HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bel@ssc.wa.com (Belinda Frazier)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:37:53 GMT
Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA

In article <4251@gold.gvg.tek.com> conib@peri.gvg.tek.com (Coni Britten) writes:
>
>Could you please give some citations of the use of the term "Politically
>Correct" (*with* its current definition of referring to non-right-wing
>political views, please) by "leftist student activists" which occur PRIOR
>to George Will's first use of this term in this way? 
>

Are you referring to George Will's column in 1989 or 1990? (please give
citations.  ;-)  
From 1980  to circa 1989, I only heard the term "politically correct" used
by people " said in a semi-joking manner about an "established "left" way of 
thinking" that they didn't subscribe to.  Most would consider
themselves "left" : e.g., "it isn't politically correct of me, but I don't
care at all about animal rights, and let me eat my turkey sandwich in
peace."      

Most of us said "pc" instead of politically correct to make fun of a 
"correct way of thinking."   
* Of course, the term predates my hearing it.
Do you somehow think George Will used this term first?    
	Belinda

-- 

bel@ssc.wa.com   or   uunet!nwnexus!ssc!bel 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:13:29 GMT

Tangent on the issue.  Increased usage effects of legalization for 
alcohol and drugs will not be similar at all.  Drugs (except pot) 
are *extremely* addictive.  So addictive, in fact, that a
one-time experiment can lead to a life-time addiction.  That cannot
be said for alcohol and that is why they are different.  
  
Further, if legalized, the big pharmaceutical companies would take
over.  They would develop drugs, which are 90%-95% addicting 
on the first try.  Picture samples being mailed to every home
in the country.  I think this would be a problem.  Remember,
these are the same people that are busy mapping all your
genes.  (please don't think i am a conspiracy nut.)

I believe that there is hope for winning the "war on drugs".
But the current plan won't work.  The guys at the top are
not touchable.  The guys at the bottom have nothing to loose.
The guys in the middle are vulnerable, but there are lots of
dealers waiting to take their place.  I think with a super
effort to stop money laundering, the middle guys can be
squeezed out.  Stop the ability to spend the profit and 
you stop the drug sales.  This is sort of the way they got
Capone.
---dmg
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Slick Willy and the terrible 22
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:53:19 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Apr06.205717.64137@yuma.acns.colostate.edu>
cummingc@CS.ColoState.EDU (christopher cummings) writes:
 
>In article <167C1932B.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>***mine***
>>>state that seems to breed deficit spending??  I know I don't
>>>want Willy doin the hand jive on my books.
>***yours***
>>I wonder if Mr. Cummings grasp of reality is always this skewed.
>>
>>What in *HELL* do the bounced checks of two Arkansas congressmen have
>>to do with Bill Clinton?
>>
>>Jim McMaster
>
>Jim, I was merely pointing out the fact that it seems the Dems
>in recent years have flocked to the candidate that can say with
>the most convincing false conviction ;-> that I'VE BALANCED x
>BUDGETS SO VOTE FOR ME....   Now, if we found out after Mike
>left office in Taxachussetts that creative accounting was his
>specialty,  and,  we already know that Slick Willy can't keep his
>finger on his congressmen, (and don't tell me he doesn't have any
>influence with them)  we can only guess at what evilness lurks
>behind Willy's used-carsalesman-like face.
>
>
>--
>Chris Cummings
>cummingc@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
 
Oh....so that's what you meant.  I thought before this explanation that
you were deluded.  On reading this, I have revised that opinion.  You
are an utter moron.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17002 alt.activism:7275
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:47:04 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Apr5.185630.25217@colorado.edu> wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk) writes:
>In article <1992Apr04.134247.2962@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>>
>>Then why not over the North Pole too? Oh, gee, guess all those industrial
>>CFCs, created in the Northern Hemisphere, somehow magically make it down to
>>the South Pole, then decide to "stay" there.
>>
>you don't seem to read the newspapers. ozone depletion in the northern
>hemisphere over northern europe has started up and there are
>substantial worries in scandinavia at the moment.
>-- 
>arthur wouk 
>internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu

Although the ozone hole may be appearing over the north, it clearly is
more significant over the south.  The reason for this is different weather
patterns.  The air over the south pole is much more stagnant during its winter
months than in the north.  Remember that there is a continent down there,
but not in the north.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 16:11:30 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM:
> I don't think your 'side' is stupid - I just think they are
> trying to rationalize mass depravity. That's all.

i can't understand a SENTENCE you're saying;  you've got that
*THING* in your mouth!
-- 
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs
From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:30:00 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 1088

In article <rdippold.702939428@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
|>economic crime of tax evasion, you could look at the package deal and
|>say "Nope, too much waste and corruption.  I'm not paying until you
|>clean things up."  But if the package deal includes enough programs
|>that you need, or feel are worthwhile for others, you'll pay and
|>then insist that things get cleaned up.  The Libertarians, who
|>insist that everything the government does can be done cheaper
|>privately, will of course withhold their taxes and spend the money on
|>toll roads, private parks, private libraries, and so on.  How about it?
|
|I like it, except where the cards are kept legally stacked as to make
|it impossible.  For example, there are often laws in place to make
|sure that using an alternative to government supplied services is
|illegal.  Those would have to be removed.

Can you give some examples?
-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18032 alt.politics.elections:862 misc.taxes:2237 alt.society.civil-liberty:3420
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:30:43 GMT
	<RJC.92Apr11014111@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <RJC.92Apr11014111@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:

   I am quite well aware of that. In fact that is why I chose whooping
   cough as an example. The existance of risks does not make a medical
   argument against vaccination. Again, breathing entails danger of
   cancer from inhaled smoke, that is not a medical argument against
   breathing.

I am not aware of any laws which require citizens to breath.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:52:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.005720.5461@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
>(Greg Frazier) writes:
>>If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
>>more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
>>gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.  Trying to
>>re-structure society in one fell swoop just doesn't cut it for me
>>(call me chicken).
>
>Here here.
>
>   don

This is a HUGE misconception. You think that just because we are
not Republicans or Democrats that we are crazy radicals out to
overthrow the government and effect all our changes in 24 hrs.
This is NOT true. Even if I had the power to do so, I wouldn't
make any rapid changes. Anything I would do would be done slowly
and carefully.
     Libertarianism is an ideal. Any ideal can be taken to an
extreme where it doesn't function. To do this with Libertarianism
as with any other workable idea is to demonstrate that you are capable
of setting up a strawman argument.
     While I am a Libertarian I am also a realist. The two are NOT
mutually exclusive.

Stuart Krone
Libertarian candidate for Congress
3 rd District Pennsylvania
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID: (Was: : Where Have All the Liberals Gone?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:28:39 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.220124.28137@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>]a "class" in the US. However, the more government intervenes in the
>]economy, the moe economy, the harder it will be for the non-rich to
>]get rich.

>Now I'm sure some of you are wondering what I meant by the "moe economy."
>Frankly, I was a bit confused myself! This is what happens when the
>TERMCAP isn't right for you editor. Sigh.

It makes great sense!  When the government interferes, you get a moe
economy.  As in Larry, Curly, and Moe.
-- 
The most enjoyable form of sex education is the Braille method.
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:00:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.030011.29718
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>Do you think we'll go to war (military) against Japan any time
>in the near future to stop the flow of autos?

Hey, I have an idea!!  Let's be complacent and do nothing like
we did before the last war, and then, when war is imminent,
form alt.oriental.storm or alt.xxxxxxx.storm, and try that again!!
Maybe this time we'll get different results!!  What a save!!
What an idea!!!!
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:57:44 GMT

In article <70584@bcsaic.UUCP> lbaum@bcsaic.UUCP (Larry Baum) writes:
>Anyway, to answer your main question, the Seattle Times has a
>chart on its front page today:
>
>Married couple with 2 children
>
>                $20000 Income (renter) 
>                Current  Clinton  Brown     
>Std. Deductions  -5700    -5700    -6360
>Exemptions       -8600    -8600    -   0
>Child Care Crdt  -   0    -   0    -   0
>                ----------------------------------------------
>Taxable Income    5700     5700    13640
>Tax rate           .15     .135      .13
>                ----------------------------------------------
>Income Tax         859      770     1773
>FICA               720      720        0
>                ----------------------------------------------
>Total Tax Paid    1579     1490     1773

Wrong!!  FICA is 15.3 percent of Gross income!

>
>This was done by Stan Woodwell of the Washinton State Dept of
>Revenue, based on a computer analysis of more than 2 million
>tax returns filed in this state in 1988 & 1989.  Adjusted
>Gross income is used except under Brown's plan, which does not
>exempt any income.  Deductions for mortgage interest, rent and
>charitable contributions are allowed.  A childcare credit is
>shown only for the 50000 level because it is most often
>claimed by middle income families.  Only 15% of families claim
>the credit.
>
>I have not verified the numbers in this article, but it does
>confirm my worst fears about the flat tax.  Notice that the
>poor do worse, even though the regressive effect of the VAT is
>not included in the analysis.
>Larry Baum

Here is the correct table...
                     Current System    Flat Tax    Current System    Flat Tax
Gross Income                $20,000     $20,000           $60,000     $60,000
Deductions
Standard deduction           $5,700
Rent/Mortgage                            $7,200           $20,000     $20,000
Exemptions (from '91 1040)   $8,600                        $8,600
                            _______    ________         _________    ________
Net Income                   $5,700     $12,800           $31,400     $40,000

Taxes
Earned income credit          -$151
Social Security              $3,060                         $8362
(15.3% of Gross Income)
Federal tax                    $859      $1,664             $4714      $5,200
                            _______    ________         _________    ________
Total Tax                    $3,768      $1,664           $13,075      $5,200

  You should have verified the numbers.
-Ted

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.231156.29813@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf957@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Barry H. Rodin) writes:
>In a previous article, john@anasaz (John Moore) says:
>>I just love the terminology that we have in the tax debate. A flat
>>tax means that the amount I pay for government "services" is
>>proportional to my income - the more money I make, the more I get screwed.
>>A "progressive" tax means I get screwed exponentially!
>>
>>A FAIR tax would be a flat amount of money paid by each person to his
>>government. A flat tax is just MORE fair than a "progressive" tax -
>>which is ridiculously unfair.
>>
>>The word "fair" has come to mean "take more from anyone less deserving
>>of having money than me - ie, anyone who makes more of it." What a
>>sad state of affairs.
>>
>>-- 
>I agree !
>If we have "One man -- one vote"
>we should also have "One man -- one tax"   !!!
>
Let's see...  National budget -a few trillion
              # of people     -quarter billion

only $8000 each.
Yes, Lets have a head tax of $8000 each.  Anybody that can't pay
we will throw in jail.  
At my income level I just have to give up the rice and beans and maybe
move into that spot under the bridge.  I'm sure the other homeless
people there will make room (or maybe they'll be tossed in jail for
not paying head tax, that'll make room for me)
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Nation on Clinton
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:32:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: math.Apr.11.12.32.02.1992.16361
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

hhuang@m4-035-15.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang) writes:

>   What a Clinton Administration almost certainly will not do, however, is put
> forward a sweeping health insurance reform.  If anything is clear from the FEC
> roster of contributors, it is that the Arkansas Governor's lack of clarity
> about his plans for medical insurance is strategic. 

I can get access to Clinton's position paper on health care.  It runs
about 12 pages, single-spaced.  If anyone is interested in posting it
to the net, I will snailmail you a photcopy.

> suggesting that a Clinton Administration will not soon be tampering with the
> fabulously costly laws on liability or otherwise attempting to regulate
> expensive lawsuits (a cause the Bush Administration is now taking up, both to
> strike a populist pose and to satisfy its insurance constituency)."

His position paper mentions liability reform as one of the things that
he would try to change as President.  I'm still not at all sure about
Bush.  It's been almost a year since we started hearing anti-lawyer
rhetoric out of the White House, and we're still waiting for a
specific proposal.  Of course, that's pretty par for the course with
Bush.  All talk, no action.

As far as the point about campaign contributors goes, I agree that we
should see campaign reform.  In particular, we should have media
vouchers for candidates who reach a threshhold number of signatures.
This would be even more effective if the vouchers could only be used
for TV commercials of more than 2 minutes in length.  This reform
alone could take a lot of the air out of negative commercials--can you
imagine two minutes of negative name-calling?

> seems the old left guard of the Democratic party is opposed to reforming
> bloated government, and would rather talk about the 20.3% defense budget than
> the large and ever-enlargening 45.7% entitlements which are out of control.

I have to agree with you, but the last serious candidates to make
specific proposals about entitlements reform were Babbitt and Dole in
1988.  I'm afraid that I was less than impressed with Tsongas' honesty
on this issue (a vague comment followed by hasty backtracking).

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
	
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:47:42 GMT

The "esteemed" conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote a column titled,
"If we elect Bill Clinton we also get Hilary". Needless to say, the article
went on to ream on Arkansas' first lady. 

The similarly conservative National Review magazine wrote in its
"This Week" section:

"As head of the Children's Defense Fund (see "The Week", March 30), she
"fulfills" her profession by seeking to police the family. In our view, a woman
who inflicted the name Chelsea on her only child is in no position to preach
others about children's rights."

Gee, this "scholarly" magazine basically makes fun on Chelsea Clinton's name.
HOW MATURE! I always thought making fun of someone's name, especially
a child's, was behavior reserved for immature parties. I guess the NR 
now qualifies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95		FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance."
	---Emma Goldman	(possibly refering to Jesse Helms)

"Political campaigns now are so simplistic and superficial, Mr Candidate.
 In the 20 seconds we have left, could you tell us why?"
	---Political cartoon		
 
"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16931 alt.activism:7242 soc.women:8619 soc.college:1776
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Slick Willy and the terrible 22
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:06:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Computer Services Advanced Technology Center

In article <1992Apr03.214749.43126@yuma.acns.colostate.edu> cummingc@CS.ColoState.EDU (christopher cummings) writes:

>Folks, I wonder, is it really wise to elect a President from a 
>state that seems to breed deficit spending??  I know I don't
>want Willy doin the hand jive on my books.  

Of course, you got George doin the hand jive on your books now.  It seems that
the only branch of government with more perks than Congress is the executive
branch.  Then again, since you hold Clinton personally responsible for
everything that politicians (including Republicans) from his state do, maybe
you intend to hold Bush responsible for all the shenanigans that go on at the
federal level.  How does the federal deficit compare to the Arkansas deficit?

Is it wise to reelect a President who supported the worst deficit spending in
our entire history?

-- 
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Where Have All the Natural Monopolies Gone?
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:05:03 GMT



  Unnatural Monopoly
  by Jacob Sullum
  
  For a long time, introductory economics textbooks taught that telephone
  service was a "natural monopoly." After the breakup of Ma Bell,
  competition among long-distance carriers became commonplace, but the
  assumption that local telephone service was destined to be a monopoly
  lingered. The competition emerging from a combination of deregulation
  and new technologies suggests that this assumption may also be mistaken.

  New competitors are beginning or planning to offer local phone service at
  cheaper prices, in more-convenient forms, and in better-tailored
  packages. For example, Chicago-based Metropolitan Fiber Systems operates
  fiber-optic telephone networks in 12 cities nationwide, connecting
  businesses in 850 buildings to each other and to long-distance carriers.
  In New York, the company recently started connecting its customers to
  businesses off its network, via NYNEX lines. It plans to offer similar
  service in Boston and other cities.

  Metropolitan Fiber has applied to the Illinois Commerce Commission for
  permission to offer direct dial-tone service to its customers, who
  currently use dedicated lines. It would charge businesses for
  transporting calls to Illinois Bell's central switching office and for
  additional services such as call forwarding, at rates lower than those
  offered by Illinois Bell.

  Meanwhile, McCaw Cellular, the nation's largest mobile-phone company, and
  Tele-Communications Inc., a major cable-TV firm, are testing a wireless
  telephone service for residential customers. The system, in experimental
  use in Oregon, bypasses the local phone company by using McCaw's cellular
  phone network and TCI's fiber-optic TV cables. Customers comunicate with
  small, hand-held sets that are more portable than conventional cordless
  phones.

  AT&T is planning to experiment with pocket phonse that would be linked by
  its nationwide network of 3,000 microwave towers. After making sure that
  the system won't interfere with existing equipment, the company expects
  to test groups of 1,000 people each in Boston, Atlanta, and Los Angeles
  by 1993.

  Although local phone companies do not relish the prospect of competition,
  deregulation offers them a consolation prize. Last fall, a federal
  appeals court ruled that the Baby Bells may offer their own news and
  information services, in competition with some of the same companies that
  will soon be trying to grab a share of their telephone busines.



Reprinted without permission from:
  Reason
  3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
  Los Angeles, CA  90034
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18308 ca.politics:3501 ba.politics:2671 alt.politics.homosexuality:2181