HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.191826.14174@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
}In article <1992Dec22.133257.3521@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>
}>Pop test:
}>1. Rank the budget of DOE in decreasing order, with the biggest line item
}>first.  Now, by a sizeable fraction, what is the #1 item in the budget of the
}>Department of Energy?
}>
}>2. What area does the Clinton nominee have absolutely no experience in?
}>
}>hint:  If you had the same answer for #1 and #2, you win!
}>
}>Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from these facts
}>on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the position"
}>posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive consideration was
}>NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?
}>
}
}I would conclude that Clinton intends that the priorities of the
}Energy department be shifted away from nuclear fission, and toward other
}areas, such as those mentioned by other posters (conservation, renewables,
}etc.).

Guess what?  That has not been a problem for a long time.  The problem has
been environment "situations" associated with the production.

}As it happens, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, 'line items'
}in the DOE budget has historically been the management of the facilities
}which produce nuclear weapons. I would certainly hope that *any*
}President, and especially a President of Clinton's known beliefs,
}would NOT make this the major requirement for a new Secretary of DOE.

Don't live near Savannah, right?  Get a clue: "managing" covers "cleaning up".

So if you don't mind the ecological disaster that some claim exist there, OK.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:32:29 EST
Organization: Penn State University

In article <168C6BD36.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David
Veal) says:
>
>In article <92358.114511DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
><DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec22.015659.1989@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu    :
>says
>>>
>>>CNN reports this day that the 'Communitarian Party/coalition' wishes
>>>to make into law the requirement to donate organs upon death.
>>
>>The actual law would make organ donation the default option, which
>>individuals and families could reject.  In fact, they would have
>>to be informed of their right to reject the organ donation.  It seems
>>to me that this retains the individual right to dispose of their
>>affairs.
>
>        The decision should be the individual's.  What this group is

How does it become not the individual's decision if I change the line
on the form from "I agree to donate ..." to "I do not agree
to donate.." ?????  The only change is that the wording of the form
signifies that the institutional bias is in favor of organ donation.

I'll offer an alternative compromise.  Allow hospitals to choose which
form they use.  Allow hospitals to be paid for the organs they collect
which are subsequently used.  The free market will soon make the
form suggested by the communtarians the preferred form.

>proposing is making a decision and then "allowing" the people involved
>to reject it.  I'd just as soon make my own decisions, thank you.


>          What the group has proposed in a system which makes such a thing
>much more possible and likely.  One "default" change isn't a who lot.

Nonsense.  They have proposed a change of about 3 lines of text on a standard
form that patients receive.  It completely preserves the patient's right to
retain their organs after death.  It would not involve any additional
government offices.  It doesn't confiscate any person's property.  It makes one
statement.  The preference of this society is for organs to be donated.
No organs go to the government.  You don't have to let the government
know about your decision.


>But this sort of precedent can be a problem.  How *many* decisions are
>you prepared to allow them to change the default on?  And how many
>government offices are you prepared to set up in order for it to
>be easy to let the government know of your decision?  And why *should*
>I be required to let the government know of my decision, anyway?  If my
>organs belong to anybody, it certainly isn't the government.
>         Ben Franklin said (though he probably stole it) that the
>two sure things in life were death and taxes.  Looks like he was more right
>than he knew.

He forgot knee-jerk reactions to any proposal, however intelligent, from any
group with a name beginning "comm-".


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Withdraw Les Aspin
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:22:17 GMT

One very concrete move Clinton could make to express his
displeasure with the pardons is to replace Les Aspin with
another appointee.  This would also send a message to his
government:  your ethical behavior is important, and your
reflection on the administration is important.

Aspin signing off on the pardons let Bush gain legitimacy
from the in-coming administration: "even Clinton's secretary
of Defense said it had gone on too long" (I heard this one
myself in a recent argument) despite the contrary opinion
of Clinton.

Aspin should have known better.  Voicing your opinion is fine,
but people in important positions should predict the ramifications
of their opinions and actions (and if Aspin actually foresaw this
so much more the reason to dump him).
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:29:51 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

David Veal) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> 
|> >There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
|> >"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male nailed
|> >to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.
|> 
|> 	Well, it is, which is kind of the whole point to it.
|> 
You mean we should hang "dirty pictures" up in church also?  Is that
where obscenity belongs?  Maybe I missed the whole point of your
"whole point."
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ...Psst. Ya wanta Merry Christmas?? Just ignore Washington DC!
Date: 25 Dec 92 17:34:53 GMT
	<PATRICK.92Dec23090603@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <bill.725137949@castor>
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas

In article <bill.725137949@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   >         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
   >                   and we STILL have a drug problem???

   Celebrate their successful strategy.

Sad, but true...I couldn't have said it better myself.

--PLH, on the road again

--
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: $40M, Walsh, Republicans
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:40:57 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <C03JFH.9yw@boi.hp.com> smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay) writes:
>$40 million seems like a lot--

Hey, it comes to about 16c each. Let's all chip in another
quarter each and put Bush in jail.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: SF fans show libertarian inclination
Date: 01 Jan 93 03:34:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec31.204719.7938@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.025731.25330@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...
>>In article <C02yHt.B42@news.dtc.hp.com> dsojourner@cdc.hp.com writes:
>>>cast one vote for a Green SF fan (definately NOT Libertarian).
>> 
>>There's nothing incompatible about environmental concern and
>>Libertarianism.  Efficient use of resources is, after all, both
>>financially responsible and ecologically responsible.
>
>I have a point to make. Although it only makes sense to be financial and
>ecologically responsible, under the Libertarian belief, if it's your land
>you can do what you want. 
>	If you are a huge land owner, you can rape an enormous amount
>of land without effecting anyone else. The Greens wouldn't stand for that,
>but the libertarians would. If the land owner is selfish and short-sighted
>(ie. capitalist) this would make sense to him/her.

If your actions truly affect no one else, then what's the problem?
Deforestation does affect others by reducing air quality across the
planet; this would be a crime even by Libertarian standards.  Polluting
the water table affects others who get the runoff.  This, too, is a
crime.  I'll ignore for now your stupid equation of captialism with
short-sightedness--nothing could be further from the truth.  As I
pointed out earlier, logging companies take far better care of the
land they own than public land, because their bottom line requires
50-year planning to sustain their income.  It is the government that
is short-sightedly letting them rape public lands for a quick buck,
because the government has no competition and no incentive to use
the land responsibly.

>>Libertarians want a clean earth too.
>
>This makes sense, but who will pay for it?

Those who _own_ it.  Only pride of ownership creates true value in
land or other resources.  That is the best way to protect the Earth;
by giving each landowner the power and responsibility for his or
her piece of it.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65364 talk.politics.guns:25700 soc.culture.canada:9634 alt.flame:17454
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.canada,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The droll Troll
Date: 26 Dec 92 03:57:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <6871@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> king@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King) writes:

> The notion of condeming an entire country because of what one man says
> is absurd,

[Can't anyone spell around here???  The word is _CONDEMN_!]

But in the case of Canada we can make an exception.

Actually, a great number of Canadians have contempt for the U.S. for
reasons other than that they resent the fact that the U.S. is a much
greater nation than theirs is.  But we must remember that many of the
colonial loyalists fled north to British Canada after the victory of
the colonial patriots in the Revolutionary War.  These loyalists
possessed a deep disrespect for the principles of individual liberties
upon which this country [the U.S.] was founded.  Consequently, the
traditions (both social and legal) of English Canada have become
thoroughly imbued with such misguided notions as that individual
liberty is unecessary -- or even that in many cases it is inimical to
the "greater" interests of the state.

Moreover, that is why Canadians are so complacently willing to
surrender their fundamental personal liberties (not to mention ever
increasing amounts of tax dollars) to a government which they blindly
suppose will ever remain docile and benevolently paternalistic.

And I haven't even touched upon the French influence.

[Followups to talk.politics.misc]
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 25 Dec 1992 23:02:05 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <casseres-231292084333@missmolly.apple.com>,
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>First, just one question for all the ultra-pure Libertarian types who are
>saying that no government anywhere has any right to tell anyone to wear
>anything for any reason:  Where were all you mighty warriors when they made
>laws that say we have to wear clothing when we walk around on the street?
>Why aren't you out there bare-ass naked like that guy in Berekeley,
>protesting stupid laws about apparel and "decency"?  If you aren't going to
>deal with clothing laws, then your philosophical opposition to helmet laws
>is purely a hand-job.

David, have you ever heard of chosing your battles?

Most Libertarians oppose such things as anti-nudity laws but we
recognize that the problem stems from the concept of "public
property" and the belief of every member of the public that their
values should prevail in the commons.  The Libertarian solution to
all such situations is to get rid of the commons and let private
people enforce what ever silly rules of conduct that they want to
on their own property--and only on their own property.  Most of us
also have the sense to realize that shoving our personal differences
in our neighbors faces is a good way to eliminate neighborly
feelings and that all differences about life style are best worked
out by cooperation and compromise. Besides, in CA most people need
wear clothing most of the time for their own comfort.

Helmet laws are a differnt situation.  No one is claiming that
helmet laws are being instituted because some people are offended by
others not wearing helmets.  The premise of the action is very
different than imposing such things as anti-nudity laws.  Further,
anti-nudity laws, or at least sentiment, has been around a long
time.  Not going to the barricades to get rid of them doesn't
decrease the amount of liberty in our society; it just maintains the
status quo.  The imposition of new constraints on liberty,
especially ones which are building this new idea that we should
exchange personal liberty for cradle to grave secutity, is a very
important *new* threat to liberty which must be fought just to
prevent inroads into the liberty we still manage to retain.

>David Casseres

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65776 alt.sex:40558
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:11:12 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <13744@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>Sadly, Greg, it is not a free speech issue.  Clayton was refering
>to a parade in San Francisco in which NAMBLA was placed on the
>list of participants by the organizers who had the parade permit.
>I think that it is time to acknoledge this past mistake of a few
>misguided folks and move on, or you'll just hear more of the same.

It's not a mistake at all.  The parade organizers refused to deny NAMBLA
their right to march, and they marched.  They were heartily booed and dis-
paraged all the way down Market St., but they marched.  Sounds like a win
for free speech all the way around.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65533 soc.motss:53976 alt.sex:40372
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:39:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sex
Organization: Kalamazoo College

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
>you with violence.

The average conservative:  he doesn't like a certain group of people, and
he rationalizes his hate with unwarranted, pathetic generalizations.

>C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I don't think people need optimization any more. ...  If you look at the
  history of programming-language design, almost every major screw-up is a
  consequence of people pandering to some optimization...."   - S. Wolfram
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hey, Bill, WAKE UP!!!!
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:04:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) says:
>  As a matter of fact I taped and watched the full coverage. And if 
>you didn't see Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore sitting in their chairs,
>eyes closed and head pointed toward their lap then you sir must have


      Yes, this was my impression also.  I could only bear to watch
      about two hours total.  Watching the "Economic Circus Comes To
      Town" just made me feel even sicker.  Our path is etched in 
      stone.  The roadmap is labelled " Britain: The HasBeen ".


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:19:16 GMT

In article <C03MnF.3qz@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.142658.14090@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>
>>Jim, I think you're missing the distinction between thinking something
>>is wrong and none of your business, and thinking something is wrong and
>>it IS your business.  You're the latter and I'm the former.  Actually,
>>I don't attribute "wrongness" to gay behaviour, I just don't think that
>>it's something I want to be doing, but that's ok because there are a
>>lot of things I wouldn't want to be doing which I'm happy to leave
>>alone.  No skin off my back.  Why does it bother you so if other people
>>are doing "wrong" things?  How are you harmed?
>>
>Brendan, I agree with you completely, what people do in thier own bedroom
>is *none* of my business. My problem is with the gay activists who have
>decided to make sexuality a political issue. (re ban on gays in the 
>military) I feel homosexual sex is wrong, I am willing to leave it at
>that. But unfortunately I can't, like it or not it is a polical issue. 
>In my responce to Howard I covered my concerns, please forgive me for not
>repeating them in detail here. The short version is: homosexual sex is a 
>behavior which is *not* embraced by most Americans. It is outside of our
>shared values. Continued erosion of are shared values will harm our society.
>Therefore is should not be given the same status are heterosexual 
>behavior. 
>
I agree with you completely. My problem is with the Black activists who have
decided to make skin color a political issue (re segregated blacks in the 
military) I feel being black is wrong. I am willing to leave it at that.
But unfortunately I can't, like it or not it is a political issue.
                          ...
The short version is being black is not embraced by most americans.
It is outside of our shared values. Continued erosion of our shared 
values will harm society. There fore it should not be given the same 
status as being white.

>>Brendan
>>-- 
>
>jim shirreffs
>
>i speak for myself and only myself
>

I wish that you only spoke for yourself. Unfortunately, you speak
for the vast majority of Americans.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Systems Theory)
Subject: Re: ...Psst. Ya wanta Merry Christmas?? Just ignore Washington DC!
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Ahh-ha-ha-ha-ha, ahh-ha-ha-ha-ha, ah-ha-ha-ha, ha-ha ha ha
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:49:00 GMT

In article <2041@admin.mport.COM>, 
max@admin.mport.COM (Max) writes...

>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Ignorance) writes:
> 
>>There is only one true reality.
> 
>>(hint: tain't media)
> 
>there is no "one true reality". we swim in a sea of perspective and
                                 ^^
>biology. realising not to trust the media is good, but they are only the
>smallist piece of the puzzles. gain what you can from you fellow people,
                                                                  ^^^^^^
>but trust noone to tell you the "truth". 
> 
>(hint: question reality)
> 
>-max
> 
>"dont trust leaders, watch your parking meters..."
>                            -dylan


Knowing that =people= wax and wane in awareness during the course of
their day, and knowing that the faces =we= present the world are not 
who =we= are; there yet remains that entity beyond -= max =- and all 
cartoon masks of the character called "General ________".

This considered -- addressed to Thee beyond the intervening -- am I real?

If so, why question the reality of our interaction?

If not, why bother to question?
Unless, perhaps you "hope" or "believe."

If so, then there may be a response.
If not, 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc