HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:27:29 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <9301222329.AA29961@client.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

>        The family leave bill would establish a national policy for Millions
>of working families. The bill... which would affect businesses with 50
>employees or more... would allow a worker to take up to 12 weeks of
>UNpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of a child... or to
>attend to a seriously ill family member.
>
>Does anyone know how this ``family member'' is defined?

I have some real concerns about all of this. Does this open a new
mechanism for a dual standard regarding GLB and "family" types? Is this
going to end up a perk for Quayle-style family people and no one else
need apply?

And even beyond that, why do only people who work for large companies
get to play? There are millions out there who work for small, Ma and Pa
operations. Are they less needing of family leave? And if the size of
the company is involved, why is this less of a problem for larger
companies than smaller ones? Key people are key people; or is the
premise that large companies are inherently overstocked with personel?

At the risk of taking considerable heat, let me suggest that if a
company can do without the services of someone for three months, paid
or unpaid, there might be some question whether that person was
necessary at all to begin with. A programmer or designer of a critical
project could really hold a company up with this one, no?
-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70473 alt.politics.clinton:21533 misc.legal:23516
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:12:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan26.215217.6871@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.193602.18031@news.acns.nwu.edu> pakrat@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Grogan) writes:
# #	Even if you discard the fact that 72% of them are lawyers, look at how
# #they stack up as "qualified" for their positions.  Fine, a law degree is
# #useful when one occupies a political position (that belief being the reason
# #that is a republic and not self-government- not good) I can at least accept
# #that part.  However, when qualified candidates are blatantly passed over in
# #favor of a black candidate, who so ever is a lawyer becomes irrelevant.  
# 
# I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the set of "qualified" candidates and
# "black" candidates was mutually exclusive.
# 
# ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

Actually, I think he meant Rep. Espy, not all blacks.  I don't
generally follow agriculture issues, so I have no idea what made
Espy unqualified for the position.  (I was very pleased to have
Espy in the Cabinet -- but I was hoping he would be at Treasury
or Justice.)

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70120 talk.politics.medicine:724 soc.culture.usa:10189 soc.culture.african.american:14405 sci.med:24512
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task 
 Force
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:52:07 GMT
 <1k578pINNn2u@news.aero.org>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1k578pINNn2u@news.aero.org>
helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:

> 
> I can't believe that there are still people around who
> spout that Objectivist bullshit.

I can. It's in their own interest. Tons of spoiled brats at Dartmouth
and other Ivy League schools do it all the time. What they're really
mad about it is that (as someone else put it) "if Daddy has to pay more
taxes for the 'little people' , he may not be able to buy me a Porsche
or a stereo." Is it any wonder, then, why that Ayn Rand crap is so
popular on this campus?

  It's about f**king time there was national health care in this
country. Private health care (at least in current form) has failed ;
it's time to try socialized medicine. In the meantime, I dearly hope
some of these "conservatives" and/or "libertarians" have some medical
bills they can't afford to pay for and thus suffer the consequences of
the greed-based system they seem to like...

-Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College, its students, or anyone else.
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..."- R.E.M.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
X-Xxdate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 10:44:20 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:48:20 GMT

In article <1k3lf5INNrvv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Broward Horne,
an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>      Any society that consistently rewards irresponsibility, punishes
>      long-term ethics, and always bets against the odds, is doomed to
>      failure.  I'm have absolutely no interest in being around when
>      the 'facts' show up.

Well Broward, if you're so sure you're right, then leave.
We who are working
to better this nation don't need defeatist do-nothings around
dragging on our efforts. The tasks are daunting enough. Furthermore,
please don't come back when things improve...it's not fair to those
Americans who will work hard and make the sacrifices to bring
about the change.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:39:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.055101.732@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>Now let us turn to this matter of 'Freedom of Religion'
>and its implications for the Roman Catholic 
>Church and Other Such Groups as May Be Fetal Idolators.
>
>Are we to Allow 'Freedom of Religion' to be USED
>as a Cover for Blood Rituals and Cannibalism?

Seems we already do, at least ritually.  The Easter Sacrament of xtian
churches preaches that the miracle of trans substitution changes that
holy wafer and grape juice to the Flesh and Blood of Christ the Savior.

 Of course, replacing the trans substituted substances for some what
closer approximations of Christs Blood and Flesh, falls afoul of other
existing laws.  As "Sugar Foot" used to say, "There is no law against
burning witches.  However, there is a law against killing people, so
you must first prove that the subject is a witch AND not covered
by the laws against murder."  In other words, you had better be prepaired
to prove before hand that that sacrafice is really Christ, or you will
be charged with murder.  And since you can't prove that, the laws
against murder will apply.

>
>
>Mind you be careful how you answer this.
>

Always practice safe rituals, sex or magic <grin>


--Uncle Wolf
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70123 alt.president.clinton:1860
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Media Coverage (Re: CNN bias
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:37:43 GMT
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan24150646@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1993Jan26.015640.14057@pony.Ingres.COM>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <1993Jan26.015640.14057@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:

[garrett's rambling and hallucinations deleted]

<>	And when the press finally admits that Baird commited
<>	a FELONY, they brush it under the rug with a mumbled
<>	comment such as,"Oh, well, everyone's doing it".
<>	No, not everyone is evading Federal FICA taxes....sorry
<>	about that, media drones.

<I won't argue with you there (suprise?). But they covered it. 

	Not at first; the story broke VERRRRRy slowly.
	Contrast the Baird coverage with the John Tower
	coverage; Tower was front page news from the start.
	And what FELONIES did he commit? Uh, let's see,
	'womanizing' and 'drinking'. Whew! 

<That's the difference. 
	
	Yes, that's the difference; pro-Democrat bias.

<They are not in the business to "call" for anything (unless
<it's on the editorial page). Because they are not being cheerleaders, or
<prosecutors, that is not a weakness, that is a strength. 
	
	Not cheerleaders? Hogwash!
	The "free and unbiased media" were cheerleaders for
	Clinton before he was nominated.
	
	They magnified all of Bush's warts, including imaginary
	ones such as the bogus "October Surprise"...and now
	they are trying mightily to shrink Clinton's problems
	out of sight.

<The only time the
<media really f***s up is when they DON'T cover something. 
	
	Not even close; the *way* things are covered counts.
	Factual errors, repeated over and over and over until
	they are believed, counts.

<Then they are  self-censoring. 

	The media is constantly self-censoring, almost always
	in one direction.

<You are supposed to decide where you stand *yourself*.
 
	That's rather my point, doncha see...glad we agree
	on that much.

<If you'll notice the examples I gave were issues that they
<under-reported. This is when the media isn't doing its job. This is when
<you should have a gripe. Not when they don't slant the coverage the way
<you want it.

	Piffle. My gripe is with the constant slant, the overt
	lies repeated as "fact" AND the 'spike'.

	All 3 will be used to whitewash the Clintoon administration...
	for quite some time.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70037 alt.politics.clinton:21335 misc.legal:23405 alt.politics.correct:6382
From: cass8806@elan.rowan.edu (Kyle Cassidy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: woman attorny general (was RE: something inanely long)
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:49:07 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey


In article <9038@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>Well, that Attorney General's spot is open... hmm...

how about hillary?
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Budget deficit and trade deficit 
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:15:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.210053.25356@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.183506.29341@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> Which link of that chain do you find implausible?
>
>  The leap between "Raising standards" and "Increased imports".
>This entire line of reasoning conveniently ignores the fact that
>people would be buying higher quality foreign goods irrespective
>of the national debt. 

I disagree with you that my analysis ignores this issue.  See below.

>Your reasoning does not show that there is
>any particular linkage between ballooning the national debt and
>an added propensity of buying foreign goods. (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc?)

Okay, here it goes again:

Trade deficit = Exports minus Imports.  Note that domestic consumption of
 domestic goods has nothing to do with the trade deficit.
Exports are exogenously determined -- the budget deficit has little to
 do with this.
Imports are in a direct relationship with national income -- the more income
 there is, the more imports people buy.  This should not be surprising --
 the more income people have the more they consume, both of domestic and
 foreign goods.
Income is increased by lower taxes and increased government spending, i.e.,
 deficit spending.

Hence, deficit --> income --> consumption --> imports --> trade deficit.

Okay, which part of that chain do you disagree with?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70256 alt.politics.usa.misc:987 alt.politics.reform:271
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:39:34 GMT
 <Jym.19Jan1993.1919@naughty-peahen> <C19vJ4.BD7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
  <C1J2J0.K8E@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <C1J2J0.K8E@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>
thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush) writes:

> I think not.  Have you noticed, in your loved big government, how
> beholden the big business watchers are to the watched?  I look at
> regulatory agencies and see small but powerful men handing out 
> favors and writing rules to keep those they watch comfortable.

OK. Fine. What is less government going to do? We tried laissez-faire
in the Gilded Age and we got ruthless monopolies like Standard Oil.
There was even more corruption and the working people got screwed over
even harder than they do now. 

It's easy to criticize Big Government. I never said it wasn't. I never
even said it was innately good. What's the alternative? Surely, you do
not expect me to believe that the problems of this country can be
solved private enterprise alone. What about the poor? They'd get
ignored, because there's no profit in them. That's the way the market
works. If profit is the motive, that's what happens! This is no way to
run a government, unless you plan on having an all the wealth in the
hands of a small minority. Such a society perpetually stands on the
brink of violent turmoil.  



-Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College, its students, or anyone else.
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..."- R.E.M.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes)
Subject: Re: DAY TWO: MORE LIES
Organization: AT&T Looney Bin
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:57:49 GMT

From article <8984@news.duke.edu>, by eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK):
> bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) writes:
> =ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac):
> => By the way, let's all cry BOO HOO HOO for poor Zoe.  Things aren't 
> => going well for her.  It seems strange that a President who claims that
> => 'friends are the most important thing you can have in life' doesn't
> => treat his very well.  He hid all day in the White House playing tour
> => guide instead of publically supporting her.  And a hint for George
> =
> =	And if he made any attempt to publically support her, you
> =can be damn sure that the Republinistas would have been all over
> =him for that.  Willie can't win on this one.
> 
> I don't remember, but wasn't Joe Biden more critically asking questions
> to Baird than ... was it Cohen? (It was some "Republinista.")

	As I responded to someone else who brought this up, my 
remarks were not directed towards the committee.  I was thinking of
all of the fine discourse on the net as of late.  If Clinton had
continued to publically back Baird, the Clinton bashers on the net
would be having a field day.  Since he's not going to back her (nor
should he, IMHO), he's being criticised for not standing by a friend.

terry
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69590 alt.activism:21296 alt.conspiracy:14584 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13736
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 25 Jan 1993 00:42:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) says:

>It is somewhat oligarchical, and a power elite is firmly in control,
>but the majority of Americans, unlike in those Latin American
>countries, are not suffering from gripping poverty. Mexico City makes
>Detroit look like Utopia. 


    Yes, yes, of course.  I was wrong.

    GET ON THE PIECE TRAIN!

>
>> 
>The LA riots? They were small scale and were mostly limited to South
>Central. They never got to Simi Valley...


     I used to live in Simi.  They scared the shit out of an
     ex-coworker.  Simi Valley is geographically sheltered.  They
     haven't even seen the illegal problem there yet.

     But it's okay.  You're right.  PIECE TRAINNNNN!

>
>
>Political looting? You can't be that scared of Clinton, can you?  Now
>if I were president, there might be cause for a scare, but Clinton?
>Calm down, I think you'll find he's a conservative good ole boy at
>heart.


     No, no, I'm not!  I'm just reacting in my old programming.
     Clinton can't hardly touch *me* with taxes at all.  This 
     year, I'm getting a whopper refund!  :)

     Oh, free health care is coming, everyone should get a piece!
     Get on the Piece Train!

>
>Taxes are a fact of life ; Limbots don't seem to realize that.


     "Limbot" ?  hahaha.  Another PCer, eh?  
     But it's okay.  I'm writing a letter to Clinton, at this
     very moment.  I support him wholeheartedly.  

     MY parachute is already packed.  heheheheh.

     I truly do thank you and several others.  I had been toying 
     with taking a refresher course for my spanish.  I didn't want
     to slow down my graduation date, but suddenly, it's just not
     that important.  It's weird how you get trapped into value
     systems that no longer have any relevance on your present
     conditions.


     I just need that gravy train to last another 3 to 4 years.

>
>
>
>Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
>"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." -R.E.M.
>The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
>College or any of its students...
>
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 14:54:09 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <93025.201523DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> In article <93023.181826DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
|> 
|> >Depends upon what you mean by "run the program".  Medicare contracts
|> >out the insurance administration to private companies (they were into
|> >privatization long before Jack Kemp).  Other elements of Medicare are
|> >run out of HCFA, a branch of DHHS.  HCFA also works with the Medicaid
|> >program and several other programs.  The tables which show administrative
|> >costs of Medicare are unclear as to how they handle general fund payments,
|> >which is why I am always careful to state that "95% of Medicare taxes" are
|> >paid out as benefits.  I also have documents from several charities that show
|> 
|> Found it.  According to an article by Ken Thorpe, the HCFA budget
|> associated with Medicare is approx. 250 million, making Medicare's
|> total admin costs far below the United Way.

How much of the United Way's administration costs involve raising
money?  Medicare doesn't have this expense because it is done by
some other government department.  I think this is an apples and
oranges comparison.  Are there any studies which attempt to correct
for such things?


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69551 alt.activism:21284 alt.conspiracy:14573 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13718
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:33:55 GMT
 <1993Jan17.215123.22321@oracle.us.oracle.com> 
 <1jmen8INNr4r@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1jnh0mINNls0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>  
 <1jovm3INN1ip@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1jovm3INN1ip@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

> 
>      NOTE THAT YOUR POSTING DOESN'T REFUTE WHAT I'VE SAID.  THAT, GIVEN
>      CURRNET TRENDS, EMMIGRATING OUT OF THE U.S. IS A viable option.
> 
>      
> 

>      My best pal announced to me he's visiting Brazil in June.
>      HE'S seen his future.  Anyone industrious by nature will continue
>      getting dicked here.
> 
>      He's 25.  He KNOWS what's coming for HIM.  Higher taxes, to 
>      support more social security, high land and home prices which 
>      preclude being able to buy his own home, and continous job exodus.
> 
>      Besides, Frank, as been oft mentioned here, America doesn't need 
>      " people like me ".  hehehheh.  An interesting decade ahead.
> 
>  
> >ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
> >standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
> >the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
> >
    There's only one problem with that reasoning ; eventually the U.S.
will no longer be able to afford to support the oligarchical countries
to which you seem to be referring to anymore. You are risking having a
Socialist popular revolt (do you REALLY think Socialism is dead?) in
your country and losing everything. The oppressed people of the third
world are tired of economic subjugation perpetuated by international
capitalism. You may go there, but you do so at your own peril. If I
were you, I'd stay put, pay my taxes (keep my right to complain about
them, too), and realize this is the greatest country in the world, the
one that got you where you are today!

-No, I'm not a socialist. (Just in case you were wondering...)

Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." -R.E.M.
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College or any of its students...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70480 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14137
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:48:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <nate.1106@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    That's not what he was saying last week to that conservative lady 
>caller who was complaining about his near-total focus on Clinton. In his 
>belated pseudo-response to her criticisms he said that he had to focus on 
>Clinton in the interests of "good reporting". Why is Rush concerned about 
>engaging in "good reporting" if he's not a reporter?

"Good reporting." Good catch, Nathan!

Dan
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69948 ca.politics:10680 misc.legal:23368