HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Springtime for Honecker (part II)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:21:42 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <67573@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)  
writes:

> St. Louis -- Robert Stockhausen, District 3 Congressional Candidate of  
the
> Libertarian Party, was arrested at approximately 4pm CST for taking
> pictures of Marrou supporters from beyond a police line.
 
> Nearly a dozen armed officers brutalized Mr. Stockhausen spraying him
> with mace, kicking him and dragging him across the ground.

Didn't we invade Panama because of similar events there?

--
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6703 alt.drugs:16921 talk.bizarre:33683
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,talk.bizarre
Subject: some notes on the presidential debate
Date: 12 Oct 1992 00:20:22 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley CS Dept.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: adder.cs.berkeley.edu
Summary: preach preach etc.

perot   -       'triumph of the will.'
clinton -       concentration camps
bush    -       propaganda

c
sound familiar?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.individualism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.europe.misc
Subject: Re: Free Country WHERE?  (was: Products to be banned by the FDA)
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:48:11 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct12.225833.7172@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|> Well, believe it or not, my friends who run the International Society for
|> Individual Liberty say probably the freest countries right now are either
|> South Africa, the Czech Republic, or perhaps the Baltic Republics or Poland.

Well, my friends who run the International Society for
Authentic Individual Liberty say that your friends are
all wet, and it's actually Iceland aand San Marino.

jon.
From: mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: CNBC says new Nobel Gary Becker favors marijuana re-legalization
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:04:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article  76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak") writes:
 
>Dr. Gary Becker, the Nobel Prize winner, supports the re-legalization of
>marijuana. No data on his position on the re-legalization of other drugs.

I would find it hard to imagine that any economist who did not support
re-legalization of marijuana could justify their theory to win
an award as prestigious as the Nobel Prize.

Remember that Perot said he was going to gather the best experts
together to solve this country's problems.  Let's just hope he
includes Nobel Prize winners.  :-)

Mark Anderson
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Debaters on drugs
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:58:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Summary: SNL debate of 10/10/92

In article <67618@cup.portal.com>, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
> >
> >   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
> 
> Precisely as I expected: not a debate, but a circle-jerk.
> 
The Saturday Night Live version had more content and truth. 

barry olson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6790 alt.politics.usa.constitution:679
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Boot camp?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 12:45:21 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct13.143455.1813@nntp.hut.fi>

>What exactly _is_ a boot camp?  Some kind of a mandatory Hitler Jugend
>to teach people to respect Vaterland?  Where does the name come from?
>
>//Jyrki

In the days of wooden ships and iron men, it was considered a breach
of *macho* not to go barefoot on deck.  Rookie sailors were called
"boots" because they wore footgear until their feet were hardened to
the environment.  Naval basic-training camps became known as "boot camps",
in particular the marine training camps, the harshest of the lot.

At a session of a college class I attended, the professor, who had a
reputation as a hardass, said that his class served a function for
engineers like that of boot camp.  Someone in the class immediately
began saying "No, no, that's not true at all..."  "There you wear the
boots," I cracked, "and here you lick them."  My classmate turned to
me with the most utterly serious expression I have ever seen on a
human face and said, "*You lick them there, too.*"

He had been in the U.S. Marine Corps.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: some notes on the presidential debate
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:38:10 GMT

In article 1bagc6INNqbk@agate.berkeley.edu, curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>perot   -       'triumph of the will.'
>clinton -       concentration camps
>bush    -       propaganda

marrou   -       tied to a chair, bound and gagged

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

How can you be ignorant of something you didn't know in the first place?
                                                      - Choo
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Another WOD death
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:15:17 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

Gist of article in the LA Times this morning: 
        On October 2, Los Angeles County authorities attacked en masse a large  ranch owned by a reclusive multimillionaire in the Santa Monica mountains      
in (get this!) Ventura County, based on aircraft evidence that marijuna
might be present.  They burst into the house, seized his wife, and then
found him in the bedroom with a gun.  Shot several times and killed him.  

        They looked desperately since they had all the papers ready to  
seize the property, but couldn't find marijuana or anything else.   
[Not mentioned: Mayor Bradley recently proposed cutbacks in the LAPD due
to budget problems.  I don't recall who these goons worked for, but their
financial situation is probably similar.]
 
        Ventura County was not informed in advance. 
        His wife is filing suit.

	The Times did not mention whether he was related to Bill Clinton.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
	GM executive says Saturn buyers can "graduate" to GM models
	that traditionally cater to older buyers.
	No wonder we have a high dropout rate.
From: ajd@itl.itd.umich.edu (Arthur Delano)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: some notes on the presidential debate
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:40:17 GMT
Organization: deadly killer vampire finchhaus
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.211.162.10

In article <1bbeg4INNo2q@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>app45293@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ZUSS) writes:
>
>Bush said he couldn't support the legalization of "narcotics".
>I'd like to cheerfully conclude that he supports legalization
>of drugs which are not narcotics... like marijuana, hallucinogens,
>stimulants, any non-soporific, anything, in fact, that isn't an 
>opium derivative.

part of the problem (there are always infinitely seperable parts of
problems) is that according to legislation which began the FDA, 
cocaine and marijuana were covered under the blanket term 'narcotics'.

AjD
forget where
i heard it, tho'.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: [FWd] Products to be banned by the FDA
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:08:05 GMT

}>	The only politicians with any hope of election who have advocated
}>any sort of reduction in the drug war or restoration of rights have been
}>"knee jerk" liberals such as Jerry Brown!

I just caught this and don't know its attribution, but Jerry Brown had NO
hope of election.  Sorry.  Bush doesn't either, now.  He's behind by about
60% in btting odds in one institution I know of.  So it doesn't matter if
you vote for Clinton or Bush.  Clinton's gonna win.  So vote for Marrou!


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: prohibition
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:28:42 GMT

Andrew,

What your argument fails to take into account:

1) Among folks who can't deal with reality, there is arguably a strong
need to experiment with different methods of evading reality. That has
certainly been my experience with those I have obserrved chosing this
path. Alcohol is by no means the choice of all reality evaders who
stick to legally sactioned evasions. Consider acupressure, crystal and
pyramid power, astrology, channeling, TV, and all the myriad other ways
humans have invented to evade living in the real world. Moreover, these
reality evaders tend, when their evasion of choice does nothing but
make things worse, to drift on to a new enthusiasm.

When you legalize drugs, you lend societal sanction to a vast new
playfield for experimentation. Therefore, you can't make the level of
alcohol abuse stand for the level of abuse possible with a wide new
variety of legal reality evasion mechanisms called legalized drugs.
Many of the evaders have tried alcohol and moved on. Given legal drugs,
they would move on to them. Even with drugs illegal, many have chosen
to try them, but the problem would potentially much worsen with
increased accessibility.

2) Alcohol is a slow destroyer, but many drugs are fast destroyers.
Thus, the person "browsing" the reality evasions has a much larger
chance of taking massive and permanent damage when experimenting among
drugs than when experimenting among alcoholic beverages.

3) Alcohol is a long known, "standard" product. Recreational drugs are
by nature a cottage industry product, with a new variety the goal of
every "chemist". Thus, unlike the relative safety that comes with
legalizing alcohol -- you no longer have the high rate of lead and
methanol poisoning associated with bootleg liquor in earlier years,
legalizing drugs will _not_ lead to a cleaner, safer product, but
instead to an explosion of homebrew products by those itching to get
the massive profits available from a new "hit" drug. The result will be
a grossly more dangerous drug scene than we at present "enjoy", and the
walking wounded will fill the streets far beyond their present numbers.

Thus for these three reasons and more as yet unnoticed, your argument
for legalization by analogy with alcohol and by assuming that almost
all potential substance abusers are current alcohol abusers fails.

And first to experiment, because they have no fear of mortality, will
be the children.  What gain balances that loss?

Kent, the man from xanth.
"The Birthright of humankind is the stars!"
--
Ignore the header, and don't expect me to see a news reply.  We don't get news.
Use email to: <dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil> or <dolan@192.138.87.240>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1369 sci.space:14461
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Pres Debate & military spending
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:21:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.210721.24882@Princeton.EDU>, phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
|> In yesterday's presidential debate all three candidates agreed that if we are  
|> to cut defense spending, we better start retraining and retooling so that money  
|> is not wasted and jobs are not lost...
|> [stuff about space technology being easily convertible to military technology
|>  if needed, deleted]
|> 
|> The possibilities are there... 
|> But the fact is that it is not really  
|> happening, defense workers are loosing their jobs, and the space budget is  
|> going down.  Take a recent example, to save jobs Bush agreed to sell F15 to  
|> Saudi Arabia, a highly contraversial decision.  How about if to save those same  
|> jobs the same money had been used for a space program tha M-D might be involved  
|> in.

It's not being done because of economics.  The Saudis offered their money for
F15 fighters, they didn't offer a dime for space research or development.
The "same money" was not available to save the same jobs for a space program.

Now if the Saudis were to offer to fund an asteroid mining program (for example)
I suspect that space capable countries and companies around the world would
be falling all over themselves for a piece of the action.  But don't hold your
breath.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
Intergraph Corporation       | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com   | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1377 sci.space:14531
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pres Debate & military spending
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:48:22 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct16.034016.5181@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>... Their corporate culture isn't setup to
>handle such concepts. A much reduced Boeing might survive on airliner
>sales...

This is a bad example, actually, because Boeing *is* surviving on airliner
sales.  Although they still do quite a bit of military business, they are
primarily an airliner company, and prosperous because of it.  The main
impact of the recession on their airliner orders has been a chance to
clear some of the backlog...  Boeing's order backlog, for some years now,
has had a total value that sounds like a DoD budget.  In particular, the
airlines are still buying 747s like there was no tomorrow, and Boeing's
profit margin on those things is *huge*, because competition is minimal.
(The airlines regularly pray for a 747 competitor to appear.)

This isn't true of McDonnell-Douglas.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:57:18 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct6.043856.17316@wri.com> walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.131331.8398@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Nonsense. If you import military tech and don't need the weapons, 
>>then you've poured your nation's money down the sewer. But if you 
>>manufacture domestically, as we do, then the money stays in the 
>>domestic economy building a technical infrastructure and expertise, 
>>and spurring growth in the civilian economy as the dollars go through 
>>their multiplier. . . .
>
>There is no free lunch.  If the government spends a lot of money
>on domestic military technology, it is argued that the money is
>not wasted because the workers take that money and spend it and
>help the economy.  But in the process labor has been diverted
>from civilian production.  That costs.

But of course the question is how much? If the aerospace workers 
are diverted to civilian jobs, say at McDonalds, then how much
better off is the local economy? How much better off is the country?

>>. . . Government spending is
>>valuable in areas where private investors fear to tread, but government
>>debt can't continue to grow indefinitely. It too must be managed in a
>>sound fiscal way so that future generations will have capital left on
>>which to operate. Right now the Democrats are paying the interest on
>>one credit card by charging it on another. That's the road to bankruptcy
>>and ruin for individuals and nations. A rubber stamp in the White House
>>can only make matters worse.
>
>Is it the Democrats who are borrowing us into trouble?
>Statistics for the last 20 years show that the federal budget deficit
>as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown under
>Reagan, Bush, and Ford, but declined under Carter.

A statistical fluke I'm sure. :-)
The economy was suffering extraordinary inflation during the Carter
years, is this in constant dollars?

>> . . . Clinton would be a rubber stamp for the half
>>baked plans of the Democrats in Congress. Bush has done a sorry
>>job of saying *no*, but Clinton wouldn't even try.
>
>What reason is there to think that Bill Clinton will be a
>"rubber stamp"?  On the contrary, when the Democrats are unable
>to blame the deficit on a Republican president, they will have
>to be more responsible.  Clinton is more likely to get the
>line-item veto out of Congress than Bush is.

Well, looking at the polls, I hope you're right. Otherwise we're
in deep trouble.

Gary
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: ENV SATELLITE SHUTDOWN IN DEC 1992
Keywords: nasa, environment, meteorology, satellite, ozone, aerosol
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:08:18 GMT

This is a repost of 6 Oct. posting (revised)...

We at Langley Research Center received news on Thursday, October 2,
1992 that NASA intends to shutdown the following satellites in
December to save about $15M:

     NUMBUS-7

     ERBS

     NOAA-9 (partial?)

     NOAA-10 (partial?)

     UARS (SPRING 1993)

Some of the following experiments that will terminate when
their satellites are shutdown are:

     Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement II  (SAM II)

     Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBS) (3)

     Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II)
     
     Total Ozone Measurement System (TOMS)

     Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE)

     Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)

No plans have been stated to restart the satellites.

Budget cuts are specified in House Conference Report 102-902
that is attached to HR 5679, Sept. 24, 1992.

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pres Debate & military spending
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:05:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct12.210721.24882@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>... all three candidates agreed that if we are  
>to cut defense spending, we better start retraining and retooling...
>...one of the technologies that is most closely related to the military is  
>space.  ...We have to let the next administration  
>know that one of the most logical ... transformations would  
>be from military hardware to space hardware...

Small problem:  the only real customer for new space projects right now is
the government, and the whole point of cutting defense spending is to *cut*
*spending*.  You're *not* going to sell them on major boosts in spending
for space; what they mean when they say "retraining and retooling" is
"start making something that you can sell to non-government customers,
because the handouts are over".
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1378 sci.space:14545
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: Pres Debate & military spending
Date: 16 Oct 92 10:04:37 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <35835@cbmvax.commodore.com>, ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS) writes:
> carlosn@hue.Princeton.EDU.commodore.com writes:
> 
> Transforming the defense contractors into space contractors, which many of 
> them are anyway, is no transformation at all.  You're simply substituting one
> government nipple for another.  The companies need to get away from the 
> government, not latch onto another part.
> 
> 
> The transformation should be for these high-tech firms to produce high-tech 
> products that the marketplace wants, not just the federal government.  This is
> how the expertise and the training they have can be put to the best use for 
> them and for us.  Making space doodads instead of military doodads is not the 
> solution no more than selling weapons for the sake of keeping defense workers 
> employed in key states is. 

But what if there is no market for the sort of high technology item these
people produce? I can see no evidence for one. Military and space contractors
focus on high cost, low volume pretty specialised kit, whereas the stuff the
general market wants is low cost, high volume, generalised stuff.

If you can give evidence that the sort of stuff these contractors make has a
market, fine, but I don't see any. In addition, we're in a world recession (or
so our government keeps telling us) and the markets for just about *everything*
are drying up. New, expensive high tech gizmos are going to be the last things
bought at the moment, so even if there is a market in boom times, its
reasonable to support these high tech industries until those times come. Or
would you rather dump them all on the scrap heap to save a bit of money now?

 > This is not to say that they shouldn't make space doodads.  They should, and
> there'd be a market outside the Beltway if the government didn't consider space
> closed to private concerns.  Nevertheless, to remain dependent on the goverment
> is a sure prescription for disaster.

Again, there is little evidence for much of a private sector market for 'space
doodads' outside the (government) established areas of commstas, waethersats
etc. And the bulk of these are still government supported.

> When you have a $400 billion deficit and a $4 trillion debt, there is no 
> peace dividend, just bills due.
> 

And whose fault is that???


-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
From: syee@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: 9 Oct 92 04:39:06 GMT


Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding

In article <Bv90sJ.C3F@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely,
>escape from an oppressive government.  The Spanish colonies were moderately
>successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in
>California must be considered a failure.  The French colonies in Canada
>and Louisiana were not particularly successful.  On the other hand, the
>English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful,
>even bringing in others.  A major part of the US immigration in the 19th
>century was to escape oppression.


I have one simple question.
If you're trying to "...escape from an oppressive government.", how are you
going to escape from this "oppressive government" when they're funding this
project?

Keep searching until a group of private corporations get together and fund a
majority of this project.


					syee@ics.uci.edu


Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space