HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 19:44:01 EDT
From: Nicholas C. Hester <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Distribution: usa
 <rq8f0INN1kn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <92098.181724IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
 <11215@borg.cs.unc.edu>

In article <11215@borg.cs.unc.edu>, bell@degas.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) says:
>
>>This would happen if drugs were simply decriminalized, wouldn't it?
>
>Depends how you define decriminalization.  Alcohol Prohibition was what
>some people define as decrim.,  and so the answer in that case is no.

I define decriminalization as removing laws making it a crime to grow/
manufacture and distribute drugs without regulation.   In essence
a hands off approach by the government.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Thurgood (was: Justice Thomas)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:00:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <1992Apr14.213109.21504@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu stated:
>
>(A good argument can be made that Thurgood Marshall, though an astonishing
>trial lawyer, was not a good scholar/judge.)

On the other hand, he served both as a 2d Circuit judge and as
Solicitor General, certainly the most significant appellate attorney
in the U.S.  Heck, he even got to argue (and lose) in _Miranda_.

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

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:24:37 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr5.044848.15343@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>
>And your argument seems to presume that the stuff that these folks have just
>magically was bestowed upon them, when in fact it was usually hard work
>that made the money. It also presumes that owning property is a priviledge,
>when this country was founded on the idea that owning property was a natural
>right. Furthermore it presumes to determine who "deserves" something -
>always dangerous!

Assuming the right to own property, is denying another's opportunity
to own property correct?  Locke had superb ideas, but he himself admitted
that there would be problems with property passed down to you by your
forbearers.  Since you must have inheritance (else there'd be little
motive to accumulate property), doesn't a rich heir gain disproportiate
power?  Can't he use this power to deny others their rights?
Do the present Rockefellers or Gettys work hard to make all their money?
Didn't they start off with far more advantages than, say, a kid in
a ghetto, or you and I?

>]one).  I'd suggest that the fairest approach is the "use tax", biased
>]somehow to (1) give even-handed access to life-or-death (or
>]health-or-misery) services like medical care, (2) discourage the
>]excessive use of non-renewables, and (3) at the same time, keep costs
>]to the public from spiraling out of sight.  I certainly don't know
>]how to accomplish these three goals, and doubt that John does,
>]either.
>
>And, perhaps surprisingly to you, I don't disagree with goals 1 and 3.
>I do, however, have a strong opinion that property rights are fundamental
>to civil rights (thanks,  Friedrich Hyek), and that messing around with
>them to achieve social goals is the road to tyranny.

Isn't it spelled Hayek?  I don't remember.  Anyway, I feel that
a purely Lockean notion of property rights only leads to perpetual
misery for the underprivilaged.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kellyb@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: looking for info on Polnet
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:18:55 GMT

Is there anyone out there with experience participating in a Polnet conference?
If so I would appreciate hearing from you.  I'm interested in participating and
would like more information.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17327 alt.sex:13737
From: amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: LeHoullier And AIDS
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:15:47 -0600
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Macalester College

In article <11029@autodesk.COM>, robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
> In article <1992Apr04.114414.23632@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>I do not recommend that we limit
>>our sex partners to one, I recommend that the best way to fight aids
>>is to learn honesty and get tested and then only have sex with people
>>who can show recent negative tests and who have reputations for
>>truthfulness among their friends and who also only have sex with such
>>negative tested and truthful individuals.
> 
> Thinking that you can avoid AIDS by relying on the honesty of your
> partners is an utter crock.  Safer sex is the only way to reliably
> reduce your risk.  That means NO transmission of bodily fluids,
> and latex barriers for ALL oral/genital/digital/anal contact.

I agree -- even if YOU are completely honest with your partners, you have
absolutely no guarantee that your partners will be completely honest with you. 
The safest method is to protect yourself!

>>If people adhered to a tribal ethic and loyalty about this
>>issue, then we could isolate AIDS, and only one more generation of its
>>propagation would exist among people.

Goodness, what tribe do you come from?  What about contact outside the "tribe"? 
Honesty (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to) alone will NOT stop
the disease from spreading.  Partners may have been in contact with infected
people and not know it (divorcees whose ex-spouses fooled around on them and so
on).  

>>So maybe the world is trying to tell us to learn honesty in a
>>non-judgmental statistical evolutionary way. It is comforting to find
>>that somehow, honesty is regarded by the universe as a survival
>>"virtue".
> 
> In these plague years, relying on honesty won't save you.  It only
> takes one slip to infect you.  YOU are the only person who can
> safeguard your health--and the only way for you to do so is safer
> sex.
> 
> The true survival virtue is knowledge--knowledge of safer sex
> techniques and the urgency of using them.  Your "survival virtue" 
> of "honesty" is in fact anything but.

AIDS is a *virus* not a *message*!!!!  I've met a few people who don't regard
honesty as a  survival virtue--there are some situations where telling the
truth is not the best idea ("I'm sorry sir, but I didn't do my homework because
I decided to go out to the bar with my buddies instead." -HA!! THAT would go
over like a lead balloon!).  I have never met anyone who is honest all the time
about everything, and I doubt I ever will.  It's not possible.  Remember, the
fellow who went on the "search for an honest man" never found one!

Please, BE CAREFUL and protect yourself before you infect yourself and others!
Allison
amitchell@macalstr.edu
amitchel@math.macalstr.edu

"Where's the damn pig?" -Jamie Wineberg
From: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Joshua Duffin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Where is B-CPU, you ask?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:50:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: orbit.7415
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.


dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
>In article <rdippold.701371918@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:
>>>I sent mail to Alan. He is the originator of the connection; in other
>>>words, he knowlingly, willingly, and admittedly set up the connection
>>>for B-CPU. 
>>
>>So what's wrong with that?  I would hope that he wouldn't refuse
>>anyone a connection, be they b-cpu, John Palmer, or even a Brown for
>>President BBS.   The slime that comes out of b-cpu is no-one's
>>responsibility but their own.
>
>I don't think there is anything wrong with asking Alan, "why?"
>
>I met you Alan, in Seattle at the Aids Walk (that was you, wasn't it),
>so I have a face to go with the name.
>
>Alan doesn't have to justify the connection or support b-cpu, but
>I think it reasonable for some to ask. "why?"
>

You know, I was wondering where b-cpu was a little bit ago.  I tried to reply
through email to one of the recent posts from here from b-cpu, but apparently
none of the local sites can find it.  That makes me wonder if they only have
news access (no mail) or something of the sort.  Anyone?


UUCP: {crash, kksys}!orbit!pnet51!jduffin    | Life is complex.  It's made
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!jduffin@nosc.mil    | up of real and imaginary
INET: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org              | parts.
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:59:12 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <45570@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr14.145442.11702@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
|> >In article <rdippold.703198965@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|> >|> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
|> 
|> 			[Details omitted.]
|> 
|> >This is not typical of the kind of legislation that would be
|> >considered 'liberal.'  It does not have anything to do with job
|> >safety.  It does not have anything to do with job security, or
|> >health benefits.  It looks like the kind of thing that would
|> >have come from a special interest group (existing cosmetology
|> >businesses) trying to cut back on competition.
|> 
|> On the contrary, this is exactly the type of legislation favored
|> by union labor.  It is like requiring barbers to be graduates of
|> barber's colleges, widely used in the 1930s to keep out qualified
|> hair cutters who had not taken the requisite courses, and to keep
|> the prices of haircuts up.

What ever gave you the impression that Unions were liberal?  They
have tended to be liberal when it comes to supporting candidates
that would advocate better labor conditions, more health and safety
standards, etc.

It is not a 'liberal' policy to require barbers to graduate from
barbers' colleges, or to even get certification to buy a license
(but didn't I just say that earlier?).

|> 
|> >Further, this kind of legislation is implemented on a state
|> >level, and is usually agreed to by both parties as a way to
|> >raise revenues (licensing fees).
|> 
|> Both parties?  The raising of revenues by licensing is minor, 
|> unless the total number of licenses is restricted, as it is for
|> taxi drivers in many places.  It is more in the nature of guild
|> restrictions.

Guild restrictions are also not liberal... There wasn't even a
liberal philosophy when guild restrictions were first imposed. 
In some cases, licensing fees are small; often they are a
contributor to the coffers (resteraunts, for instance).  They also
provide a way to implement health and safety standards.  The way
taxi licenses are restricted in NYC is famous -- however, I
wouldn't call it particularly 'liberal' in motivation.

What do you think liberal means, anyhow? 

Dan
Organization: Astm Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 1992 17:09:06 -0400 
From: "Carl D. Lovejoy" <cl3d+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
	<1992Apr8.155437.29479@adobe.com>
Distribution: na

>In article <1992Apr8.130714.12076@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
> writes:
>>And marketing has nothing to do with it -- to get a big TV contract,
>>it has to be sold to a *national* audience, and over half of the
>>country has no interest in ever seeing a hockey game.  The first
>>three sports mentioned are all sports that that anybody can play
>>any time, but hockey requires ice, and there's a solid chunk of the
>>television market that sees icy weather maybe once every three years.
> 
>I disagree strongly, Ted.  Marketing *does* have a lot to do with it.  I
>don't believe that it is a requirement that you live in an icy clime to
>have a successful hockey team.  The San Jose Sharks are in an area where
>ice is unheard of, and they sold every game this season.  
> 
>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com

    Gee heres a surprise.  I disagree with Sherri...:-)

    I am terribly sorry but there is no way that Hockey, marketed by Mr
Madison Ave. himself, could ever get recieved well in the US as a whole.
 Yes there are strong pockets and enclaves of support in the barren and
ignorant areas but by and large Hockey is doomed to be a regional sport
at best. 
     I hate this myself, and wish it was not so, but I have the honesty
not to delude myself into thinking that it could be otherwise anytime in
the near future.
    I really do not think anybody can guess at the damage that this
strike may have and will cause.  Just think what people in tampa are
thinking know.  They Like the rest of the South could give a rats ass
about Hockey.  Hockey in Texas, Arizona, Florida, Southwest?  I think
not.
      YOu must have access to game itself.  You must have experience
with it in someform or another to b eable to relate to it and appreciate
it. This is in general and regarding the public as a whole.  Why do you
think Baseball has such a fundemental appeal to ALL Americans?  Why do
you think the Women's final Four recieved national air time (besides it
being PC)?  Because anybody anywere can pick up a basketball and go out
and shoot somehoops.  Hockey? Right!!
    I myself only began to really appreciate Hockey for what it was and
stand in awe of the simply amazing skill level that NHL players have
only AFTER I had actuall played THE GAME.  Which took too much money to
contemplate, too much ice time, and too much work.  I loved every minute
of it, but I sincerely doubt that many other americans who have not been
exposed and weened on it from a young age could or would do what I did. 
I am not claiming to be special or anything but I am trying to
illustrate the point that playing a game or being associated to it in
someway (perhaps a family member plays) is certainly a MAJOR factor in
whether or not a person can be a fan;  not exclusive, but certainly a
very large part of the equation.

Carl
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17363 rec.sport.hockey:9217
From: elf@polari.com
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:00:05 GMT

In article <HiZ1iB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>fellers@utkvx4.utk.edu (Michael Fellers, University of Tennessee) writes:
>
>>    Why are the two subjects different?

>Since the original post stated that there was some intrinsic
>similarity between homosexuality and religion... I do think
>you may be slightly off track.

   You're dodging the question, Danny-boy.  Strikes me you're on real
shaky ground here.

         Elf !!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:18:44 GMT

In article <visser.702600386@convex.convex.com>,
visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>        Well, I would like to hear what libs think of the following
>changes:
>
>        1. Shareholders are directly liable for actions of the company.
>        Shareholders will function as the "deep pockets" for corporations
>        who cannot meet their obligations.  Shareholders who, for example
>        held the stock for any period of time while a company was
>        polluting (for example) a river, would be liable.....not just
>        the "current" set of shareholders.

Would the deepest pocket have to cover the losses for all other
shareholders who simply don't have the money to pay such a judgement
or would their liability be limited to the percentage of the company
that they held?  That is, could someone who owned 10% of the stick
be held liable for 50% of the judgement just because he had the
money to pay and the people who held another 40% of the stack sinply
didn't have the money to pay?

>        2. For all companies, public or private, there is no such thing
>        as limited liability for owners, officers or directors.

This is an area where there is disagreement among libertarians.
Some believe that limited liability is justified.  I tend to think
that the limit should be based on the percentage of the company you
own.  Going after people just because they have deeper pockets than
other people who are equally responsible tend to bother me.  I'm
sure there are many only variations of opinion on this subject.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: CompuServe election poll results, new poll
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:28:40 GMT

In article <920416110317_76330.3412_EHJ32-1@CompuServe.COM> 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak") writes:
>In the most recent CompuServe poll, 9% of the respondents said they would
>vote for Marrou if the election were held today. I believe Buchannan got
>6%, and Tsongas got less. ...BUT WHO DOES THE NATIONAL MEDIA COVER!?!? 

The National Media does not cover the preferred candidates of a 
self-selected unrepresentative group of voters.  I don't think we'd
be happy if CommuNet went 63% for Gus Hall, 26% Larry Agran, and the
media made decisions on who to cover from that.

Unless you want to read the amendment to the Constitution abolishing
poll taxes as requiring Compu$erve membership to vote for President...
-- 
Ted Frank          + "Question whether attorney's filing claim for 'stud fee'
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  as countersuit to paternity action was improperly
U o' C Law Skool   +  motivated required remand."  Headnote 9, Committee on
Chi, IL 60637      +  Legal Ethics of WVa State Bar v Douglas, 370 SE2d 325.
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:09:24 GMT

In article <APPEL.92Apr6192928@con.xcf.Berkeley.EDU>,
appel@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Shannon D. Appel) writes:
>In article <bblF02VMbfsK00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>->  Again, another Libertarian bashing Perot; what gives???  My theory
>->still holds... :-)
>->
>->  You have obviously read/heard nothing about Perot.  Why don't you read
>->the Larry King interview that has already been posted here twice?
>
>It actually really surprises me that this would occur.  I would think that
>Libertarians would support Perot because it would prove that an independent
>could win/do-very-well and thus bring more support to independents and minor
>parties in the coming years.  Seems quite strange to me.

It *is* good that Perot is giving the 2 major parties a good kick
in the butt, but it is not good that people are supporting him for a
lot of bad reason, or in spite of the things he represents.  While I
don't want to imply that Perot is as bad as Hitler there are
disturbing parallels between the way people are reacting to Perot
and the way that Germany and Italy fell to fascism.

>[Oh, and I think that Perot sucks, but I wouldn't mind others than the two
> major parties having some clout]

But Perot doesn't represent another party.  He has always been a
Republican up to now.  His success would prove nothing more than
that a billionaire with populist rhetoric can take on the
Demopublicans.  Unless people are willing to go beyond that and
and vote for the person they view as the best candidate, whether or
not that person is perceived as electable, we will have no basis
for long term positive change.  Even if his policies weren't as bad
as they are, he would still be just a flash in the pan, a one time
phenomenon.  How many other suitable billionaires do you think we're
going to find who can pass up both the PAC money and the government
handouts to help them get elected?

>Shannon

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:27:16 GMT

In article <kuc4k4INNnpn@news.bbn.com>,
rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.204358.3237@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>
>|> The lack of hope and general despondency of life in our inner cities
>|> has now reached such levels that life really is cheap.  This is a
>|> very dangerous turn of events.  We must restore to these people a
>|> belief that life does have something to offer them, and I firmly
>|> believe that only the program offered by the Libertarian Party has
>|> the potential to do that.
>
>But June, what does Libertarianism really have to offer these
>people?  For the most part, as presented here on the Net,
>it's a philosophy that lets the rich get richer and
>doesn't give much thought to the poor at all.

What the LP offers is a program which will increase the real wealth
of American society.  I don't care if the rich get richer as long
as it means that the poor get richer too, and that's what always
happens when a society becomes more productive and thus wealthier.
Government can't create wealth; all it can do is shift it around.
What we have to do is let producers produce, and stop penalizing
them for doing so.

>If you want more Libertarians, you need to study why
>adherents of Libertarianism are rarely found in these
>inner city areas, and come up with a program that attracts
>these people.

I think it's mostly that people do want to go back there to do the
necessary marketing; even those who come from there.  They're just
too glad to be out.  I agree that has to change and I think it is,
although more slowly than I'd like.

>If Libertarians can come up with a plan to bring business
>and industry to inner cities, a lot more people will
>listen to you.

We do have such programs.  They call for things like tax rebates and
enterprise zones to provide capital, repeal of licensure and other
restrictive barriers to trade entry, and an emphasis on personal
responsibility.  I personally believe that legalizing drugs is an
absolute essential because I don't see how we're going to
convince kids who are making $400/hr working a street corner that
they should give it up and work for MacD's at $4/hr.

>Ron Newman

/June
From: Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Dofflemyer Lecture Series at Stanford
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:47:31 GMT


Here's the remainder of the Dofflemyer Lecture Series (sponsored by Ron Howard, Director of the Decisions & Ehtics Center at Stanford):
 
1. "Saving the Planet Thru Economic Incentives" by Walter Block of
    Holy Cross University
2. "The CIA's War Against the War on Drugs" by Jonathon Marshall, San
    Francisco Chronicle
3. "Solving America's Health Care Crisis" by John Goodman, National
    Center for Policy Analysis
 
All lectures begin at 6 PM in Skilling Auditorium on the Stanford Campus.
 
FYI.............Mark Hinkle, Sysop 1:143/6


--  
Mark Hinkle
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!6!Mark.Hinkle
INTERNET: Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Mark Hinkle only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,soc.culture.african.american