HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n3884@cray.com (Pete Palmer)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Reply-To: n3884@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Dec 92 13:36:09 CST


---
In article 7909@netcom.com, nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
>in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
>bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
>accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.
>
>P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
>believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of
>Americans believe handguns should be regulated.

Rather naive, but I'm sure that you rounded up these numbers at the same
time you got ahold of your election history stats (which do seem acurate).

The problem is not with the statisitics or statistical analysis, which
you are correct in saying are reliable (i.e. margin of error based on
sample size, etc.).  The problem is the sponsors of the polls rarely tell
you what question was actually asked.  I know this >>first hand<< with the
abortion numbers you give.  These numbers are about the same as a Planned Parenthood
sponsored phone poll that I was randomly called for here in Minnesota.  The
questioner asked:

"Do you think abortion should be legal and safe for women in cases of rape, incest,
 unplanned pregnancy, or the health of the mother, and be a private decision 
 between a woman, her family, and counselor or clergy?"

I'm not kidding, this was one question.  I asked to break it down and respond
to each of the issues.  Nope. Yes or no.  (I`ll even avoid the discussion of
burying unplanned pregnancy in the question and adding an air of respectability
by mentioning clergy).

Sure enough, two weeks later the Twin Cities media all broadcasted that 72% of
Minnesota residents favor legal abortion based on this poll and did not 
give the wording of the question asked. 

BTW, N.B., I hope you listen as well as you talk.  Their is plenty of room for
discussion on these issues  --  even us 

>idiots

may provide something interesting or maybe only amusing for you.


--------------------------------------------------
Pete Palmer (n3884@cray.com)
--------------------------------------------------

Anyone who has considerably meditated on man, by profession or vocation,
is led to feel nostalgia for the primates.  -Camus

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:27:46 GMT
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
Distribution: na
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BzG097.Iz2@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes...
>Well, it's started.  Now we're going to be able to see the real double
>standard in action.
> 
>Clinton, after starting out and naming a couple of moderate, pro-business
>and anti-deficit Democrats to Treasury and Budget director, took the low
>road and came up with some real winners. 

Are you trying to say that he took the "low" road because he appointed
a few liberals? (Although the two people you mention below, Cisneros and 
Brown, are moderates.)

>Will they be examined as closely
>as past nominations by Republican presidents?  John Tower was raked over
>the coals for his womanizing.  Will Henry Cisneros ("One of the finest
>leaders of our generation" : Al Gore) be asked about losing his job as
>mayor of San Antonio for HIS womanizing?  

  Do you know anything at all about Cisneros? (Maybe you just know what
Rush Limburger says.) Have you ever read anything written by him, or listened
to any of his speeches? If you have, you would know that Al Gore is right
on the money.  Unlike Bush, so far Clinton has named one top notch appointment
after another.  As for a "double standard", you seem to forget that the Senate
is not made up of 100 Democrats.  It's been widely reported today that the
Republicans in the Senate are gearing up to give all the appointments you 
mentioned a hard time.  


>Will Johnetta Cole be asked
>about her past activities in Cuba?  

What post has she been named to? All I'v heard are some rumours.

>Will anyone ask what the qualifications are for some of
>his other appointees?

Qualifications? EVERY SINGLE ONE of his appointments to date are highly 
qualified, as opposed to the shmucks that Bush mostly appointed.

>I doubt it, it'll be a rubber stamp by the Democrats, to be returned by
>a rubber stamp by the Prez.

As I said above, the Republicans in the senate WILL rake some of these
appointees over the coals, just to be a pain in the ass.  But, in the
end because these "problems" with the apointments don't amount to a hill
of beans, and because the Democrats hold the majority, YES they will
get appointed.  And they deserve to be.  Unlike John Tower, whose problems
were significant (even some republicans voted against him).

-Chris
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:00:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1144.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
>nothing to do with racism.  Bill's cabinet will be the most diverse
>cabinet ever, and it's good to see.
>                                                                          

Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed 
to put together anything that even modestly resembels "America".  Unless
of course you actually believe that the majority of Americans that self
identify as conservative are really closet liberals who favor socialism
     
Pathetic fools like you may see diversity in selecting the proper balance
of politically correct skin tones and genitals but the truth is that to
date ALL of Bill's appointments reflect one view point, one ideology and
one very far left political philosophy, regardless of the the genetic 
make up of the people appointed.  Not so much as an honest days work amongst
that collection of ivory tower academics and career politicians. 

Like John Mclaughlin is heard to have said after Clinton aides expressed
"shock" over the public reaction to Bill's gays in the military comments;
Bill Clinton is the first President in American history whose term can
be called a failure, even before he takes office. 

PSG
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and it's advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:21:22 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:25:03 GMT

In article <648@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>But see Greg, you, like so many other Clinton supporters, have left out
>the estimated 100 billion in cost for his proposed health care
initiatives.
>Bill simply didn't include the cost in his totals during the campaign and
>everyone that read his proposals knew it.

You must have a degree in misrepresentation and exaggeration.... His plan
did include the health care reform costs but spread these costs over the
proper time period for implementation of the plan (4-5 years), something
you
conservatives don't do when making statements like this.

Note a fact: All major health organizations endorsed Clinton's plan over
the anemic noncomprehensive band-aid put forth by Bush. Furthermore,
the plans were analysed by a bipartisan committee which stated that the
Clinton plan would save the national economy 220 Billion by the end of the
decade. That's 220 Billion which can be used for investment which
strengthens
the economy, expands the tax base, and provides capital for deficit
reduction.
Health care is a huge % of our GNP and is eating our lunch. There will be
no
deficit reduction without a comprehensive plan to bring it under control.

By the way, why don't you post Bush's health care legislation submitted to
Congress for consideration. You can't find it? That is because the whole
plan
was never submitted. Just shows how important Bush thought the problem
was.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,soc.history
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: Somalia and Republican Utopia
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:53:45 GMT

In article <1h0i4lINNgu6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> James D. Del Vecchio writes:
>
>In a previous article, ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET () says:
>><Article (by Robert Hirschfield) copied from "USA Today," Wednesday 16, 1992>
>>     Somalia just may represent the end result of right-wing politics in this
>>country.
>>...endless regulations.  It enabled the warlords, representing market forces,
>
>Either Robert H. is being sarcastic here, or he just isn't to bright.
>People are starving because criminals (amateur governments) are disrupting
>market forces.  You cannot sell things because they are taken from
>you.
>
>[ rest of blather deleted ]
>
>RH is pretending not to know what capitalism is: maintance of 
>property rights.   Somalia doesn't have any such maintance, 
>it has anarchy: rule of the strongest and most brutal.
>
>Why would he write such nonsense?

Ah, that oh-so-tortured relationship between capitalism and the state.
Let's check out the binary opposition here:  "maintenance of property
rights" versus "anarchy."  Ergo the state equals maintenance of property
rights.

And we wonder why Marx said that the state is the means of domination of
the ruling class....

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: gays in the military
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:57:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.010058.7944@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Simple! An open homosexual undermines unit morale under many circumstances.
>In the military, one who does this is normally disciplined and expelled.
>The job requirement unique to the military is to be forced, under military
>discipline, to spend the most intimate times with others not of one's
>choosing....
>
>...A nice assertion. I suppose you don't mind playing with the lives of
>millions of troops with this experiment.... no of course not... social engineers
>never mind experimenting. REMEMBER THIS: military policy is enforced by law.
>When you come up with such a policy, you are FORCING this integration.
>You are not suggesting it.... you are forcing it under threat of courts martial.
>But then coercion has also been the norm of the social engineer....
>
>Sigh.
>-- 
>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
>Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
>convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc

It's a bit ironic that John's objections (undermines "morale", "social
engineering", etc.) are virtually word-for-word identical with the objections
to integrating the US military during/after World War II.

The bigots who opposed Truman raised the same objections:  allowing blacks
to serve side-by-side with whites would "lower morale".  You couldn't possibly
remove racists from the military, it was said, so it would be "better for the troops'
safety" to keep blacks out.  Doing otherwise would be "social engineering".

Although elsewhere he has denigrated the racists who kept blacks
out of the military 50 years ago, John exhibits *exactly the same attitudes*
towards homosexuals.  Face it:  you're a bigot, John.

Discrimination against homosexuals in the military is
groundless.  Among NATO forces, only the US and Britain ban gay soldiers.
Canada ended its ban on October 27.  In the Netherlands, there is no
discrimination against homosexuals.  Germany has no anti-homosexual
legislation.  Spain does not discriminate.  Italy ended its ban in 1985.

These countries don't believe that homosexuals "undermine morale".  They
don't keep homosexuals out based on medieval notions.  And neither should
the US.

Jeff Shallit
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:32:50 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec14.210934.13719@cs.wisc.edu> michaell@snake28.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee) writes:

>If anyone can point out someone who isn't very qualified for the position, 
>I'll be amazed.  Bush may have appointed some people so cynically, but I haven't
>seen that yet from Clinton.

You're right.  Clinton has appointed top-notch people all around.  He selected
an equal as a running-mate, compared to Bush's choice of Dan Joke Quayle.  His
chief of staff, Skinner, was not considered up to the job.  Clarence Thomas
wasn't considered a top-notch justice, personal character notwithstanding.
Souter wasn't well known.  What was the name of that woman who was dismissed
from the State Department?  She wasn't appointed despite objections on the
part of people at the state department that she wasn't qualified; her persona-
lity was destructive as well, and she was much hated there.  Bush did his best
to pick people who would not stand out.  Baker was one of the few exceptions,
but when the going got tough he took Baker out of the state department and
moved him to the campaign!  On the whole, Bush appointed people with mediocre
qualifications, which shows that he is a politician, not a leader.  Clinton
has so far appointed highly qualified people who will do their job and pull
their weight, and who won't be afraid to voice their opinions.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Paul Galvanek claims....
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:18:53 GMT

In article <791@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>
>PSG  
>-- 
>America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
>Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
>we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
>is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 

Well, the year is over, and the votes are in. Galvanek wins the
"Clunkiest and/or Least Pithy .sig Award" for 1992. 

You get the tiara for one year.

Alan
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:58:33 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Espy for Secretary of Agriculture

Ooops, just wanted to add that to my last post.
                         Melissa Brown
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:01:13 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <736@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>But that really shouldn't suprise me, since everything I seen to date
>from this new administrations can be summed up with "in over their heads".

Do you think that Dan Joke Quayle wasn't in over his head as vice-president,
much less as a potential president?  Maybe you're in over your head in this
newsgroup. :)

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:32:41 GMT

In article <778@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.173250.3855@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>You're right.  Clinton has appointed top-notch people all around.  He selected
>>an equal as a running-mate, compared to Bush's choice of Dan Joke Quayle.
>
>Here's a bit of non-scientific info to chew on, for those who think Clinton's
>cabinet appointments are so swell...
>
>Here in Pittsburgh, a city that voted for Clinton over Bush by better than a
>5 to 1 margin, a local radio station conducted a sample telephone poll,
>yesterday, to see what Pittsburghers thought of Clinton's cabinet choices. 
>Of the 301 people responding 173 said they are unhappy with the choices
>so far...
>
>eh hee hee he.  Making friends already.          

Sooo, Paul.  This should be an easy quesiton for you, since you're
RIGHT THERE.  Why are they unhappy?  How well do these people know
Clinton's picks?  Do you realize that throwing random statistics
around sans context merely weakens whatever credibility you might
have?




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:22:43 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Comparing University of Wisconsin to GM

Galvanek contends that the apointment of Dr. Shalala is at best inappropriate
as she only has management experience at a major university as opposed to
real experience in big business.  May I be the first to remind Mr. Galvanek
that the University system in the United States is the envy of the world.
We are clearly the leaders in higher ed.  The same cannot be said for our
automobile industry.  And Wisconsin is a major major university in this
country.  Second only to my alma mater the University of Illinois.
                                        Melissa Brown
From: mcaldon@igc.apc.org (McAldon International Inc.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:41:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec19.072544.7490@netcom.com:-1354386830:cdp:1588800066:000:808
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Dec 19 13:41:00 1992


|and you know it (who in the right mind would vote for
|yet another corroded old Republican hack in '96?), and

Since the Republicans seem always to nominate old party hacks, this
takes care of the presidential elections for the foreseeable future.
So let's divine the Demo choices:
1996           Clinton/Gore
2000           Gore/Clinton(Hillary)
2004           Gore/Clinton
2008           Clinton/?
That should be barely enough time to clean up the Republican mess.

|       DMcKenzie        |        definitions-->DEMOCRACY        |
|                        |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        |    
|    mcaldon@igc.org     |   A temporary condition, teetering    |
|                        |  between anarchy and a police state   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cs106406@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs106406)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:47:20 GMT

In article <Bz7HrD.GoD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu 
(Don Wiggins) writes:
>elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>
>>Moreover, during the Gulf War several gays and lesbians who were
>>discovered were kept in until the fighting was over.  They can be
>>cannon fodder, but they can't have careers.
>
>This is one of the screw-ups I was alluding to earlier.  
>
>This is the first I'd heard anything about individuals being held in
>service until the fighting was over.  My initial reaction is that
>involuntary separation, though done relatively quickly, may often take
>several weeks, especially for those who are temporarilly assigned to
>overseas combat areas.  Since the Iraq "war" was very short, it seems
>quite reasonable that anyone being involuntarily discharged for any
>reason might not be out the door before the fighting ended.

As another post noted, it was openly acknowledged at the time of the 
mobilization that individuals who had informed their respective units
of their homosexuality were nonetheless being shipped to the Gulf.

This was a systematic practice, and not, as you claim, a "screw-up."

It matters not how long the separation process takes.  What if the
military knew that the war would be over before the separation process
could be completed, and thus that the individual would have been
on duty for the entire length of the war?  So what?  The military's
rationale for banning gays and lesbians from the service is that
they are a danger to morale and a threat to unit effectiveness.
No matter how long an involuntary separation process takes to complete
(what if it took two years?), the military, in using an admitted gay or 
lesbian service-person in an active military operation, is 
implicitly admitting that the rationale is baseless.

Ah, hypocrisy...

Miriam
cs106406@umbc8.umbc.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18510 alt.rush-limbaugh:11537 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10023 alt.politics.homosexuality:7938 alt.politics.bush:14503