HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Worker Productivity
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:55:02 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1516@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:
>1989 Manufacturing Productivity from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
>(Source 1991 World Almanac)

I think there is a stupid factory somewheres near by.

How much of the American economy is Manufacturing?  Is it ALL
manufacturing?  How much of it is Agriculture?  How much of it
is Services?

Not everything is "manufactured."  I, for one, haven't manufactured
anything in 11 years.  Last time I checked I was still being paid.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Lawrence Dillard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:55:10 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Is this the Omnibus Education bill?  If true, has anyone else read anything 
about some of the provisions under the "Parents as Teachers" section?  From
what I read on this, the bill would authorize a social worker to make up to
8 visits a year to a family in the "high risk" category.  This would include
families where the woman was pregnant, a child under 3 yrs, and several 
other criteria, including if either parent had served in the military.

This seems to really be a stepping on the family in general by the gov't,
if true.  Hopefully someone out there has actual documentation on whether
the bill contained anything like this in it.

Thanks;

-Tom

-- 
 L.T. Dillard III                        ldillard@digi.lonestar.org
 DSC Communications Corporation
 1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:33:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Oct13.220814.42700@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> In article <21711@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> |> Homeopathy is "mumbo-jumbo" only because the current variety of medical
> |> doctors say so.
> 
> I'm sure there is a big element of self-protection in the AMA, but you
> have to give them some credit for intellectual honesty.  If homeopathy
> is effective, it has yet to be proven.  Mumbo-jumboness isn't carved
> in stone for all time.  If an idea has merit, it will be proven
> eventually.

	That may not actually be true.  Since part of homeopathy involves
herbal remedies (which are very cheap!  Several you can get from the spice
rack in the grocery store), it is unlikely that someone will spend the required
billions to prove effectiveness to the FDA.  There is no profit motive.
Other countries have recognized the effectiveness of certain remedies.

	One example is Almonds.  They contain salicylates which have a pain
relieving effect (hence the popularity of asprin: acetylsalicylic acid). 
However, I doubt you will see commercials for it on TV, no, we all are
big macho types and need MAXIMUM STRENGTH XXXXXXX.  Better living through
chemistry...  After all, where do you think medical science gets the idea for
most of the drugs that are out there?  Nature itself.

> At least there are steps taken to show its effectiveness.  Homeopathy
> is certainly safe (after all, you're just drinking water), but it
> hasn't been shown to be effective.

	Several trace elements are required and used by the human body.
Just because there isn't a "Recommended Daily Allowance" doesn't mean it
isn't effective.  I certainly doubt it will cure some disease, but probably
has a noticable effect on someone with a vitamin (or related) deficiency.
Something an M.D. may not pick up.

> |> Now, I don't know just how much truth there is to homeopathy, and I do
> |> know that I think chiropractors are quacks, but there seems to be
> |> something to chiropractic.
> 
> I also think chiropractors are quacks, ...

	Again, I do think there is something there, as they look for external
anomolies that can cause pain through misalignment of the spine, etc.  An M.D.
would probably take other measures, prescribe drugs etc, when all you need is
a flatter pillow to avoid straining your neck.

> -- 
> John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
>         My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
>                 "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:39:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.102643.16802@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>> As for union steelworkers, the problem with them isn't the high rate they
>> charge.  The non-union shops I worked in paid comparable wages, but turned
>> out a far superior product for less total cost to the buyer.  American
>> workers are still the most productive in the world, period.
>
>	I think per worker the Japanese are.  This is mostly because of an
>almost religious dedication to the corporation, something which we don't
>have anymore... (I've jumped jobs twice, so I plead guilty too...).

No, the typical Japanese company carries a lot of non-productive
workers (some 700,000 in total right now, according to recent figures
from the Japanese government).  That company loyalty is SUPPOSED to
run both ways; something American corporations seem to forget when
they want to see their workers emulate that Japanese dedication.

So, is the new job better than working on my VAX for me, Dave?  :-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:35:18 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Oct14.133016.16088@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Why did we become convinced that private non-religious schools should
> not receive public funds?

	Because it would no longer really by a "private" school?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Worker Productivity
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:15:43 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct9.163234.16826@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>	If you have a better source, then name it.  You do not believe in
>others refuting by vehement denial.  This is a valid measure of productivity,
>agreed not encompassing all known forms of employment.  I'll bet if it
>agreed with your position, you wouldn't utter word one.

The problem is that his source doesn't say anything about what the source
even means.  Note that at the end of his article he mutters something about
how Germany's low productivity level must be because Germany has a mandatory
6 week vacation rule.  I notice he didn't "adjust" ours for the low amount
of overtime our workers put in relative to the Japanese.  Again, you didn't
notice this because Japan bashing is less well accepted than America bashing.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party Houston contact?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:06:12 GMT

In <exuptr.758.719096466@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.223339.29729@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:
>>I live in Magnolia (North of Tomball) across from a polling place.
>>Is there a Libertarian organization (or individual!) in the
>>Houston/Tomball/Conroe area that could get me a big sign (8'x12'?
>>or even bigger -- we've got lots of room to put it up!) to put
>>out on the street -- something along the lines of:

>>        There is a choice

>>                Vote Libertarian

>>           Marrou-Lord in 1992

>How come they're not in the debates?

>Surely they have more to say than Dan-O and Al-Baby?

Real good question.  I've asked several people that, but no one seems
to be able to come up with a way to qualify Perot and not qualify
Marrou unless they use the polls, and that seems a ludicrous way to do
it.  If they're on the ballot in all 50 states, they ought to be in
the debates.

[I've heard that they're thinking about not inviting Perot to the
remainder of the Presidential debates, but I don't know if that was a
real rumour or just someone's wishful thinking.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Capital Punishment (was Re: AI (was: Re: Chinascam))
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:22:35 GMT

In <Bw2z3K.MwF@rice.edu> mcmahon@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael G. McMahon) writes:

>In article <21678@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F.
>Haugh II) writes: 
>>
>>Amnesty International is practically worthless as an organization
>>dedicated to finding violations of "Human Rights".  

>Hypothesis registered.

>>For example, murderers, in AI's view, have more rights than their
>>victims.  

>False example discarded.  Perhaps you are over-reacting because the
>organization has upset you in some way.  It may be a foreign concept to
>you, but all people can have equal rights. 

Sorry, but he has a point, no matter how much you disagree with his
final conclusion.  Does AI include as a violation of Human Rights
things like terrorist bombings, etc.?  If not, they are counting the
punishment for the crime as 'bad' while not counting the crime itself
as bad.

>>Does AI support capital punishment?  No.  Murderer's "Human
>>Rights"? Yes. 

>   I see. They disagree with your stance on capital punishment.  They
>must be a bad group.  
>   It's _so_ evil to assert that someone accused of murder still has
>basic rights as a human being...  Or, yes, even someone convicted of
>murder.  At least recognize that yours is a radical stance.

What's so radical about John's position on capital punishment (which
is what I presume you were referring to).  If favoring capital
punishment is 'radical', then the overwhelming majority of adults in
the U.S. are 'radical'; something over 70% favor capital punishment
for some crimes.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 20:06:52 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <21698@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> You should study the current debate about the validity of homeopathic
|> medicine.  I've read a number of articles on the subject and it looks
|> like there is some validity to that form of mumbo-jumbo.
|> 
|> Moral:  Watch what you call mumbo-jumbo.

You picked the wrong example.  Homeopathy IS mumbo-jumbo.  Not only
does it not pass the "common sense" test (ie. if you dilute some
solution so much that there is only one molecule of the original
solution left, what you have left is water), but there has not been a
single verified controlled experiment showing that homeopathy is
effective.  See the January, 1987 issue of "Consumer Reports" and the
Fall, 1987 issue of "Skeptical Inquirer" for excellent overviews of
homeopathy and its validity.  In short, an idea doesn't stop being
"mumbo-jumbo" just because some people feel more secure believing it
to be true. 

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:31:33 GMT

In <1992Oct14.183518.16850@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.133016.16088@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Why did we become convinced that private non-religious schools should
>> not receive public funds?

>	Because it would no longer really by a "private" school?

The same argument would seem to apply to public moneys to private
religious schools, which were the point of the article being responded
to.  So what's the difference there?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BullShit
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:06:15 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21677@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.101649.16806@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>In article <21671@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>> Now, since you are completely unable to read, I'll point out that I have on
>>> no occassion ever posted my salary.  My comment was directed specifically at
>>> James Berry who claimed to have some inside information.  I was quite simply
>>> pointing out that his inside information is probably wrong, and intentionally
>>> so.  After all, it was none of his business.  Given the nature of gossips,
>>> would anyone be stupid enough to give out information they didn't want spread
>>> about the net?
>>
>>	True, I wouldn't.  But I wouldn't lie about it, just not bring it up
>>or respond to it.
> 
> The problem with not bringing it up (I didn't) or not responding to
> statements that are made is if someone says "You don't know what it's
> like to be poor because you've always been rich" - what are you going
> to do?

	Well, they may be right, but if they are going to use an argument like
that to "prove" that my ideas are wrong, it won't work.  You might be offended
by a statement like that and feel the need to defend yourself.  I do not.
Just because they read something they may not like and respond in a knee-jerk
reaction, doesn't make me feel like I have to lie to make them like me.

	Anyway, do such an accusation give reason to lie?  You appearently
think so, to your discredit.  Your idea that you would lie in response to
avoid friction really destroys your credibility.  "I don't always lie" you
may say, but how are we to know the difference?  You may actually believe in
abortion, but it reduces friction with those around you to say you abhore it.
You mirror those beliefs to stay in their good graces.  How can we tell?

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: John & Fred
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:46:56 GMT

In <21685@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <gD09RB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
>>  What! Fred and John agreeing, in essence, on something? Both 
>>think that mirroring disagreeable behavior (here on the net) might 
>>somehow change that behavior.
>>
>>  Actually, it should be no supprise that they agree on this. In 
>>matters of substance they may never agree, but in *style* they are 
>>all too often identical. 

>No, there is a very real difference in our styles.  For example, John
>Iacoletti and I differ on quite a few subjects.  He treats me with
>respect, and I return the courtesy.  Fred on the other hand disagrees
>with John on a number of subjects but is quite rude.  John treats
>Fred with a very high degree of respect and Fred still treats him
>poorly.

>Fred will treat you like dirt no matter how nicely you treat him.  If
>you treat me well (and you personally do, for the most part) I will
>be as nice as can be to you.  I gave Fred plenty of opportunities to
>reform, but he's refused.  Now he's off beating on Iacoletti now
>that I've stopped responding to his postings as much as I once did.

Yes, this 'nice treatment' of yours is undoubtedly why your response
was "fuck you" upon my congratulating you on your upcoming child.
Sure, John.  *I* believe this.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:38:38 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1513@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>Also, churches are not-for-profit organizations, so income tax does not apply to them.
>They are tax-exempt because they don't use much in the way of government services.

They are tax-exempt because they give more to society in terms of
social services provided than they cost the city in property tax
revenues lost.  Our church has an annual budget of $400K or so and
property that is probably worth about $1M or so.  Yet by the time
you add up all of the services (AIDS Care Teams, Meals on Wheels
drivers, El Buen Samaritino, Caritas, Housing Rehab, etc.), the
value to the City of Austin far exceeds any amount of property tax
the church could ever pay.  The lost Federal tax revenue on that
$400K is likewise dwarfed by the benefits provided by the church.

It makes good economic sense.  Just as it makes good sense to give
a 28% kickback to someone giving 100% to an educational, medical,
or other charity.  The Federal and local governments are getting
72% for FREE!
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: How about reaction to Perot's first TV show?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:39:43 GMT

In <21701@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <B6iDsB3w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> dsterner@unkaphaed.UUCP (Don Sterner) writes:
>>Now, to show my bias, I'd like to remind you that the constitution 
>>requires both the president and congress to cooperate in matters 
>>affecting spending and legislation (except in the rare case of a 
>>veto)

>I don't seem to recall having read that section.  Could you please
>tell me article and section number?

Perhaps you need to go back and read the whole thing, instead of
reading a sentence here and a sentence there?  You know, John.  Money
bills introduced in the House, approved by the Senate and the
President.  Or is all that just a detail to you that doesn't matter? 

Sure looks like they have to cooperate to get anything done to me.
Either that or there will need to be a LOT of Presidential vetos
overridden, which just hasn't been happening for the last four years. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics