HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Welfare vs. Workfare
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.201839.6420@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.145812.10996@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>>Look, I am as much for workfare, job training, and welfare
>>reform as the next guy, but
>>blatantly racist intolerance does not help the cause, it hurts it. The
>>people against workfare use statements from stupid pinheads like
>>yourself as ammo to fight against welfare reform. Furthermore,
>>despite all the rhetoric, the conservatives have done little to push
>>welfare reform. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton was the only candidate
>>to suggest it as part of his program.

>This is false.  Bo Gritz had, as part of his platform, promised to enact
>workfare in lieu of welfare.  The Free Shit Brigades (tm) had a fit, calling
>him a Racist - White Supremacist - Guy Who Likes to Tear the Wings of Harmless
>Little Flies - etc.  

Well, the fact that he hangs around with the Christian Identity movement
probably doesn't help his image, now does it?

>At this point, anyone who seriously attempts to reform the welfare system had
>better be bullet proof.  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.
  
Who are you referring to?  Is this standard libertarian rhetoric about
how all government bureaucrats are evil parasites, or is this standard
conservative rhetoric about how all welfare recipients are evil parasites?

Because if it's the latter, it's complete bullshit.  There are not a lot
of people "making a decent living" on welfare, unless you're comparing
their living standards to Somalia.

And what percentage of welfare recipients vote?  So how likely is it
really that they're going to eliminate anyone who votes against welfare?
Compared to the people who would vote *for* you when you said you were
going to lower taxes by cutting welfare?

As to welfare reform, this is an example of where politics really gets
in peoples way.  When most conservatives said welfare reform, they meant,
or at least it was suspected they meant, eliminate welfare.  Liberals
disagreed with that, of course, and had to spend so much energy fighting
*that* idea that they couldn't also work on *good* welfare reform.

Also, many conservatives *opposed* workfare for the longest time,
calling it government make-work jobs.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65470 alt.rush-limbaugh:12359
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:38:31 GMT
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Thanks to all those who boycotted Colorado - I got my postcard from
the Colorado Rockies baseball club that I received Opening Day
tickets.  You all made my chances in the ticket lottery easier.

Joe Naiman
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65874 misc.legal:21893
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:15:54 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <bhayden.725782587@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org sez:
>
>What you are trying to do is isolate your term "guilt" from the judicial
>process. You can't do that because in American jurisprudence, guilt
>implies amoung other things that due process has been served.
>It was not in North's case (and hence the reversal/remand).

What you're trying to do is muddy the well-established distinction
between factual guilt (X committed a criminal act) and legal guilt
(conviction after a fair proceeding).

I don't think anyone here has made the argument that North's
conviction should not have been overturned.  (The argument about how
far _Kastigar_ should reach can be left for another day.)  What is
being asserted, and what you vainly attempt to deny, is that North's
actual conduct violated the law.


-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Term for blacks has changed
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:22:54 GMT

Hello,

Has anyone noticed references in the media (paper, radio, TV) to blacks
as "people of color"?  I started noticing this about 6-8 weeks ago and
now I hear it all the time.  I've got four questions regarding this:

1) What's wrong with "black"?

2) How was this change affected?

3) What's the distinction between "people of color" and "colored
person" such that the latter is racist and the former isn't?

4) Who decided that this should happen?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:15:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>One thing bothers me about 'African-American': there is a large black
>population that is not African in its ancestry. Is there no PC way
>to refer to them, or do they have to settle for the (now non-PC) 'black'?

Well I always liked the "whiteys" and "darkies" split myself, though
being called "honkie" seems like a source of pride as well.

Mind telling me where those non-African-descended blacks came from?
Not that "Sub-saharan-african-american" wouldn't be more precise.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** ( Re: Death of America xx )
Keywords: Jubilee taint Jubilate, but yodel if it moves Ye
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:31:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Jubilation T.) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes...
>>bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>>>garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>>>> 
>>>>P.S. The trumpets mean war, plague, and famine. Let's not sound the trumpets.
>>>
>>>The trumpets could mean Miles Davis, though I wonder if God let him in
>>>with his Maseratti.  Actually, Miles would never enter without.
>> 
>>As long as he phones ahead to let the Pearly Gates P.D. know what kind of
>>car he's driving, he'll avoid a "profile" stop.
>
>This commentary seems right here...
>
>"Beyond Marx and Buddha: The Jubilee"...
>
>	As the number of people grew and grew...the different groups 
>	got into their places. The man with the ram's horn climbed 
>	to the top of the stairs. Somebody nodded to him. He raised 
>	the horn, blew a long and eerie blast. Someone else began
>	to read from Leviticus:
>
>	"You shall make proclamation with the blast of the horn....

And Lo! It was the Birth of the Cool, unwrapped from swaddling rhythms
and busting out of the goddamned manger.

And the wise men Dizzy, 'Trane, and Bird came bearing gifts.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:22:02 GMT

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.  This made the prosecutors task
|>       virtually impossible.  By the way if North really believed he was
|>       innocent he could of testified before Congress without immunity, but
|>       then again he would have surely gone to jail in that case.
|>  
There is absolutely nothing novel in the court's reasoning.  Many people
predicted publicly that forcing North to testify before Congress would make 
any prosecutions impossible.  Congress decided the public interest (and their
ability to get in front of TV cameras) outweighed the risk to the prosecutions.

The appeal court told the trial court to go through the testimony witness by witness
and verify that noone's testimony was tainted by hearing Col. North's forced
appearance.  Robert McFarland testified that after hearing Col. North his recollection 
was altered.  In fact, McFarland testified to Congress before North did and after hearing
North's testimony McFarland asked to come back and testified with a DIFFERENT
recollection of events than his previous testimony.



-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65861 alt.activism:19936
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:00:59 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Dec31.023624.697@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.155646.25034@panix.com> patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:
|> >
|> >	Gee, how did George miss him in the pardon blanket(s)?
|> >	He also forgot Secord and Poindexter although I hear
|> >	tell that an appeal will be made for executive clemenecy
|> > 	with respect to Secord ** mega sigh **
|> >
|>   Didn't Secord write a rather bitter book about being an
|>   Iran-Contra sacrificial lamb?  Bush has been characterized
|>   as a vindictive man.  I suspect there will be no pardon
|>   for Secord.  (Which should tell you something.)

Secord also profited from the Iran-Contra operation. That's another
reason he was denied a pardon, since the pardon statement said "...
whether or not what they did was wrong... none sought to profit 
personally..." Same reasoning for Ollie being denied a pardon. I
wonder about Poindexter though. Maybe he was denied a pardon because
he doesn't need one now.

|>   Wayne


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Bush WANTED to Lose
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:05:54 GMT

In article <PA146008.571.724872608@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.073007.8628@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>
>>There's been a lot of punditry attempting to figure out why
>>Bush ran such a poor campaign.
>> [ much ranting from the sorest of winners, or is that whiners?, N.B Hedd]
>> ...
>>And not just lose it, but lose it so hard and ugly that the
>>far-right was discredited within the Republican party and
>>sent back under the rocks from which it had slithered.
>
>       Um, the Republicans really didn't lose the election that bad, you
>know.  They even gained seats in Congress.  Bush lost the Presidency by 
>about six points, and a lot of states were within that margin.  That the 
>Republicans were out and out rejected seems a little like wishful thinking.

The GOP now has more seats in the House than they did in 1990 to 1992.
10 more, in fact.  In the Senate, meanwhile, they are sitting where they
were prior to the election, down 57-43. (I'm assuming that the Democrat
won/will win the special election in South Dakota. When is it anyway?)

Well, the Texas Democrats are now having fits figuring out who will become
their next appointed Senator. Seems the feisty Dems have become
gun-shy. They are even talking about moving Ann Richards over,
rather than look to second-tier Democrats. Why the gnashing of teeth
among the Democrats? They're scared that when they run, they'll *lose*.

All this makes it only more probable that Texas will add another
Republican Senator when the people make their choice in 1993.
I would put my money on
	Kay Hutchison U.S. Senate '93

(although Congressman Joe Barton has already announced, and could be 
a serious contender.) This means more Republicans in the House *and*
Senate than before the election.  N.B. can keep his "Hedd" in the dark;
I wouldn't want to spoil his fun.  But the truth is, the Republicans
did fairly well, given the dead-weight of Bush at the top of the ticket,
and they will do *better* as the buffoonery of a Democrat-controlled
America unfolds.

Pat
	Kay Hutchison for U.S. Senate '93
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:09:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.024947.4840@news.stolaf.edu> kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:
>
>It's a well-documented fact that most of Japanese technology originated in 
>the U.S.  They just produced it better.
>
>
>Alex
>


Is that why Japanese companies are now the leading applicants for U.S.
patents?

Your statement was true at one time, but not anymore. We are being beaten
in every phase of the game, from research to development to production.
Only in retail distribution are we still better than Japan.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65887 misc.legal:21902
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:07:26 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Bruce Hayden) writes:
|> Tom Mayer) writes:
|> 
|> >>I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
|> >>yet you can be factually guilty. The judicial determination of
|> >>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
|> >>say that he was guilty anyway. 
|> >>
|> I don't think you understand then what a reversal and/or a remand means.
|> It means that his guilty verdict was overturned. In American jurisprudence
|> you are innocent until proven guilty. He is technically innocent. Period.
|> 
True, but I started this thread with the statement he was a criminal, not that
he wasn't technically innocent.  I stand by my statement.  If you believe that
only the innocent are found innocent, then you live in a bigger dream world
than I can comprehend.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:41:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <78159@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net  
(Eidetics Int'l) writes:
> | 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is  
"Aviation Week and
> |    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported  
every shuttle
> |    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and  
report on
> |    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the  
secret flight.
> | 
> |    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY  
ANYTHING.
> 
> Considering the average shuttle launch can be seen for several  
hundred
> miles, how did they manage to launch one, and NOBODY noticed.
> 

They probably launched it at night, when nobody could see them
do it.  

(  :) for the humor-impaired.)

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ...Psst. Ya wanta Merry Christmas?? Just ignore Washington DC!
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:12:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
>                   and we STILL have a drug problem???

Celebrate their successful strategy.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:47:32 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1hnndhINNlfn@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>I disagree.  Watergate involved Nixon and crew trying to enhance
>their own personal power.  Irangate involved group of
>officials trying to further foreign policy. It may have been
>the wroong foreign policy to pursue, but by and large they
>weren't doing this for personal gain.
>
>Jim Mann            

Unfortunately, Caspar Weinberger's own notes of a meeting with Reagan
paint a different picture.  Ron wanted to be the big Stud who could
bring the hostages home.  IMHO he did it to increase his standing as
"the greatest president of all time".  Like he cared how many more
people would be killed by the weapons he was giving them, or how many
more hostages would be seized so the Iranians could continue to get the
weapons they needed.

The guy did a good job with the economy, and being the world's policeman
seems to make a lot of people happy, but I place him at an equal moral
standing with Nixon.  It's just that this time, they were a little
smarter.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 1 Jan 93 15:12:26 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Dave Griffith (dave@alex.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: The basic reason the US still has the embargo on is internal democratic 
: pressures.

At least there is someone who agrees with me on this point.

: They vote.  And there are a lot of them who
: would volunteer to die if it would mean the end of Castro and his regime.

They don`t seam to remember Batista`s horrible government, that is bizare.

: Boycott? It's only the garauntee that Castro will fall if the boycott 
: continues that keeps us from taking military action!   

He may fall, but the result will be chaos, the chinese route, steps toward
democracy taken gradually while keeping channels open is better.

: While the above is, admittedly, a morality-free calculation, there is a moral
: question lurking there.  What is the effect of the Cuban exiles on questions
: of the morality of the boycott.  There is a large body of Cubans who consider
: Castro's regime to be illegitimate.  Does it make a difference that they
: live in Miami rather than Havana?  We certainly allow that the Palestinian 
: diaspora has interests in the West Bank, and the long-exiled ANC leaders had
: interests in South Africa.  Why should the Cuban exiles be different?

The difference is :
	- the ideas drive the actions in the palestinians & ANC`s case.
	  The palestinian don`t really have a country.
	  International laws (UN resolutions) are at stake.
	- constituents drive the actions in the cubans case, it is 
	  to please them and not for any altruistic notion that
	  the embargo exists.

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush CAN pardon himself
Date: 30 Dec 92 05:45:25 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <bill.725661627@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M.  
Eldridge) writes:
> Similarly, it appears that Walsh never made any LEGALLY BINDING
> requests for information from Bush, which would mean that Bush
> has probably won the battle (though he lost the election, and
> his name is significantly tarnished, and will probably be moreso
> after Walsh writes his final report).
> 
Which is what should have happened in the first place.

The Iran-Contra scheme was stupid, and there was a public interest in  
seeing it exposed as a stupid policy.  Criminialization of the policy  
differences between the Congress and the Executive...particularly when  
there was a long history of winks and nudges between the two branches over  
the "crime" of supporting the contras...was an even worse idea.  

The basic facts of the case have been public knowledge for years.  The  
electorate has had plenty of time to reflect on the wisdom and management  
abilities of the persons involved, and vote accordingly in two  
presidential elections.  

Walsh has been running amok for years now.  His behavior has, in my  
opinion, crossed the line into "winning at all costs" rather than seeing  
that justice is done.  His statements accusing Bush of misconduct on the  
day of the Bush pardons was injudicial and hasty.  His actions have called  
into serious doubt the renewal of the special prosecutor law; after  
witnessing the open-ended, open-checkbook prosecution of many persons,  
some in congress are eager to see some sort of accountability by the  
prosecutors.

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65935 soc.motss:54452
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 1 Jan 1993 02:25:03 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

<HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
> In article <13723@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) says:
> >
> >The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
> >you with violence.

Or calls you insane, or a hypocrite, or resorts to foul mouthed tactics 
etc. Two months ago, I'd have laughed at such a stereotype and generalization. 
Then I found soc.motss....wouldnt have believed it if someone told me, 
but seeing is believing.  

Walter
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc