HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:00:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.183506.29341@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.160142.19326@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
> >Fine so far... but then there's this wacky line:
> >
> >>[...] The budget deficit is financing our trade deficit [...]
> >
> >Say, WHAT?  You gotta stop smoking that stuff...
> 
> The budget deficit is financing an orgy of short-term consumption.  
> Very little of the debt is funding long-term growth, it's just about
> completely being used to raise today's standard of living at the
> cost of future generations. Increased consumption means increased 
> imports.  Increased imports means increased trade deficits.
> 
> 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. 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?)
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70190 alt.activism:21482
From: kafka@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Charles Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: What Did Karl Marx Propose? (was Re: Libertarianism...)
Date: 28 Jan 93 06:06:23 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:

> >>>>> In article <yiaNXB2w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, kafka@cybernet.cse.fau.
> 
> CS> The question is how to determine which sort of exercises of 
> CS> power are legitimate, and which are not.  Libertarians hold that
> CS> only the use of force and fraud are improper, while the use of
> CS> persuasion, attractiveness, and intelligence are not.  
> 
> CS> Where do *YOU* draw the line, and why?
> 
> Well, the first lines that come to mind might be something like
> coercion or domination, but coercion and domination, even with
> physical violence or fraud, happen all
> the time on a small scale (family relations, for example) or on
> an occasional basis, and will probably always be with us.
> 
> But in a market society dominated by large accumulations of capital,
> we find domineering institutions wherever we turn.  And they are
> driven by market mechanisms to enter into relations with us
> that maximize the advantage to them, and so reduce the advantage
> to a minimum limited only by the level of depravation that would
> prevent us from being of use to them (physical imparement for physical
> workers, intellectual deadening for intellectual workers).  That we
> do not in all cases sink to such levels is largely the result of
> legislations, trade unionism (supported by legislation) and what's
> left of humanitarian social norms.
> 
> So how about drawing the line at institutionalized coercion or domination?

I share your distaste for coercion and domination -- whether 
small- or large-scale, institutionalized or random.  Political
systems which are based on injustice and the use of force breed
intolerance and aggression.  A libertarian society, being organized
on a basis of justice and tolerance, would prevent coercion and
encourage responsible behavior and social harmony.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:19:58 GMT

harry@hershele.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz) writes:
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>       Here's the situation.  Rush is an ENTERTAINER first and
>       foremost.  He is not a journalist, reporter, or Geraldo Rivera.

>If Rush is not a journalist or a reporter then he must be a "Geraldo
>Rivera," that is, an entertainer posing as a reporter.

    That was certainly the impression I got last week one day when a lady 
caller took Rush to task for being so down on Clinton and Rush hurried to 
defend his recent almost single-minded focus on the antics of the new 
administration. When he posed himself the question about why it's important 
for him to concentrate on Clinton so much, his response (to himself) was 
that he was trying to be a "good reporter". I made a mental note of the 
phrase at the time because I so often hear the claim that Rush makes no 
pretense of being a reporter.

    I would say that Rush may not have started out thinking of himself as 
a reporter, but I think that the mail Rush has been getting from Ron Reagon 
and "Chuck" Heston may have gone to his head. I believe that the focus of 
Rush's show *is* changing and that Rush's goals have recently been shifted 
so that entertainment is now subservient to the primary goal which is to 
make Clinton look as foolish as possible. Perhaps he believes that those 
two goals are one in the same thing, but that's certainly not what his 
conservative lady caller thought.

>       He can do anything he wants to keep the show moving and
>       interesting.  He has no obligation to let anyone say anything!
>       He openly admits this, and callers therefore have no excuse
>       for not knowing this when they call.  

>Unfortunately, many of his supporters on this net do not know this fact
>and it colors their perception of the man and his ideas.

    Well, also unfortunately many of his observers on the net are 
handicapped by their near-futile attempts to take Rush at his word. For 
a long time I believed that there was sufficient evidence to justify 
Rush's claim that he's not trying to be a reporter, but his remark last 
week about "good reporting" has convinced me that Rush's previous claim 
is no longer applicable.

    IMHO Rush now views himself as a news reporter in his role as mouthpiece 
of the "Loyal Opposition" (as opposed to the old Democratic opposition which 
was presumably "Disloyal"). If Rush is still an entertainer then all I can 
say is that he's turned into a much more mean-spirited one than he was last 
year about this time when he and everyone else thought that Bush had the 
election in the bag.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69296 alt.activism:21211 alt.conspiracy:14492 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13534
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:04:16 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, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>Technology (celluar phones, etc) will probably change the market for
>the Baby Bells enough, so that their monopoly status will be loosened.
>Providing electricity and gas, well, I don't see any technology that


        Then you haven't checked out solar lately.  My counterpart 
    at University of Idaho is completely solar now.  I was amazed at
    the total cost.  Another reason we'll see emmigration out of the
    U.S.  Iridium will go into operation, providing telephone service
    from anywhere on the globe.  The U.S. military is providing 
    protection world-wide, free of charge.  What else do you need?  :)

>will change the market (though I believe there's an interesting study
>proposing that power plants should be privitized, to compete with each
>other.  The power grid and gas lines, the distribution net, are, of
>course, a natural monopoly and will require regulation, but the
>providers are not necessarily so.)
>
>
>
>
>--
><Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
>President."
>			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:07:41 GMT
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

Is anyone else even slightly annoyed by how the military itself is
causing so much trouble over this issue? You can't turn on a TV set
without seeing Colin Powell self-righteously orating on how awful
and bad it would be to let 'em in, or open a newspaper without seeing
yet another leak of confidential memos to the press or statement by
the Joint Chiefs trying to cause confusion and chaos.

For once and for all it's not The Military's job to underhandedly lobby against
the President's policies. It is The Military's job to do what the President
and the Congress order it to. If Bill Clinton orders them to capture the
South Pole in the name of freedom and democracy, then by god we should
be bombing Antarctica by this time tomorrow morning, and Powell had better
be SMILING about it, capische?

If Congress overrules Clinton, now, that's a different matter. They have
every right to do that (even though I think they're totally wrongheaded here).
But the military has no right to do anything but follow orders.

And it doesn't matter how many days the President served in the armed forces,
Senator Coats (you weasel.)

RelatedPeeve: whacko right-wing senators such as Coats, Dornan, and Helms, and
the goofballs who keep re-electing them.

     "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:28:11 GMT
 <93025.201523DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <1k3jahINNnn3@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1k3jahINNnn3@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
says:
>
>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?

Patricia Danzon, Health Affairs Spring 1992.
Ken Thorpe, Health Affairs Summer 199

Many of the additional considerations are subjects of
controvery--how to calculate costs of tax collection, marketing,
risk and profit, regulatory costs, etc.  The data are very
limited for any of these.



These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:48:44 GMT

In article <C16q75.JpI@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
}In article <1993Jan20.133520.2550@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <C14tAw.FMn@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
}>}In article <1993Jan19.135040.16713@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>}>[various flues and colds around the world]
}>}>
}>}>Regardless of slogans, the world is still there...
}>}
}>}Yes, but why should we solve their problems for them?
}>
}>Maybe you missed it - we live on earth.
}
}Sorry, I keep forgetting about those Canadian armored divisions poised on
}the North Dakota border not to mention those Mexican terrorists infiltrating
}the American lawn care industry.

That's ok.  I wouldn't want you to worry about the nuclear-tipped ICBM's located
in the Ukrain, or the minor nit that most of the oxygen in the air that you are
breathing comes from South America, or that the food you ate this morning came
from all over the planet.  Why worry about breathing, eating, or being incinerated?

Or maybe that most of the $$$ you spend is indirectly connected to the trade
with Japan, that people kill for exports from Columbia, that most of the
electronics (pull off the case of the terminal you are using to read this) comes
from outside CONUS (malasya, probably),....

What a cozy world you must live in...
From: Fresno@netnews.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: ELite Homosexual Paratroopers
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:11:31 GMT
Followup-To: Fresno@seas.com
Distribution: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Seas


	I think the military SHOULD allow homos into the military.  The army
could form a special homo paratrooper force.  General Collin Powell should then
give them marching orders to take Baghdad and Sadaam Hussein.  Two birds with
one stone! Give the homos special euipment so they can do their special
homo thing along the way.
Good luck, homo troops!
Fresno
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Big Three Begs Big Government (again)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:00:38 GMT

dp> Don Pajerek

dp> Did the Clinton administration *ask* the automakers to initiate this
    lobbying effort?

  Would they have even tried if Clinton *wasn't* in the White House?

dp> Which candidate took a harder protectionist line during the campaign:
    Bill Clinton or Ross Perot?

  Perot, obviously. Buchanan took an even harder line. So what? I do recall
  Clinton running the "foreign companies are shafting us for billions in 
  taxes" ad lots and lots of times, though. Clinton is populist enough.

  The best way is free trade. Clinton's committment to it, however, has yet to
  be seen. Pity.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69604 misc.legal:23245 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1565
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:42:06 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan25.000224.24780@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>...I'd buy the proposition that the GW clause
>>gives Congress the right to spend, if not regulate, as they see fit.
>
>I don't see where spending comes from: The clause empowers Congress
>to tax, but I don't see any reference in it to spending. 

"pay the debts and provide for"

>Further,
>wouldn't that interpertation be in conflict with the rest of
>Article One, Section Eight? Most of the other listed powers amonut
>to spending "...provide for the common Defence and and general 
>Welfare..." It seems that interperting that clause as a power
>to spend would reduce the rest of Article One, Section Eight to
>redundant and meaningless provisions. Since the framers clearly
>intended these provisions to mean _something_, I think there
>is a serious flaw in your interpertation.

But by your interpretation, "General Welfare" is redundant.  Surely
they meant that to mean something?

Perhaps Section 8 arbitrates between Article I powers and Article II
powers?  I.e., *Congress*, not the Executive, establishes Post Offices.

Some circumstantial evidence for a broad reading of Congressional powers
was that the word "expressly" (as in "[expressly] delegated") was deleted 
from the original version of the Tenth Amendment.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Am I A Statist? (was Re: Amazing (Was: Libertarianism...))
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:55:32 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan20204822@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
: In article <1993Jan19.230508.5712@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan19113619@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
: >In article <1993Jan15.010012.25438@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: : 	   I can see that some government regulations are desirable. But
: :    there are some really senseless ones or ones which have backfired.
>
: >	Is this a forgery? 
>
>	   No, that's my real statement.
>
: >	Could there *possibly* be *ANY* aspect of life which
: >	Petrich doesn't want Big Mother Government to regulate?
>
:    Show me the posting in which I claim to be the ultimate
:    statist.
>
>	Yawn. 
>	Far easier is to show where Petrich has ever claimed
>	that there are some aspects of life into which 
>	government should not intrude.
>	Here is the complete file to date:
>
>	[]
>
>	Looks kinda like the good old 'empty set'....

	Nosy, why do you have this compulsion to smear me as a
statist?

	I think that it is legitimate to charge a government-basher
with being for anarchy, since if government is bad, then no government
is good, and no government is anarchy.

:    I was only asking if those who think that government is wicked
:    have anarchy (no government at all) as their ultimate ideal. And if
:    not, then what do they think that the legitimate functions of
:    government are.
>
>	Yes, and I replied with the question:
>
>	"Is there ANY aspect of life that Petrich feels the
>	 government has no business in".
>
>	A question to which I have seen no response; perhaps
>	our buggy newsreader missed the posting?
>	
>	Or perhaps Petrich cannot really think of any?

	I'll show you my list of things I consider it inappropriate
for government to be involved with (and it's a sizable list) if you
show me your list of things you think that government should be
involved in.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
From: redman@selway.umt.edu (e-mail me if my .plan file doesn't show up.  please!)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:34:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.015553.16766@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.174346.4717@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <13954@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>It works both ways.  A 17 year old isn't a child, contrary to your (and 
>>some legislatures') oft-repeated claim.  
>
>I would disagree with this claim alomst certainly. You offer no
>reason why you assert this. SO, I refute simply in the way that
>you do. A 17 year old is not an adult, contrary to your claim.
>I tend to side with the law, and not you, on this one.

>>But not having a line is not necessarily the same thing as saying
>>"anyone can have sex with anyone," and you know it.  Or should.
>
>This is true, but what it does do is remove institutional protection
>from those who simply are not mature or emotionally developed
>to make such a decsion. It opens up 15,16,17 year olds or younger
>to be preyed upon. I suppose that you also favour the removal
>of child-labour laws. I guess that a 16 year old is capable
>of deciding that he should work x number of hours for y
>level of pay?
>
this is just fuel for the fire but i believe the age of consent here in
motana goes something like this.  female age of consent is 16 but not with
anyone over eighteen.  male age of consent is 18.  if you can figure that out
than you're better than i am at lawyerese.  now this is just how i remember
it from our highschool civics class but this seems to just belabor the 
point that no matter what age you put the age of consent at, sex happens.
it will happen no matter what the age of consent is.  and it will be as 
hap-hazard as the drinking age.  people under 21 don't have the right to
drink unless they join the armed services.  go figure.

redman
-- 
Punya Jehosaphatmanonaydimleelitdock Continjensyplan Metamorefotosintheesis-
paypur Poesthe'umourus-Sujjestchun	
"thou hath besqirted me."    the evil sheriff of dodge city	r + s
these damn sigs really bother me.  same goes for .plans and .projects.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:48:37 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1k6elnINNlre@titan.ucs.umass.edu>  
jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only) writes:
> In article <C1It7I.LEo@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red  
Herring) writes:
> >
> >    Perhaps, but we are talking about a public policy issue here,
> >    not a military operation.  Colin Powell happens to be an  
expert
> >    on the issue, Bill Clinton does not.  In fact, Clinton has yet
> >    to tell the public why he wants to allow gays serve in the  
military.
> >
> 
> Oh, give me a break!  Nobody has ever told the public why we should
> allow, say, redheads, or people who are exactly 5'8-1/2" tall, into
> the military, and there really is no need to.  Anybody who wants
> to defend our country has a right to do so.  As far as I  
understanding,
> sex is prohibited in the barracks.  That includes both hetero, and  
homo
> sexual encounters.  But what someone does on his/her off-time is  
his/her
> business.

There's a big difference though. You don't have a bunch of
people out there who are somehow worried about or afraid of 
people of readheads, or people who are exactly 5'8.5" tall.
You do have people who are afraid of what allowing gays in
the military would do. Clinton would help the situation a lot
if he talked to the American people and debunked some of the
scare stories going around (and assured people that gays
in the military would not translate into sex in the barracks, etc.)

In fact, one key point he could make to those who are somehow
intimidated by this is that there are gays in the military now.
However, we are encouraging them to lie by telling them you can
stay in the military as long as you lie about your orientation.
I think if Clinton would make this point to the people, many would
listen. True, the fundementalists wouldn't. But I've heard an
awful lot of people on the radio and on TV the last two days
say things like "Well, I think people have the right to be gay, but
won't this hurt military discipline, and what will it be like for
those now in the service who aren't gay."  Clinton could 
help calm the fears of these people.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70279 alt.politics.clinton:21467