HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organzation
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 07:33:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.140651.5141@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe) writes:
>
>	Non, la description est incomplete.  D'accord, une partie de l'argent
>verse au gouvernement revient directement a l'individu sous forme de 
>services.  Toutefois, une autre part sert a la communaute en general.  Par
>exemple, on paie des taxes scolaires meme si on n'a pas d'enfant a l'ecole. 
>De meme, le regime d'assurance-maladie est la mise en commun d'un certain 
>montant d'argent.  Personne ne peut redemander une partie des taxes parce
>qu'il n'en a pas recu pour son argent !
>
>	Un gouvernement n'est pas qu'une machine a services.  Meme Milton
>Friedman le reconnait, un gouvernement est la pour assurer la cohesion d'un 
>pays et remplir un role qui n'a rien a voir avec payer les policiers. (Protection de l'environnement, par exemple)
>
	Here Here...even though my written French is not as good
as my ability to read it (pardonne moi?), I do agree with what is said

Marc


-- 
Marc G. Fournier      | R-node Public Access Unix running UnixBBS 1.03
Etobicoke, Ontario    | 416-249-5366   24hrs 7 days/week   network email
voice: 249-4230       | shell accounts available  1900+ newsgroups  FREE
marc@r-node.pci.on.ca | Telebit WorldBlazer/SupraModem2400/Cardinal 2400 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6989 can.politics:7473
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:07:24 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Sep29.011430.1586@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <Bv9M75.K4v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> epritcha@s.psych.uiuc.edu (EVAN pritchard) writes:
>>From the looks of this, BC people are really against this the
>>referendum.  Moreover, more of them have made up their minds about it.
>>Why is this?  
>
>     Because the electorate in BC is BRAINLESS.

Well that's certainly a well-founded argument, isn't it.  Tell me, does
this work for all arguments you get into; anyone who disagrees with you
is brainless?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:55:35 GMT

In article <BvpM42.KKr.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.230324.272@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>   >4. The same is true of Quebec. When a Quebec judge retires, *every*
>   >   premier and territorial leader could submit a list of nominees
>   >   who are members of the Quebec bar. If the Quebec government submits
>   >   a list of names of people who are radical separatists, for example,
>   >   the prime minister could appoint a federalist Quebecker on some other
>   >   premier's list. This admittedly would have political consequences for
>   >   the prime minister, but the option exists.
>
>   The Meech Lake provisions (101C) specifically disallowed this...premiers
>   could only nominate candidates from their own provinces...if other
>   premier could nominate candidate's from Quebec's civil bar (and vice
>   versa), I would then have no problem, but I am fairly certain the Meech
>   Lake provisions will be identical in Charlottetown except for the
>   emergency appointment procedure.
>
>This is strange.  Not everyone who is a member of the Quebec bar
>lives/works in Quebec.  Being a member of the Quebec bar does not
>preclude being a member of any other bar association in the world.
>

When I said "from their own provinces"...technically, it means
from a "member of the bar of their own province".  And Meech Lake
restricted the choice for the "civil-law" justices to members of
the Quebec bar nominated by the Premier of Quebec.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada's country code?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:58:36 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Oct1.201726.21029@athena.mit.edu> drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker) writes:
> |>
> |> Sorry Laurence - the US has the unique distinction of being the only
> |> country which does NOT have its own code, and uses Canada's code instead.
> |> Only fair that Canada have the country code "1" since the vechicle for its
> |> use - the telephone - was invented there. :^)
> |> ---
> |> Michael Burke
> 
> You know what is says on that inventor's tombstone, don't you?
> 
> "DIED A CITIZEN OF THE U.S.A."
> 
> Seems those from his native land refused funding for his inventions.

Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland. He developed the telephone in
Ontario and demonstrated it in the US. 

AS for the country code, it is number 1. This is a fitting designation for two
of the world's best countries......:-)
 
NZ's country code is 64. This adds up to 10 - which is a perfect
score....right?
 
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep30.182608.11143@news.columbia.edu>
	<BvG1nD.u5@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> <1992Oct1.220213.19630@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:29:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.220213.19630@unixg.ubc.ca> frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank) writes:

   Out of curiosity, how do you know that the movement of the dollar
   has been due to foreign investors? 

Foreign currency transactions are not made anonymously, so it would be
a simple matter to find out who is selling and who is buying.
--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7242 can.politics:8087
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:04:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvpM42.KKr.1
	<1992Oct5.014038.3254@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Oct5.213845.23564@unixg.ubc.ca>
	<1992Oct5.230324.272@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Oct5.230324.272@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

   >4. The same is true of Quebec. When a Quebec judge retires, *every*
   >   premier and territorial leader could submit a list of nominees
   >   who are members of the Quebec bar. If the Quebec government submits
   >   a list of names of people who are radical separatists, for example,
   >   the prime minister could appoint a federalist Quebecker on some other
   >   premier's list. This admittedly would have political consequences for
   >   the prime minister, but the option exists.

   The Meech Lake provisions (101C) specifically disallowed this...premiers
   could only nominate candidates from their own provinces...if other
   premier could nominate candidate's from Quebec's civil bar (and vice
   versa), I would then have no problem, but I am fairly certain the Meech
   Lake provisions will be identical in Charlottetown except for the
   emergency appointment procedure.

This is strange.  Not everyone who is a member of the Quebec bar
lives/works in Quebec.  Being a member of the Quebec bar does not
preclude being a member of any other bar association in the world.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:18:49 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: >
: >	Who  decides how many vouchers get issued?
: >
: 
: Seems like an good business opportunity for our oversupply of
: Ph.D's, and expatriate Ph.D's, who might take the entrepreneurial
: jump and create new universities dedicated to quality teaching.

Yes, but who will fund them? If the government makes X dollars available, and
there are more students than can be handled, where will the money come from?
If the students end up paying the total to go to one of these "special"
schools, you'll end up with a hierarchical system of education in which the
rich get one education, and the poorer people get another. Speaking as one
who comes from a lower class family, I would be extremely annoyed if rich
people could simply exercise their family power to get a better education.

: 
: These small private universities would take the enrollment burden
: of the "big" schools and allow them to pursue their main interest
: which is research anyway.

These small private universities would take the RICH students away, and leave
us as second class citizens.

: 
: The Canadian system is missing quality teaching-oriented colleges
: which would be feeders to large research-oriented Ph.D granting
: institutions.

I don't think we're lacking quality. I think we're lacking money. I don't
feel that I'm missing out on a quality education, I just wish that the
university had more money.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6895 can.politics:7355
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:00:57 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep27.042735.6614@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>The NDP found enough money to raise the total Ontario government
>payroll 15% in their first 2 years, and they raised the traditional
>level of spending from around 15% of GDP which was fairly constant
>over 2 decades to 18 or 19% of GDP.  The union members in the
>civil service were obviously more important than students.

What salary ranges were raised, and which ones remained constant?
I believe the top echelons at Ontario Hydro had a salary decrease.
It's time to pay the working-poor civil service clerk and secretaries
a fair wage, I say.

>When the Toronto Sun is the only newspaper left in town because the
>Star is destroyed because it can't hire replacement workers in a
>strike you might think differently.

This is only your conjecture. Just as a businessman has the right to
suddenly close his business entirely and retire, after giving the
legally required advanced warning to his staff, workers should also
have the right to shut down a business that mistreats them. It goes
both ways, and up to now, it's been one way only; finally, what goes
around may now come around, to the detriment of the businessman.
Workers don't shut down businesses on a whim. Their own jobs and
families are at stake. Also, workers are workers because they take
pride in participating in production. Those who go to work every day
hating every single minute on the job is actually a small proportion of
the total work force. We do have free movement of people in Canada,
right? The state certainly does not dictate who should get what job.

>Quebec is a have not province, of whom around 10% of their provincial
>budget is equalization payments, (half of that 10% comes from
>taxpayers in BC, Alberta, and Ontario).  Luckily, Quebec has someone
>to receive equalization payments from...will Ontario be so lucky
>when it becomes a have not province under the NDP.

I read in the newspaper a day ago that labour-management relations have
improved in Quebec since the No Replacement Workers law has been in effect.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6970 can.politics:7443
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: destruction without construction
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:48:21 GMT

In <Bv44yx.1Lr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
remarks:

> The "NO" campaign has a major advantage over the "YES" -- they don't have to
> be in favour of anything. Somebody can say "I think the deal is bad
> because..." and not have to say what they'd do instead. It is much easier to
> tear down than to build up.

	Quite true, in general.

> I propose that it would be only fair for people to have to say what they
> would do differently. Perhaps then they would see how hard building a country
> really is.

	The situation here is slightly different in that we
	have people proposing an alternative, who were willing
	to run the risk to be on the YES side, given the proper
	choice of question.  Actually, we had a law that clearly
	stated that we were to have a referendum on sovereignty.

	Those who are today in the unenviable position of the
	YES defense, would have been in the NO seat then.  But
	they knew they would lose anyway, so they fudged the
	deck of cards...  let them live with their choice.

	The whole thing started with the apprehended Quebec 
	referendum (pun intended).  In order to spike the
	nationalist guns, the Feds and the other Provinces
	got into the act and forced a different referedum.
	They chose to be on the YES side.

> [ ... ]
> Don Bowman

--
 The Vacuum Cleaner Man (reality sucks)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:00:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.160351.43895@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>Chris Retterath writes:  "State centralized is a very good term for Ontario.
>I'm not the only one who refers to it as our own `People's Republic'."  And
>then goes on to list a whole range of "socialist" measures.
>Chris, Darling--
>
>Am I the only one who remembers that Ontario voted for a *change* from the
>Liberals?  And be honest-- isn't it refreshing to have a government that

Peter, Darling....

	You seem to have an alarming degree of faith in the political
awareness of the public.  Do you really believe that the people of Ontario
chose the NDP for their agenda?  These are the same people who chose 
the PC party for *their* agenda two years before.  Earlier this year, the
party popularity in Ontario (ranked from most to least popular) was
PC-Liberal-NDP, while at the federal level it was NDP-Liberal-PC.  This tells
us something, and that something has little to do with the heart-felt
political convictions of Joe and Jane Ontarian.

			....Kenneth




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
".sig quotes are silly"|Kenneth C. Moyle          kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca 
 - Kenneth C. Moyle    |Department of Biochemistry     MOYLEK@MCMASTER.BITNET 
                       |McMaster University       ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: dleblanc@kub.nl (David Leblanc)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 11:23:57 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

In article <BvIAuC.IC@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun15.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
#In article <1992Oct2.140651.5141@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe) writes:
#>
#>In article <BvGrur.4ww@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
#>
#
#You're environment example is very widely used, but false.  One only
#needs the individual right to life to protect the environment - someone
#should not pollute because it infringes on someone else's right to life.
#In fact, it is the collective demands that led to pollution in the first
#place.  In Britain in the 1800s when smokestacks were kicking out all kinds
#of gunk, the courts/gov't declared that it was OK, because it produced
#many goods/wealth.  Thus those people who owned property that was being 
#polluted just had to put up with it.  That's collective rights in action!

Ah, the classic libertarian argument - everybody has absolute
individual rights and people, being the reasonable beings that they
are, will always be able to work out mutually beneficial agreements.
There are a number problems with this line of reasoning, but the most
obvious one is that people aren't always reasonable. Take your
environnmental example. Let's say I'm Howard Hughs - I have all the
money in the world and am paranoid about my health. Now someone wants
to build a factory in town (on their own property). By libertarian
principles I can stop this construction because it may have some
effect (though small) on my health. Now the libertarian answer is for
the factory to negotiate with me, to basically buy me off. But I'm
Howard Hughes - I don't need any more anything, so no factory. Then of
course there's the case of my neighbours who want to drive a car - too
bad. I don't go out of my home (thus having no need of a car) and
their driving will pollute my environment. And so on an so on - almost
any action in the world can be said to effect me in some way.

Now the idea of government is to arbitrate between the rights of
people so that one person can't significantly affect the actions of
others when such actions have a trivial effect on that person. It
hasn't always worked out for the best, but is certainly better than
any other system that's come along.

David LeBlanc


-- 


Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7080 can.politics:7678
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Nothing is free ... (Was: Ontario "socialism")
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:51:05 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

>"4. Token user deductibles of $5-$20 as proposed by Quebec last spring
>so that folks would go to the pharmacy for a box of bandages (24 for
>$3.00) rather than go to the doctor.  These would double as a reminder
>to the patient that the doctor is a fee-paid professional and not some
>servant at their beck and call ... again, because too many people have
>been convinced that it's free due to Canadian left-populist ideology
>or just because they can't add.

I know it will come as a shock to some of the people on the line, but there
*are* people in Canada for whom $5-20 is not "token".  And I do *not* think
this is restricted to people on welfare.  To pretend that "token" fees like
these do not serve as a significant barrier to health care seems to me
simply wilful blindness.

peter.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: David Crane on the Accord
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:44:58 GMT

In article <BvAHox.Mq0@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: [He then goes on to suggest that fear will be the "Yes" side's
>: most effective weapon]
>: 
>
>And hatred and intolerance is the NO sides most effective and most used
>weapon.
>

Exactly which of the prominent NO forces are preaching hatred and
intolerance...the prominent NO voices are Deborah Coyne's group,
NAC, Preston Manning and the Reform Party, Gordon Wilson and the
BC Liberal Party, Sharon Carstairs, the BQ and the PQ and the
Equality Party, and probably Pierre Trudeau in a couple of days...

...exactly which of these voices are voices of hate and intolerance.

>It is far easier to tear down than build up. It is easier to ridicule than to
>praise. By preying on the base nature of humanity it is easy to build support
>for yourself. One only has to look at David Duke in Louisianna to see this.
>

The Charlottetown Accord is a perfect example of how it is far easier
to tear down than build up.  Joe Clark made the references to Lebanon
and Yugoslavia.  Brian Mulroney came up with the "enemies of Canada"
remark in August.  The major Banks are ratcheting up the economic
fears, diverting the issue from the question at hand which is 
Charlottetown, to the issue of sovereignty.  Who exactly is preying
on the baser instincts of our nature.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep28.194448.7323@dgbt.doc.ca> <BvBGDu.tH@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
	<1992Sep29.222204.11961@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
	<1992Oct1.170734.3547@pandora.matrox.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.170734.3547@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

				.
				.
				.

   The Charlottetown Accord would expand aboriginal rights, and create
   new rights for francophone and female Senators.  This is still far
   from being "apartheid".

New rights for Female senators?  I cannot find that in my copy of the
Accord?

And yes, Francophone Senators do have a special voice in the proposed
Senate.  I am not sure that is can really be termed a "right", though.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: David Crane on the Accord
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:00:02 GMT

David Crane is one of the main business columnist/reporters
for the Toronto Star: (whose editorial bent tends to centrist
economic thinking)

In the Sunday, Sept. 27, 1992 Star, page H1, he writes:
(posted without permission)

"The "Yes" campaign" cannot win by trying to sell the contents
of the proposed package itself.

It is not a visionary document that sets Canada on the road to
the 21st century.  Nor is it architecture designed to help Canada
respond to the immense challenges of the new globalism.  Rather,
it is a horse trade among petty politicians with small ideas.

Nor can the "Yes" side win by arguing, as former Alberta premier
Peter Lougheed has tried, that approval of the constitutional 
package will mean an end to constitutional wrangling until sometime
early in the next century.

The proposal contains more than 20 items, some of them highly
controversial, that have yet to be resolved.  It also provides
for future constitutional conferences.  So Canadians can't expect
a "Yes" vote will bring constitutional peace in our time."

[He then goes on to suggest that fear will be the "Yes" side's
most effective weapon]

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6877 can.politics:7334