HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 06:00:53 GMT

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

> In London, eg, the problem is plastique and other high explosives
> (pemex?), not guns per se. I am sure it is illegal, however. Would you
> say that the gunshot deaths in Northern Ireland are measured in
> "double digits"?

But they are.  For all the excitement, people aren't shot as often in all
of Northern Ireland as they are in a couple of square blocks of Houston.
There have only been 3000 deaths caused by the "troubles" in a couple of
decades; and I believe the majority of them are non-gunshot deaths
(beatings, bombs, etc), and a number were in England itself.  The
differences are, deaths in Northern Ireland get a lot more publicity.

Don't forget, all of Northern Ireland is only six counties.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2266 alt.politics.clinton:4143 alt.politics.bush:4168 talk.politics.misc:43909
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:44:15 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>
>   >Okay, so we make everyone more efficient.  then we need fewer workers.
>   >Then we have more unemployment,

Dan Weinreb, dlw@odi.com writes:
>On All Things Considered today, they reported that the above effect
>actually appears to have happened over the last two months.
>Productivity is up, but employment is not up; more is getting
>produced, but by the same number of people.
>
>However, that's because of the current recession and the 80's debt
>overhang; there's no evidence that it's a long-term trend, and it
>would be surprising if it were. ...

To me, it seems to me that the USA and the world are in the grips of
two very powerful forces:

	1)  Income-leveling across international borders
	2)  Hyper-specialization of job categories

These strike me as long-term trends which will only accelerate as
improvements are made in transportation and communications technologies.

Governments of the world have failed to come up with an economic system
which will distribute wealth fairly among people while providing
incentive for higher productivity.  Without wealth redistribution, the
inevitable result of higher productivity is gradually decreasing demand
as economic powerlessness spreads.

To address point number 2, generalists in almost any field (who were
in high demand as recently as 10 or 20 years ago) are at a severe disad-
vantage compared to specialists.  The number of new specialties created
each year is staggering (just look at the fields of computing and medicine).
This is not a short-term phase:  it will continue over the long haul,
consuming large amounts of educational resources and redistributing
economic power among the world's countries.

To respond to this by saying, OK, let's buck the trend and get back to
basics and get rid of all this automation is to ignore the difficulty of
competing with currently low-wage countries in a global economy.

The USA is likely to wind up like Great Britain: a shadow of its
former self.  The only thing we can do to prevent this is to get rid
of that $4 trillion international debt as quickly as we can, and put
our people back to work.  Can it be done?

-rich
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Haitians as Political or Economic Refugees
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:29:04 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <6211@transfer.stratus.com>, tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
> And, of course, Jamaica, Cuba and the Bahamas are all much more easily
> reached via boat from Haiti than the U.S.

Given the location and motion of the ocean currents and winds,
not really. Well, Cuba actually. But of course the US has a military
base in Cuba, so...

Q: Does Castro get paid rent for the US military base in Cuba?
A: No. But, talk about your "tennant from hell" situations!


Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Sep9124222@world.std.com> <53165@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:34:58 GMT

In article <53165@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In article <ART.92Sep9124222@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <53083@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
   >
   >   In article <ART.92Sep8105249@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >
   >[...]
   >
   >   >There is something wrong in Lotus wanting concessions to keep its payroll
   >   >in Cambridge?  Lotus owes nothing, zero, zip, nada to Cambridge.  If
   >   >Lotus doesn't like the way Cambridge does things they are free to pack up
   >   >and go to some place that does things more to their liking.
   >   ...
   >   >Then just let them go.  I'm sure that Reading or Natick or Athol would be
   >   >glad to see them.
   >
   >   Have you ever been to Athol? 
   >
   >Matter of fact I have, why do you ask?

   Just the idea of Lotus in Athol seems a little funny. It's not a major
   technical or intellectual center.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
And Cambridge is????????
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 04:02:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.152125.1077@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:


	   I noticed some of you out there like to bring up Germany's
   'successful' government sponsored social programs.  Here is an article
   in the New York Times September 3,1992;

It's not really fair to judge Germany's social programs by the state
of the German economy *after* reunification.  Reunification has caused
massive economic and social problems, to say the least, and the
situation has hardly stabilized.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:08:35 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <ART.92Sep9124222@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <53083@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>   In article <ART.92Sep8105249@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>   >There is something wrong in Lotus wanting concessions to keep its payroll
>   >in Cambridge?  Lotus owes nothing, zero, zip, nada to Cambridge.  If
>   >Lotus doesn't like the way Cambridge does things they are free to pack up
>   >and go to some place that does things more to their liking.
>   ...
>   >Then just let them go.  I'm sure that Reading or Natick or Athol would be
>   >glad to see them.
>
>   Have you ever been to Athol? 
>
>Matter of fact I have, why do you ask?

Just the idea of Lotus in Athol seems a little funny. It's not a major
technical or intellectual center.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
	<BZS.92Sep10181505@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep12.194354.1198@miki.pictel.com>
	<BZS.92Sep12222436@ussr.std.com> <ART.92Sep12225102@world.std.com> <BZS.92Sep13004331@ussr.std.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:39:20 GMT

In article <BZS.92Sep13004331@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

   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.

My understanding is that it is extremely common.  Towns and cities
(and states) offer special tax deals for businesses all the time.  I
doubt that a single car factory has been built over the last twenty
years without negotiating a deal with the city that included what its
taxes would be as well as various other matters.  What the car factory
and Lotus have in common is being relatively large within the scale of
their city/town.  From what I've heard about Lotus so far, this is all
entirely routine.
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:44:52 GMT
	<2798822096@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> <CKD.92Sep8215251@loiosh.eff.org>
	<BuAzG3.ECM@world.std.com>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <BuAzG3.ECM@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:

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

Only if the amount Lotus pays is less than the value of the "benefits"
they receive from the city of Cambridge.  And I would argue further
that only the benefits that Lotus desires should be considered.

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.  Hopefully
both sides will have researched the situation before any final
decisions are made.
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 03:58:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.141345.10356@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

	   Yes, IFF (if andonly if) the $$$ does get rechanneled.

Yes, indeed.  I do think eventually there will be investment.  Much of
the rest of your posting seems to be anti-trickle-down; I was never
advocating trickle-down.

						  Give a rich person
   $$$ and he'll keep a percentage and reinvest (for profit) the rest.
   Give a poor person $$$ and he'll spend it.  In all cases there 
   is the SAME finite amount of $$$ 

Actually, if by "amount of $$$" you literally mean the amount of
money, I don't think you're right here.  When money is invested, new
money is created; the money supply increases.  This is just basic
freshman economics.  However, I'm not sure whether the money supply is
actually what you're interested in.

			   Just where did all the S&L $$$ magically disappear
   to?  

As I understand it, when you look at the economy as a whole, money
really did disppear.  You have to keep in mind that money isn't a
physical stuff subject to consevation of mass.  Money is based on
faith (well, "hope" is probably more accurate).  When the speculative
bubble collapses and everybody realizes that their hopes were
inflated, debtors start defaulting and creditors start recognizing
losses by writing off bad loans, and the money just disppears into
thin air.  I'm talking about the sum of all money here; the story
of exactly how it gets redistributed is more complicated.

	And who gets to pay for it?

You and me :-(.

	   The economy needs a infusion of $$$ to get ti started again.
   The only way that will happen it to give the rich an economic
   laxative.  And an enema.

Unfortunately, as you can see from what the Fed has been doing,
infusing money isn't really doing the trick very well.  The Fed has
lowered short-term interest rates, and normally that would stimulate
borrowing and increase the money supply and get the economy moving.
However, even though short-term money is cheap right now, few people
want it, even at the cut-rate price.  The general explanation is that
so many people (entities, that is) are still paying off loans that
they are in no shape to borrow further; the economy is still
recovering from the hangover of the Roaring Eighties.  It'll recover,
certainly, but it's hard to say how fast.  Personally, I thought it
was going to be faster than this.  Another problem is that it has become
apparent the the Fed manipulations are not controlling long-term rates.
Long-term rates are still high, since creditors pretty much assume that
inflation is going to start up again, as an inevitable consequence
of the U.S.'s extremely high budget deficit.

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The World
	<2798822096@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<1992Sep9.124703.759@miki.pictel.com> <BZS.92Sep10181505@ussr.std.com>
	<2697@mitech.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:08:22 GMT


From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
>I'm not arguing fairness. I'm arguing that Cambridge has SET ITSELF UP
>for the kind of problem it is facing with Lotus.
>
>(1) Commercial taxes are too high.
>(2) city services, simple things like making SIDE-WALKS that are
>    not dangerous, SUX in cambridge.

I have no doubt, I've lived in Cambridge tho it's been several years.

But those issues are not peculiar to Lotus, are they? If their point
is that everyone's taxes are too high for the services they receive
then that should be what guides their behavior.

If their point is, as it seems to be, screw everyone else but we're
going for a break and the rest can pay even higher taxes for all we
care then they should be treated in kind, ie, selfishly and without
concern for their needs.

You really shouldn't have it both ways, be able to express total lack
of concern for everyone else but yourself while demanding that those
same people you don't care about recognize your needs.

Nah, I think it's just horse-trading is all, and anything (pretty
much) goes.

Put another way: If Lotus does get an $800K/yr cut in taxes do you
think it will make it easier or harder for you to get your sidewalk
fixed?

Probably harder, right? And likely you'll also get this notice in your
mail that your taxes are being raised to make up for this $800K/yr.

--
        -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: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:40:53 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>	Just a question.  Where are all the usually vocal libertarians
>defending the Haitians and opposing any immigration quotas on the
>grounds that they are restrictions on personal liberty?

We're in a bind.  It's hard to put up a reasonable defense for this
position when the USA is having so many domestic problems that we can
ill afford to welcome the hungry and poor from other countries without
adding to our own problems with the hungry and poor.

Worse yet, we have a terrible problem with violence.  Adding huge numbers
of people who are in desperate straits will naturally add to that problem.

So here's a rather uncharacteristic posting from someone who is usually
more liberal on such issues.  IMHO, the real solution is to go in and
fix the problem with Haitian governance, rather than to move the population
of Haiti to our country.  If we're so pro-democracy, why haven't we lifted
a finger to restore democracy to that country?

-rich
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:19:10 GMT
	<BZS.92Sep13191103@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep14.000931.11720@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: The World


From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) [responding to me]
>>... judges
>>being what they are and our nation's history of equal protection under
>>the law (and tax parity as an ideal if not always a practice) it would
>>be very likely that one or more of the others would merely have to
>>make an argument in court ...
>
>Does equal protection under the law apply to corporations the same as
>individuals?

I doubt it, and I also doubt this would be argued under constitutional
law.

The point being, however, that our nation has some history and
tradition of equality under the law, and even without specifically
demanding constitutional review, arguing to a judge that you are being
treated unfairly (unequally) in some compelling way is usually
persuasive (except in traffic court :-) Note my use of "compelling",
obviously a lot of claims of unequal treatment are made and are just
dumb or irrelevant (e.g. those which are easily answered with ``well,
you got caught and they didn't''.)

Arguing parity of application of tax laws is certainly well
established and common. For example, in my other point, arguing that
your home was valued incorrectly based on what other, comparable
homes, were valued at (happens all the time.)

>Even if it does, there must be a lot of ways to enact
>tax reductions in ways that don't seem discriminatory.  If there
>weren't, would the federal tax laws be so large?

I don't know that you can enact a tax law which says ``Lotus shall pay
at a different rate then everyone else...'', tho you may be able to do
this in some way as a year to year policy, ``in recognition of the
value Lotus offers Cambridge they have been granted ...''

So, yes, it can be done in some sense. But I will guess that it will
also cause a lot of other businesses to demand they be treated the
same way. They may be successful in such demands, they may not. Of
course, Cambridge can sit there and demand to see their muscle in each
case. I dunno.

Also, I don't think these are federal taxes Lotus is bickering with
Cambridge about, it is Cambridge property taxes.

--
        -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
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Organization: The World
	<JTURNER.92Sep10065148@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Sep11.174053.22459@kronos.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:17:04 GMT


``Give us your hungry, your wretched, your yearning masses longing to
be free'' was a nice sentiment when we had an optimistic outlook and
were looking for cheap labor to man the seemingly limitless economic
expansion.

Now that we as a nation have decided to take a dimmer view
encompassing zero-sum economies and people as a burden rather than an
opportunity (even our own citizens, um, especially our own citizens)
it's not hard to see how we are in this quandary trying to reconcile
former ideals and this more modern "country club / members only"
vision of the United States.

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!

--
        -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: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Heinleins movie (Re: Lotus as a public charity)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:42:44 GMT
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Sep14.123927.1368@miki.pictel.com> boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander) writes:
>>>One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein, believed you should
>>>always do your duty.  But he also said that you should not let others
>>>define for you what your duty is.  
>>
>>That's very nice. I just saw a movie based on one of his novels from
>>back around 1960. It was very comical, especially the way these guys
>>who are the first to land on the moon get in an argument over where
>>the best landing site is by looking out the window and shouting their
>>opinions at each other as the rocket plummets to the surface. What a
>>visionary...
>
>I know of no movie based on any of Heinlein's stories.  Also, the behavior
>you describe is not at all typical of Heinlein's characters.  Please
>identify the movie and the story.  Then we can see how much is
>Heinlein and how much is Hollywood.

The movie is Destination: Moon, made in the late 50's.  There is a bit
the Heinlein wrote about making it in Requiem, a recent book
containing a number of his speeches, and a bunch of tributes to him.

The behavior is not typical of Heinleins later characters, but the
movie was based on one of his juvenile works.  He talks about spending
quite a bit of time trying to make the spacesuits and such things look
right (in the essay in Requiem).  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. 

Criticize him for his cheesy plots, or something for gods sake!  :)

Adam


Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:51:48 GMT
	<1992Sep4.175646.23667@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<6181@transfer.stratus.com> <1992Sep9.151142.2960@m5.harvard.edu>
	<6267@transfer.stratus.com>
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: tarl@sw.stratus.com's message of 10 Sep 92 00:13:53 GMT


	Just a question.  Where are all the usually vocal libertarians
defnding the Haitians and opposing any immigration quotas on the
grounds that they are restrictions on personal liberty?

					--Jeff Turner
From: shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:53:21 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <BZS.92Sep1222000@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
writes...

>Re: Taxing the rich.
> 
>Tax incentives for the rich to invest in jobs, inner-city development

I think that we should digress from the 'rich' and move to the real focus which
I believe to be business. The rich don't do anything per se'. If they provide
jobs with their money, its via a business which employs people. If they invest
their money, its to businesses which employ people.

Allowing ANYONE to keep more money gives them the opportunity to spend it,
which, in general (if not specific) goes back into businesses to create more
products and more jobs.

Regards,
Steve.

/*********************************************************************
*                               *                                    *
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed   *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and do not neccessarily *
* Specializing in: HP/SUN/UNIX  * reflect those of my clients,       *
* DEC/VAX/VMS/ULTRIX, IBM PC    * employers, employees, children,    *
* C, FORTRAN, PASCAL, PL/1      * parents, spouse or even myself!    *
*                               *                                    *
**********************************************************************
* The Contract Professional BBS, North Reading, MA                   *
* FidoNet 1:101/440 (508) 664-6354                                   *
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org                             *
*********************************************************************/