HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Selling  of tv rights
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:31:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.172515.28092@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
}In article <1993Jan21.153839.20614@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>
}>How did the Clinton Campaign manage to sell exclusive rights to something happening
}>at a national monument on public land to a private business (HBO, for example)?
}
}Perhaps it is the same way that the Rose Parade can sell its T.V. privlages
}to NBC?
}
}Or that Bob Hope can televise his show from Lackland A.F.B. and sell it
}to N.B.C. 
}
}Or Perhaps why the Trail Blazers can televise and charge t.v. stations money
}for broadcasting the games from Memorial Stadium, clearly the stadium is
}owned by the Citizens of Portland.....

That's nice.  And the question was "how did...?"
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:31:51 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <C17vyu.B9n@dscomsa.desy.de>,
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>O.K. then since the "Libertarians" have asked for a quiz perhaps they could
>defend US involvement in third world regimes which oppress human rights. What is
>the "Libertarian" position on the air strikes in Iraq? Specificaly is the UN
>entitled to determine the borders of countries and is the movement of the
>Kewaiti border 1/2 Km into former Iraqui territory valid in terms of property
>rights? If the answer is yes is it nevertheless a good idea to do something
>which may be used as casum belli in the future?

The National Libertarian party is on record as having opposed
the Gulf war and our continued involvement in the internal affairs
of countries in the middle east.  Libertarians believe that if
foreigners are concerned about the threat possed to Kuwait by Iraq
they should send money to the Kuwaities a or personal volunteer to
serve in their defense forces.  The libertarian Cato Institute, a
DC think tank, is one of the few such organizations which continues
to be an outspoken opponent of our involvement with both Iraq and
Somolia.

>Easier topics, is the US govt entitled to tap the phones of its citizens within
>its borders? Is it entitled to tap the phones of it's citizens in other
>countries? If not is there any circumstance in which it is permissible for the
>government to tap a phone?

Easy answer, only if they can get a warrent showing criminal use of
the phone system.  We also oppose the currenly proposed U.S.
federal legislation which would require all telecommunications
carriers to provide the ability to tap encrypted messages, in other
words, restricting encryption to codes the NSA can already crack.

>Phill Hallam-Baker

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: REQUEST: Contact Info for 103rd Congress
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:57:56 GMT

buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:




>I noticed that in the action on Zoe Baird sent out last weekend individual
>phone numbers for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were posted.

>Does anyone out there have a directory for all 535 members of the 103rd
>congress? I know such a file existed for the 102nd congress. I have it, and
>have made it publically available in /pub/QRD/qrd/info/GOVT/congress on
>128.2.35.7.

>If you have phone/fax/postal info for Members of Congress, please send it to
>me.

>Thanks!

I'd like a copy of this, too, if at all possible.

peace,

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
NextMail to: 				mci41087@sumter
Bitnet mail to:				IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69624 alt.atheism:26954 talk.religion.misc:27473
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 25 Jan 93 07:21:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <Jan.22.07.10.37.1993.754@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.162625.17617@aber.ac.uk> jma@aber.ac.uk (Jonathan Michael Ashley) writes:
>
>> Is this the same Ted "Tyre-Iron" Kaldis
>
>This is America here.  In this country, the word is spelled "tire".
>You Brits do as you like, but if you are going to address us Yanks,
>please do us the courtesy of spelling the words as we would perceive
>them to be spelled correctly.

I just knew there had to be a reason that so many people thought
Ted Kaldis was a crank.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:24:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.224811.26050@mcc.com> amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>>These things are, in a sense, natural monopolies, because they have
>>decreasing returns to scale: it's cheaper for one provider to supply
>>everyone than for many smaller companies to compete with each other.
>>However, you'll have a monopoly situation, with all the potential
>>abuse that it entails.  That's why there's regulation in these cases.
>
>Actually, strictly speaking, there's regulation because the industry
>and the bureaucrats like it that way.  

I worked in the rate department of a Major Electric Utility.  Maybe
we were iconoclasts, but, boy, did we not like regulation or regulators.

>Addressing the issue, however,
>note that *there has never been a monopoly arise in practice except
>where the business is protected by the government*.

The National Football League?  US Steel at the turn of the century?

Of course some monopolies we *want*, such as that in intellectual
property rights, otherwise there would be no incentive to invent.

>This is a classic case of the government selling the citizens the idea
>that without government protection, their lives will be worse.  So
>government controls over key industries are instituted which pleases
>the bureaucrats, and they repeat the falsehoods about impending
>monopolistic doom if the controls were to be lifted.
>
>In real life no company can ever fend off competition in the
>relatively short term and long term if it sells at above-market prices
>(keeping in mind that that price is always changing, sometime
>day-to-day).  OPEC tried in the early 70s and failed miserably.

Did they?  OPEC obtained monopoly rents for well over a decade,
before the market rebalanced itself.  I'd love to have a "failure"
that successful.   

>Government is the only source of coercive monopoly, which it claims to
>protect us against.  All in all, a masterful job of propaganda on its
>part.
>
>More info in D. T. Armentano's _Antitrust:  The Case for Repeal_,
>which I strongly recommend to your attention.  I trust the readers of
>this newsgroup will not be unduly skeptical of the concept of reduced
>government interference in the economy; this book will give you
>valuable ammunition against the opposite position.

I think a better book is Richard Posner's _Antitrust Law: An Economic
Perspective_, which is critical of much of antitrust law, but recognizes
the harms created by monopoly.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
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: 28 Jan 93 16:54:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <2B67258E.13008@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

|In article <90712@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>In article <2B6617C2.153@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
|>|In article <1993Jan27.044626.19510@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|>|>In article <1993Jan26.201607.4782@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
|>
|>|>>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
|>|>>despite having worked since age 13.
|>
|>|>A theft is still a theft, no matter what the purpose is.
|>
|>|>Dov
|>
|>
|>|Are you so frigging bitbrained that you are incapable of distinguishing
|>|things on the basis of motive?  The legal system in this country does it
|>|all the time.
|>
|>So you believe that the end justifies the means?

|Another dualist who can't think of things in more than two terms. 

|I never said that.  I said that motivations should be introduced when
|making any judgement calls like this.  Certainly, someone who stole
|soemthing to buy penicillin would get a lesser punishement than someone
|who stole things for heroin.  If the judicial system in this country is
|capable of seeing shades of grey, what's everyone else's problem?

There are shades of grey, and then there is the truth.

In your first post you implied that theft was all right if it was done
in order to satisfy a need.

Now you have backed down to say that such a theft is merely less wrong
than other thefts.

Thank you for agreeing that theft is wrong.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: CLINTON/GORE ON IMMIGRATION
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:42:01 GMT


 IMMIGRATION: Position Paper

 A Clinton/Gore Administration will support policies
 that promote fairness, non-discrimination and
 family reunification, and reflect our
 constitutional freedoms of speech, association and
 travel.  While we must be generous, we cannot admit
 all who want to come.  Priority should be given to
 reunifying families and attracting refugees and
 workers whose skills are needed.

 ...


 Stop the forced repatriation of Haitian refugees

 *    Reverse Bush Administration policy and stop
      repatriation.

 *    Give fleeing Haitian refugees consideration
      for political asylum until democracy is
      restored to Haiti.  Provide them safe haven,
      and encourage other nations to do the same.


================================================================

yup...


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:36:54 GMT

In article <2689@blue.cis.pitt.edu> pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Makala P Mweene) writes:
>>In article <C1H6AK.2In@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>>Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
>>>have it and give it to those who don't...
>>
>
>Is it not the case that the rich got so by taking money from those who 
>are now poor and giving it to themseleves...

And why, in your opinion, the poor gave the money to the rich ?

Dov


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69510 alt.activism:21267 alt.conspiracy:14551 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13681
From: gws@gwssun.att.com (Gary Sanders)
Subject: Marriage in other countrys
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:36:24 GMT

	What are the legal (if any -:)) issue of two US citizen gettin
married in another country. My wife to be has been ready about how
nice it is to be married at some resort in Jamaica or some Caribbean
island. From the reviews it sound nice but what leagal issue are there
to look at? Being married in jamaica does that make me married in the
US? Heaven forbid but what complications in the event of a divorse 
would I be faced with.



-- 
Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)
gary.w.sanders@att.com		
AT&T Bell Labs 
614-860-5965 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:14:36 GMT

In <1993Jan27.220454.3621@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> dev@barley.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:

>The U.S. Constitution means what the words say. Nothing more, nothing
>less. As principal author of the document, I consider Madison a very
>reputable authority on that meaning. I do not consider subsequent
>"interpretations" which go against Madison's explanations to be
>valid. I know you disagree with me, and in fact, most modern legal
>"experts" do as well. So be it.

Madison is obviously an authority on what *he* meant by the various clauses
contained in the Constitution.  He may even represent the majority
view of what the delegates at the constitutional convention believed
the words meant.

The question remains: So what?  Why should we, as late 20th century
Americans, give the slightest weight to the interpretations of the
constitution by a group of aristocratic men who lived 200 years ago?

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were not gods.  Neither did they
go up to Mount Sinai to have the gospel truth about "true" meanings
revealed to them.  We are all adults here now, and we don't need
Madison and Hamilton to tell us how to interpret *OUR* constitution.
The fact that we still debate constitutional meanings surely
demonstrates that those meanings are *not* self-evident.

We have plenty of smart, very thoughtful, learned jurists who are
alive and breathing and (most importantly) live in late 20th century
America, a country about which the founding fathers could scarcely
fathom, let alone have very much insight.  So why the appeal of
original intent jurisprudence?

IMHO, appeals to purported original intent in constitutional
interpretation reflect in their authors a deep discomfort with the
existential choices of modern life.  Such people are unwilling or
unable to take responsibility for their own political preferences and
instead have a deep seated psychological need to attribute them to
mythical all-knowing infallible father-figures.  Kind of like those
Russians who cried at the news of Stalin's death.
-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Baird Bounced!
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:00:42 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA01882; Fri, 22 Jan 93 11:00:56 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA01731; Fri, 22 Jan 93 11:00:48 -0800
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (vccnw03.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA12753; Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:00:47 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB16);
	id AA02395; Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:00:46 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: drum@concert.net
X-Cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet


Zoe Baird, Clinton's designee for Attorney General withdrew her nomination late
last night in a letter faxed to the White House.

I am *glad*. The hiring illegal immigrants as domestic workers was silly, but
my real problem with her was that she agreed with Quayle on his legal reforms,
in fact she participated in a working group exercise for the now-defunct 
Council on Competitiveness.

Let's hope the new Attorny General nominee has better ties to ``traditional
Democratic interests'' than the pseudo-Republican Baird. How about someone
with civil rigts experience! [Marian Wright Edelman comes to mind...] 

[BTW, she has been offered her old job back as Vice-President and Head Counsel
for Aetna, with a salary of $500K per annum, so don't weep.]


   
---
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"In 1988 1800 homosexuals were dischaged from the military. The cost to train
them was $23 000 000. 35% of those discharged were women. Women make up only 
5% of the military. " -- MTV's _Buzz_.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:40:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.014354.10402@syacus.acus.oz.au>
brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies) writes:

>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
[Fairly irrelevent pre-"translastion" statements deleted.]

>TRANSLATION:
>
>(Grr! I HATE the fact that Clinton's already more popular than Bush ever
>was,

       Disturbingly enough, Clinton is no where near as popular today
as Bush "ever was," though he is "popularity" rating is significantly
higher than the margin by which he was elected.

>that the Inauguration had a magic Bush's never did,

       To the tune of thirty million bucks, about five million more than
Bush managed.  And while the peaceful transition of power is something
to throw a party about, we overdid it like we usually do.

>GRR!! I just HATE that!! And besides, I can just *tell*--well,
>because I'm *clairvoyant*, that's why, and you can call me Claire--I can just
>*tell* that all that popularity and good feeling and love is fake, *fake*,
>FAKE!! *grumble* *grumble* *grumble*)

        Putting words in other people's mouths is a filthy habit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VEAL@utkmv1 will bounce)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Division of Constinuing Education
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program."
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:40:44 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <MATT.93Jan27115116@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>In article <PA146008.659.728160112@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>>        If Clinton orders the military to drop the administratic ban on
>> gays, then I have absolutely no doubt that Colin Powell and the others will
>> grit their teeth, say "Yes, sir, Mr. President," and do it.
>>        They would, however, be derelict in their duty if they failed to 
>> advise him based on their own judgement.
>
>Advising President Clinton is one thing; undermining his policies by
>stirring up public opposition to them is quite another.  (Hint: one of
>these activities can be done without press conferences and leaks.)

       I'm not sure I like the idea of a tight-lipped military, either.
A military organization which clears everything it says and every position
it holds through the White House doesn't seem to me like a good idea.
If there's opposition in the military shouldn't the voters be aware of it?
And such differences on policy can make powerful enemies, thus "leaks."
       Basically, I guess, the question is should the military leaders
parrot what the White House says regardless of what it is?  (And anyway,
while leaks are one thing, Clinton could stop press conferences any time
he wants.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"For every action there is an equal, and opposite, government program"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:32:51 GMT

In article <ARCHER.843.727640423@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.170536.17243@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>[snip]
>
: Well, lets see.  There was the plant in South? Carolina where all those
: workers died in a fire because the owners locked the doors.  You know
: why those people worked there, despite the reportedly *horrible*
: conditions AND low pay?  Because it was the only job available.
>
>No.  They did have two other choices:  start their own business, or leave 
>the area and look for work elsewhere.

	Easier said than done. Why don't _you_ try it some time?
Especially if you are in those workers' situations, and not someone
who makes a whole lot of money and who can afford to be complacent.

	I may add that workers _have_ tried changing such
circumstances by forming labor unions, and I've yet to see
Libertarians take unions seriously.

	And if you don't like government regulation, then would you be
willing to endorse efforts to strengthen labor unions, so that workers
can push for good working conditions while bypassing government
regulation more easily?

: >Food, shelter, medicine, all the basic necessities of life are the
: >products of work.  There is no evidenc that private charities can't
: >take care of those unable to work--indeed there is ample evidence that
: >they do so much better than governments do.  If that's the case, then
: >why create an artificial social system that denies nature when the
: >natural exercise of man's abilities in a free society work better? 
: 
: Is there "ample evidence" for this?  Then why did these government
: systems spring up, if not to fill a void left by private charity?
>
>Because people who don't want to take care of themselves discovered that 
>they could use the power of the state to force others to take care of them.

	A rewrite of history. Private charity didn't work very well in
the Great Depression, and I'm sure if all the affluent people in the
country were willing to contribute 10% or so of their income to
private charity, just about every welfare office would be put out of
business. It certainly wouldn't crimp their standard of living too
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Summary: My $.02  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:44:27 GMT

In article <PA142548.856.727711475@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)                        writes...
>In article <1993Jan21.224033.14314@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>Libertarians
>>typically have never been really ill yet in their life. After an illness
>>like that, they are usually not Libertarians. 
> 
>I've been hospitalized twice and been in a motorcycle accident.  My private 
>medical insurance that I pay for managed to cover my expenses without the 
>help of the state.

Just adding some information. There is a huge problem in this country with
insurance companies cancelling policies of people who get serious illnesses
such as AIDS, cancer, ect. 

>E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70104 alt.activism:21460