HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:52:08 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec11.113742.21191@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Well, there is also a difference between someone who has been hit by a
>bus and thus has no brainwaves and someone who has had a spontaneous
>cerebral hemorhage and thus has no brainwaves.  However, at the bottom
>line, none of them have any brainwaves.

Yes, but the reasons for the (so-called) lack of brainwaves have nothing to 
do with it. I'm talking about possibilities. The two in your example almost 
certainly are at life's end and an unborn child is at life's beginning.

>With regard to 'potential', just how far back is it reasonable to go?
>After all, ever sperm cell and every egg cell has the 'potential' to
>become a baby (with real brainwaves).  Just where is it reasonable to
>draw the line, and just what makes that stage 'magical'?

How about all the way back to the first signs of pregnancy? That's where
the potential begins.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:19:17 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <Bz3t9v.9v2@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.115825.21571@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> In <Bz1y7D.1xA@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Dec9.144520.17597@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >> My book on international economics doesn't seem to agree.  It also
>> >> puts the 'free trade is best' position in context in the quote I typed
>> >> in from it.
>> > 
>> >Well, that's a minority view.  
>> 
>> Mainstream economic theory hardly qualifies as a "minority view",
>> Doug. 
> 
>It's not "mainstream economic theory" Fred.  

Sorry, but it is.  In fact, it's straight out of a textbook on
International Economics.

>Free trade is one of the
>areas where economists are almost in total agreement.  

As a general principle, certainly.  But the assumption there is that
EVERYONE is doing it.

>The only people who
>think protectionism makes economic sense are unions,
>uncompetitive industries and politicians.

First, what was described is not "protectionism"; second, your
statement turns out not to be the case.

> 
>> >You haven't protected any evidence that,
>> >for example, protection of the steel industry has an overall benefit for
>> >the US, while I've shown plenty of data that the opposite is true.
>> 
>> Evidence?  No, I don't think either of us has shown any 'evidence',
>> because it's almost impossible to produce such evidence one way or the
>> other; there are simply too many factors involved.  What you've done
>> is make assertsion in an effort to establish a logical case.  You've
>> shown that some people CLAIM they are being adversely affected.
> 
>No, I've shown that steel prices are considerably higher than they would
>be in a free trade situation.  Which means that users of steel are
>adversely impacted.  Unless you want to argue that paying higher costs for
>parts doesn't hurt a company.

You need to look at the overall effects on the economy, which simply
isn't quite simple enough to say, "Uhg!  Must pay more for steel!  Bad
Wampum!"  What happens once domestic steel production goes under?
What impacts does that have?  Why isn't the biggest steel user in the
country out there against this if they're damaged so badly by it?

So steel users TODAY have to pay higher than world price TODAY for
steel.  You can't just look at today.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:55:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: >I don't need either.  I can call 10 of my buddies over and we can 
: >pick you up and carry you out.  The point is, I can remove you from my house
: >without killing you.  

: And go to jail for assault after.

It's not assault (or battery for that matter) to carry you out of my house.

:                                     It's not criminal trespass if I
: was initially invited.  

I DIDN'T invite you in, remember?  I opened my window to get some fresh air,
and you came crawling in.

: Your model breaks down even further in the case of a foetus, by the
: way, since at least half of that foetus was already 'in residence',

Not in the womb, and not the other half.

:                                                             So model
: your proprety rights more along the lines of your inviting me to come
: in, park in your garage, take a shower with your daughter, and SHE
: invites me to stay.

No, because NOBODY invited you in to do ANYTHING.

: That's right.  Which means that in the course of your 'eviction' you
: are taking actions that you know, or should know, constitute deadly
: force.  You cannot legally do that.  This is why I think your
: 'eviction' model is such a lose.

But if the only way to get an intruder out of your house was to perform an act
that would result in his death, I would expect you to be able to legally 
remove him anyway.  Society's current "deadly force" rules don't apply
because there is no alternative except to let the intruder stay.

: No, because if you follow the model you've proposed, for me to enter
: against your will it would have to be rape.  Otherwise, I was invited
: for a visit but YOU didn't invite me to stay (your daughter did).

No.  What was invited in was not a fertilized egg.  You're confusing consent
to have sex with consent to be impregnated.

: The first part of your parapgraph makes sense.  However, once you
: include this 'eviction' model that you want to use for an analogy, it
: no longer makes sense.  You aren't required to feed me, but you sure
: aren't allowed to chop me up into bits so you can feed me out the
: doggie door, either.

If that's the only way to get you out, then I can.

: The egg was already a 'legal resident' under your model.  It's as if
: someone else in your household invited me to stay.

No.  The organism that implants in the uterus is a different one than the one 
that came out of the ovary.  If I invite you into my house, that doesn't mean 
your brother can sneak in the back door.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:14:08 GMT

In article <BzEs8F.Avp@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
> 	Maybe we could shoot for something between free trade and 
> protectionism, call it equal trade. Just mirror whatever restrictions
> are placed on our exports?
 
Why in the world would you want to do that?  I get the feeling some of the
people involved in this debate think that the only parties involved are
the US and foreign government, and the US and foreign companies.  Guess
what.  There are other parties involved, namely the US consumer and other
companies that use the product/services in question in the development of
their own good.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 23:05:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.152653.14694@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <8086@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec11.121142.21939@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>For those who don't opt out, make it into a real annuity administered by
>>>the government.
>
>>Remember, though, that the US government has the Midas Muffler touch:
>>everything it touches turns to shit. Why would this be any different?
>
>Asserting that doesn't make it so, Jay.  There are any number of
>government programs that work quite well; in fact, many that do things
>that the private econommy can't or won't do for itself.  

Asserting that doesn't make it so, Fred.

thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
By my belief that government should be minimalized, I swear to oppose
the unrequested intrusion of government into the lives of individuals
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:26:05 GMT

In article <BzFKrq.EA1@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <BzEs8F.Avp@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>> 	Maybe we could shoot for something between free trade and 
>> protectionism, call it equal trade. Just mirror whatever restrictions
>> are placed on our exports?
> 
>Why in the world would you want to do that?  I get the feeling some of the
>people involved in this debate think that the only parties involved are
>the US and foreign government, and the US and foreign companies.  Guess
>what.  There are other parties involved, namely the US consumer and other
>companies that use the product/services in question in the development of
>their own good.

	I'm the "ignorant slut" when it comes to economics on a grand
scale. I admit that. What you suggest seems to me, then, as short-term
(don't lose jobs or sales right now) vs. long term (we will suffer to
achieve fair trade). Am I right? If I am, then a short-term loss that
evolves into fair trade would create profit opportunity in the future,
once fair trade is established, and costs normalize. As well, it seems
to me that a protectionist policy on steel, for example, would hurt
in some areas (cars), while helping in others (American steel). If the
American car Co.'s costs go up by 15%, and the cost is passed on to
the consumer, and sales drop 25%, what effect would this have on the
profits/sales at the steel companies, who employ comsumers? 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:45:42 GMT

In <1710@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.144018.16025@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1703@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec11.113742.21191@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>How about all the way back to the first signs of pregnancy? That's where
>>>the potential begins.

>>Oh no.  The potential begins much further back than that.  What makes
>>the fact that you've put to cells together 'magical' insofar as
>>'potential' (which was the basis of your prior argument) goes?

>An unfertilized egg has no chance of becoming a baby.

Sure it does.  It just takes much more massive medical intervention
than does a 'normal' pregnancy -- but then, some of them take some
pretty massive medical intervention, too.

>BTW, please stop using "'magical'" like you are quoting me. I don't think I
>ever used that word in the context of this discussion.

BTW, I'm NOT using 'magical' like I am quoting you.  For the quite
common online convention of putting SINGLE quotes around a word, see
_The New Hackers Dictionary'_ or whatever the most recent Jargon file
is.  I wonder what would happen if I asked you to stop writing as if
you're responding to what I say, since you aren't?  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: Re: Government default.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:05:04 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>For the government to NOT repay those T-bills,
>the government would have to default on its debts, and that is not likely
>to happen.  

For thousands of years, many many governments, time and time again,
have defaulted on their debts.  Most recently, inflating debt away has
been all the rage.  In fact, the U.S. did just that during the Carter
years.

Rather than default wholesale, they defaulted a piece at a time, via
inflation.

Even if they don't ever do this again, (but they will,) what makes you
so certain that the U.S. won't default wholesale on its obligations,
when so many of its predecessors throughout history have done just
that?

What makes the U.S. so special?  What make you so sure?


-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 22:41:33 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806 (curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com) wrote:
: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
: >Have you read Louis Leclerc's paper, "Does America Say Yes to Japan?"?  
: >Somebody recently passed it on to me, and I found it fascinating what they
: >do in Japan to keep out foreigners.
: 
: I read it.  It's the worst kind of emotional xenophobic protectionist
: ramblings.  Just exactly the kind of arguments we don't need if we want
: to improve our economy.

Aside from his conclusion which is basically an appeal to US consumers not
to buy any Japanese products (interestingly enough, he doesn't advocate 
government-imposed protectionism), are you criticizing his description of
the way things work in Japan?  Is it inaccurate?  Is he being paranoid, or
do the Japanese companies conspire with their government in a united
effort to take over world markets?  Do our trade policies enable them to 
succeed?

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:53:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec14.152653.14694@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Remember, though, that the US government has the Midas Muffler touch:
>>everything it touches turns to shit. Why would this be any different?
>Asserting that doesn't make it so, Jay.  There are any number of
>government programs that work quite well; in fact, many that do things
>that the private econommy can't or won't do for itself.  No matter how
>'politically correct' this assertion about government is in certain
>circles, it hardly constitutes evidence.

It is indisputable that when governments do something, they spend more money
for at best equal results to what the private sector can do. Name even one
program that disproves this, and that has been given an adequate private
trial, and I'll rethink my statement. I agree that there are some things that
government should do, but only because I do not think them practical for being
completely privatized, such as national defense.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:55:53 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Have you read Louis Leclerc's paper, "Does America Say Yes to Japan?"?  
>Somebody recently passed it on to me, and I found it fascinating what they
>do in Japan to keep out foreigners.

I read it.  It's the worst kind of emotional xenophobic protectionist
ramblings.  Just exactly the kind of arguments we don't need if we want
to improve our economy.

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:26:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <8086@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.121142.21939@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>For those who don't opt out, make it into a real annuity administered by
>>the government.

>Remember, though, that the US government has the Midas Muffler touch:
>everything it touches turns to shit. Why would this be any different?

Asserting that doesn't make it so, Jay.  There are any number of
government programs that work quite well; in fact, many that do things
that the private econommy can't or won't do for itself.  No matter how
'politically correct' this assertion about government is in certain
circles, it hardly constitutes evidence.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: CDF'S MISSION: LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:13:34 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

                =====  CHILDREN IN CRISIS  =====

*6   CDF'S MISSION:  "LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND"
     Conscious value and political choices, rather than "some
unavoidable attribute of modern, urbanized societies or acts of
God," are to blame for America's high child poverty rate,
according to Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children
Defense Fund.  Edelman's comments are found in "The State of
America's Children:  Leave No Child Behind," CDF's newest report.
     CDF characterizes the conditions for children in 1992 as a
national disgrace and calls on the nation -- from the White House
and Congress to parents and local communities -- to invest in
children's future.
     CDF's 1993 campaign "will be to guarantee Head Start for
every eligible child, with full-day, full-year services for
families that need them, with enriched parent, infant, and
toddler components and to get all children immunized," according
to the report.
     "Leave No Child Behind" has chapters on several subjects,
including health; child care and early childhood development;
education; and vulnerable children and families.  A state-by-
state analysis of various statistics associated with child
poverty and national trends and data round out the report.
     Edelman:  "Children in crisis now cross every state,
cultural, racial, ethnic, and socio-economic boundary.  America
can do better than this and the time is now."
     Recommendations from the education chapter stress that all
children must reach school ready to learn.  State and communities
are urged to "make family support and parent education programs
available to all parents, as Mo. has done with its state-
financed Parents As Teachers (PAT) program."  Another
recommendation calls for linking schools with their students'
families and communities.  Federal and state governments,
colleges, community organizations and families are called on to
provide the support and technical assistance necessary to turn
successful models into successful school systems.  And fiscal
resources should be forthcoming to "enable all children to have a
truly equal opportunity to achieve."
     At President-elect Bill Clinton's economic summit in Little
Rock, Ark., this week, Edelman said the nation's ability to
achieve long-term economic prosperity and security is
inextricably linked to the health and well-being of its children
(CDF press release).  Edelman:  "We know what works -- now we
have to just do it." (12/17)

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:35:28 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <BzA29H.Fnz@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>No doubt that's part of it, but to some extent is fits the way Japanese
>society is complicated and somewhat indirect.  Let's face it, a lot of
>American companies are lazy and want everything handed to them on a
>platter.

A lot of American CITIZENS are that way also, and therefore we have a 
massive welfare system.

 ----------------------!!! H A P P Y   H O L I D A Y S !!!-------------------
 ObQuotes:
 "Igornance and prejudice, confident their ways are best..."
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS