HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:23:46 GMT

In article 1h5vnrINN9f2@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU, yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>...
>>My argument is that this mission will fail and fail miserably if the
>>US or UN does not take this course of action, a reconcilliation
>>between the rival clan leaders seeming to be the more remote
>>possibility.
>
>The goals of the mission were defined to be the protection of the relief
>workers.  Thus the mission will succeed, in the sense that it will achieve,
>with few casualties, the goal set out for it.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali claims that he had a verbal agreement to disarm the 
warlords, but the US insisted that the agreement not be put in writing.  He
then claimed that the US reneged on their verbal agreement, and he is now
insisting that they live up to it.  Whether or not we made that commitment
originally, I agree with him that disarmament should be the cornerstone of
our mission.  It is just plain stupid to pretend that we are there just to
deliver food.  The problem is that the Somalis cannot feed themselves unless 
they have political stability.  The UN cannot take over our mission unless it
has a stable situation to deal with.  Hence, we will be stuck there until we
do something about the armed bands of parasites who brought this tragedy to
Somalia in the first place.

>Did you ever think we were there to do more than that?  Then you can blame
>the media, which has been misconstruing the purpose of this intervention
>from day one.  I picked up a paper yesterday, and saw the headline
>"Disarmament Mission".  The fact is that disarmament is only a minor part of
>the mission: only a method of making certain areas more safe, and not an end
>in itself.

Then we will never leave there.  The minute we do, the news media will be all
over the place filming armed yahoos and starving people.  The time it takes to
complete our mission includes the time it takes to realize that disarmament is
the focus of the mission + to implement the disarmament policy.  We look like
fools right now.  We charge in there with all our helicopters, ships, Navy
Seals, and marines.  Very impressive.  Then we pretend that it is just a food 
delivery.  The milkman needs an armed guard.  Otherwise, "not our problem."  What
lunacy.  No wonder the armed bandits came back out of their holes after a few
days.  At first, they thought we meant business.  With our current policy, the
milkman will always need an armed guard.  Might as well settle in for the long
haul.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:27:15 GMT

In article <casseres-231292084333@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
:First, just one question for all the ultra-pure Libertarian types who are
:saying that no government anywhere has any right to tell anyone to wear
:anything for any reason:  Where were all you mighty warriors when they made
:laws that say we have to wear clothing when we walk around on the street? 

I'm by no means a Libertarian but I think laws about clothing are about the
most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.  Why the hell *should* people be
told what to wear?  I've been in several places where clothing was optional
and I can assure you the novelty wears off *damn* fast.  As does any
question of 'immorality'.

G
PS Where were we?  Unborn, i think.  It *was* rather a long time ago when
those laws were put on the books.  However, we're around now and although
it's hard to repeal old laws, it's worth the effort to stop *new*
restrictive laws being enacted.
PPS This doesn't mean I think not wearing a crash helmet is a good idea.
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: Re: Welfare vs. Workfare
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:11:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Douglas Meier (dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <4103@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:
: >>There are a lot of people making a decent living
: >>mooching off of the hard-working Americans, and they're likely going to want
: >>to eliminate anyone who tells them there is no more free pie.
: >
: >Yup. Millionaire cattle ranchers, wheat ranchers, logging company owners, 
: >land developers, corporate CEOs...  Just to name a few.
: >
: >FIRST, wean the rich off the welfare rolls, THEN work on the poor.
: >MUCH more efficient way to go.
: >
: I can't think of any instances where the people you just described are
: receiving welfare.  Some may be cheats, to be sure, but that is not quite what
: I was talking about.  Very few if any rich people are "on the welfare rolls",
: as it were.
:
                       
Public lands are generally provided to resource based industries at costs 
which are below market value and which frequently don't recover the costs of
management. Taxpayers do subsidize these industries in the same manner they
provide welfare. Logging and grazing on public lands are good examples of
industries which receive "welfare".

cheers,
scott 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** ( Re: Death of America xx )
Summary: The Freedom to Express One's Love Affair with GOD in Public.
Keywords: Happy New-Age
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:14:31 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <29DEC199212460728@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Jubilation T.)              writes...
>In article <1hijdaINNqvo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) wrote about...
> 
>[the insanity  of trying to "inflate away" $1T - $4T in federal-debt]
> 
>as prompted by Karl Wee, and others...
> 
>So no one other than -*GOD*- can save us now, economically or otherwise.
>Without a spiritual renewal, all our efforts will be like trying to breath 
>life into a corpse. In a nation where it's ok to express your private sex-

I have only one question to this. Which God will save us? Jehovah, Allah,
Buddah, ect.?

>   |   Stephen     "by all means -- sound the trumpets"
>
P.S. The trumpets mean war, plague, and famine. Let's not sound the trumpets.

-Garrett 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pop Quiz -- Better answers
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:13:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

N.B. Hedd) writes:
|> Q: What is the difference between Nazi actions toward Jews in WWII and
|>    Israeli actions towards Palestinians in the present day?
|> A: U.S. backing. (Alternate answer: Volume.).
|> 
A2:	Systematic Killing of large groups in Germany.
A3:	Israel offers citizenship and participation in government to
	Palestinians that do not try to kill Israelis.
A4:	You can visit a Palestinian settelment in Israel.  So can the
	Red Cross.

I certainly hope N.B. Hedd just forgot the sarcasm marks in the
original post.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 08:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.164657.9526@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
|> 
|> In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu>, srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven
|> Rush Fennell) writes...
|> 
|> >> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
|> >>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
|> >>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
|> >>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
|> 
|> One of the things that most people don't think about are the spinoffs produced
|> by the space program as things which were produced in getting us there in the
|> first place.
|> 
|> {stuff deleted}|> 
|> Freeze drying.
|> Teflon.
|> Many, many, many variations of plastics.
|> Building materials.
|> Manufacturing methods for purer elements.
|> 
|> There are VOLUMES of books in your local library which contain lists of things
|> which were produced by the space program which we take for granted in our
|> everyday use.
|> 
|> We as a society have benefited more from our efforts to get to the moon than
|> from any other peacetime activity.
|> 
|> Maybe actually going to the moon was a moot point, but what we created in order
|> to get there was (and is) of significant value.
|> 
|> Regards,
|> Steve.

   I agree with much of what you say... but it begs the question "How much more
might we have created if those funds had originally been allocated for a more
practical purpose?"    The discovery of teflon was largely an accident.   
Freeze drying may have come out of other, more practical research.  Methods
of producing plastics are developed in many research settings.   Your argument
boils down to "the end justifies the means".  I claim that other means might have
been more efficient.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:01:11 GMT

Annent the communitarean society organ donation proposal.

Why does this proposal remind me of Birk and Hare the legendary body
snatchers.  Here is the reduction ad absurdum of the
collectivist-altruistic mind set. To those of you who have thought these
are basically well-intentioned folks, think again. They are after your
giblets, or should I say society's giblets of which you have temporary
stewardship.  

If this becomes law, I will see to it, that before I die, I will take some
kind of poison that will make all of my vital organs unfit for medical use.

These sons of bitches are *cannibals* plane pure and simple.


Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65394 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10740 alt.politics.bush:14944
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 05:34:02 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

> In <1992Dec23.155307.9734@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC
> 
> |In the paragraph about being beaten in "every phase of the game, from resear
> |I would disagree with that.  Take notice of who's doing all the developement
> |work for the: space station, gravity probe B, high technology flight, fusion
> |reactors, medicines...  I just don't see it coming out of Japan except for
> |HDTV.  Perhaps the Japanese are hoping that HDTV will cause R&D scientists
> |to become high tech couch potatoes :-))
> 
> I wouldn't worry about the Japanese in regards to HDTV either.  The
> American system is only a few years behind the Japanese, and it is
> vastly superior to it.  The Japanese took an outmoded (analog) technology,
> since that is what they were good at, at the time, and ran with it.
> The American companies decided to wait a few years for a better
> technology (digital).  Which is one thing that we are real good at.
> 
> As an aside to your friend who commented that most of the chips in his
> PC were made by American companies.  If you add up the cost of the
> various chips, the Americans come out ever further ahead.
> 
> -- 
> Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itse
> a government.
> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
> Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com


American companies got started late on HDTV.  But this turned out to be a 
bit of luck.  Our late start meant we started from a digital viewpoint 
while the Japanese system was based on earlier analog technology.
  Hope we don't blow this one.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 1992 15:46:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec30.180922.12100@ncar.ucar.edu>  
tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:
>       I don't believe you understand the basis on which North's  
conviction
>       was overturned.   The appeals court did not say than North  
did
>       not commit the offences with which he was charged.  The court
>       (mostly Reagan appointees) came up with the novel idea that 
>       not only was North's testomony before Conress inadmissable at  
his
>       trial but that the prosecutor had to show that the testimony 
>       of all of the witnesses at the trial had not been affected by 
>       watching the Iran-Contra hearings.


Why is the idea "novel"?  The Congress gave him immunity (meaning
that what he said publicly before them could not be used as
evidence).  The appeals courts held them too it.

The real problem here was caused by the Congress. If North
were to be tried (and I agree, he should have been), then
the Congress should not have made a public spectacle of 
getting information from him (let alone giving him immunity).	

>  This made the prosecutors task
>       virtually impossible.

Agreed, but it was not made impossible as much by North as by
a Congress which gave him the promise of immunity.  

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: carroll@balin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:25:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.005129.5024@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Dec18.212816.14505@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com writes:
>]the members of the military are hardly a representative sample of the
>]countries population.  i would suspect the homosexual % to be signicantly
>]*higher* than the general population, because of the demographics.
>
>Care to be a bit more specific about these "demographics?" 
>
>Considering that it against the law to be gay in the military, are you saying 
>that there is a significant percentage of gay lawbreakers in the military? Are
>these the "responsible, mature" folks we should have in the service? If
>gays are allowed in the military, would you favor discharging all of
>those already in on the grounds that they are lawbreakers? It is bad
>for military discipline for people to get rewarded for violating the
>rules (which is what allowing currently gay people to stay in would
>do).
>

There is nothing immoral, immature, or irresponsible about violating
an unjust law.

Were you in favor of locking up the African Americans who violated the
racial seperation laws in the 60s? Were you in favor of jailing the
white people who served AAs in violation of those same laws?

When the law is unjust, all just people will break the law. A person
who follows an unjust law just because it is a law is *not* a
responsible adult.

In addition, I don't believe that it is a *law* that prevents gays
from being in the military... It is an unjust rule created by the
military in order to discriminate against a minority that they either
dislike or are afraid of.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"Don't ever think that you can't
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||    change the past
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||       or the future"
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  - _Love_and_Anger_, Kate Bush
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 1992 15:57:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <72661@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis  
Alberto Bueno) writes:
> 	By the Constitution you seem to apply selectively to your 
> frame of reality, correct.  I agree that morality can be a  
dangerous
> instrument for running the affairs of government, but in MY eyes,
> Weinberger IS a traitor to the American people in not blowing the
> whistle on an affair he KNEW was Constitutionally criminal. 

CONSTITUTIONALLY criminal?  Why this choice of adjective here?
What they were doing may have been against the law, but not
against the Constitution as such.  In fact, one of the problems
in this whole debate (and in trying to evaluate who is
"right") is that it is really unclear to what degree Congress
has the power to limit the Administration's power in certain 
areas of foreign policy.  While some parts of what those who
were involved in Iran-Contra were clearly against the law, 
a lot of things were in that muddy area in between.  For example,
does the Congress have the right to tell the Administration that
it may not encourage individuals or other governments to
contribute to the Contras?

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65229 alt.rush-limbaugh:12204
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:53:44 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

David Veal) writes:
|> BOB HOOKER) writes:
|> 
|> >cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> >>
|> >> It's the "really stupid (boycotts)" of which you write that conservatives
|> >> dislike.  I classify the Cramer boycott as being a stupid one.  Even
|> >> though my political bias is conservative, I enjoy reading posts on
|> >> talk.politics.misc and alt.rush-limbaugh that span the entire political
|> >> spectrum.  Some people actually feel that some opposing viewpoints
|> >
|> >As far as determining the stupid ones from the smart ones,  I would ask
|> >conservatives to live by what they are always preaching;
|> >
|> >LET THE MARKET DECIDE.
|> >
|> >What I think is most illuminating about all of this anti-boycott talk from
|> >some on the right is that it shows how shallow their commitment to
|> >Capatalism really is.  Sure when it come to cutting taxes and regulation
|> >they are all pro-bussiness,  but when it comes to letting all groups in
|> >America exercise the power they have via the market,  to let the value of a
|> >boycott be decidedin the same way that the value of Snapple is decided--via
|> >the market, to allow people to decide what they are going to buy for any
|> >reason that they like,  then it is another story altogether.
|> 
|>        I believe you're not quite understanding the situation.  When
|> you've got one group in our "market" arguing that thus and such should
|> be boycotted, how is it "anti-capitalistic" to argue that the boycott is
|> stupid?  Is not the person arguing against the boycott *part* of the market
|> in every way that the boycotting group is?
|>        Supporting capitalism is not the same as supporting every single
|> crack-pot idea that can be exercised in a capitalisitc environment.
|> 
There is no such thing as a stupid boycott, nor is there any suggestion
that you should support every idea that you decide is "crack-pot."  After
all, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell were considered crack-pots.  You have
every right to encourage others to join or not to join a boycott, but
arguing against the boycott itself demonstrates the lack of faith that
BOB HOOKER refers to.

One man's crack-pot is the next billion dollar business or the next decades
religious morality.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation (really default organ donation)
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 22:13:42 GMT

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <merlyn.725160859@digibd>
>merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>>In article <92358.114511DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>

>>Doesn't there have to be SOME default action?

>        The default action on who gets my favorite lamp is my spouse or
>my children.

Yes, they get your body when you're dead, and if your spouse and/or children
don't indicate what to do with your body, or they don't exists, then what
is done with your body?

>>What is done with dead people who leave no indication what they want
>>done with their bodies?

>        To the best of my knowledge, it is usually left up to their heirs,
>which is fine by me.

Fine by me too, but we also have to address the situation if NOBODY is an heir,
or if the existing heirs don't indicate what they'd like done, and the deceased
has left no indication.

>>ANY action, including doing nothing and leaving
>>them lying around, is essentially making a decision for them.

>         Doing nothing is just that, doing nothing.

Dead people with no heirs and no after-death instructions can't be left lying
around; what happens to them?  What happens if heirs exist, but they don't
give any indication of what should be done?  Any action is making a decision
for them, whether it's burial or organ donation or cremation or whatever.

>>What about people who think burying people is grotesque, but see nothing
>>wrong with organ donation?  How is burying people any less a decision
>>than organ donation?

>         What does whether or not the option is grotesque have to do with
>anything.

You seem to be making an arbitrary distinction between:

1) the state will bury you if you and/or your heirs give no indication of
   what to do with your body when you die.

2) the state will remove your organs if you and/or your heirs give no
   indication of what to do with your body when you die.

Most states do (1) or a variation (like cremation); how is (1) any more or
less arbitrary than (2)?

>The question is whether the government should, or should be
>allowed to, make decisions about your body and require you jump up and
>object if you don't like it.  (Which is what this group appears to
>be suggesting.)

RIGHT NOW, the government will DEFINITELY DO *SOMETHING* if you are dead.
You get to say (before you're dead, of course), your heirs get to say, but
if NOBODY cares enough to indicate anything, there is still this dead body
that someone has to do something with.  So what would you suggest be done?
Nothing?

>         The default is what I want to do with my body, and should remain so
>until I can no longer make the decision.  After which point it should become
>my family or heirs' decision.

This is still how things work, but what is done if NONE of these people
say what's to be done, and/or don't exist?

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc