HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:20:51 GMT
	<1992Aug28.051358.8985@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug28094126@moses.atc <4150@bimacs.BITNET>
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <4150@bimacs.BITNET> rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg) writes:
[about the possibility of faking mezuza holes]
>   Just one small problem with the above statement.  Viz the doorposts we
>   are talking about here are, unlike in the US and Europe, and even
>   newer houses in Israel, are made of stone.  Hence it is much harder to
>   fake the holes, let alone think about 'staining' in order to age them.

Yes, many doorposts in Israel are made of stone.  Most types of
architectural stone do allow drilling with suitable drill bits,
available at your local hardware store.  Many stones, most notably the
sedimentary limestones and sandstones, readily soak up standard
stains.  Other stones will accept stain less readily, but
sufficiently.

Again, I make no claim that even a single mezuza hole in Israel or the
Occupied Territories has been faked.  Yet I am not fatuous enough to
believe that a hole in the wall constitutes any proof of prior
residency.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42016 alt.activism:15466 alt.politics.elections:11593
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:34:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory



Yo Boneheads. Harrel posted PUBLIC insurance and he wrote PUBLIC
insurance and it was on the first page of your terminal that you read
PUBLIC insurance and i am interested in the rates of PUBLIC insurance,
and i can read and harrel didn't lie, at least to everyone who can
read PUBLIC insurance.

Good night.
Benjamin

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:37:40 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article lmB@engin.umich.edu, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>In article <80861@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>|> OK, I'll bite.  Why would anyone reject the idea that the more than double
>|> rise in gasoline (& don't forget other oil products) caused inflation?
>
>You are confusing cause and effect.  Inflation is not caused by a rise
>in prices, higher prices are the result of inflation.  Inflation is caused
>by an increase in the supply of money...

I don't want to split hairs with you (although I have this queasy feeling that
splitting hairs is what these debates usually devolve into).  One definition of
inflation is an "an increase in the amount of money and credit in relation
to the supply of goods and services".  Another, perhaps more general
view, is that it is an "increase in the general price level...causing a decline
in purchasing power".  Both quotes are excerpted from my Webster's New World
Dictionary, 3rd College Edition. 

Please bear in mind that the inflationary period did not happen because Jimmy 
Carter one day sat down an mumbled, "Let's increase the money supply and see
what happens."  It happened because a consortium of foreign nations, who controlled
the supply of oil, decided to hike prices artificially.  Given the broad impact of
oil on the cost of things in our society, that caused a rise in prices and set
off inflationary pressures in the economy.  Monetary policy did not *cause* the
inflation, although it came to be seen as a tool to control inflation.  Bear in
mind that the US was not the only nation to suffer inflation during that period,
and it was most certainly not US monetary policy that caused inflation in other 
countries.  It is really you who is confusing cause and effect.  BTW, the cure
for inflation was as much political as economic.  The collapse of OPEC, not US
monetary policy, had much to do with bringing down inflation on an international
scale.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41958 misc.headlines:5963 alt.activism:15458 sci.econ:7152
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.activism,sci.econ
Subject: A better indicator of employment?  (was Re: Derailing the Reagan...)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:08:48 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <92Aug25.185300edt.236@neuron.ai.toronto.edu>, radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.143712.3735@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>  If you want accuracy, the unemployment (or rather employment) shoud be
>>  measured as "full time equivalent" positions.  With positions without 
>>  benefits being worth only .7 of the same position with benefits. (Or 
>>  some other mulitplier.)
> 
> The last provision seems pretty silly. I was once offerred the option
> by my employer of receiving certain benefits, or several thousand dollars
> more in salary. I took the later. Did that make me 30% unemployed?
> 
> You seem to want to evaluate not only whether the person was employed,
> but also how good a job it was. In that case, surely one of the most
> important qualities would be the pay?

	Not exactly.  Several thousand more won't help if you have no insurance
and get AIDS or inoperable cancer or need a marrow transplant.

	No benefits indicates a hidden risk associated with the employment. 
Thus the attempt to gauge "quality" of employ.

	It's off the top of my head, so I'm not claiming perfection :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug25.204112.14719@cbnews.cb.att.com> <BtK8Dt.95n@apollo.hp.com>
	<CB.92Aug26135755@tamarack13.timbuk>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:08:35 GMT

In article <CB.92Aug26135755@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:


   Date: 26 Aug 92 13:57:58 CDT

   Peter Nelson writes:

       despite many terms as governor of Arkansas, [Clinton's] state
       is at the bottom of just about every economic, environmental, and
       educational metric there is.

   This argument is a stock Republican line currently.  How does one
   governor change the entire standing of a state?  Can the governor of
   Connecticut take personal credit for his state's high income level?

Perhaps you should ask Michael Dukakis since this is exactly what he
claimed to have done with the once and future(?) Massacusetts Miracle.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43054 ca.politics:7288 ba.politics:4930
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: GOP headquarters burned!
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:09:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BtpDHy.31w@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >This appeared in soc.motss:
> >In article <1992Aug25.034038.23932@spdcc.com>, anon@spdcc.com (Forwarded Anonymous Posting) writes:
# ## 	A Republican Party headquarters in South Pasadena, California,
# ## was burned early Sunday morning.  Arson is obviously expected, since
# ## a fuel lighter was seen on the site.  On the side of the GOP building
# ## was grafittied: "GOP = " and the swastika sign.  Sounds like it was both
# ## a good and bad deed for whoever did it.
# 
# #Does anyone else find something sort of disturbing about this?  The
# #vandals in question equate the Republican Party to Naziism -- and
# #engage in a very Nazi-like tactic -- burning out a political 
# #headquarters.
# 
# I find this very disturbing.  One can't preach tolerance and go around burning
# political headquarters.  I also found it disturbing that a member of the 
# Republican National Committee praised some Republican youth hooligans who
# disrupted a Democratic news conference in Texas by shouting, waving signs, etc.
# People should not interfere with other parties get-togethers.

Agreed.  This was a very disturbing event as well.

# #What next?  Are the gay activists going to organize something called
# #the Lavender Shirts, and see how much blood they can spill by 
# #attacking their political opponents with clubs?
# 
# It's possible. This country just seems to be going to the dogs, with every-
# one looking out for their own special, narrow interests rather than whats 
# good for the entire nation.
# 
# Daniel R. Sawyer

I'm reading a very disturbing book called _Culture Wars: The Struggle
To Define America_ written by a professor of sociology at the University
of Virginia.  The book is about the polarization of American culture,
and how the traditional boundaries of struggle in America are 
recoalescing.

Unfortunately, as extremists on each side react against each other,
it becomes more and more difficult for political compromises to be
reached that respect each side's perceived rights, and people in the 
middle are forced to make unpleasant decisions about which side
to take.  I really cringe at the thought that the Religious Right
is going to impose its view of morality on America -- but when the
choice seems to be them or the Gay Oppression crowd that is so
splendidly represented in soc.motss, I have to pick the side whose
values are least likely to oppress me.

I wish that there was a middle ground of diversity and tolerance,
but there's too many fascists out there to allow such a choice.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42376 sci.econ:7196
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: George Bush's new math...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:58:20 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In Message-ID:<t!cng=k@lynx.unm.edu>, johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic) writes:
>
>I seem to be a bit confused.
>
>President Bush wants to lower taxes across the board.
>
>President Bush wants to cut the capital gains tax.
>
>President Bush wants to cut the deficeit.
>
	No confusion there.

>Now President Bush wants to increase spending with a job training act.
>
>And President Bush refuses to tell us what programs he is going to
>cut. We are asked to "trust" him.

	And?  Congress does this every day.

>Somehow, this does not add up at all. Perhaps someone could enlighten me
>how the President plans to decrease revenue, increase the budget (oh, I
>forget, tax vouchers don't increase the budget, they just lower revenue
>even more) and balance the budget.

	Tax cuts will provide economic growth, increasing revenues.

	By cutting spending, the budget will be reduced and excess funds freed
up to reduce the debt.

	Or is every new program to be outlawed because every existing program is
sacred?

	Bush did it wrong before, but maybe he's looked back on the 80s and
seen the light.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:13:58 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug27224022@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Aug27.155256.4670@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug26135433@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# >   # As for the mezuzas, yes, they seem to indicate that the houses were
# >   # once occupied by Jews, and that the Arab claim that they "always"
# >   # lived there is wrong.  Yet mezuzas do not constitute legal claim to
# >   # the property.  It is hypocritical to demand full legal paperwork from
# >   # the Arabs, and accept a hole in the wall from the Jews.

# >	   At least the mezuza holes prove a prior residence and are in
# >   fact some form of proof greater than just a verbal claim.  For you to
# >   equate a mezuza hole with a verbal claim is ridiculous Jim.
 
# I do not equate the two.  If you would read the above paragraph, you
# will see that I said that the mezuza holes seem to indicate that the
# Arab verbal claim is wrong.  Physical evidence tends to carry more
# weight than oral claims.  However, present occupation of a house is by
# itself physical evidence, and it would take a better judge than I to
# decide which physical evidence is more compelling, present occupation
# or a hole in the wall.  The former can be stolen, the latter can be faked.

	How can a mezuza hole, decades (at least) old, in a home (and
neighborhood) currently occupied by someone else, be faked?  And you
did equate the two with you claim of hypocricy.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:34:57 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <81626@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
]Earlier, I made two points in response to the ongoing debate in this newsgroup
]and elsewhere over the RKBA:
]
]   1)  There is no good reason to believe that "well-regulated militia" only
]       referred to a "well-trained militia," and not the more usual sense
]       of a controlled body.  
]
]   2)  The defenders of the so-called "RKBA" as an individual right rest their
]       case on the "original intent" doctrine, which many legal scholars reject
]       on the grounds that the doctrine itself is incompatible with the original
]       intent of the framers.
We only rest some of our case on that doctrine. Much of it is based on the
doctrine of "natural rights" which is enshrined throughout the constitution
and the declaration of independence. This doctrine asserts that individuals
have a NATURAL right to self defense.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:32:37 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1343@esl.ESL.COM>, drm@stimpy.com sez:
>In article 14336@panix.com, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>
>>Like the North and Poindexter juries, right?  Ooops, better check
>>those facts again.
>>
>>(And before you saddle up on your high horse, I know perfectly well
>>that those convictions were vacated on appeal.  I could even give you
>>a fair account of the reasons.  That doesn't alter the fact that the
>>nonsense above about juries consistently acquitting is, well,
>>nonsense.) 
>>
>OK, juries have been acquitting the defendents in every fair trail
>conducted so far.

What exactly do you mean by "fair trial"?  You're blurring the
necessary distinction between 1) trial errors that call into question
the factual reliability of the outcome and 2) errors which are _per
se_ reversible because they violate the constitution.

It's true that the D.C. Circuit found that the convictions were
tainted by contact with immunized testimony, in violation of the
defendants' fifth amendment rights.  But that's not the point.  The
original poster's argument was that juries are too clever to be duped
by these hopelessly trumped-up charges.  In fact, the North and
Poindexter juries convicted on the basis of relevant (and damning)
evidence. 


-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43455 alt.politics.elections:12296 alt.politics.bush:3928 alt.desert-storm:1735
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Colin Powell's Record (was Bush giving up? (Colin Powell))
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:22:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:

> was misled by his advisors (particularly Colin Powell, the Rasputin
> of American politics, who screwed up Desert Storm by ending it
> before the pursuit phase was properly exploited).

Since I criticize Bush when I see his decisions as ill-founded, it is
only fair that i defend him (and Powell) against charges that I think
are unfair.

Unless you get into urban, house-to-house fighting, I don't see that
the end of the fighting should have been extended for any more than
perhaps a day.  In this case, I think that Bush has taken an unfair
hit.  It is silly to realistically think that Saddam could not have
hidden himself indefinitely from the allied forces even if the
fighting had continued.  I don't see what possible good would have
come from extending the fighting.

Having said that, I should point out that I have consistently
criticized the administration for several aspects of the Gulf War:

1)  When Iraq first started massing troops on the Kuwaiti border,
Washington should have sent a strong signal that aggression would not
be tolerated.  Instead, they sent Glaspie with a message that by all
accounts was unclear and which Saddam took as a green light for
invasion.  The war should never have happened.

2)  Schwartzkopf should have been allowed to capture the tanks within
reach of his troops rather than allowing the Iraqis to withdraw them.
I realize that this was an effort to keep Iraq strong enough to
counterbalance Iran within the region, but the tanks could have been
returned later if necessary after evidence of good faith on the part
of the Iraqis.

3)  Allied forces should have enforced a ban on the use of helicopters
against the Shiites and Kurds.  I realize that this was an effort to
keep Iraq in one piece, but it has led to a human rights tragedy
which could easily have been predicted given Saddam's past history.

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42068 alt.politics.bush:3009 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4845
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: more predictions
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:11:28 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <37285@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

|> Prediction - If slick willy wins, runaway deficit spending will
|> crush growth, unemployment will skyrocket, and inflation will
|> rise to double digits. The reasons: the deficit will push up
|> interest rates, eliminating funds needed for REAL (not pork
|> barrel) investment in industry. His health care policy will
|> require employers to cut back on workers in order to pay the
|> increased per employee costs. [and more, and more ... deleted]

	In 1988, people said that if I voted for Dukakis, deficit spending
would crush growth, unemployement would rise, the economy would stagnate,
the national debt would skyrocket, etc.

	Well, what do you know, I voted for Dukakis, and look what happened.

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:20:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US

As I understand it, part of the delay in sending in the Army to help
out was the mutual antagonism between Bush and Chiles.  Maybe it was
a "cut off your nose to spite your face" sort of thing, but after Bush's
flagrant and repeated attacks on the Democratic party, he didn't want to
be seen as begging the Feds for help.

The other big part of the problem is FEMA waited for the _government_ to
know what was going on.  Think about it.  Your house is flooded, do you
call the fire department or your congressional representative?

FEMA waited until aid was requested by local officials to send aid.
I have a vision of an AT&T representative saying, "We're sorry phone
outage was out for so long, why didn't you just phone the problem in?
We can't do service on a phone line until the customer calls us."



-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: More on Clinton's plan
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:14:11 GMT

In article <19885@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>
>If students can repay their loan through such community services, what
>will they get paid?

U.S. dollars, most likely.

>If they get paid the prevailing wage, then they would not be working off
>their loans -- they would just be paid the same rate as everyone else
>who's already doing that same kind of work.

Clinton has said they'd receive a "reduced wage".

>If they get paid less than the prevailing wage, how are people who are
>already doing those things for a living going to feel about a bunch of
>other people doing the same kind of work for less money?

We're talking about entry-level positions in areas that are often critically 
short of adequate manpower.  Not much competition for established professionals
in hot job markets.

>Seems to me that the unions aren't going to be too happy about it.

They might not be enthusiastic supporters, but I doubt they'll object too
strongly.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:30:15 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> What wrong with democracy?  Do you think people are too stupid?

I think that we can look at the current set of their choices to answer
that question...

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ