HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: US-Canada Beer Dispute ... I thought it was over?
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:53:51 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>There has been a lot of harassment by the US...like US Customs ruling
>that Honda engines made in Maryville Ohio are not North American
>parts when put into Hondas assembled in Ontario...Canada being
>included in the US steel industries dumping claims against the
>rest of the world, the imposition of a tariff on Canadian softwood
>lumber for bogus reasons, a prolongation of the pork dispute that
>the binational dispute resolution panel ruled in Canada's favor,
>the claim that magnesium production in Quebec is unfairly subsidized
>by Hydro Quebec...the US is giving the FTA a bad reputation because
>they certainly are not living up the the spirit of the agreement
>with mostly bogus harassment of Canadian industry.  If the US doesn't
>back off with their protectionist attitude toward Canada, the deal
>could be in trouble after the next election.

The US trade harassment of Canada is well documented. However, the
interesting thing is that *without* the FTA, Canada would either have no
recourse to this harassment or would have to go to GATT and wait a possibly
long time for a ruling. In other words, the FTA seems to be, in a sense,
working the way it is supposed to, despite the US not living up to the
spirit of the agreement.

Thus, it is rather ironic that, as Gerald points out above, this
harassment could in the end doom the deal, and leave Canada in a *worse*
position to fight US protectionism.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I loved Bush ...
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:02:27 GMT

In article <l6oro6INN4ia@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
} School choice is support for the wealthy,

Why?  And even if it did, so what?

} Eliminating the
} first $2000 at a private school, does not help those without the economic or
} geographical access to the best private schools.

Again, so what?  How does the fact that Joe Sixpack cannot get to the best
private school across town justify denying Mary Lunchpail the opportunity
to do so?

} In addition, the great majority
} of private schools push specific religious agendas, which eliminate them
} as a "choice" for most people.

Again, even if that was true, so what?  As it stands now, these people
have no choice but to stay in the public schools anyway.  If there is
a school that someone does not want to attend, the fact that government
would allow them to attend that school now does not make it more likely
that they would attend it anyway.  So what's the problem?  You're
grasping at straws.

It all sounds to me like you are saying it is best that either everybody
gets out, or nobody gets out.  That if everyone cannot get the best
education possible, then nobody should.  And toward that end, it is best
that everyone get an equal education, even if it is equally mediocre.

} As
} it was however, the federal money was removed and individual taxation stayed
} substantially the same.  This cause a reduction of revenue in local government
} and a significant reduction in school revenue.

That is just not true.  According to the _Statistical_Abstract_of_The
_United_States_1991_ Tables 214 & 216, the amount of money spent on
public education in *constant 1989 dollars* by local, state and federal
sources was as follows:

        Year    $million total   $/student
        1960        84,340         1874
        1970       191,320         3679
        1980       224,721         4494
	1990       290,800         5701


} Frankly, I have a serious problem with the adminstrative waste in our public
} schools, but that is a problem that needs to be solved.  Moving the wealthy
} students to private schools, will exacerbate the problem, not help solve it.

How so?  The wealthy students are already in private schools.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: not feminazis but femiloonies (was Re: A feminist style socio-economic reform!!
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:39:50 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>AGRSS@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (SUBBAIAH,Santharam) writes:
>>	I plan to propose a series of reforms that could be considered by a
>>feminist when he or she becomes the president of the USA, or better still,
>>when he or she becomes an influencial leader of the strongest lobby in the
>>corridors of White House. 
> 
>>REFORM 1.
>>	"All women who deliver normal children should be compensated in
>>monetory terms for their child bearing services".

	What about women who deliver abnormal children?  Thank god for abnormal
children.  The last thing we should do is subsidize 'normality'.  Who
do these women provide their "service" for, and what rights to they claim
by rewarding women for this "service"? 

>Simple reason why not:
> 
> Given that women are not coerced into childbirth

	Yep.  Given.  No coercion at all.  No gag rules, no disinformation,
no religious brainwashing.  All women are software engineers at Oracle who
wouldn't even have to look at their bank balances before whipping out a $700 
fee for the clinic.

> they clearly receive what they consider to be adequate compensation.
> If they didn't they wouldn't have kids.

	No, at best it means that they *expect* to receive adequate
compensation, and that assumes that they think it through (in cost
versus benefit terms) and have a full range of alternatives available
to them.

	Which is why we all fight to keep those alternatives available.	

	A better reason why not is that while child *care* should be supported, 
it's really not a "service" that one rewards (or can reward) with money.
It would reward people for producing children out of the wrong motives.

--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35333 alt.politics.clinton:321
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:47:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>In article <lzfmyk.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>> Others like me consider homosexuality to be immoral, illegal and 
>> disgusting. I believe the majority of Americans agree with me.

>As usual, you believe incorrectly.  A CNN poll several months
>ago found that 60% of the Americans polled believed that
>sexual orientation should not be the basis for discrimination.

Polls are notoriously inaccurate...look at what's going on in specific
jurisdictions...Oregon, Colorado.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35162 alt.politics.elections:8813 alt.politics.perot:1001
From: tcm@roma16.austin.ibm.com (Tom McDonald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Politics and Poker
Date: 20 Jul 92 18:33:32 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <BrHs06.J7x@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  A properly designed poll can provide a very accurate assessment of
>  current sentiment, and the degree of innaccuracy can be precisely 
>  quantitized (which is why you can say that a poll is "accurate to 
>  +/- 3 percentage points" or whatever).

You can say this, but you would be lying.  All "accurate to +/- X%" means
that IF the sample were distributed equally over the entire set, THEN there
is SOME probability (usually 95%, but usually not stated...sloppy) that
a given polled number lies within X percentage points of the correct value.

Of course, the wording of the questions biases the results, but so does
the polling method.  A certain percentage of the population will refuse
to answer polls.  Guess what?  This large group of people is not equally
distributed... therefore no poll can hope to even come close to an 
equally distributed sample.

Then there are people like me, who lie to all pollsters.

>  If I conduct a properly designed poll on a topic and another properly
>  designed poll asking the same questions is conducted at the same time
>  those two polls will agree with each other to within a predictable 
>  margin of error.
                                                                      
Or NOT.  See the above.  I can't believe you worked for a polling company.
Wait a minute... yes, I can.
                                                                   
>
>  What polls cannot do is predict the future.
                                                                    
What polls cannot do is indicate the PRESENT. 
                                                                     
>> Statistics lie.
>
>  Again, uninformed and uneducated.  I suggest this poster take some courses
                                                                        
Actually, the above statement is insightful.  OF COURSE "statistics" 
don't lie!  That's like saying "Clouds lie!"  The previous poster was
pointing out how easily statistics can be manipulated to produce
misleading results.
                                                                          
                                                                            
Tom McDonald    tcm@netmail.austin.ibm.com
------------------------------------------
I do not speak for IBM.
                                                                           
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Vacation Time!
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:05:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: Ditch Day, vanishing room

In article <archer.155@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <BruGv9.2B7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>
>>   I'm glad I got through college without ever having to deal with any
>>   of this infantile bullshit.   Nevermind the way it reinforces, and 
>>   invents where necessary, even *more* stupid group allegiances, identities,
>>   obligations and similar stuff that our society already has too much of.   
>
>>   If anyone in college had ever tried anything like that on me I'd have
>>   had them in court for wasting my time/tuition, interfering in my 
>>   education, destruction of property, assault, or whatever else was
>>   appropriate, faster than you could say "Perry Mason".  
>
>Oh, I'll bet you're FUN at parties.

  Partying is a voluntary activity.  The stunts and other things that
  were described are not.    

  Actually I generally avoid parties -- most of what passes for "partying"
  out here in the suburbs is pretty dull -- people standing around with 
  a drink in their hand complaining about real-estate prices or the economy,
  trying to say something witty about the election while at the same time
  avoiding controversy or substance, or talking about some "cute" thing
  their kid did or said.  I like the privacy, open space, and relative
  peace and quiet of the rural/suburban area where I live, but I must
  say that culturally and socially it's very dull. 

  The only thing about life in the city that didn't make me retch was
  the social and cultural life.  I used to hang out with other "intel-
  lectual" types and sometimes we'd get some real brainy types -- you
  know, with the giant bulging foreheads and hardly any hair --  at
  those parties.  The fun thing to do was to to say embarassing things
  about sex and stuff to them and see if you were "getting to them"
  by taking the derivative of the rate at which the huge bulging
  veins in their foreheads pulsed.


---peter
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Congress and the balaced budget scam
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:53:15 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul27145823@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> 	Trim down the military budget; man, don't you read your
> 	own newspapers? How many US troops were in Germany 3 years
> 	ago? How many are there now?

Why are there ANY?  Germany is perfectly capable of taking care of itself. 
Instead of making Mercs and Bemmers for yuppies, let them build some tanks and
attack copters for their own protection.  

> 	The US Army budget has been cut by about 15% in two
> 	years and will be cut more, no matter who wins the
> 	election.

So why is there still an Army?  In these days of modern times, we don't need
four separate, competing services, each with its own air force, logistics
command, etc.  etc.  It was often said before the collapse of the SU that the
REAL enemy of any particular service was the other services, and that's even
more accurate today.

The immediate goal should be a combined, streamlined US Military with a budget
around $50 billion.

Before you start whining about the major "threats" that remain all over the
globe, keep in mind that they threaten only to inconvenience us in various ways.
The threat of outright destruction of the US in a MAD nuclear exchange has been
reduced to effective zero.  By far the largest threat to the continued existance
of the US is the large and growing American underclass, which I sincerely
believe to be mostly attributable to the election of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.

-- 
Bob Munck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Baker to join Bush campaign
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Distribution: tub
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:21:45 GMT

In article <andrew.711800659@marie> andrew@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Andrew Shields) writes:
>In <1992Jul21.174118.27480@udel.edu> lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>
>>Great. One of the few people in the Bush Administration that I have
>>any respect for, and they have to take him out of office. Especially
>>now, with the possibility of progress being made in the Mideast with
>>the new government. Well, Bush is just showing what we knew all along:
>>he really doesn't care what happens, as long as he's President.
>
>My fantasy scenario is that Baker tells Bush the Middle East is more
>important now than his re-election and keeps up the good work there.
>Then, Clinton wins, and asks Baker to be his special Middle East
>envoy.
>
>"The prospect of Mr. Baker's possible departure from the State Dept.
>has all the parties in the Middle East nervous, particularly the
>Arabs, who have come to appreciate his evenhanded approach."
>(International Herald Trib. for Wednesday the 22nd)
>
>I say Bush could show some *real* leadership and let Baker do
>a job which might have some *long-lasting* influence on the
>state of the world, rather than Bush's "I'll do anything to 
>get re-elected."
>
>Hey, I can dream can't I?
>
>Andrew

This would never happen, but I wish that if Clinton were elected, he'd
keep Baker as Sec. of State. Baker's been doing a pretty good job, and
he's made a lot of contacts. Even if Clinton offered it (which we know he won't)
would Baker stay on and work for a Democratic administration? 

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: State polls
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:08:23 GMT

We've seen a lot of national polls lately.  Are there any recent
statewide polls people have been seeing.  Especially for so-called swing
states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California?  But any
state will do.
From: Eric T. Jue <etjue@lbl.gov>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: AIDS: What the Gov't Isn't Telling You
Date: 29 Jul 1992 21:11:58 GMT
Organization: LBL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.64.95
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:34:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul21.032128.28878@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
>It DID NOT come from the citizens in his home state- it was
>Republicans who banded together with the National Education
>Association to try and prevent him from passing teacher competence 
>testing in Arkansas , despite the fact that the majority

The Republicans and the NEA?? HA HA!

Kristen I suggest you get your facts straight.  The Republicans are the group
that has been pushing for merit pay, and competency test for decades.  The
Democrats are the ones onwed and operated by unions like the NEA and THEY 
opposed the testing.

PSG

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34895 alt.politics.elections:8685
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot sued!!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:16:24 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>What does she want, to force him to run again, or to recover her losses?

Force him to run again...

Of course, my thought on the matter is that the only person who should be
President is one who doesn't want to be...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 22 Jul 1992 22:11:06 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> -- 
|> Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
|> (415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
|> 
|> To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
|> qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
|> stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.

To say that Bushs experience as an oilman in Texas when money was
growing on trees qualifies him to be president ....

To say that Reagan's alleged successes as an actor or the head of the
screen actors guild qualified him to be president ...

At least in the last two, we have proof the qualification was bogus.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Bush/Baker Ticket??
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:02:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <l6rbmiINN65a@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu sez:
>
>iii) I heard that Baker had changed his voter registration to Wyoming. If
>not, he'd be ineligible to be on the tkt since there can't be two Texans
>on the same Pres. ticket (forbidden by the Constitution).

Wrong.  It's inadvisable, since the Texas electors couldn't cast their
votes for a Texas Two Step ticket (per the 12th amdt.), but it is
wholly permissible.

-- 
		  For a Big Lie, call 1-800-424-9090

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:33:54 GMT

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35760 talk.politics.theory:2999 alt.discrimination:3719
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:55:03 GMT

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>Naw, the Libertarians wouldn't go for that.  Each individual must be 
>responsible for his/her own actions.  If a little kid gets drunk and then
>does something stupid that kills somebody, Libertarian doctrine would 
>require you to lock up the little kid.  Kids have full rights and full
>responsibilities according to these guys.  

Oh my god!  It's Barry Shein, returned in disguise!  He'd at least
_try_ to make a lie sound believable, however.
-- 
Never give a gun to ducks.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36174 alt.censorship:6346
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: More Nilges obfuscation (was:Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:18:19 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul21.135455.10286@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.043442.12608@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul18.223150.20604@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>	Yes, Ed, some Americans of all skin hues are racist.  People are 
>>flawed.  So what?
>
>This is the essential mistake.  You want to make racism into Yet Another
>flaw of individual character (like farting in elevators)

Farting in elevators isn't even a character flaw, at most it's an
odious personal habit. Obvious non sequitur, Ed, trying to degrade
and trivialize the concept of "character flaw".

>whereas in
>actuality it is a property of societal structures (systems.)  This
>question has already been extensively discussed, and , to my mind,
>resolved.  Racism isn't just a defect of character that can as readily
>be ascribed to the black person's resentment of white mistreatment, for
>then it is an empty concept (as well as convenient to white racists who
>wish to reverse black gains.)  Racism is what society does to people not
>of the approved race, which is white.  Racism is a historical artifact
>of European domination.  

Racism is something practices by individual people and NOTHING ELSE.
At most, social systems can provide *reflections* of their creators'
racism. A racist element of any system is being controlled by some
*person*, always. The racism is in the person. "Acts of society" are
always the acts of people.

The attempt to say that essential racism is in social systems is to
disenfranchise the individual, to portray him as powerless. It is to
give lifeless systems a "life" of their own, to obscure the people
who must make any system work. This illusion makes most people
more amenable to control, because it's easier to control a group
than a collection of individuals. What does this say about your
motives, Ed? (I am assuming that you know what you are talking
about).

>[...]

.sig
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc