HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 10 Sep 92 11:51:11 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <53165@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> Just the idea of Lotus in Athol seems a little funny. It's not a major
> technical or intellectual center.

True. It also does not currently have a large amount of suitable
and unused real-estate.

So more realistically we are talking about a move from Cambridge
to say Acton, Concord, Lowell, Bedford. 

Lowell. Certainly a town with as much "character and diversity" as
Cambridge. And gosh, with the shutdown at Wang, what a place like Lowell
wouldn't do to get Lotus? Think of it. And in the current economy,
how many people would quit good jobs at Lotus if they moved
from Cambridge to Lowell?

(And Lowell is on the extreme end, perhaps, of move distances).

By they way, I used to commute from central square cambridge to an office
in Lowell.

It took 15 minutes to "get out of cambridge." That is, to make it to
route 2. And then 15 minutes to get down to the end of the Lowell 
connector. And 5 minutes to get into downtown Lowell.

This is an "anti-commute" of course. 

But how many Lotus employees currently live in cambridge.
And how many of those are paying rents that would enable them
to *purchase* bigger places elsewhere? The condo market is quite soft.
Interest rates a way down.

The median market rental rate in Cambridge is about $750 a month.
The current mortgage rates, you can get 15 year no-point loans
at 7.5%, so that would buy you a mortgate of $81,000, and there
are plenty of nice condominium developments outside of 128
with prices around that figure.

Of course, condo fees, closing costs, down-payment.
But also, you have deductability of interest, ownership, equity buildup,
control. Quality issues. 

Things are in the right ballpark for a lot of people to be making
a lot of moves here.

-gjc
From: boomer@sylsoft.com (Richard Akerboom)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Haitians as Political or Economic Refugees
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:39:53 GMT
Reply-To: boomer@sylsoft.com (Richard Akerboom)
Distribution: ne
Organization: Sylvan Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but here goes.

It's my understanding that the border between Haiti and the Dominican
Republic is basically wide open, but that few refugees cross this
border. If there are so many Haitian political refugees then it would
seem simpler to cross into the Dominican Republic than to try to go
to the United States, particularly with the interception etc. of the
Coast Guard. If this is true, it supports the theory that most of
the Haitian refugees are economic, not political.

Rich

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Akerboom       Domain: boomer@sylsoft.com or akerboom@dartmouth.edu
Sylvan Software          uucp: dartvax!sylsoft!boomer
Mechanic St.            Phone: 802-649-2231
P. O. Box 566             FAX: 802-649-2238
Norwich, VT 05055 USA 
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: pld@cthulhu.hq.ileaf.com (Peter L. DeWolf)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Reply-To: pld@ileaf.com
In-reply-to: usenet@transfer.stratus.com's message of 8 Sep 92 23:34:56 GMT
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
	<2798822096@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 17:35:57 GMT

>>>>> On 8 Sep 92 23:34:56 GMT, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) said:

> ...  If Cambrige gives a tax cut to Lotus, then the revenues lost
> will have to come from somewhere.  It will probably come in the form
> of increased taxes on residents and other businesses.  In effect,
> you'd be taking from one group of people to give to Lotus.

I understand that Cambridge had an $18 million tax SURPLUS last year.
Perhaps Cambridge should reduce all property taxes?

> --------------
> Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com

 - Peter
-- 
Peter L. DeWolf     |     Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
pld@ileaf.com       |     R'lyeh wgah-nagl fhtagn.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:44:42 GMT

In article <scVXPB5w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:

>The best answer is to issue the vouchers and let people make up their own
>minds.  If they are happy to toss their voucher into the public pool for the
>public education, more power to them.  If they feel they can get a better
>education elsewhere, they should be able to pursue it without being penalized
>for it by having to pay for that alternative education AND the public one as
>well!

Does that mean that people without school age kids get to cash their vouchers 
in for cash and use it for anything they want?

If you say yes to this, fine.  If you say no to this then you're saying 
that citizens of this country have a duty to support public education for 
the good of society.  If that's the case, then everyone should support 
public education, whether they use it, private schools or no schools.  
So which is it?  I want my dough now (I don't have any kids!).  :-)
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Heinleins movie (Re: Lotus as a public charity)
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:46:05 GMT
	<1992Sep14.123927.1368@miki.pictel.com>
	<1992Sep15.194244.7212@das.harvard.edu>
Organization: The World


From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
>Remember that this is before the
>manned space program had started, so there was very little fact
>available to go on.

>I'd say there are very few SF movies which don't show thier age.  Even
>2001, watched today, has scenes which look outdated (ie, those awful
>"futuristic" couches in the space station.  The zero-g scenes still
>look incredible, but the movie does show a bit of wear.  I don't think
>its fair to criticize Heinlein on the basis of one movie made in the
>late50's/early 60's. 

Well, the issue was merely that he was being put forward as some sort
of grand visionary. If we agree that he was merely ordinary, if
perhaps a fun story teller (something I would agree with), and subject
as any to these difficulties of vision, then there's no dispute.

As an example, we wouldn't feel compelled to "forgive" Mozart because,
well, hey that was 200 years ago and people's tastes in music have
changed! No, because we wouldn't need to make such excuses, he is
still incredibly popular and current.

Science is in some ways harder than music, or thus far seems to be.

And when someone is wrong they slip quickly from visionary to a quaint
speculator, perhaps better than most, but quaint fiction nonetheless.

Now, Einstein (eg) was visionary (in at least several areas), but of
course he worked much harder than Heinlein to grasp the truths he
sought.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:11:42 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <6181@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>>
>>International law and treaties require this.  The US is breaking international
>>law by turning away Haitian boats and forcing Haitian refugees to
>>return without a hearing.
>
>No. International law refers to political refugees. It doesn't bother to
>indicate how to tell between economic migrants and political refugees.
>
It is a treaty violation, because the people on those boats are not given the
chance to make their cases.  They're just turned back.  Some of those people
are political refugees, and the US obligated itself to hear their cases when
it signed those treaties.

I heard a little over a month ago that a high court ordered the administration
to stop turning the boats back at sea, that the Haitians had to be allowed to
arrive and make their cases.  Does anyone know what has happened since then?
Did the administration oblige?  They better have; if they didn't, they're
criminals.  Of course, Iran-gate suggests that the administration is criminal
anyway.

   - Dave Borden
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: S&L deregulation
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:33:55 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <DRG.92Sep9105614@bubba.ma30.bull.com> drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
>In article <53077@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>   From the republican "chicken hawks"...
>   ...to folks like Congressman Bauman,
>   ...from "I was out of the loop" Bush,...
>   ...to "Never Indicted" Ed Meese, it's been twelve years of sleaze...
>
>You appear to be wearing polarized sunglasses.  Not that I want to
>defend the Republicans but I think the Democrats can share the blame
>equally.  How about Foley, Cranston and Mavroules for starters?
>That's why I refer to them as the Republicrats---can't tell the
>difference between them.  I think it has been closer to 130 years of
>sleaze.  Maybe more.

Oh, there's a difference. The level of sheer orwellianism at which people
like Ed Meese coast, was never reached by mere corruptionists like Cranston.
After all, Ed did say that under his interpretation of the constitution
"they wouldn't be suspects if they were innocent" and then slither out
of office in the wake of endless near indictments, lawsuits, ethics reports,
and every indication that he was a career criminal. And, for all of 
Bill Clinton's obvious weaseling on the Vietnam war, at least he was 
publically against the war, thought it was a ban thing for anyone to
go fight in it. Compare that to Dan "I'm behind you all the way, boys"
Quayle, or Newt " I knew the real battle was being fought in the halls of
Congress" Gingrich (yes, he really said that. Funny how much safer  it was
to participate in the "real battle" rather than the less real one.)
Or what about Judge Clarence "Movie Fan" Thomas, or his mentor
Judge "9th Amendment, never heard of it" Bork? Orrin "Put it on
my BCCI tab" Hatch?  The cast of characters is pretty amazing.




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Haitians as Political or Economic Refugees
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:49:07 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <D2150032.d2v567@sylsoft.com>, boomer@sylsoft.com (Richard Akerboom) writes:
> It's my understanding that the border between Haiti and the Dominican
> Republic is basically wide open, but that few refugees cross this
> border.

And, of course, Jamaica, Cuba and the Bahamas are all much more easily
reached via boat from Haiti than the U.S.

I'll admit, if I was seeking refuge for being politically active, Cuba
isn't high on my list of desirable locations. But refuge from being persecuted
(which is what the U.N. high commission on refugees cares about) is available
in cuba.

They just have tighter definitions of "political refugee" than even we do.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<2798822096@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> <CKD.92Sep8215251@loiosh.eff.org>
	<BuAzG3.ECM@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:40:06 GMT

CR> == Charles M Richmond <cmr@world.std.com> 

 ckd> Well, for the sake of completeness (not that I expect Cambridge to
 ckd> actually *take* this option, of course) they could always cut back on
 ckd> expenses by whatever amount the tax break "cost" them.

 CR> Reducing services while maintaining the same tax rate is still,
 CR> "taking from one group of people to give to Lotus".

expenses != services.  Especially with governments :)

Though I suppose if they cut back by firing someone in the Office of
Making Snotty Remarks or whatever, that's taking from the group of
"overpaid government employees" to give to Lotus.  It's all relative.
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Summary: Your tired, your poor, your wretched masses from your teeming shores
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:52:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <BZS.92Sep11201704@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
	(deleted)
>I predict that within the next 10 years or so someone will arise in
>American politics who will again put forth the vision of people as an
>asset and an opportunity, and we'll make that person King.
>
>But for now, back to the back-biting: Scroo dem, oy got moine, pull up
>da laddah! pull up da laddah!
>
	Oddly enough,  one organization that does have such a vision of
immigrants as assets is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. 
They have editorials in support of "Open Borders" as often as they have
them in support of the line item veto.
	Of course,  a lot of the rest of their attitude is like the
first part of your last paragraph.
 

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:20:22 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <2679@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:

> But how many Lotus employees currently live in cambridge.

I doubt I'm reading this right.  You seem to be saying that Cambridge 
should give in to Lotus' request to avoid losing homeowners.  But my guess 
is that most Lotus employees live outside of Cambridge.  And I seriously 
doubt that most of those that do live in Cambridge would pull up stakes 
and move to Lowell just because Lotus moved there.

Most of that 14% that have moved out of Cambridge probably still *work* in 
cambridge!

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:08:35 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <DRG.92Sep9104452@bubba.ma30.bull.com> drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
>It might make sense for both Lotus and Cambridge to part ways.  Lotus
>might be able to find a cheaper environment and Cambridge might be
>able to fill Lotus' vacated space with retail business.

_Retail_ business??  Lotus' riverside buildings are all office space,
and unsuitable for retail.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:39:11 GMT

bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>If the govt changes the rules for one individual (or some small group)
>then I think the word subsidy is appropriate.

What rules are being changed?

My neighbor, his neighbor, and everyone else in the city have the right to
approach the city and say "we would like our taxes lowered or we're moving."
It is called "reevaluation".

The question the city must answer then is whether the loss of some tax
revenue is less than what would be lost if the company asking for said
reduction moved.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Sep10181505@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep12.194354.1198@miki.pictel.com>
	<BZS.92Sep12222436@ussr.std.com> <ART.92Sep12225102@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:43:31 GMT


From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
>   Since Lotus is merely being required by Cambridge to pay at the same
>   tax rate (i.e. same application of tax laws, even if the specific rate
>   comes out differently) as every other commercial entity in Cambridge
>   it would seem that the burden is on Lotus to show that a tax cut
>   especially for them is justified.
>
>No.  Lotus is perfectly free to attempt to negotiate any deal it can.
>Lotus has absolutely no obligation to remain in Cambridge or any place
>else if it doesn't suit them.  How're ya gonna keep 'em if they wanna
>split?

I didn't say otherwise, did I?

The original poster said the burden was on Cambridge to justify its
tax rate to Lotus.

I said, in the piece you quoted, no, no more than to any other citizen
or entity who pays taxes in Cambridge. The burden is on Lotus to make
their argument to be treated uniquely under the tax laws.

Cambridge certainly doesn't have to especially defend their tax rates
for Lotus (any more than to anyone else), Lotus has to argue for an
exemption from the law as it stands. Otherwise they are subject to the
tax laws.

The underlying fallacy is the assumption that Lotus is doing this
because they believe they are being treated unfairly.

I don't believe that. I believe they are doing it only because they
believe they (Lotus) can get away with it, that they have leverage
(the threat of leaving.)

I think some here are projecting some notion of justice or fairness
onto the situation when, more likely, it's purely a $$$ ploy one of
their shark attorneys figured out.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Kendall Sq property (where Lotus is) is
pretty hot these days (the rates are certainly high around there,
nearly twice what I'm paying in Brookline and even this isn't cheap.)

If that's the case then it may well be in Cambridge's interest to tell
Lotus not to let the door hit them in the butt on the way out.

Mostly because it would seem this could become chronic with every
sizeable business in Cambridge. I'd certainly be concerned with that
if I were Cambridge.

Unless this sort of dealing for lower taxes is more common than I
suspect there is something odious about it, or at least the way Lotus
seems to be going about it. I wouldn't be shocked if Cambridge would
be better off in the long run telling Lotus to take a hike now, before
this becomes a disaster as a precedent.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general,talk.politics.misc
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Subject: Re: VOICE-MAIL FOR THE HOMELESS AND POOR
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 14:05:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

I wrote:
>|>  the system would probably have
>|> to provide each person with a separate phone number (not one of those
>|> god-awful touch-tone receptionists), or else it would be a turnoff to
>|> prospective employers.  That means a pretty hefty phone bill ...

ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba) writes:
>   The system NPR described did work like this...all the caller got was a
>message recorded by the recipient that sounds just like an everyday
>answering machine.

Well, out of curiosity, does anyone reading this know the actual
bottom-line cost of setting up something like this?  It would require
about 3 to 6 trunk lines with DID capability, a block of say 200
assigned telephone numbers, a PC with a fair amount of disk space and
the necessary multiline A/D-D/A hardware, and a software driver which can
handle the phone company's DID protocol.

Wonder if the folks at Boston Technology, Natural Microsystems, New
England Telephone or some place like that are listening and could
comment on these details?

My guess is that the trunk lines run about $60-80/month each, and the
block of phone numbers probably carries an additional charge but I
couldn't guess.

Tying it into a beeper service would be a great add-on, and would be
trivial to implement with one or two additional phone lines.  (You'd
want the beepers to carry toll-free numbers, or else each call relayed
to a beeper would cost around 10 cents.)  Since "you're invited to an
interview" calls have to be returned right away, this would almost be
mandatory for job-hunters.

The idea is fascinating.  Is it really practical?

-rich
From: cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: S&L deregulation
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:45:58 EDT
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

In article <52627@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>                   ... The Reagan administration proposed and pushed
>through  a classical example of Republican "deregulation", in which the
>S&Ls were freed of much oversight, but the public was obligated to
>pay the costs.

Well, the interest rate (service-side) de-regulation took place under
Carter.  The asset-side de-regulation (the Garn-St Germain act) took
place under Reagan, but was quite bipartisan, I believe.  De-regulation
had to come willy-nilly driven by technology, internationalization and
securitization of banking.  It would have come had Carter remained the
president.  One could hope against experience that it would have been
handled better by Carter's administration.

Basically, I have no interest in debating the fine points of this story
with you because the lack of knowledge on both sides seem to hamper
a well-informed discussion.  I would just repeat that your estimation of
Reagan/Bush's share of the blame is uniquely wild-eyed and hostile
compared to the numerous mainstream reports and analyses I have read.

>                            ... The moral level of the Regan/Bush
>right is that of habitual criminals: someone else is always to blame.

Er, pause a second before issuing yourself a medal for moral superiority. 
Actually, it seems that the extreme left's affliction by this disease is
far greater.  The notion of individual responsibility is banished, even
for looters, rioters and real habitual criminals.  The blame is put
everyplace else: on the greed of the ruling class, on systemic oppression
of the working people, on institutional racism, on societal injustice,
on selfish merchants, heartless bosses...

	Mike Cherepov
		solely to blame for the stuff typed above
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:35:20 GMT
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <Bu8nH2.ArC@world.std.com>, geer@world.std.com (Dan Geer) writes:
> The occasion is that Lotus is engaged in the the modern kind of
> corporate blackmail - "Give us a huge whopping tax break or we'll move
> out of town".  
> As you may guess, the City Council is singly and collectively eager to
> be thought of as "pro-business" and views this as a purely political
> equation relating purely to their own reelection 16 months hence.

Get rid of rent control in Cambridge and in a few years things would
return to normal and the City Council would no longer be able to
be held hostage by the likes of Lotus.

In fact, the City Council is held hostage by the sleazy and dishonest
property tax and unfair income-transfer structure it has put in place
over the last 20 years.

> ... Lotus ... intellectual property are
> distinctly at odds with community standards.

How about this. The Lotus intellectual property should be owned
by the people of cambridge, since the ideas were thought of in cambridge.


-gjc