HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Campaign $$$$$$$
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:20:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cunixf.1992Apr7.212025.18123
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1180011@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> sheneman@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Jerry Sheneman) writes:
>Does anyone know how much a presidential candidate spends on a
>campaign?  I heard Perot was willing to spend $100,000,000 of his
>own money if necessary.  Is this much more, about the same, or
>much less than other candidates usually spend (usually donations)
>on a typical campaign?

Dukakis & Bush spent around $240 Million combined in 1984.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17775 alt.activism:7526 alt.news-media:202
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.news-media
Subject: FAKE NEWS...WHAT WE SEE ISN'T ALWAYS NEWS - ITS PUBLIC RELATIONS
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:47:06 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 81        FAKE NEWS - story by TV Guide 
mcoats  media.issues     7:33 pm  Feb 20, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


'FAKE NEWS, A SPECIAL REPORT: WHAT WE SEE ISN'T ALWAYS NEWS - ITS PUBLIC 
RELATIONS' is the title of TV Guide's February 22-28 cover story. 

This is a surprisingly hard-hitting expose of how TV newrooms use the 
'video new release' (VNR) in their new programs.  Examples show how 
companies, foreign countries, and candidates, get practically free 
advertising.  Their PR people create VNRs, distribute them to 700-plus 
local TV outlets, where resource strained organizations incorporate the 
material into newscast.  TV Guide deplores the common practice of TV 
outlets using VNRs without identifying the source. 

Included is an excellent sidebar, 'Portions of the GULF WAR were brought 
to you by... the folks at Hill and Knowlton.' A shocking revelation: 
'...the PR firm's operatives were given free rein to travel unescorted 
throughout Saudi Arabia, while journalists were severely restricted.' 

The editors of TV Guide make strong statement:  'Recommended: When a TV 
new organization includes film or tape prepared by an outside source in a 
broadcast, the label ''VIDEO SUPPLIED BY [COMPANY OR GROUP NAME]'' should 
be visible for as long as the material is on-screen.' 

Written by David Leiberman and the sidebar is by Morgan Strong, it makes 
this issue of TV Guide a bargain for 79 cents. 

   /------------------------------------------------------------------\ 
  |  Mark Coats                Internet: markc@dogface.austin.tx.us    | 
  |  Austin Texas              Peacenet: mcoats@igc.org                | 
  |  Digital Communications Associates                                 | 
   \------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: bell@degas.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:42:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

[We don't get alt.individualism,  so I had to remove that from the list.]

In article <92098.181724IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
>In article <rq8f0INN1kn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
>>Now, if these drugs were legalized, and a regulated industry was
>>established to distribute these drugs, the following things would
>>happen.  1) The price would drop, negating problem one in the first
>>paragraph.

>This would happen if drugs were simply decriminalized, wouldn't it?

Depends how you define decriminalization.  Alcohol Prohibition was what
some people define as decrim.,  and so the answer in that case is no.

      18th Amendment
      Sect. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the
      manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof
      from the United States and all territory subject to the
      jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Note that consumption was *not* outlawed.

Now,  if you want to make it illegal to advertize drug sales in any
broadcast or print medium and so on,  that's fine with me.  But we need (a)
a change in the laws that recognizes the failure of prohibitions,  and (b)
an elimination of the war between cops and traffickers,  by eliminating the
laws that create it.  Anything less leaves the same terrible situation we
have now.

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18281 alt.politics.elections:943
From: rv@cs.brown.edu (Rodrigo Vanegas)
Subject: Re: The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Brown University
	<1992Apr4.223815.3029@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:59:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.223815.3029@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>>  The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective
>>
>>  Bill Clinton:
>>    If he lied to his wife, will he lie to the country?
>>

> The answer to this one is yes...Clinton lied to the voters in Florida
> about Paul Tsongas, and he is lying this weekend to the voters in New
> York about Jerry Brown.

Why?  What did he say?

> Gerald

-rodrigo <rodrigo@brown.edu>
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:25:02 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:

# Let's take one other example---the dress code that EDS was famous for.
# This is indeed important in projecting a certain image to EDS's big
# corporate customers, and may have been an essential part of Perot's
# accumulation of billions of dollars; but what does it say about the
# man:  once again that he was more than willing to kowtow to bigwig
# prejudice, and to convention, and to think nothing of unnecessarily
# taking personal choices away as a condition of employment, all to make
# a buck.

They never made this complaint about Eisenhower, and his organization
had to have had a stricter dress code than EDS. I'll bet at EDS they
at least let you pick your own ties.

John
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Date: 10 Apr 1992 14:23:24 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Apr10.064616.5159@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>, juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jeff Uphoff) writes:
|> In article <ku9ti5INN74c@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> >
|> >A harbinger of things to come in the fall in this old colony? Is a Democrat ==
|> >Labour; Perot == Liberal; Bush == Conservative (no matter how laughable that
|> >sounds) equation a valid comparison? Let the debate/flames begin.
|> 
|> If you consider Perot a liberal, you are making a grave mistake...

I guess I should clarify. By Perot == Liberal, I was attempting to draw an
analogy between the Liberal Democrats' Third-Party standing in the UK
and Perot's corresponding status here if he runs; it has really nothing to do with
his views. The same for Bush == Conservative. It has more to do with the fact
that the Tories were the incumbents in the UK, as Bush is here. Nobody really
believes that Bush is a Conservative, least of all a Thatcherite Tory, do they?

|> His views place him at the far ends of both sides of the political
|> spectrum.  Where that places him, I haven't a clue.
|> How about "Radical Centrist?"  (Not to be confused in any way with
|> moderate or middle-of-the-road.)
|>  
|> Jeff Uphoff

-srinivas
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Masters/Johnson 1970's HomoSex (long)
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:17:18 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Mar28.181301.10390@husc3.harvard.edu> pierce@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <10223@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar26.140326.12951@agora.uucp>, thom@agora.rain.com (Thom Gandet) writes:
>>>    -Of  67 persons who were dissatisfied with being homosexual  (54  men 
>>> and  13 women) and sought treatment to change their orientation  over  a 
>>> 10-year  period,  the  researchers report an over-all  failure  rate  of 
>>> 28.4%.
>>> Thom Gandet                         |            
>>
>>Fascinating.  So >70% succeeded in changing their orientation with
>>treatment.  So much for "homosexuality is not a choice."
>
>Yeah.  70% of 67 is 47.  What a sample size.  Whoo, whoo.
>
	Actually, sample size isn't that large an issue (although this summary
makes no mention of any statistical significance tests).  The real issue is
the degree to which this result can be generalized to the gay population as a
whole.  Keep in mind that this sample is inherently biased in that it consists
*only* of persons who werre not only "dissatisfied with being homosexual" but
alos strongly dissatistied enough to seek radical therapy.  There's no evidence
here suggest that a) the results would be equally applicable to the general
gay population or b) this somehow refutes the (still tentative) hyopthesis that
homosexuality is not a learned behavior pattern.
	I'd like to remind Mr. Cramer that left-handedness can *also* be "cured"
with considerable effort, and yet the physiological basis for handedness is
well-established.
	Masters and Johnson have always been scrupulous reasearchers in any 
case, and I doubt that they would disagree with any of the comments I have made
here.  The recent Meese Commission debacle demonstrates rather forcefully just
how easy it is for research results to be distorted or mis-used by those with
a political or social axe to grind.

>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                /
>\  / pierce@husc.harvard.edu   /         See it and understand.
> \/ (aka twpierce@amherst.edu) /

Chuck

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18476 soc.culture.african.american:4618
From: daj@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Social Spending Constitutional?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:47:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Apr12.091843.2210@agora.uucp> robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton) writes:

# >>   Congress shall have the power:
# >>      1.  To collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common
# >>              defense and general welfare of the United States".
# >       .
# >       .
# >
# >       How doesn't urban infrastructure, job training, drug rehab, etc,.
# >       fit under the 'general wlefare [sic] of the United States?'
#
#   Whether it "fits" or not is irrelevant, since Congress is not
# given power in those specific areas.

Ah, I get it.  "General welfare" has some mysterious meaning that
excludes things that most of us think of as general welfare.  OK.

David
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Even the Pro-socialized Medicine Types Hate It
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:36:22 GMT

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>>in the Eastern bloc -- and not that I'd ever expect them to travel to
>>Canada, France and Germany either (-;).
>
>Go fuck yourself. :)
>-- 

Wow, what a flash of oratorial brilliance!  I never thought I'd see
the day ... (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: RON DANIELS (independent) FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:52:14 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <9204071859.AA07131@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>From PeaceNet:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Topic 78        RON DANIELS FOR PRESIDENT 1992 
>fscofi  elections.usa    2:45 am  Apr  7, 1992 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here you have it, folks...Harel and crowd supports him, so you *know* who
not to vote for now!

Hey, I have an idea...perhaps Harel can post a ranking of all the presidential
candidates in order of his preference...and we can vote from the other end 
of the list. :-)

-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "Being next to Dorsai is a slow form of
Georgia Institute of Technology      the 'dissolve' command..."
Office of Information Technology    
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu                  - Banzai, Merc V
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Date: 14 Apr 1992 13:02:59 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Nicholas C. Hester <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:

>In article <11215@borg.cs.unc.edu>, bell@degas.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) says:
>>
>>>This would happen if drugs were simply decriminalized, wouldn't it?
>>
>>Depends how you define decriminalization.  Alcohol Prohibition was what
>>some people define as decrim.,  and so the answer in that case is no.

>I define decriminalization as removing laws making it a crime to grow/
>manufacture and distribute drugs without regulation.   In essence
>a hands off approach by the government.

Well, yeah.  That kind of approach would be just plain stupid.  I
would hope that any "real" attempts to make these drugs legal would
include changes to the laws that define "intoxication", set up certain
limits and restrictions on drug transport and sale, and also provide
some form of insurance that companies selling these drugs are held
accountable.

The best model to look at in today's modern world is Holland.  At
least we can look at the successes and failures in the Netherlands and
have some guidelines for setting up pilot programs in some of our
inner cities.  All we need now is a politician who is willing to go
out on a limb and give this a try... realizing that the short-term
negative effects will almost certainly cause a shower of negative
press.

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
 *** Don't be a pacifist, be an Activist! Fight to keep abortion LEGAL! ***
From: Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Libertarian Party Chair to speak at Stanford University
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:01:43 GMT


 
The next meeting of the Stanford Libertarians will be on Thursday, April 16th.  The invited speaker will be Mary Gingell, national chair of the Libertarian Party.  She will discuss such issues as "why a third party, how to get involved in politics, and what is happening on the national level.
 
U.S. Senate Candidate, June Genis, who is running for the 6 year term, will be present to same a few words about her campaign and the political efforts of other Libertarians.
 
The format of the meeting will be informal, and will include further discussion of future activities.  Soda and snacks are being provided.
 
Place: Oak East Lounge, 2nd floor of Tresidder
Time: 7 PM

Everyone is welcome.
 
FYI.............Mark Hinkle, Sysop 1:143/6


--  
Mark Hinkle
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!6!Mark.Hinkle
INTERNET: Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Mark Hinkle only."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17695 sci.econ:3658
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Pension Expenses Re: Facts on Social Security (Berry Long)
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:08:24 GMT
Reply-To: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer

In article <92096.142029DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I've been trying to figure out how to make a comparison between the
>private pensions and SS.  The numerator for each is simple enough,
>it's the administrative expenses.  The problem is the denominator.
>SS calculates it using receipts, because it is a pay-as-you-go system, so
>it really doesn't have reserves.  Most private plans calculate it as
>a percent of assets, rather than as a percent of income.

You want to calculate it as a fee/pensioner, for equivalent incomes.
For a steady state fund, this will just mean inverting the yield, which
will give cost ratios like 10% (for 1.5% fees, 15% earnings on assets).
The two variances are fees paid before pensions on one side, and
annuitized payouts, which are greater than the yield on the other.
For specific yields and survival tables, the exact calculation could be
made.

But...
This calculation ignores many SS costs, monetary and otherwise.
The SS has its moneys collected free, for example.
And the political costs may be higher than we think.
-- 
That is the land of lost content,       Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
  I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went
  And cannot come again               AE Housman
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17198 alt.individualism:2312 alt.activism:7330
From: strat@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Date: 13 Apr 1992 19:28:50 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: caravan.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....

emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:


>	This is what scares me about legalization. It's very possible
>we'll have Joe Camel and Spuds McKenzie selling crack to our kids.

So?

Why would it be any worse for a regulated industry to sell drugs than
to have someone's neighbor selling those drugs?  Legalization means
many things, but one of those things is accountability.  If similar
drug laws went into effect for the currently illegal drugs, we
wouldn't have ANY drugs being sold to children (supposedly).

Now, tobacco and alcohol are legal, but are not legally sold to
minors.  For the most part, minors do not buy alcohol or tobacco
because the industry is able to regulate itself.  But now, in an
environment where the industry itself is outlawed, there is no self
regulation.  Pushers think nothing of selling drugs to minors.

So, really, your nightmare of Joe Camel and Spuds McKenzie selling
drugs to kids would be no more valid in a world where currently
illegal substances are made legal.  Joe Camel would be no more likely
to sel crack cocain to children than it is to sell cigarrettes to kids
today.  Spuds McKenzie isn't going to promote drug use by minors.
These things will not change.

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
All men attribute to themselves freedom of will. -- Immanuel Kant
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18055 alt.individualism:2429 sci.econ:3717 misc.legal:9242
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:07:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr13.024846.6240@nuscc.nus.sg>, Ed Ipser (ei) writes:

ei> The cosmetology board has been hounding Cornrows & Co. because its
ei> employees are not licensed cosmetologists. In 1989, it slapped owners
ei> Taalib-Din Uqdah and Pamela Farrell with $1,000 in fines for operating
ei> a beauty salon and training program without a license.

Now, I realise that the customs of a foreign country can often seem
strange, and I realise that the USA leads the world in employment
protection for lawyers, but... 

How on earth did anyone get a `cosmetology' board and licenses for
hairdressers set up? If the references to Washington and dollars were
removed I'd assume this was an anti-Brussels joke, and a poor one
because it is so unbelievable. 

My flabber is truely gasted.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Andre Marrou on Tom Snyder tonight April 15
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:02:13 GMT

Thanks for the news of Rep. Marrou's planned appearance on the Tom Snyder
national talk show tonight. I believe his program starts at 10 pm ET. I 
do not know of a local NBC radio station in Daytona that carries the show,
so I listen on clear channel 50,000 watt WBT, 1110 kHz Charlotte NC- it
covers the whole East Coast of North America from northern Canada to the 
northern coast of South America.

The phone in number for the show is 1-800-248-0852.

Perhaps we can obtain a coordinated, LP effort to release these kind of
press and campaign issues to the newsgroup talk.politics.misc?!?!

John Sulak

******
Read my lips: "I am sending the troups only to prevent [the dictators of]
Saudia Arabia from being attacked." (paraphrased)


Saudia Arabia


Distribution:
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.news-media
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: Listening to America
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:18:58 GMT

jm> == Jim Mason
ps> == Paul Sand
 
jm> [...yakity yakity yakity...] Do you have any conception of how many
    Americans are believers in horoscopes, channeling, mystic-crystals
    and UFO abductions ? How about faith-healing ? [...yakity yakity
    yakity...]
 
ps> Sigh. No I don't. Do you? Are there any hard facts behind any of
    this babble?

jm> Gee, Paul, you are apparently sitting at a big university - so  if
    you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. I'm too  goddamn busy
    to do your research for you.

They're your assertions, pal. If you can't back them up, it's fine with
me. Not that I'm surprised.

jm> By the way, if you hear something you don't like ... do you  stick
    your fingers into your ears and hum the 'Star Spangled  Banner' or
    something ??? Just wondering ...

You've just seen what I do when I hear brain-dead drivel.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand                | Question Authority. 
-- University of New Hampshire | Why? Because I say so, that's why.
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu          |  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections