HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:02:38 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <92322.195839DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
...
> In addition to the selection bias I mentioned, I also would like to
> know how you identified the major changes in policy made by Reagan,
> in particular, the supply-side tax cuts, as the major source of any changes
> in macro-economic performance (income growth, mobility, or whatever).  Why
> don't you credit Volcker's Fed policies? Or the fiscal stimulus applied by
> increasing entitlements and the military build-up?  What techniques did you
> use to isolate the effect of supply-side policies versus the effects of
> monetary policy versus the effects of fiscal policy?

	In a previous series, _Derailing the Reagan Revolution_, such things
were discussed in greater detail.  And, in future series, each item will be
discussed more thoroughly.  It is necessary to start at the beginning, so to
say, by doing general overviews.

> In truth, Brett, do you think any macro-economic theory explains reality       w
> well enough to draw the kinds of conclusions you are drawing?

	Sure.

> I think we both know that the changes in the 1980s were generated by a complex
> set of forces, including all those mentioned above.  I don't think any of
> us here on the net (nor any trained macroeconomists) can really identify
> the independent effects of each.

	It's the combined effect.  Don't operate under the (false) conclusion
that this is about Reagan.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:47:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BxMu3n.2Kr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> In article <13154@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# [responding to Greg Hennessy, referring to Kristalnacht:]
# #Who was responsible for all that broken glass
# #and burned buildings?  Individuals?  No, the government of Germany,
# #intent on imposing its will on non-aggressive individuals.  Not
# #surprisingly, you support the enlargement of state power against
# #non-aggressive individuals, just like Nazi Germany did.
# 
# Who broke the windows and who set the fires?
# 
# What you are saying is that the government's responsibility somehow
# cancels the responsibility of the individuals who actually carried out
# the violence.  This is the kind of thinking that enables one to excuse
# one's actions afterwards by saying, "I was following orders."

I'm saying that if the government sends out thugs to enforce its
will, and says, "Go ahead -- burn down buildings, it's governmental
policy," it makes it much easier for people to do those things.

# There is no "Law of Conservation of Responsibility."  There is not some
# fixed amount of responsibility for an event to be divided among all the
# people who had some influence over what happened.  If you hire a hit
# man, your responsibility for the hit does not diminish the hit man's
# responsibility, and vice versa.  If the government encourages violence,
# both the government and the people who do the violence are responsible
# for it.
# -- 
# David Canzi

Yup.  That's one of the reasons that I oppose the efforts of the
homosexual fascist lobby to enforce their morals on non-aggressive
people.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Clinton an Alien-Lover! (Was Dumb Kid Accessed Unattended Terminal)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Summary: MUFON Alert.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:05:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.013019.1682@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, 
>kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes...

>In article <20NOV199213081339@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
> 
>>2. Both Presidente Clinto'n and President Bush are basically wimps, and
>>   as such are a pushover for congressional/bureaucratic spending. The
>>   inevitable result of party politics.
> 
>Clinton _can't_ be a wimp - hell, I read today's headline at the supermarket
>lineup and noted he's flown in a UFO - and I know it's true, because there
>was a photograph Right There On Page One of the President-Elect and an alien
>(or Perot supporter - it wasn't real clear), presumably the pilot.

Besides wimps don't play sax and impersonate Elvis right?
Only druggies and comedians play sax and/or/are impersonate 
Elvis, and you cain't be a wimp if yousa a mind-bender.

<hmmm... flip, flip, flip>

Yeah, that's it, Bush was Right. Mr. Bill *is* a Bozo.

Bill-oz-o

Bill-ozone

Mr. Bill-Ozone

 Mr. *  Ozone

Ah HAH!! -- And it's really GORE of BORG 
who's pulling the strings.

And-and... Mr. Bill is really model B(ORG)-OZ-0  s/n 666

It's right there in your UFO newsletter.

El Presidente is a BOZ0 

(imported by Sharp, Nippon).


-= Getcher self some cheap sunglasses =-

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60382 alt.politics.clinton:17258 alt.president.clinton:468
From: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:06:37 GMT
Reply-To: dwl@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Nov16.081331.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> 
|>      I heard Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole reiterate his support
|> for granting President-Elect Clinton the power of line-item veto.
|> However, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and Speaker
|> Thomas Foley do not want to grant Clinton -- their own man! -- this 
|> power in full (although they have considered a watered-down version).
|>      In an earlier post, I posed the rhetorical question, "What is 
|> the difference between 'investment in infrastructure' and 'pork barrel' 
|> spending?"  In answering to a reply, I stated that even the most sensible
|> and targeted investment-in-infrastructure plan (proposed by Clinton) will 
|> be transformed into pork-barrel spending by the Congress -- because
|> each congressperson will want a piece of the pie for his/her district
|> (e.g. Sen. Byrd will want even *more* money for paving West Virginia).
|> The line-item veto would be the last line of defense for both the
|> President and the best interests of the country. 
|>      In my opinion, this country will remain being "on the wrong track"
|> until "we have the courage to change" the Democratic leadership in 
|> Congress.
|> 
|>      C. Perttunen   

From what I can tell, there is interest in some sort of line item veto,
the current question is what form it will take. A simple line item
excision that requires a majority vote to override has been bandied
about as a compromise. This strikes me as reasonable enough. It lets
the president (And since this is a precedent setting thing, one may as
well assume either of the same or a different party than controls congress)
to point at individual items and ask "Do we need this" and force a majority
of congress to agree it's needed, on the record, on that specific item.

One thing I would like to see is that excision require a role call vote,
on a per item basis to override. I could easily imagine the logrolling that
an "omnibuss measure to override the excision of various items" would generate.

The current process does tend towards obfuscating responsibility for porkbarrel
legislation. Making it clear that a specific item was "owned" by a specific
collection of represenatives and senators would help clear this up.


David W. Levine --  dwl@watson.ibm.com  -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
                   -- My Opinions, IBM's hardware. -- 
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your
aim" - George Santayana
From: elwin@victoria.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Secret Service visits (was bleep Clinton, bleep Clinton...)
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:58:47 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1992Nov23.135704.27057@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> [Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to talk.politics.misc.]
|> 
[  stuff deleted]
|> 
|> I can't say that I really have a problem with the Secret Service
|> visiting people, any more than I have a problem with anyone else
|> visiting people.  If the nature of the "visits" become threatening --
|> that is, if the visitors don't accept "I don't want to talk to you,
|> please go away" as a final answer -- _then_ I have a serious problem.
|> 
|> I'd like to know more about these hours of "intense, grilling
|> interviews."
|> 
|> -- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

I don't have a problem with secret service visits either, unless *my*
tax dollars have to pay for them! And the problem is, our tax dollars
*do*. What this guy did is like pulling the fire alarm at school. It
seems like harmless fun and stirs up alot of fuss, but the taxpayers
have to pay for the visit even if the firemen weren't doing anything
else.

   My advice: write the guy a note. Tell him what you think. Forward
his note if you want. Also, write to his system managers. I wrote to
both of them. Their addresses:

	mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu		(he admitted writing it)
	eco@eos.ncsu.edu		the system managers

   I wrote a polite note to eco. They responded politely and mentioned
they had receive many other notes. I wrote a polite note to Mark Hunt
titled "unacceptable behavior," and he wrote back telling me I had no
right to tell him what was acceptable. The poor fool seems to believe
in his own unlimited freedom of speech, but he won't grant me freedom
of speech! What a douche-bag! Anyway, he is the real guy, so feel free
to write him and tell him what you think.
					  - Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61403 alt.usage.english:8786 soc.culture.usa:8648 soc.culture.african.american:11464
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Doublespeak Awards
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:57:26 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>*** Removing books from the library isn't censorship, just a case
>of "weeding" books.

I object! Either the creators of this "euphemism list" didn't do their
homework, or they are being deliberately provocative. This is applying a
different meaning to the technical term "weeding" as used by librarians.

Librarians weed collections all the time. It's a normal process of keeping a
collection up to date and useful. Books age; a 1940s primer on, say, stamp
collecting has little use today when it has been replaced by newer reference
works. This is weeding.

Pulling an item for censorship reasons is in a librarian's mind something
entirely different. And unspeakable. Most librarians consider this a repre-
hensible act, morally equivalent of brainwashing. This is a baseline of
professional conduct to librarians; censorship is to be resisted at all levels,
at all times, and at every attempted incident.

Believe me, librarians know about this stuff; they get it all the time. *EVERY*
thing in libraries has been the target of censorship attempts at one time or
another. Alice in Wonderland, for God's sake!

About eight years ago, the FBI tried to formally establish a "cooperative"
program with libraries, where the libraries would automatically report to the
FBI (privately, of course) anyone who checked out "sensitive" items. The list
of "sensitive" items to be supplied by the FBI, of course. Librarians across
the country told the FBI to take a long hike off a short pier - the general
response being "you don't see our circulation records without a court-ordered
search warrant."

I remember an incident told to me by Len Freiser, who was director of the
Chicago Public Library in (I believe) the '50s. At one point a phone conver-
sation went like this:

FBI: "You don't understand. We're the FBI."

Len: "No, YOU don't understand. We're the Chicago Public Library!"

In the long run, Len won by standing steadfast.

So, the folks who created this "euphemism list" were certainly doing librarians
a gross injustice.

-Brian
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.063404.27260@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In <1992Nov15.005043.17348@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In <1992Nov14.235032.16739@oracle.us.oracle.com> (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov13.153555.20038@osf.org> buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:
>>>>In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith writes:

>>>>>Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those whose
>>>>>children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make alumni
>>>>>donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>>>>>discrimination.

>>>>So you're in favor of quotas for rich white people.  

>>>Nope.  These days, legacies are sometimes black.

>>Yeah, and Dan Quayle can sometimes spell.

>Is this supposed to add something to the discussion?

It had about as much factual comment as your quote did.  Do you have any
idea how few legacies are black "these days?"

>>>>Quotas are okay if the recipients give a kick back to the organization?

>>>If the recipients are giving a kick back then it isn't a quota.  It's
>>>payment for services rendered.

>>That's true.  But the point is, everyone gets so worked up about AA, because
>>it violates the great merit principle, while they *don't* get worked up
>>about all these other violations of that principle, from geographic AA
>>to sports AA to musical talent AA.

>Well, you see, I am quite happy to accept the idea that racial
>discrimmination is wrong.  I am totally unwilling to accept the idea
>that racial discrimmination that benefits me is wrong but racial
>discrimmination that hurts me is OK.  I don't think that is unreasonable.

>>>>I don't know, sounds like a case were the RICCO laws should be invoked.

>>>Fair enough.  Mind explaining how legacies violate RICO?  Personally,
>>>I don't think they do and I think the sum total of your knowlege about
>>>RICO is that it is sometimes used against allegedly corrupt
>>>organizations.

>>Personally, I think someone ought to file RICO charges against the DEA,
>>since it is engaged in a pattern of crime.  Civil forfeiture = theft.

>Cute, but this also indicates that you have minimal understanding of
>US law.  Civil forfeiture may be wrong, but it is legal.  RICO
>therefore does not apply.

I fail to see how something that violates the 5th and 14th amendments
to the Constitution could possibly be called "legal."  But maybe that's
just me.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: americans dont really believe in term limits
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 09:57:07 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <farenebt.722007801@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
|> 
|> I found the stat i was looking for:
|> 
|> 14 states passed term limit initiatives.
|> In those 14 states, the re-elected 71 (seventy one) members of Congress
|> 	who exceeded their limit just passed.
|> 
|> 
|> But, after all, it was a resounding statement against the status-quo.
|> 

Perhaps people voted for term-limits because they felt it would give
them better choices in the future.  Given a choice between a known
incumbent and most likely an unknown weak opponent, it's not
surprising that the incumbent would win.  Perhaps the people who
voted for term limits are sick of a system which gives them no
real choice because nobody wants to waste time and resources running
against a candidate with a big war chest and the support of his
local and national party behind him (or her).  Given limited resources,
parties will concentrate resources on races that are considered
winnable.  This results in fewer real choices for voters in
other districts.  Term limits is a crude way to create more
competitive races and hopefully draw more candidates from which
to choose.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:55:15 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 1113@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <87312@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>In article 18392@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov13.080701.15087@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>>Uh, excuse me, but isn't Anita Hill a right-wing Republican?  Why on
>>>>earth would Bill Clinton appoint her to anything?
>
>>>Because, of course, she isn't.
>
>>>Hill's conservativism was a convenient lie at the time of the Thomas
>>>hearings.  Now that it is no longer necessary it is being dropped.
>
>>What evidence do you have that this was a lie?  
>
>Her own statements.  The people who are pushing her for head of EEOC
>are also aware that this is a lie.  Why don't you ask them?  Do you
>really think that they would be pushing her if she was a conservative
>Republican?  (Of course you may just think that they are ignorant
>idiots, but if so why don't you come out and say so?)

First of all, I don't believe that conservative Republicans are ignorant
idiots.  I prefer to make that judgment on an individual basis.  Secondly,
you seem to have evaded the question.  I don't know of any people who are
pushing her for a position at EEOC, and you haven't named any.  It looks
to me like you have no objective reason to believe that any lie has been
told.  As far as I know, Anita Hill still claims to hold conservative views,
and she still claims to be a Republican.  I am not aware that she has switched
party affiliation.  That might not qualify her to be a *conservative Republican*
in the sense that she is to the right of most other Republicans, but she never
claimed that in the first place. 

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61184 alt.sex:37026 ca.politics:9772
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
Subject: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:23:38 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov19.163642.17801@cs.ucla.edu>, bigoldberg@igc.apc.org (Billi Goldberg) writes:
#                        AIDS Daily Summary
#                        November 19, 1992 
# ************************************************************************
#  "Almost One-Third of Gay Men in Study Admit to Unprotected Anal 
# Intercourse" Washington Post (11/19/92), P. A2 
# A nationwide study of homosexual men in smaller cities found that 
# approximately a third of them engage in unprotected anal intercourse, 
# researchers announced yesterday.  Several of the men who admitted to the 
# practice believed their risk of contracting HIV was none or slight--
# representing a high level of ignorance, the study said.  The study was 
# conducted by the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and will be 
# featured in the Archives of Internal Medicine.  The researchers said in 
# the report, "Our findings show clearly that enhanced community-based 
# resources and prevention efforts are now urgently needed for reaching 
# gay men in smaller cities who have been neglected in AIDS prevention 
# relative to their urban counterparts."  The researchers surveyed 1,858 
# men entering gay clubs in 16 communities early last year. About one-
# third of the men said they had practiced unsafe anal sex an average of 
# eight times in the preceding two months, usually with someone other than 
# their regular partner.  A total of nine percent said they had tested 
# HIV-positive.  The 16 smaller cities used in the study were located in 
# upstate New York, North Carolina, West Virginia, Minnesota, Washington 
# state, and Montana. Related Story: Baltimore Sun (11/19) P. 8A 
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60681 ca.politics:9640 misc.legal:20109
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 18 Nov 92 10:32:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov18.103208.6195
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

In article <13186@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Go read the laws about child molestation in California.  It is
>illegal to have intercourse with a female under 18.  It is illegal
>to have sex with a boy under 14, but legal if he is 16-18, and the
>adult is within 10 years of the boy's age.  It is a misdemeanor
>if he is 14-16, and the adult is more than 10 years older than the
>boy.  Now, the same law applies if the victim is a female (and
>ONLY a female), but if intercourse happens, it is "unlawful sexual 
>intercourse" as well.  So we have this weird situation where:

Could you post where in the California laws these are found?  I just spent
an hour searching on Westlaw, and couldn't find them.  If I used general
keywords, I found too many matches to look at, and if I tried to narrow
the search, I found useless things only.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61232 alt.censorship:8975 alt.society.civil-liberty:6664