HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:22:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money

>Brett':

> Majority rule must also be equitable to the minorities involved.

>>Ellen:

>><Snort!>  It's amazing how many conservatives are saying that now that
>>their favorite political party is seemingly the minority in Washington.
>>

The Democrats have had the majority in the House of Reps. for
nearly 40 years and for most of that time they have also had the
majority in the Senate. They are now trying to change the House
rules to limit "Special Orders", where members talk to an empty
chamber for the C-SPAN audience (and are not limited by debate
rules), and to allow delegates from non-states (DC and
territories, and Democratic) to vote on legislation in
committees but not on the final approval.

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:56:59 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination and Prostitution.

From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>   Ah, indeed.  But what is prostitution, Pizz?  It is sex for money,
> isn't it.  It is sex as businezz, isn't it.  .......................

What about hiring people to have sex in XXX movies.  How come that
is not prostitution.  How about regular movies: actors are paid
to have sex with other actors.  How come those deals are not illegal?

> -Tim

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:59:39 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

>    Yes, I agree that discrimination is wrong, but that private
>businesses shouldn't be FORCED to be non-discriminatory.
>Pizz

  The good doctor misunderstands my point.  Apparently it
is not okay for private businezz to force their employees
to engage in sex with their managers as part of the job,
even if it is in the contract and up front.

  The rationale for this was "everyone knows prostitution
is illegal."

  Presumably, Mz Pizz means to say that private businezzes
should be able to do anything that isn't illegal.

  The problem iz, Pizz, that your argument is circular.
Let me help you.  You say:

  *  it isn't illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual
     preference.
  *  therefore businezzes should be allowed to discriminate on
     the basis of sexual preference.

  *  businezzes should be allowed to discriminate on the
     basis of sexual preference
  *  therefore we shouldn't make it illegal to discriminate
     on the basis of sexual preference.

  This one doesn't even require submizzion to the Logic Czar.

  Would it also be your claim that if, somehow, we pazzed (against
your ever vigilant watchfulnezz) a law that made such discrimination
illegal (since you have acknowledged it to be "wrong") that you
would no longer support the right of a private businezz to engage
in such discrimination?

  If not (I azzume, perhaps incorrectly, that your belief in the
right of a businezz to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference
is stronger than all the arguments you have offered - that it is,
so far as I can tell, ezzentially not rational, but, if -T. will
forgive me, rationalized) then what is your basis for excluding the
right of an employer to demand (up front, as it were) sexual or
financial favors as a condition of employment?

  See, we won't let you have it both ways - and those whose arguments
live by the laws will die by the laws.  A simple (though undoubtedly
hotly contended) vote would resolve your *stated* objections.

  Would you then support the law or the discriminators?  And if you
would still support the discriminators, would you come up with a valid
rational argument for that position?

                                    -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:43:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      I'm Baaack!! (and starting to regret it)

        Well, hello to all the nice and talkative folks at politics. Old timers
like Jamie, Jimbo, Valentine and even Andy Freeman may remember me. New people
will get to hate me or love me very soon.
        I see the topics have not changed much since I left.
        Racism is still with us. Taxes, like death, are hard to escape. Abortion
still raises a lot of fire around here. Who's right and do they want to
associate with Hitler is mildly interesting. Clinton's "winner take all" summit
and its "sour grapes" detractors are fun to read.
        Can we get back at the real questions of meaning about Life, the
Universe and Everything? Can't we debate about TV coomercials and their
influence on children's sleeping habits? The future of socialist heavy
equipment factories and will they be compatible with old Chevys or not?
What does Yeltsin really drinks these days? These ageless questions will set
the philosophers' heads on fire....

        See you around, folks! (I'm adjusted to my addiction to electronic
drugs again. Bear with me while I try to regain my lost empire and start to
gather my hun army to become World Dictator again...)

P.S. New people must think I'm crazy. Jamie and jimbo, please explain it
to them...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:14:43 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>And let's mot forget Jesus (he did not procreate either, though
>he might have "created" a lot.)  Where would Caius send Jesus?
>Same place he sent the homosexuals?

The same place Jesus was sent by his contemporaries, presumably.

                       -Tim
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:28:36 GMT

K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
>OK, I dare you to a duel of who has got the bigger number.  I am
>so confident that I even allow you to go first.

My biggest number, conveniently enough, is defined to be, at any given
time,
           b
          2



where b is the biggest number ever thought of by any other
member of the politics list.  (Where member is construed broadly,
relative to 'true subscribers', and where the 2^b notation
indicates the cardinality of the power set of a set of cardinality
b.)

But I'll bet that, with some work, Jamie can construct a bigger
number than mine.  The trick will be for him not to think about
it.

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:52:01 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
              18 Dec 1992 10:07:52 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

> ..........................................  First, it is not at all
> clear that we are 'all on the earth for procreation'.  I'm certainly
> not intending to procreate anytime soon.  .........................

And let's mot forget Jesus (he did not procreate either, though
he might have "created" a lot.)  Where would Caius send Jesus?
Same place he sent the homosexuals?

> --Jimbo

--KAT
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:58:11 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

> All others being equal (abilities to do the job) I would choose the NORMAL
> person.

> If I had an apartment to let, I would demand a higher price from an UNNORMAL
> person.

Are blacks "UNNORMAL?"  How about atheists, jews, nazis, communists,
murderers, drug users, etc.?

> Caius

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:45:50 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Rush
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >He (RUSH) backs up what he says with articles.
> >-Rich
>
> Interesting.  I was under the impression that the Republican Right did not
> trust NOR BELIEVE the "liberal" media.
>
>                                                 ---roger
>
>                                "Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

  mostly true. but "the liberal media" is not 100% of the media, and
even the liberals have to report facts once in a while . . .

rtf, who will listen to just about anything for a while . . .
From: ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: is that a googolplex in your pocket or are you just happy to see
              me?
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:48:16 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

the world waits breathlessly...who's got the bigger number, jimbo or kat?

must be some kind of guy thing.

anneliese.  (feeling curmudgeonly today.  hmph.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: charts and other implements of torture part II
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:54:11 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>> >>Paying executives a lot is necessarily bad management?  Or, is O'Andy
>> >>claiming that lowering executive pay will result in better executives?
>
>> >Compensating executives out of proportion to the value of their
>> >work is poor management. Rewarding failure is poor management.
>
>> That's all well and good, but either O'Andy is ducking the question
>> or he's equating "out of proportion" with "a lot".  His choice.
>
>Not to really jump into this conversation, but I've heard the ratio of
>20-1 for highest paid-lowest paid employee. Meaning, if the lowest paid
>mop-jockey gets paid $5 an hour, the highest paid person should get, at
>best, $100 an hour. I DON'T KNOW: 1) any scientific basis behind it
>2) any evidence, anecdotal or scientifically, that says it is effective
>3) any secret communist goals behind this or 4) what it is supposed to
>accomplish.

Supply and demand.  There are lots of mop-jockeys and a surplus.
There aren't many competent managers.

A low-wage is society's way of saying "do something else of value".

>My personal thoughts about this are: this plan would keep the actual
>actors the business, those who build or service, and those who manage
>those actors on a somewhat even basis. Hell, I'm not married to the
>idea, though.

That's an interesting assumption about how things work.  Figuring out
what to do is often far harder to get right than to actually do it.

>> >Increasing compensation for executives while cutting pay for workers
>> >when the productivity of workers is increasing is poor management IMHO.
>
>> Really?  What if the cause for the increasing productivity is
>> MANAGEMENT activity.  More stuff, lower costs - most people think
>> that's "good".  Does O'Andy disagree?
>
>1) I'd like an example of that.

Automation often does that.

>2) I'll boil that down to language we all can understand. If the workers
>are doing well, as they are, their paychecks should at least stay the
>same.

Huh?  Management figures out how to make twice as many cars/man-hour
and we should continue to have the same total payroll?  As a consumer,
I really don't want to see that and my dollars will vote against it.

What's wrong with supply and demand?

>If the factory is doing well (or even if it isn't), the managers should
>not get rewarded with money taken from the paychecks of the workers.
>In O'Andy's explaination, production is rising, so the workers are at
>least working, if not working hard. I'd accept an increase in pay for
>the managers, but the workers deserve a reward, not a punishment, for
>their work

Nice class envy rant.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:49:02 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Torts, Tax, Insurance

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>-Does Jamie think that auto insurance rates, which depend on user
>-characteristics, are necessarily inferior to bundled insurance
>-"bundled" with car purchase costs?
>
>No, I think they are superior, as a rule. They make more fine-grained
>distinctions, which I think is Andy's point. So I would be in favor
>of an analogous system for medical purchases.

-Okay, but how about for alcohol "costs"?  I thought that Jamie wanted
-to tax my booze to pay for the average costs of alcohol, but if he's
-willing to let me get the user-specific rate for my car use, why can't
-I have it for booze too?

If you thought I was arguing for a literal tax, you misunderstood.
In any case, if you think it would be a good idea to mandate
liability insurance for anyone who wants to buy booze, I'm
willing to consider it. I suspect it wouldn't work out
very well.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:35:12 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Look back and wrangle...the poverty thing again

Re: fraud in aid to the poor Brett' says:

>>It appears to whom?  That is O'Andy's invention; no one else has
>>mentioned fraud.

>        I'll mention it :).

Since you mentioned it before and andy f. apparently couldn't read and
comprehend it, why don't you do it again? B)

>                LUXURIES BILLED TO MEDICARE
>
>        Federal hospital audits are uncovering a litany of questionable
>Medicare charges for items such as Super Bowl tickets and $770 antique pillows.
>        The probe of 15 (just 15!--Brett) by the HHS inspector general shows at
>least $42 million in "unallowable" overhead expenses...
>
>        So at (say) $3000 a day, that $42 million could fund 14,000 days of
>intensive care, or at (say) $100/exam, 420,000 annual checkups....
>
>        But hey, there's no fraud anywhere.  Let's just label those who imply
>there is as tools of the rich and anti-poor.

Thank you for bringing up yet another shocking abuse by greedy wealthy people
of the poor. B)

Note that the perpetrators and recipients of the fraudulently acquired funds,
goods and services are doctors and health care providers, not the poor.

By the way did you happen to see the 20/20 episode a few weeks ago that
had the feature about how dermatologists were providing facials and other
non-medical services to their well-heeled clients and billing them to
health insurance plans? I don't suppose you'd consider the idea that
fraud and abuse show up in all institutions, and while it is indeed
irritating and wrong one should not use it as evidence that a program
created and administered with the best of intentions and reasonable
and prudent controls is without value.

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:57:44 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Hate Speech is back

Back in the news, I mean.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on a Wisconsin case in
which a man convicted of aggravated battery had his sentence increased
(doubled, actually) because he yelled racist remarks during the attack.
Wisconsin has statutory increases in penalties for hate-motivated
crimes.

The Court seemed extremely disinclined to allow this sort of law
in its opinions in a recent Minnesota case. My prediction is that
the members will show at least a moderate change of heart.

I am very interested to see what Scalia and Thomas say about the case.
And I am also quite interested to see what O'Connor will say, since
my guess is that she will be Chief Justice after Rehnquist.

Jamie

Oh, Ramon asked someone to explain why it might seem as though he
is crazy. The explanation is very simple. Ramon is crazy.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:14:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: wwf II

>Linda ... you are cruel, but fair.

actually, i'm very sweet :).

>But, not to drag anything into the ground, I think you misconstrued m
>y own misconstruction of the argument.  "wrestling is fake and there-
>fore it is not a real sport."  Football suffers from this logic.

well, i thought what you said was tongue in cheek, and i was sortof trying
to go along w/the fun.

>I used think the women on "gladiators" huge also ... till I moved to
>the midwest !

sounds like my son's girlfiend....i call her the amazon, she's so big and
pretty. told michael he better be good to her, she could do him some damage.

;)

-linda

ps. by the way, what is your name...hard to post to TI0PSR1.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:53:23 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: rightist
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              wales" at Dec 15, 92 7:36 pm

jimmy donal wales pisze:

>> I want to warn you to be careful with your quantifiers.  The statement
>> that 'this terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media'
>> is simply false.  I am not a member of the media, and I am not a
>> leftist.  Yet, I accept the terminology. "only" is a powerful word,
>> use it wisely.

Thank you for pointing out the logical error.

The correction: (on calling Nazis rightist)

"this terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media and some
 of those who listen to the media stated"

Better?


I just CANNOT accept putting the "rightist" label to everything that the
media dislike. The same people put the "conservative" label to the Soviet
communist hard-liners, that have quite opposite views.

You can call a computer "an egg", "a wooboodoo", "a foobar" or something else
but this does not change the fact what it actuall is.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:59:25 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Dec 16, 92 11:31 am

Andrew Allen pisze:

>> >>It limits the growth of the money supply to the growth of discovery
>> >>of gold.
>>
>> >I still don't see how!
>> >As I speculated, and as O'Andy has confirmed, the basic way the
>> >fed works on the money supply is by buying and selling its outstanding
>> >bonds. Why would a gold standard change that practice?
>> >(Would it change the way the fed can affect the reserve rate?)
>>
>> You are correct, the Fed could still manipulate the money supply
>> by altering reserve requirements.
>>
No you not correct. The MAIN reason for the compulsory reserve requirement
is to prevent bank from producing to much paper(or electronic) money.

The MAIN goal of the gold standard is to abolish the reserve requirement
thus thus giving NO power to the Fed. And the Fed could be closed.

If you wanted to put some money into the bank account you could choose

1) a deposit - in this case the bank would have the obligation to safekeep
   100% of your money - such account would earn no interest

2) a loan to the bank - take a risk of the bank going bankrupt && earn some
   interest.

Under this system it's up to you and the bank you choose to decide how much
risk you are going to take.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:21:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

Brett' tells us about scams poor people use:

>         And here's the scenario that most people use:
>
>         Assets are transferred to relatives and "friends" (live-in SOs, for
> example).
>         Carol Mosely-Braun (Senator-elect from Ill.) got stung by this when it
> was revealed that her mother was using medicaid despite considerable money gai
> from the sale of timber rights--which were transferred to Carol and her other
> children.
>
>         In another situation, a mother of three refuses to marry her boyfriend
> because that would cut off the ADC aid and put both of them off welfare.  Thei
> "official" jobs are both below-poverty-line wages.  But they also sell amway,
> and he runs a pretty profitable insurance price-fixing scam.
>
>         Needless to say, that's five more "poverty-stricken" people who aren't

Out of 37 million.  Your "most people" is a fantasy.  The overwhelming
majority of poor people really are poor.  If you have any proof to the
contrary, I would really like to see it.  Remember, the government-
aided poor are the most thoroughly investigated people in our society.
The idea that scams like this are the norm is pretty fanciful, I think.
The scholarship I've read on this topic bears me out.

> >>         How do we account for the fact that the bottom 10%, on average, spe
> >> twice their reported income each year?
> >
> >Interesting figure.  I'd appreciate seeing a source and some more
> >detail on this--it seems a little high to me.  Though there are several
> >possible explanations that occur to me, which we can go into later.
>
>         Source is _The Seven Fat Years_ by Robert Bartley.
>
>         I can repost the numbers later this weekend.

Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Have a good weekend, everyone.  How's the beer countdown going?

Best,
Peter

> Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:40:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: NORNAL [i.e. normal]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt425059@drew.edu>, Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU> wr
   ites:
> Joe
>
> The criteria I listed in my post were direct quotes of a definition
> from the Random House Dictionary.  Then, I merely tried to explain how
> they applied to Homosexuality.  Again, what is wrong with being
> abnormal?  I am admittedly considered abnormal by many of my friends.

I presume that I didn't make myself clear.  My point was that "normal"
is a relative term and that just because someone is abnormal doesn't mean
much -- it has to be shown the harm this abnormality contains.  I
basically defended your definitions and how they applied to
homosexuality, though I disagreed that it is a mental disorder.  I
also noted that I would be considered abnormal (a fact that is backed
up by many of my friends too), and that I don't consider it bad.  I
then showed how many groups would be abnormal and open to
discrimination under your criteria on what normal means.  So what's
the problem?

[a repeat of Pizz's beliefs on private discrimination deleted]
>
> Pizz

   -Joe