HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:48:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.214155.28299@m5.harvard.edu> 
borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> How many other inefficiencies are there in this
> institution?  Probably a good deal.  Add them all together, and the 
amount
> of waste is going to be tremendous, a significant contribution to the 
cost
> of health care. 

Absolutely correct!   Although I strongly disagree with Clinton's approach 
to health care, I am just as disappointed that the Republicans were not 
more agressive in attacking the rising cost of health care.   As I see it, 
the health industry is not competitive in terms of cost.  After all, with 
most of the costs being covered by insurance, people don't shop around for 
the cheapest service...opting instead for the best facilities.  This has 
led to hospitals competing based on the technology it has available, which 
is often underutililized.   Other situations like yours also play into the 
game.   Add to this the direct cost of medical malpractice insurance...and 
the indirect cost of unneeded tests and procudures that are done as a CYA 
by doctors to avoid suits, and I've pretty well described why costs have 
not been kept under control.   To be fair, insurance companies have tried 
to initiate programs (HMO's, Preferred Network, etc) to reduce costs, but 
this has been met with resistance from both doctors and consumers.  A 
totally free market medical system, along with tort reform is what is 
needed.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:34:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <2500@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
> Of course the most difficult thing about operating a gun
> is deciding when to use it in an emergency. It seems that guns
> are used a lot as methods of threat.

One of the problems is that because firearms are socially unacceptable,
training in them is also socially unacceptable. So a lot of people never
get training (I personally think that all citizens should receive firearms
training, whether they intend to ever touch a gun or not. But it's not
politically correct for me to say so).

Let me provide the answer given in the NRA course I attended several
years ago:

  Don't ever draw a gun unless the situation justifies to shooting to kill.

It's a common theme throughout all the firearms training material I've seen.
Basically, once a gun is drawn, the stakes are raised dramatically. There are
only two possible outcomes:
   a) Total capitulation
   b) Deadly violence

If the person you are dealing with is not capable of (a) (loony, macho,
desperate, ect.), someone is going to die. Maybe you. So you don't
EVER bring things to this point unless (b) is already certain.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c <BZS.92Aug25221546@ussr.std.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 03:06:14 GMT

In article <BZS.92Aug25221546@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

   But that just begs the original point, obviously Japan (as well as the
   US) did without both Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil for several months and I
   don't remember any major disaster.

Yes, the rest of the world can get along fine without Kuwait's and
Iraq's oil, at least for a while and probably a long while.  But that
wasn't the point.

The point, at the time, was that if Saddam was allowed to get away
with the Kuwait invasion, he'd be in such a position to intimidate the
other Gulf oil-producing countries that in the future, when the time
was right, he'd be able to threaten an oil embargo.  Arab oil
embargoes have had severe economic effects in the past.  As they say
in chess, the threat is more powerful than the move; the worry is not
only that he'd do it, but that by wielding the threat he'd be able to
increase his power and wealth further, build up his nuclear and
chemical weapons faster, and so on.  This is the point that you
should rebut to further your argument.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Corporate Tax Ballot Question
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6C11363EB010898@devmac15.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 26 Aug 92 10:54:27 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:51:32 GMT

I am looking for information on the question that will be on
the Mass. Ballot this fall.  It deals with revealing making the
amount of taxes that companies in MA have paid public
knowledge.  

Does anyone have the text of the question.  Who proposed it and
why?
I read in the Globe that James Braude from TEAM is for it and
that Mass
Taxpayer's Foundation and the High Tech Council are against it.
 Does anybody have a more detailed account of the pros and
cons.  (Like what ballot question is it and has it been
approved for inclusion on the ballot this Nov.)

Thanks!
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general,talk.politics.misc
From: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Subject: Re: VOICE-MAIL FOR THE HOMELESS AND POOR
Reply-To: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Organization: Bull HN Info Sys, Billerica MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:08:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.212051.29200@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
|> why not set up some kind of message or voice-mail service that homeless
|> and very poor people could use for free?  

I heard on NPR that someone is doing this somewhere.  Seemed to work
fairly well.

--Mike
-- 
Michael Gelman -- M.Gelman@ma30.bull.com 
Bull HN Info Systems -- Advanced Engineering Program 
(Any similarity between my opinions and those of Bull, living or dead, are
entirely coincidental.)
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Observations on schools & money
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:17:45 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <52569@dime.cs.umass.edu> stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant) writes:
>
>Jonathon Kozol spoke at UMass a couple of months ago about our
>school systems.  (He writes very moving, convincing books, by the
>way.)  In his talk he said that when he talks to people in government
>about problems in the schools, they'll give him a half-pitying look
>and say, "But do you really think you can solve these problems by
>throwing money at them?" to which his reply is "Well. . .sure.  
>Why is it that if there's a technological or military problem to be
>solved it's called something like allocating budgetary resources
>to the problem, but when it comes to social or educational problems
>it's throwing money at the problem?"
>
Of course there needs to be more money in the schools!  About a year and a
half ago, I met a high school physics teacher who teaches in one of the
public schools in Massachusetts (I don't remember the town - it was a
small suburb.  He told me that he had one physics class, in which all levels
of students from beginning to advanced, were lumped together.  The reason
for this was that that was all the school system could afford.  How can he
possibly be an effective educator when he's forced to teach in such an
undesirable situation?  There is no way that he can serve the needs of all
os his students - if he paces the course to the more advanced students, or
even the average level of student, then the ones who have more trouble aren't
going to make it.  If he paces the course to them, then the ones who could
go faster and learn more are wasting their time.  The only way to improve
situations like that is to have more classes and cater to the different
levels of student that exist, and that simply takes MORE MONEY.  If you don't
spend that money, then you won't have good physics education, period.  And
the students coming out of schools these days generally don't have the faintest
concept of what physics is about - in fact, a lot of them have trouble with
arithmetic.  I know, because I tutor, and I've tutored college students who
were very good in other subjects but just didn't have a clue when it came to
math or physics.  There has to be more money in classroom instruction, or
this nation just won't do well in that regard.  I'm not saying that there
aren't reforms that could be made in addition, but they should be made with
the understanding that these aren't in place of increases funding, but in
addition to it.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:46:25 GMT
	<1992Sep2.142532.25859@burrhus.harvard.edu>
	<BZS.92Sep2201456@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep3.151621.12567@burrhus.harvard.edu>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <1992Sep3.151621.12567@burrhus.harvard.edu> pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu (David M. Pfarrer) writes:

   People do kill people, but they do so more frequently and w/ greater
   efficiency when they have easy access to guns -- and I mostly mean
   hand guns.

Do you have data to back up that assertion?  I would be interested in
seeing any.  I'm particularly interested in the "more frequently"
claim.  Do criminals actually make more murder attempts when they
possess a gun?  That would be interesting research but I don't think
it would be useful in minimizing criminal access to guns.  By the way,
Canadians could have easy access to illegal guns if they wanted.  If I
wanted to, I could smuggle a dozen guns up to Canada in the quarter
panels of my car.  The problem in the US isn't easy access to legal
guns because criminals don't go to the store to buy guns.  They get
them through black markets.  Last year one of the TV networks asked a
Texas prisoner how long it would take him to get a gun after he was
released from prison.  He said about 20 minutes.  Hell, it takes
longer than that to fill out the paperwork on a legal purchase.  If
the problem is less severe in Canada there are probably a lot of
factors more critical than easy access which account for it.  I'd like
to see some data which shows how Canadian law enforcement is doing a
better job than American law enforcement in closing down black markets
in guns or whatever.

I would agree with you that criminal access to guns is a problem in
the US but I disagree that the way to solve the problem is by further
limiting legal access to them.  We already have a lot of laws on the
books which restrict access to guns but criminals ignore these laws.
We need better enforcement, not more laws.
From: stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <6054@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>In article <2798112719@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
>> Certain investors (mostly overseas for some strange reason) pay 
>> less than 1% tax. Is that a fair share when the middle class pay 30%??
>
>Presumably, they pay income taxes on this in their home countries (certainly
>americans earning money overseas do).

I can't comment on foreign investors having to pay home country income tax, but
as far as I know Europeans working outside their home countries are responsible
only for work country income tax.  Americans working abroad are similarly 
responsible for work country income tax, but are also taxed in the U.S. for
foreign income over $70k.  The International Herald Tribune pretty regularly
mentions efforts of American businessmen working overseas to remove this cap.
The amount of $70k might seem high, but if you consider differences in cost
of living, it's not all that great.  (Postage for an overseas letter costs
about $1.30 in Germany, for instance, compared with 44 cents in America.)
And look at how the exchange rate, again in Germany, has changed in the
past few years.  In 1985 a dollar bought around DM 2.20; now it's on the
order of DM 1.40.  As the exchange rate falls, Americans overseas become
liable for more U.S. taxes.  Strange.

Rob St. Amant
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Organization: insert anything here
Distribution: ne
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:53:29 GMT

richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>>This situation has nothing to due with wills , since now you are
>>postulating the lack of one. I believe that you will also find that this
>>happens regularly with persons living together ...

>Why should I have to have a will???  To continue ...

>> This is not discrimination
>>by sexual preference since it applies regardless of the sexual preferences
>>or relationships of the individuals.  ...
>> Your will , if it is written properly, can leave
>>everthing to a complete stranger and withstand any effort to contest.

>You're overlooking two very important things:  (a) judges and juries
>are often biased against the same-sex partner of the deceased, and (b)
>married couples need not have a will in order to obtain the legal
>equivalent.  A third, less-significant thing is that wills are hard to
>draft, can be costly, and must be updated periodically.  

	I had forgotten about the co$t.  It will cost my lover and I
at a BRAE MINIMUM $700+ to draft two wills.  (He has just done his,
I'll have to wait several more months to afford mine.)

	How many states have marriage licences that cost more than $700?
Plus, the will only goes into effect AFTER I'm dead, the marriage license
gets to have a lot more mileage put on it.

	Yes another example of the "special rights" of heterosexuals.
Looking at it this way I'm all for "no special rights"...

BBC

------
Surgeon General Koop: What would you do if you knew the identity of
	all the HIV+ people in America?
Wm. Dannemeyer R-CA: Eliminate them.

(Dannemeyer's out --- now all that's left is Dornan, Helms, Hatch, 
Bush, Quayle, Wilson, Robertson, etc.etc.etc...)
From: composer@world.std.com (Jeff Kellem)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Reply-To: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Organization: Beyond Dreams
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:23:37 GMT

murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
 > Now, PLEASE don't get me wrong; as "conservative" as I am, I DO NOT agree with
 > prayer in school.  There is nothing preventing little Johnny from saying
 > whatever prayer he feels like as he awakens in the morn - BEFORE getting to
 > school.  God's everywhere, right?  He's also in little John's bedroom; John
 > needn't address his deity in school to pass his God a message.

But, he shouldn't necessarily be disallowed to pray in school, either,
if he so chooses.  [Of course, if the prayer is silent, as many are,
how would you know? ;-]

			-jeff

Jeff Kellem
Internet: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:04:05 GMT
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c
Organization: The World


From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) [responding to me]
>The point, at the time, was that if Saddam was allowed to get away
>with the Kuwait invasion, he'd be in such a position to intimidate the
>other Gulf oil-producing countries that in the future, when the time
>was right, he'd be able to threaten an oil embargo.  Arab oil
>embargoes have had severe economic effects in the past.  As they say
>in chess, the threat is more powerful than the move; the worry is not
>only that he'd do it, but that by wielding the threat he'd be able to
>increase his power and wealth further, build up his nuclear and
>chemical weapons faster, and so on.  This is the point that you
>should rebut to further your argument.

Well, I don't need to rebut it since I don't disagree with it.

However, I tried to avoid the first part, the "domino theory, as it
has had a certain unpopularity in recent politics (e.g. John Foster
Dulles, Vietnam War.)

Unfortunately I believe it is true that prognostication tends to be
markovian rather than extrapolational. We can't discount, for example,
an Iranian reaction to Iraqi threatening of Saudi Arabia and perhaps
other countries in the region, but SA is of course the seat of the
Islamic religion. Frictions on such matters between Sunni and Sh'ia
Muslims runs deep. Hussein could have quickly been fighting two
fronts, not a good prospect.

The second point (furthering his weapons capabilities, particularly
nuclear) was probably a greater concern, and quite justified as it
turns out.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu (David M. Pfarrer)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:25:32 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

>
>To see where your idea may lead, look at the drug trade as an example.
>Suppose we did enact federal controls.  What would stop drug smugglers
>from delivering guns and ammunition along with their loads of drugs?
>Think for a minute how fantastically successful the smugglers have
>been in delivering goods to the American public.  It makes the Berlin
>Airlift look like small potatoes.  Suppose there were an international
>resolution to control guns.  Why would it be any more effective than
>the international control on drug trafficking?
>
So how come Canada doesn't have a huge black market in illegal guns?
Or any of the other western democracies for that matter?  They all
have illegal drug traffic, but annual gunshot deaths can be measured
in double digits vs. 25,000 + in the United States.  

Guns are also a lot bulkier and sell for a lot less per ounce.
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:09:20 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>Once again, I say that I think economics is a horrible, unconscionable
>reason to go to war.  If we don't live by ideals, then we deserve to die.

There are two facts which I learned about history (admittedly, never
my best subject):

	1)  Virtually all wars ever fought were on religious or
	    economic grounds; and
	2)  War is horrible and unconscionable.

Do you see any conflict with these statements?

(I'd put a smiley here, but it's the reality.  Ideology really has little
to do with war, aside from an incidental correlation with religion.)

-rich
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Flat taxes
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:19:19 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

>Both reform and elimination proposals face a steep uphill
>battle.  For one thing, you'll have to put a digestable spin on
>placing thousands if not millions of government and private
>accountants on the unemployment line.  You will be wiping out a huge
>industry.  

	So?  The whole idea of evolution is to leave behind the things
that aren't needed or don't work.

	I'm sure a lot of horse-oriented jobs went away after people
started buying cars.  The Cold War is over too: are you going to suggest
next we invade another country so that we can make sure all the military
career people aren't put out of a job?o

	When the job isn't necessary, we move those people into tother 
careers.  It would be nice if the USofA could get back on the road of
research and development, something we've been lacking for, oh, 20
years or so...  When the country starts thinking beyond the next
fiscal quarter, or the next election, we'll start getting somewhere
again.  But as long as the "status quo protect-my-cushy-job-at-all-cost"
people are in power, we're in a quagmire of futility.

	Life shouldn't be like the cartoon "Dilbert".

BBC
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: GUILTY AS CHARGED (Was: In politics, why as why?)
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:43:11 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <w2s3PB9w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>
>> In article <i1igPB2w164w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Bria
>> 
>> Fighting a war for lower oil prices is one of the most loathsome, evil things
>> I can think of.  Do you really believe in what you say?
>
>Yep!  I do.  Actually, I said fighting for money but...  You got a better
>reason for fighting a war?  Do you take the Superman approach and fight
>against oppression anywhere you find it?  <sigh>

I'm not saying we should fight oppression anywhere we find it.  I don't want
to go to ex-Yugoslavia, and I wouldn't make anyone else go either.  But
fighting for money is despicable.  There's a case for not fighting, even
when principles might justify it, but there's no case for fighting when
it's not backed up by moral principles.

>I don't agree that lower prices for oil was a good reason for the war.  I'd
>rather see the prices go through the roof as they are in other countries.  In
>this way, alternative sources of energy would look pretty attractive (nuclear)
>where we could be self-sufficient and have no need for that war.  Still, the
>decision was made and off we marched.  The war had all the necessary support
>from military, political, and public.  We couldn't lose.  Textbook.  The only
>"bad" wars are ones we lose.
>
>> Nevertheless, I do believe that that was one of George Bush's reasons for
>> going into the Gulf.  Which only reinforces my opinion that George Bush is
>> one of the vilest, most disgusting people that this planet has had the
>> misfortune to produce.
>
>Given that congress is the body that declares war, do you extend your bile to
>that Democratic body as well?
>
There were other concerns in the Gulf as well.  Other people had better
reasons for wanting to go in.  Global security was the best reason.  Oil
prices was the worst, and shouldn't have even been on the list.  It was on
the list, or why else would Dick Cheney have said once that we were fighting
for American jobs?  Better that jobs should be lost than life be lost.  If
I thought George Bush had done the whole thing for the sake of safety (our
safety and the safety of others), I could accept it.  But I don't think he
would have done it without the economic concern as well.  I can't prove that,
but I believe it.

War for money is evil.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2229 ne.general:2419 talk.politics.misc:43372