HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:08:45

In article <D2150079.ctaqch@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu> boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD) writes:

   In article <1992Sep5.164508.16214@europa.lonestar.org> (tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics), tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
   > In <21424@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
   > >Every day children survive abortions only to be killed by the doctor after
   > >being born.  This is a well documented fact.  This is what "pro-choice"
   > >stands for.  The return of the right of infanticide.
   > 
   > Here's a clue.  You can't write things like this and still expect to be taken
   > seriously.  People will check to see who wrote this and then forever discount
   > what you have to say.
   > -- 
   > Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
   > tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
   > 

   If anyone would like to know that John F. Haugh II is completely off base please read
   _Roe v Wade Was Followed by a Decrease in Neonatal Homicide_ in the June 10, 1992
   issue of JAMA.  To quote the article "...the homicide rates fro children during the
   first hour of life decreased from 1.41 to 0.44 between these same periods, as did
   the homicide rates of infants in the first 7 days of life and the first 28 days of
   life. ... The present results indicate that, although the overall homicide rate in
   America increased after Roe v Wade, the homicide rate for infants less than 1 month
   old decreased significantly.  Thus it appears possible that neonatal homicide was
   reduced by Roe v Wade." (Rates are per 100,000 people per year.  The rates for infants
   up to 28 days old are per 100,000 live births.  The periods studied were 1963-1972
   (pre-Roe) and 1974-1983 (post-Roe).)

   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Victoria L Boyd PhD

   boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu

Third trimester abortions are what give rise to the idea of the doctor
killing the aborted baby.  They are what cause nurses to quit.  They
won't show up in any statistics for neonatal homicide, because they will
simply be classified as finishing the abortion.  It seems to me that
Victoria L Boyd PhD is throwing dust in our eyes in the statistics she
cites.

However, I would be surprised if viable aborted babies are killed
every day.  As far as I know Roe vs. Wade permits the restriction of
third trimester abortions, and I have heard that many doctors won't do
them.  Would someone supply information about how many third trimester
abortions are done?  

Also what's the pro-choice doctrine on this?  Is it that the woman
still has a choice up until the baby comes out of the birth canal, or
are some restrictions on choice before that time possible?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Dems and deficits.
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:05:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <H15iqB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell) writes:
>The Democratic leadership could care less about thedeficit.  they wanted 
>the tax increases so that  they could embarress the president. It worked!
>  Jim Pritchert is dead wrong!
>.........................................................................
[stuff deleted]
>.................................................................
>I hereby nickname Bus, Lying George.  He's a bigger Liar than Slick Willy 
>can ever aspire to be.
>See ya in 4 days, Pritchett

Bill, I'm afraid that you are probably wasting your time with Pritchett.
George Bush could run down to the Washington Monument buck naked and
Pritchett would explain it away as something we are all too dumb or
-liberal- to understand....

I love the way "liberal" gets thrown around these days. These liberal bashers
would be blown away to see a real liberal run for office....
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:12:15 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu

In article <exuptr.483.716148645@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
 
|> I'd like an option.  I'd like to be able to say "My kids will learn that
|> material at home", sign some paper and voila, they are not in public
|> sex ed class, but something else.  Parents who feel otherwise can do what
|> they like.  Kinda like pro-choice isn't it?

Guess what?  That's what they do in every sex education program that
I've ever heard of.  That was easy to resolve.  Next controversy?

|>                         About as far as I'd go here is giving them
|> some really thorough info and interviews with kids who have had pregnancies, 
|> diseases, abortions.  Real life examples.  No judgements will be necessary, 
|> I think.

Sure.  As long as you also bring in kids who have had sex and had no
problems with pregnancy, diseases, and abortion.  They can tell the
class how much fun it is.  What?  You only want to show the negative
side?

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 10 Sep 1992 14:31:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep09.225323.47046@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>And what will your Bush vote buy you besides more of the same?  Does
>anyone really believe that voting for Bush is going to change
>Congress?  Does anyone really think that Bush has suddenly grown a
>spine after all these years?  Do you think George Herbert Walker Bush
>even gives a damn about your job?

I would much rather have more of the same than what I'll get under Clinton: He
thinks I'm rich, so he's gonna find ways to tax the hell out of me. He'll give
in to Congress' every whim, and tax this country into the ground to do it. THe
current recession will look like the Good Old Days by comparison.

No, I don;t think my vote for Bush will change Congress, but if I think
Congress needs to be reined in, then why on Earth should I support someone who
thinks Congress should be unleashed?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: The blame game
Originator: patrick@mozart.convex.com
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:58:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <21472@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
...
>
>When you can answer those questions, come back and let me know.  Because
>either we start another war and crank the economy back up (the oldest
>trick in the Democrats handbag), or we grow ourselves out of this mess.
>
Don't just blame the Demos!  Nixon and Reagan were well known as Cold
Warriors.  Bush may have unleashed another arms race between Taiwan and
China, with us supplying Taiwan and Russia supplying China.  And all for
direct political gain - allow sale of jets to Taiwan (contrary to a 1982
agreement with China) in order to save 3000 military jobs at General
Dynamics, to enhance his hopes for carrying Texas, where polls show he is
neck and neck with Clinton.  Of course, if trade relations China break off,
as they are threatening, we may lose more than we gain.  Or if the Chinese
stop cooperating in advanced rocketry limitations for the Middle East,
we could see more arms races there.  A risky play all around.

- Patrick McGehearty
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Summary: I've got it -- Pritchett is Dan Quayle's evil twin. :-)
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:03:25 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Never on Sunday.

In article <SLaDr*hX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <Btyo7B.IK1@rice.edu>, Ben Gamble writes:
>
>> In article <mumble> troth@riceVM1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>> |        I *do* think,  though,  that endorsing or supporting the  family-
>> |with-both-natural-parents-never-divorced  is a good idea.
>> 
>> Go on, don't stop there.  "...both-natural-parents-never-divorced-
>> dad-out-paying-the-rent-mom-at-home-raising-the-kids"  We all know
>> that's what you mean.  It's not like we haven't heard this song
>> before.
>
>So, Ben.  Tell me exactly how it is better for the children to have divorced
>parents?  Is it better for the kids to spend more time with a babysitter than
>with mom, so she can go be frustrated in workplace?  It is patently obvious to
>anyone with a functional brain that the traditional family is the best way. Why
>should the government try to destroy it?

They shouldn't -- on that much, I agree.  Of course, neither should they
decide that it's "patently obvious to anyone with a functional brain" that
the traditional family should be the best way *by force of law* -- and that
seems to be what your pals at the RNC were doing their best to push for.
I'd like to see you tell my wife she can't be a good mother, and we can't
have a traditional family, because she works -- after all she's been through
in the past five days, she'd *really* appreciate the laugh...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                           I love my country.
                     I *don't* trust my government.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:57:55 GMT

In article <21489@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> I think I have already.  You just want to live in a fairy-tale world
> where January 20th is the dawning of a new day ...
 
I don't agree that it takes a year or two for a new President's policies
to take hold.  For one thing, businesses, markets, and individuals
anticipate.  That's one of the basic assumptions of a free market system.
That means that if a President starts actions that will eventually restore
health to the economic system, you get an immediate effect.  Look at how
the world markets reacted to Bush's speech (they understood that he 
essentially wasn't going to do anything to reduce the deficit, so the
dollar fell through the floor.  Luckily, the US is not as dependent
on exchange rates as European countries).  The same thing happens
CEOs, managers, etc.
 
Now, fiscal policy might take a year or so to get going, simply because of
the fact that tax policy won't take effect until the year after it's
passed.  However, monetary policy can be used to change an economic
climate very quickly.  In fact, Reagan used monetary policy very
effectively.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525

JFH> In article <1992Sep9.171414.13867@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
JFH> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
JFH> >And does it show who picked the first one?  Of course not.  Still
JFH> >short of context.

JFH> You are asking me to prove a negative.  In order for me to prove
JFH> that you started the first grammar flame, I'd have to re-post every
JFH> piece of netnews you and I ever exchanged.  This is possible, but
JFH> you could always claim that I was still short of context.  It is
JFH> up to YOU to prove that I started a grammar flame before you.  You
JFH> haven't, therefore I have proven my point.

   Let me see if I have this right... its too much hassle for YOU to prove
   that Fred started the flames, so therefore it is HIS responsability to
   prove that you started it?

JFH> Next myth.

   Next question: who gives a damn?

JFH> --
JFH> John F. Haugh II

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                                                                                                         
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:04:18 GMT

john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>The US system is far from perfect.  The reason it costs so much is
>because the insurance industry is not subject to anti-trust laws and
>therefore they fix the price of medical procedures to artificially
>high "reasonable and prevailing" rates.

I don't follow this.  How is it in the insurance companies' interest
to fix things so that they have to pay artificially high rates to
doctors, hospitals, etc?  Wouldn't they rather pay artificially low
rates to the doctors and charge artificially high rates to the
consumer?

Are you sure there aren't anti-trust laws of some sort?  Insurance
agencies are regulated by states rather than the fed, but sometimes
the regulations are pretty fierce.  Florida is investigating one
insurance agency right now, accusing it of price gouging in the wake
of the hurricane damage.

>That and the monopolistic
>control that the AMA has over who can practice medicine and how they
>can conduct their businesses.  The answer to this is to remove the
>controls and let the market forces determine the prices.  Sending the
>bill to Uncle Sam is going to make matters worse, because then people
>will be running to the doctor for every hangnail they get, because
>it's free.

Well, I suppose that'd be true of a basic health care policy covered
hangnails.  Somehow, however, that seems unlikely.

Nonetheless, a few pointless or frivolous visits to a doctor seems
like a worthwhile trade for the current approach which encourages
people to postpone visiting a doctor until a problem has gotten out of
hand.  I'd rather pay to treat someone's hangnail than to have an arm
amputated because of gangrene due to an untreated hangnail (yeah,
yeah, yeah, that doesn't make much sense; you get the drift).
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5254 alt.politics.clinton:5520
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:22:35 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep14.235604.1057@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>Early in 83' the unemployment stats began to be changed to exclude
>those who dropped off unemployment without getting a job and those 
>underemployed, and included the military into the employment stats.
>The real number of unemployment in later 82' was actually around 15%.
>(I've posted this and the sources before.)

Would you post the source again?  This one I'm going to verify.  The
reason is that Sindlinger, who calculates unemployment the old fashioned
way, puts current unemployment at 10.2% or so.  Certainly if good old
fashioned unemployment was 15% a scant 10 years ago, some of us would
remember it.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:33:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer) writes:

> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> : 
> :      " ... I therefore beg leave to move-- that henceforth prayers
> :    imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our
> :    deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before
> :    we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of
> :    this city be requested to officiate in that service."
> : 		-- Benjamin Franklin (in a letter to Geo. Washington)
> 
> However, consider the following against the Franklin quote:
> 
> "Almighty God hath created the mind free.  All attempts to influence
> it by temporal punishments or burthens are a departure from the plan
> of the holy author of our religion.  No man shall be compelled to 
> frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall
> otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief,
> but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain,
> their opinions in matters of religion.  I know but one code of
> morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."
> 
>   -- Thomas Jefferson (printed on walls of the Jefferson Memorial)

There is no conflict between the two quotes.  Note that both men acknowledge
God freely; and (though not explicit here) the "one code of morality" to
which Jefferson refers would be the morality of the Christian religion. 
All the Founders would have agreed that personal mode of worship cannot be
dictated by the government.  And all the Founders would see not conflict
with government officials and institutions asking God's direct blessing on
the government (i.e. official prayer).

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:34:12 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <SLaDr*hX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>So, Ben.  Tell me exactly how it is better for the children to have divorced
>parents?  Is it better for the kids to spend more time with a babysitter than
>with mom, so she can go be frustrated in workplace?  It is patently obvious to
>anyone with a functional brain that the traditional family is the best way.  Why
>should the government try to destroy it?

Well, actually, if you think about it, there are much better
arrangements.  For example, multiple marriage with both many 'fathers'
and many 'wives' would be better and more stable.  If someone leaves
or dies, the child would still have both male and female parents left
as role models.  Accidents or catastrophic illness wouldn't leave a
surviving spouse destitute, because there would still be lots of
workers in the 'family'.

Note that I'm not recommending such an arrangement, any more than I
would recommend Jim's idea of 'traditional family'.  I'm simply
showing that this is NOT "patently obvious" to anyone who really
thinks about it instead of just taking the 'knee-jerk' 'family values'
position. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:06:24 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep9.171414.13867@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>And does it show who picked the first one?  Of course not.  Still
>short of context.

You are asking me to prove a negative.  In order for me to prove
that you started the first grammar flame, I'd have to re-post every
piece of netnews you and I ever exchanged.  This is possible, but
you could always claim that I was still short of context.  It is
up to YOU to prove that I started a grammar flame before you.  You
haven't, therefore I have proven my point.

Next myth.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton