HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America:  A "Kinder, Gentler Nation" (II)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:00:11 GMT

The Decline of America:  A "Kinder, Gentler Nation" (II)


=======================================================
    Number of people killed with handguns, 1988-90:
=======================================================

COUNTRY                TOTAL  PER MILLION

United States          9,602     38.3
Switzerland               53      7.9
Israel                    25      5.7
Sweden                    19      2.3
Australia                 13      0.8
Japan(21)                 46      0.4
Canada                     8      0.3
United Kingdom             7      0.1

Sources: Handgun Control, Inc. (Washington, D.C.); U.S. Department of
Justice, Uniform Crime Reports 1990 (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1991),
p. 12; Text: Handgun Control, Inc. and the Death Penalty Information
Center (Washington, D.C.).

******************************************************************

Page 134

 Percentage of households with handguns, according to survey
 respondents, 1989, and percentage of people who say killing in
 self-defense can be justified sometimes or always, 1981-83:

                                 SELF-DEFENSE KILLING
COUNTRY           HAVE HANDGUNS     JUSTIFIABLE

United States         28.6            84.1
Switzerland           13.9            ----
Finland                7.1            63.2
Germany                6.7            63.0
Belgium                6.4            69.0
France                 5.9            82.5
Canada                 5.2            82.8
Norway                 3.7            73.0
Spain                  2.2            80.4
Australia              1.6            86.8
Netherlands            0.9            75.7
United Kingdom(40)     0.4            73.1
Japan                  ---            38.3

Sources: Jan J. M. van Dijk et al., Experiences of Crime across the
World, 2nd ed. (Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer, 1991); personal
correspondence with Jan van Dijk; World Values Survey.

******************************************************************

From:
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush & Clinton Numbers Don't Add Up!!!
Date: 14 Oct 1992 12:55:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   I saw a CNN special last night in which they took both Bush's and Clinton's
plans to address the debt and investigated them. Both plans did not do anything
to kill our nation's debt. The "experts" they had there said that Perot's plan
was the only realistic one that would erase the debt. They said that stating
that we all have to sacrifice was "political suicide" and that is why Bush and
Clinton put forward these fluff plans with no real substance. Don't believe
the hype! We all have to suffer a little to pay off this thing.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:37:49 GMT

arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes: [About David Duke]
# 
# They attacked him like sharks at a feeding frenzy.  They 
# could not mention his name without playing that scratchy old 
# film of him, as an 18 year old student with a swastica, 
# protesting the Vietnam war.

HA-HA-HA. That's a good one, Arfie. Duke was dressed in complete Nazi
gear, and was carrying a big sign saying

            *************************
            *                       *
            * GAS THE CHICAGO SEVEN *
            *                       *
            *************************

Perhaps someone can better elaborate on who the "Chicago seven" were...
anyway, it was a group of political radiacals, that Duke didn't seem
to like. Old habits never die. He could say "kill the Chicago seven"
or somthin' like that, I guess...

Arfie's attempt to portray Duke as some kind as a peace marcher is
hilarious. Hilarious? Its a gas!

# Duke is, of course a vociferous critic of Israel.

Of course. All Nazi scumbags are "vociferous critics of Israel".

To avoid an uproar, I am NOT saying that all critics of Israel
are Nazis and/or antisemites.


-Danny Keren.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:16:02 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

|> Stephen Tice writes:
|> 
|>    So we have situations today a lot like Viet Nam on the personal level
|>    -- I don't care about the geopolitical level in this regard. Should
|>    we get involved, I don't believe we should, but I will *support* going 
|>    if it's with the express intent of rescuing the children who are being
|>    murdered and abused. On a personal level, this is the type of choices
|>    also confronted in Viet Nam.  
|> 
|>    So bottomline -- I don't care about Clinton as a candidate any more.
|>    It's become a personal matter between him and me. And as far as I'm 
|>    concerned -- he'd be better off dead. If he has a heart or a conscience
|>    left, I hope he thinks about being on vacation while others fought and
|>    died. 
|> 
Of course Stephen was a supporter of Clinton before this issue?  Yeah,
Sure.  Stephen is grasping, hoping and praying that something will beat
Clinton.  Apparently it's OK to him if it smoke and bull shit do it.

Actually, many of understand Bush's need to press this issue.  But I
can't understand how Stephen can have a heart or a conscience left if
he promotes this crap.  Maybe he never had either.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50922 alt.rush-limbaugh:7104 alt.politics.bush:8641 alt.politics.clinton:9727 alt.politics.elections:16116 talk.abortion:41979 alt.sex:32673
From: rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Date: 11 Oct 1992 19:53:04 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <mlbruce.717885868@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS) writes:
>
>
>>Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
>>spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
>>no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
>>plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 
>
-----------
I don't see a problem with doing both. I think that a lot of
monogamous coupling involves much excessive reassurance, far
beyond the efficacy of such activity, and that this results in
emotional overload and almost inevitable backlash, namely, their
relationship burns out too soon and falls apart because they are
forcing it. If they wouldn't take relating quite so seriously and
if they would get over their fear of sex with people whom they
are not tragically "in love" with, they might have a much better
time than if they persist in this foolish search for the "perfect
person". There ain't any! Lust is a wonderful thing to build a
relationship on as long as it is not a compulsive desire to prove
that you love this one other person, and true lust is an end in
itself. That must be the guiding light to all sexual
relationships, namely: Are you having good hot sex? Forget who
your partner is or is supposed to be emotionally. Are they as hot
for sex, sex, sex as you are. If they aren't then they haven't
outgrown the ancient anti-sexual christian parent lecture: "Sex
is wonderful when it's with someone you really love and want to
spend your whole life with." What a horrible burden to put on a
simple friendship accompanied by good sex. It's a virtually
hideous way to go about getting each other off and enjoying that
form of company.
- Guess Who

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:08:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <STEINLY.92Oct12140016@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.194732.25893@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>   [ ... ] can grow 80% of my summer diet and about
>   30% of a winter one on 300 square feet with less than 10 hours of work
>   a week ? 
>
>Paul, what are you going to do when you grow old? 

I would hope to be a lot like, oh, maybe Scott & Helen Nearing. I take
it that most people reading this thread have heard of them. 
						   
>	What tools are you using? 

You don't want to know :-)

> Are you forging your own? 

No.

I already mentioned that this activity takes up less than 10 hours of
work a week. If I were so inclined, I might spend some of the rest
running or working for a company that was involved in tool production
in some way.  I'm not, and so I'm happy that there appear people who
are. In turn, I spend much of the rest of my time doing stuff with
computers that various companies who produce them commercially are,
might be, or are not interested in using. Hopefully, there's a
positive interaction to all this. I don't see this type of
thing changing - I'm not arguing that division of labor is wrong, more
that *too much* division of labor is wrong.

>ore and wood/coal on your land? How long does it take to replace your
>hoe when it breaks? Want to replace it with a small wooden stick?
>If you're buying them, what goods or sevices are you exchanging
>in return? Who will accept those if everyone moves towards
>self-sufficiency? 

I have never argued for self-sufficiency Steinn. All I'm suggesting
are some possible benefits of a little more involvement in the actual
processes that keep us alive.
		   
		   Is what you provide essential or a luxury

Computer science seems like a luxury to me, but perhaps its one that a
society behaving as I imagine would find the time and resources for. I
don't know, and I'm not sure I care.

>and how will the current producers of luxuries get essentials
>if all stop consumption of luxuries?

Presumably, they'll follow the market, and produce something else.

-- paul


-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Balanced budget in Alabama
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:17:58 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <Bw8456.3CJ@cs.psu.edu> joe@stat.psu.edu (Joe Broniszewski) writes:
>Bill Clinton has been saying that Alabama has had a balanced budget
>for the last 12 years.
>
>Last night, President Bush said that state law requires the budget
>in Alabama to be balanced.
>
>Is Clinton using Yet Another Sneaky Political Maneuver or is Bush wrong?

This is mildly surreal, like Bush calling Clinton the Governor of a
certain small state between Texas and Oklahoma.

Literally, I don't know the faintest thing about a state
constitutional requirement for a balanced budget in Alabama.

Assuming that you mean Arkansas, and not Alabama, yes, there is a
balanced budget law there.  Bush is not wrong.  Of course, saying that
Arkansas has a balanced budget law doesn't detail what a Governor may
have to go through to obey that law.  How were taxes raised, spending
cut, etc.?  There was a column in The New Republic in the last month
or so that noted Clinton raised very few taxes to achieve this, and
mostly on a one time basis.  Further, these taxes were directed
towards financing education.  Certianly, Clinton did this with far
less fuss and tax raising than Bush did in any year (remember that
Bush has not submitted a balanced budget in his term).  If you want, I
can find the citation (I think it's Kinsley's column).  In any case,
make of it what you will.

	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:07:11 GMT

In <1bcqknINN2k2@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>
dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
> 
>>If there's an electoral tie, Perot wouldn't have a chance.  There are too
>>many party ties within the House for Perot to get a majority selection.

As someone else already pointed out, I wasn't talking about the vote 
in the House, or even Perot getting a majority of anything.  I was
saying that if Perot can win a few key states (yes, still unlikely, I
know) and niether of the other candidates wins enough states to put
them over (becoming more unlikely), Perot could broker his _electoral_
votes to whichever candidate will compromise the most on his
government reform and economic programs.

Of course, if Bush couldn't win even with Perot's additional electoral 
votes then Clinton could just tell him to get lost and count on the 
Senate to elect him.  

Again, I don't think any of this is likely but if I were Perot I would
be carefully looking at where he might best focus his attention to
force this kind of deadlock. 

Maybe something really wierd like this would finally kill the
electoral system.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Clinton victory causes stock drop [was Re: Bush ...]
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:18:03 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1bavqoINNed7@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>
>A Bush victory in this manner would probably cause a true national
   ^^^^
Uh, you mispelled that .... its C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
>depression. 

As in:
A Clinton victory in this manner would probably cause a true national
depression. 


He claims he will raise $89 bilion from people making over $200,000
by raising their taxes.
The WSJ says he's off by a factor of about 50 - it will raise
only $200 million. With that, plus his claim that he can raise
business taxes over $50 billion dollars without having any impact
on economic growth. 

- His spending plans will lead to one of two things: higher deficits,
or higher taxes on middle-class taxpayers. It will also lead to further
economic stagnation, as private investment is eaten up by taxes.

- The Nation Center for Policy Analysis ran Clinton's plans through
their econometric model and it came out .... *destroying* about
900,000 jobs.

- He says he's not a tax-and-spender, but his tax and spend plans
are more extreme than Mondale or Dukakis. 

- He uses the word "investment" as a euphemism for Governmental industrial
policy and boondogle projects, and his "investments" will cost billions.
Clinton has precious little understanding of the difference between
public "investment" and private investment.

- He has signed to yet more environmental regulation, even though
the envrinomental regulation load already costs, according to a study,
about 6% of our GNP in lost production and resources.

- He proposes "cost-containment" measures on prescription drugs that
are thinly disguised price controls.  These will have little effect
on overall medical costs, but will have a negative impact on the
research and development of new drugs.

His likely victory has already sent the stock market sliding 10% in
the last few weeks. :-) Only 90% left to go. :-(

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Subject: Re: U.S.A. vs Canada
Originator: clewis@bcarh1d7
Organization: Never one for one
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:27:15 GMT

In article <Oct.11.12.31.20.1992.28236@remus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|In article <1992Oct9.205056.3224@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

|> Eric Tholome (tholome@bangalore.esf.de) wrote:

|>> Since some of you are comparing the U.S.A. and Canada, I thought I'd
|>> ask you the following question: it seems generally admitted that
|>> Canada (on average) is a better place to live than the U.S.A. (on
|>> average again.  Please no comment, this isn't the question yet!).

|But comment is certainly warranted here.  _WHO_ is it that says Canada
|is on average better than the U.S.?  Canadians?  Hardly a credible
|source WRT this question.

The United Nations thinks so too.  The UN places several other countries
atop the USA.

I'm sure that you'll suggest it's revence for the US not paying their
UN dues for several years.

|In order to ascertain the veracity of the
|above claim, all you need do is perform the "gate" test.  It goes like
|this: put gates around every country in the world.  Then, open all the
|gates.  In which direction will the people go?  By far and away, the
|largest number would go to the U.S. (except for certain misfits like
|Jim Robinson, but good riddance anyway).

Like they say, for every Canadian who emmigrates to the US, the average
intelligence of both countries goes up.
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 7 Oct 1992 20:22:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   While I'm no fan of George Bush, I do agree that the media has been very
biased towards Clinton. This is what is to be expected from a liberal media.
I also noticed that Jay Leno (Democrat?) tends to knock the hell out of Bush
and Perot and doesn't say much about Clinton. They should put a statement up
at the start of the show to let people know they are being brainwashed in a
very subtle way.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Decline of America -- The Way Out (II)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:23:07 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>The Decline of America -- The Way Out (II)
>
>Agran for President 92
>(Address/Email at bottom)
>
>                      ********************************
>                         ECONOMIC CONVERSION AND A
>                      DEFENSE WORKERS' BILL OF RIGHTS:
>                     A Presidential Candidate's Program
>                            for the U.S. Economy
>                      ********************************
>                               by Larry Agran
>                     Democratic Presidential Candidate
>                      ********************************

And I thought that you guys had finally given up.  Agran AGAIN?  Jeesh.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52565 misc.headlines:6628 talk.politics.mideast:21199
From: jej20@ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:01:58 GMT
Reply-To: jej20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct11.174817.26622@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1cJ5025B25AM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> joplin@mcode.amdahl.com (Jerry Joplin) writes:
>>> 
>>Unfortunately Clinton makes no effort to balance the "present accounts"
>>either.  He has no proposal to limit the growth of Entitlements.
>
>Not true.  He wishes to replace welfare with workfare, no?
>-- 
>ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
>also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first

How does Clinton plan to balance the "present accounts" by turning
welfare into workfare?  The Federal Govt only spent $15 Billion on
welfware in 1992.  This was only 2.1% of all Entitlement outlays.

Will the combined workfare/welfare outlays be less than $15 Billion?

Jerry Joplin   Sunnyvale,CA | I do not speak for Amdahl Corporation.
joplin@mcode.amdahl.com     |  
Compu$erve: 70441,2627      | All these worlds are yours, except California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre