotyping
expressed by Fred

I have nothing but the greatest respect for Bentsen and, although it is a
great loss to his Texas constituency, he will make a fine Treasury
secretary.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:04:21 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
=It's real simple math.  But of course, bonehead Republicans slept
=through their intro-math classes.  That's why we now have this huge
=deficit.

Of course! Math class is tough! [cf. talking Barbie dolls]

And I guess Democrats (and a few Republicans too) can't even balance
their own checkbooks. [cf. House bank]
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	All I want for Christmas is a backrub. (And lots of money) 
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18401 alt.politics.bush:14429 sci.econ:9306 talk.politics.misc:63861
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Date: 11 Dec 1992 12:12:34 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:

| For those who believe that privitization is the way to go: name
| me ONE large public works project that was funded entirely
| by private industry.  Show me a major highway, aquaduct, canal,
| bridge, railroad etc.  that was built by private industry and funded 
| entirely by private industry.  WITHOUT free land or other goodies
| from the government. 

The Great Northern Railway was built from the Minnesota/Dakota border
to Puget Sound without a dime of government money.  (Some _state_ land
grants were given for roadbuilding in Minnesota.)

Arguably the most difficult of the transcontinentals to build due to
the climate, the dearth of population, and the inhospitability of
Montana, the GN was the _only_ transcon not to go bankrupt.  So not
only was it possible without government subsidy, but the transcon
built without was actually a significantly more competent operation.

No surprise there.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:26:23 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1gq4qeINNp2q@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, 
ghee@vision.larc.nasa.gov (Terry A. Ghee) writes:
> 
> Was told this by a buddy who works for the navy.  After the gay person
> at Moffett Field was ordered reinstated, he reported to work out of 
> uniform.  Apparently, the navy was willing to follow the order of 
> reinstatement but required him to be in uniform.  They ordered him
> to go back and change into a uniform, and he didn't feel the need to
> do this so they sent him home.  

He was a trainer at Moffett Field.  Do you know if he normally was
required to wear a uniform or was it just this particular day?

> So he goes out the building and
> then gives an "sudden" press conference to the awaiting newsfolks.

I saw the press conference.  He looked like he was cornered by the
press.  What would you have done?  He was very low-key.  If the press
conference was pre-planned I think he would have been in uniform.

> _If_ this story is true (I only know what I've been told, and I do
> not care to track down more info.) then this is certainly highly
> disruptive and unprofessional behavior.  

I'll go with unprofessional.  I'd need to hear more to be convinced it
was disruptive.  Even if it was disruptive, what does it have to do
with his being gay?  

BTW, it was by court order that he was allowed to return to work in
the first place. Considering this is the first time this has ever
happened, this must have been as big a surprise to him as it was to
the military. The military had previously said to the judge
that they weren't going to allow him onto the base in spite of the
court order.  When he showed he was allowed onto the base.  

> As I stated, I can't verify
> this officially, I trust my friend because of who he is and his 
> position in the navy, you are not obligated to believe anything.

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: re: Paul Galvanek claims...
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:11:54 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:15:37 GMT

In article <837@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>My final word to is; I truly hope that you're doing this on puropose
>just for the sake of being combative.  Because if you're not, and
>this is an indication of the quality of instructors at Penn State...

Listen Paul,

Given the naivetae, misinformation, lack of factual content, lack of
historical, macroeconomic, or scientific knowledge, and illogical
emotionalism of your postings, you have alot of nerve questioning
anybody's intellectual qualifications. The fact that the only kind
of arguement you can generate is to attack Melissa's credentials
shows just what shaky ground your standing on.

Until you can state one clean factoid, one verifiable citation from
a reputable source for your claim of "consensus opinion", you have
zero credibility.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:56:28 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bz8JGA.18o@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>
>Yeah? So? You don't get it, do you? Bill Clinton won the election, and
>that means that he gets to appoint as many progressives and liberals to
>the cabinet and other positions of power as he wants. How many socialists
>did Reagan and Bush appoint to their cabinets?

But there's a difference in the circumstances.  Reagan, and Bush to a lesser
extent, ran as conservatives, made no apolologies for being conservative,
promised conservatives would be appointed in an effort to curb the excess
of the left and they won significant majorities of the popular vote, in
two cases by real landslide margins, because that what voters wanted.

What you saw is what you got..

In Clinton's case you had a candidate running as a liberal in the primaries,
then transforming hiself into a "moderate" during the campaign for the White
House, promising diversity and a "new democratic party" with "all points
of view being considered."  What you got was a charade that allowed the 
overwhelming number of voters to oppose the man that will be President,
he's shed his disguise of moderation that helped him "win" and has given an
illusion of diversity by appointing a quota structured cabinet that listen
to only one point of view and considers only one opinion, that of the left.
What you got is an America that was duped and I doubt they will soon forget.

He promised my views would be represented in his cabinet but I don't see one
person even remotely the views of the 6 out of 10 of us that voted against
him.  He lied to us all!

PSG

-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:36:13 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:39:45 GMT

In article <747@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>For instance I believe old Abe Lincoln was the winner of these.  Civil
War,
>assasination is this what we have to look forward to?

Since Lincoln didn't cause the war or his assasination. This is the
biggest
nonsensical statement you have made so far. I didn't think you
could top yourself, but you did.

>>
>>Fact of life in America, my friend.
>>
>>By the way, what is "disillusional"?
>
>Ummm I believe it's the old tactic of a net poster to find spelling,
typing
>and grammatical errors to nit pick about.  Usually surfaces about the
time
>they know they've been clobbered in an arguement and have run out of
ammo 8^)

The only one with no bullets in the chamber is you Paul.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:04:51 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>Clearly the numbers give Clinton a technical victory.  The numbers do not
>however, give Clinton what he claims.  There was no moral victory for liberals

It seems that Clinton is more busy persuading people to go along with
him than claiming dogmatically that someone owes him support.  Are you
reading or watching the news?


>Unfortunately though, the will of the majority got caught in a numbers 
>squeeze and the ideas that most Americans voted against are the very 
>ones well have to endure,

Pray tell, which ones are those?


>Just stop fooling yourself into believing that what Clinton is doing is
>what the American people asked for in November, because it's not.

It's a pretty fucking pompous line to begin with, and you seem pretty
pompous to contend that "the American people" vote with any homogeneity
whatsoever.

Did you lose your little election, and now you're all mad?
Awww.  Don't cry.  There are plenty of right-wing fronts for
corruption and greed.  Just be patient.  Daddy will be home soon.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Paul Galvanek claims....
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:08:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.213654.4293@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>
>Sorry, but any scientist worth his salt will tell you that conclusions
>made
>using one (or a small number) of data points should be dismissed until a
>statistical study is made. 

Well there's your problem right there.  Anyone that considers psychology 
a science has a huge credibility gap with not only me but with the much
of the rest of the real scientific community.   Of course, if I have
a personal experience with something and it doesn't fit the statistical
norm, it isn't real.  No wonder science has gotten such a bad reputations
amongst people considering career choices.


PSG

-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18485 alt.president.clinton:1042 alt.politics.bush:14474 sci.econ:9346 talk.politics.misc:63985