HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Perot speaks
Keywords: blatant bias
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:13:35 GMT

tm> == Tom McDonald

tm> Perot suggests a change to a document written before satellite
    communication, telephones, even before the telegraph and Pony
    Express. Hmmm. Wonder if Jefferson would have approved of East Coast
    newspapers reporting the "results" of elections before polls closed
    in the West?

Jefferson would no doubt have bemoaned an electorate so weak-willed
that such reporting would cause them to vote differently, or not at
all.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand                | We regret the inconvenience.  We're doing 
-- University of New Hampshire | everything we can, which is nothing.
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu          |     (Paul Vixie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: ACLU dogmatism
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.030132.16521@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>It's hard to imagine what the ACLU does being labeled as "obstructionism";
>they don't block clinics like Operation Rescue or conduct sit-ins like
>ACT-UP.  They take the government TO COURT when they disagree.  They
>don't obstruct anything; they use the judicial system to protect our rights.

I'll concede that Operation Rescue and ACT-UP are worse than the ACLU, but
that doesn't excuse the ACLU.  I view its role in the "The Little
Library That Could" case as pure obstructionism: the ACLU is cluttering up
the court system with frivolous lawsuits in order to keep a town from
providing a service for itself (how many suburban taxpayers are going to
support a public library once it degenerates into a facsimile of the NYC
subway system?).  The  ACLU approach doesn't protect "our rights."
It protects the rights of one troublemaker at the expense of the
rights of an entire community.  More importantly, it doesn't defend this
person's right to be left alone, but rather his right to *not* leave alone
everyone else!  If you view it from an economic perspective, the ACLU is
supporting an inefficient policy rule.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and racism
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:54:15 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Apr8.170817.6444@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:

+>In article <visser.702697009@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
+>|> 	When you support overturning such laws, it hardly matters what
+>|> a particular person thinks about segregation or discrimination because
+>|> you are re-enabling and legitimizing that behavior.  The goal does not
+>|> matter, its the inevitable and terrible consequenses do matter.

+>   Tell us, does the supporting 1st amendment imply support for the goals
+>of every form of speech, bigoted or otherwise? Does support for the 2nd
+>amendment imply support for murdering people with firearms? Does support
+>for free speech legitimize the behavior of bigotry? 



	Tell me which amendment or section of the constition concerns 
itself with the "freedom" to refuse to hire people based on race or
the "freedom" to refuse service to people because they happen to 
be of a relgion you dont care for.  There is no right to discriminate
against people because of things like race. 




+>   By your argument, if the 1st amendment were overturned, it would hardly
+>matter what a particular person thinks about free speech because you are
+>re-enabling and legitimizing that behavior [of bigoted and hateful speech].

	I am not talking about the first amendment.  It obviously suits you
to do so because then your not in the position of having to defend the
racism that will be caused by the policies you support.

	If someone were to propose overturning the first amendment, I would
say that the person is against free speach.  Similarly if there are persons
who wish to tear up laws that attempt to stop employment discrimintion,  then
the person calling for such a change is implicitly condoning the behavior.


	Refusing to serve people based on race, refusing to allow people to
buy houses because of their race or religion is what I was and am talking
about.  Racism is not free speach or a right of any sort.


+>   Your package deal of if we allow people choice, they will necessarily
+>behave badly is not very compelling. On the other hand, allowing government
+>"choice" does seem to have a pretty good track record of institutionalizing
+>mass slaugther -- all in the name of the "public good". 

	Of course.  I am sure you can find all sorts of people to tell you
about the "evils" caused by various government efforts at anti-discrimination
laws.   I dont have any idea how you can take laws that mandate people have
a right not to be discriminated against because of race or sex and turn that
into something relivant to "mass government slaughter".  Who are these laws
hurting? or "slaughtering" for that matter.
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: Listening to America
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:08:43 -0500

In article <9204121917.AA19534@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr12.013239.1004@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> you write:
>>    Can you say "Tyrany of the Majority" ? The 'real' America is
>>    semi-literate, superstitious, mal-educated little redneck
>>    scum steeped in violence, prejudice and intolerance. It's not
>>    so different from other 'civilized' countries in these
>>    sentiments either. If you value freedom  - don't evoke the
>>    great silent majority again. Democracy loses its utility as
>>    soon as one group learns to use it to screw another group.

> The first representitive government in 2000 years.  The most obese poor people 
> in the world.  The best standard of linving in the world.  When are people like
> you going to join us among the thinking?
> 
> R. Scharfy

	A represenative government ??? Representing just *who* exactly ? 
	Our fine government represents itself and those who contribute
	the largest kickbacks to it - and has almost from its inception.
	Pick up a newspaper and take your head out of the sand. Does our
	'free' press mean America is as gee-whiz wonderful as you think
	it is ? Hard to say - too much of the 'news' is but reinterations
	of the old party-line. 

	Is our standard the best ? What constitutes 'best-ness' exactly ?
	If you have three homeless men and one of them owns shoes without
	holes in them - is he enjoying the better standard of living ?
	Is obesity a measure of success these days ? As I recall, the Russians
	come-in close behind us on that scale ... from eating meat that is
	almost pure fat and drinking vast quantities of liquor. Quite
	frankly, there isn't much joy in being king-of-the-mountian if 
	that mountian is really just a mound of shit.

	Check into our national illiteracy rate, the number of people that
	read horoscopes (of those that can read that is), the number that
	would just 'rather not associate' with blacks, the number that
	would shoot a flag-burner if they could get away with it, the
	number that just salivate at any new group or person that may be
	declared unofficial 'scum' so they can be derided, attacked or
	murdered with a clear conscience (homosexuals are the latest). 
	Examine the heart of our heartland and you may come away a little
	disillusioned, for it is just an inch away from fascism. Of course
	if you *like* the idea of having easily-led people with a quasi-
	fascist mentality and not enough education to know what they are
	supporting ... then maybe America really *is* just gee-whiz
	wonderful to you. 

	No, I don't go around all day with a frown and piss-poor attitude.
	On the other hand, I don't try and delude myself about the seamy
	underbelly of this nation either. Just because we aren't the worst
	doesn't mean we are all that wonderful either. The depth and breadth
	of our collective racism, ignorance and hostility is nothing to
	be so proud of. 

-- Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: case@infonode.ingr.com (Bill Case)
Subject: Re: Campaign $$$$$$$
Summary: corruption
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:23:44 GMT

On Moyers' scary "Listening to America" program,  it was stated that a
$5.00 -$10.00 fee on every tax payer could fund all the congressional, 
senate,  and presidential elections.  In contrast,  the S&L scandal
was bought and paid for by special interest money,  and the bail out will
cost each tax payer about $3500.00.  Another guest recommended that campaign
funds be a budgeted item in Federal budget.  Yet another pointed out that
free TV air time is provided to candidates in England as a way of
contributing to the welfare of the society.  

The special interest money has overwhelmed public interests and has probably
bankrupted the nation.  I'll vote against the incumbents as act of personal
self discipline.  I don't have to hate them or like them.  I just need to
replace them as a personal demonstration of where the power belongs.

I saw where a congressman decided not to run again,  and the law says
he can keep the $1,000,000.00+ he received in campaign contributions.  This
is obscene!!

A candidate in the south once had a campaign that stated that he had made
so much money in his previous political career that he couldn't be
further corrupted by money.  This is one thing Perot brings.

  "All professions are conspiracies against the laity"
	
			G.B. Shaw

Bill Case
...uunet!ingr!b11!casey!case    (UUCP)
ingr!b11!casey!case@uunet.uu.net (ARPANET)
case@ingr.com		        (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17332 alt.drugs:7326 misc.legal:9002
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:52:49 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <lxqj#6f.bprofane@netcom.com> bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
>Don't count on Thomas, either.  He said a lot of "liberal" things
>before and during his confirmation; if you took him at his word,
>you'd have had to count him as a liberal.  As we all suspected,
>however, once he got his butt in the door he's voted like Atilla
>the Hun.  Worse, he seems to have a taste for Scalia's more bizarre
>extremes.

Well, Thomas just voted with White, Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens to
quash a child pornography conviction obtained through a six-year 
entrapment effort.  That's the second time he's dissented from Scalia;
I made a prediction a couple of months ago when the spate of articles
calling Thomas a "Scalia clone" came out that Thomas would vote against
Scalia a greater proportion of the time than Marshall voted against
Brennan.  Neither Scalia nor Thomas are particularly easy to pin
down -- when I heard that the 5-4 decision came down, I guessed all
the justices right except White and Scalia, who I had switched.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18148 alt.politics.elections:896 sci.econ:3730
From: jmo@courant.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:25:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

One comment that I would make is that in the interests of
promoting competition, all frequent flyer programs should be
outlawed. This sort of re-regulation is justifiable in that
frequent flyer programs represent a large barrier to entry.

One additional point worth emphasizing is that the hub
system gives carriers virtual monopoly powers on direct flights
around their hubs, so that some degree of limited re-regulation
on a local level on flights originating from hubs might be
justified to make sure the market works properly; alternatively,
landing slot rights could be made temporary or limited to a
maximum per carrier under the antitrust laws.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:51:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.172242.48@sdg.dra.com>,
sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>In article <peercy.703456880@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu>, peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>> About 18 months ago, a judge in St. Clair County awarded the Municipal
>> Building of East St. Louis, plus 220 acres of city land, to a man who
>> was owed $4 million by the city ($47 million in debt).  It can happen.
>
>Then they sent the man a property tax bill.

Well, I hope he turned around and immediately raised their rent by
double the amount of the tax bill :-)

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:51:25 GMT

In article <kub96sINN522@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>The same for Bush == Conservative. It has more to do with the fact
>that the Tories were the incumbents in the UK, as Bush is here. Nobody really
>believes that Bush is a Conservative, least of all a Thatcherite Tory, do they?

Same for John Major!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with America.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:46:51 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

>Instead of seeking pleasure through material goods, which pleasure must 
>necessarily be fleeting, some people are learning to seek pleasure 
>through the arts, and through human relationships.

Some people learn to do that at all times and places.  But do you think 
that is the direction things are taking generally in America in 1992?  I 
would have thought the contrary.  A few personal impressions:

1.  People put their effort into what they love.  The paid workforce is 
much bigger than it was 20 years ago, and people are working longer 
hours and have less leisure time.  I would infer that people 
increasingly love the things they can get with money rather than the 
things you mention.

2.  The fine arts don't seem to be in such great shape.  There's a lot 
of organizational support, but how much new music, poetry and visual art 
is there that anyone cares about deeply?  How many of the additional 
people who go to art museums go because they love any of the things on 
display, and how many go to spend money in the shops and restaurants?

3.  Ditto for the arts of daily life.  Does the multiplication of 
magazines about food really mean that more food is well cooked than in 
the past?  Even if magazines add to rather than substitute for actual 
living, for every copy of Gourmet that's sold there are probably 10000 
meals eaten at McDonalds.

4.  Rates of crime, drug addiction, illegitimacy, divorce, homelessness, 
etc., etc., etc., don't suggest that people are finding more pleasure in 
human relationships now than in the past.

You seem to suggest a different way of life as a solution to (among 
other things) environmental problems.  That's fine, but how could such a 
thing ever become prevalent enough to have much effect on society at 
large?
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ocb@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (owen.c.brennan)
Subject: Bush wasting time as usual
Keywords: He should not run for reelection
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:16:45 GMT


Recession?  What recession?  You mean this country is doing badly?
You'd never know it with the agenda that our fearless leader keeps.

While 10 million Americans are out of work (3 million more than 1988)
George Bush is spending his time on important items like stopping
non union workers from donating to political parties.  Now that is
action that will get people back to work!!

In his state of the union message he cries that his plan must be
implemented by March 20th to get the country back on track.  The Congress
puts 5 of his proposals in his so called important 7 into their version
of the bill.  They did leave out his slashing in half of the capital
gains tax (which is his domestic agenda) and put in the middle class
tax cut which he conveniently forgot about.  So March 20th comes and
he vetoes the plan (without looking at it) and says that doing nothing
would be better (now a round of golf with little Danny Quayle and the
rest of the girls.)

My complaint is not with the fact that he vetoed the Democrats version
which I don't agree with either.  My complaint is his complete lack
of interest in working with Congress on anything.  Of course they
aren't going to pass every one of his bills in it's entirety.  But if
he would work with them at least something would get done.  Every
President faces the task of working with Congress on getting bills
passed to keep the country going.  DOING NOTHING IS NOT BETTER THAN
BARGAINING!!

Bush should really consider not running for reelection because he has
been very ineffective.  If he was in business, he'd be fired for lack
of activity.  Stand aside and let someone who wants to do something
for the country, even a Republican, take the ball and run with it.
I'm sure Kemp, Jim Baker and Dick Cheney would gladly run against 
Clinton/ Perot in November.  Bush will embarass himself and the country
in a debate with these two.  That is if the networks don't let him and
his cronies set the agenda with one of Bush's patented teleprompter
debates.  His arms will be swinging and his syntax will be doing it
usual slaughter of the English language.

SAY NO TO FOUR MORE YEARS!!

Owen Brennan
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services

Ted Frank writes
> <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>Well, I'm sure that money has been saved,but one questions how it has been
>>saved.  All following figures & quotes are from America: What Went Wrong?
>>by Barlett and Steele.  In 1978, before deregulation, the price of a round
>>trip ticket from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh was $86.  Today, it is $260.
>
[List of very valid objections raised]

I saw most of the Barlett and Stelle newspaper pieces when they appeared,  
and their methodology was riddled with the same sort of problems on subject  
after subject: Anecdotal evidence, incomplete statistics from unknown  
context, and a questionable grasp of theory.  As a serious piece of  
research, their work is just about worthless.  They'd be made mincemeat of  
in any refereed journal or in an academic environment.  Watching them  
attempt to defend in front of a thesis committe would have been highly  
entertaining.

Journalistic standards are different, however.  It was OK as a ripping good  
piece of propaganda.  Sold a lot of newspapers.  Won some prestigious  
awards.  Sigh.

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:27:16 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <56Ev02ei0fUh01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <53504@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>What's been missing from this discussion as of late is the fact that the 
>>Vincennes had come under attack by gunboats not long before.

>So what? It wasn't the USA's war.

Not originally, but they got the U.S. involved when they attacked our ship.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone remember *why* those gunboats attacked 
the Vincennes?  I don't remember any details.

-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "Being next to Dorsai is a slow form of
Georgia Institute of Technology      the 'dissolve' command..."
Office of Information Technology    
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu                  - Banzai, Merc V
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18583 ca.politics:3564 ba.politics:2692 alt.politics.homosexuality:2360
From: jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:14:04 GMT
Organization: Best Care South of the Red River, LCC, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Apr15.054157.17941@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka) writes:
>Oh my god, I must be straight after all, since I get nowhere closer
>to those figures. But go and tell to the men who hang around 
>the singles bars that they must be queer, since they have more than
>the allowed limit of partners.

Even with those men in bars, we still average about 12 sexual
partners per lifetime (source: Harper's)

>By the way, 10 partners a night is pretty much impossible for
>any self-respecting fag... I mean, we tend to spend more than
>15 minutes in bed, so there just isn't enough hours in a day...

10 x 15 = 150 minutes = 2.5 hours.

Nah.  I've read things by GAY DOCTORS about gay men who have
10 partners in a single weekend.  Something about them trying
to convince the local government in San Francisco to close the
bath houses.

I'll explain AIDS to you.  AIDS is not easily spread.  If you
have unprotected sex with a person who is HIV+, you have a 1
in 500 shot of getting AIDS.  So, you'd either have to have
sex with 500 HIV+ people, or the same one 500 times.  Now, we'll
assume for a moment that you wouldn't knowingly have unprotected
sex with an HIV+ person, so you are back to having to have
enough different partners to insure that the disease spreads.
After all, you can't get it if you aren't exposed to it.  With
about .5% of the total population HIV+, and 90% of that gay men,
(and gays accounting for some magical 10% of the general public)
we have about 1,000,000 HIV+ gay men out of a hypothetical 13M
total.

Do you really want to pretend that for a disease to go from a
few hundred case 11 or 12 years ago to 1,000,000 (and 6% of the
population) that these people aren't having a hell of a lot of
sex?

Go back to grade school and learn how math works.
-- 
John F. Haugh II      | VNET: LCCB386 at AUSVMQ | "Physical Fitness is the
SneakerNet: 042/2F068 | MaBell: (512) 823-1078  |  basis for all other forms
Internet: jfh@devnet.la.locus.com               |  of excellence"  -- JFK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc