HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rinat@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu (Rinat Kedem)
Subject: Is voting anonymous?
Reply-To: rinat@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Rinat Kedem)
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:20:28 GMT



Is voting supposed to be anonymous?  Here in NY, it isn't.  i.e. they
take down enough information to enable them to keep track of exactly
who votes for who.  I know people will probably think this is no big
deal, but I've always thought that voting was a private affair and I'd
like to disillusion myself if it isn't true.  What do they want this
information for anyway?  What do they do with it?  Seems like a lot of
trouble to go to if they are only collecting it for the fun of it and
have no use for it.



-- 
-rinat

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17199 alt.individualism:2313 sci.econ:3598
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 16:44:39 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Increases in Social Security Taxes Caused the Wage Bust
 <1992Apr3.200510.15146@nic.unh.edu> <92095.151555DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr7.022829.15147@nic.unh.edu>

Almost two weeks now and neither Ed Ipser, nor Paul Sand, nor James
Howe nor any other critic has even bothered to try and post or send
a single article or any data that offers one iota of proof for the
assertion that Social Security is responsible either in part or in
whole for the slow-down in wage growth in the United States over the
period 1972-1992.

Mr. Sands can cast voluminous asperions on the data I have posted,
and I'll agree that the data don't provide considerable support for
either side in this debate.  That's one of the troubles of working
with published data from the BLS and Census Bureau.  However, Mr.
Sands certainly appears to be holding one side of this debate to a
higher standard of conduct than the other.

The data do show, however, that many measures of pre-tax income and
earnings have shown either slow or no growth in the same period.  That
fact, despite all the hand waving, is difficult to attribute to SS.

Given the disinterest by the critics is offering any sort of supporting
evidence for their beliefs, I think it's probably best to conclude
the debate.  I'll trust the 30 or 40 articles I have in my files, and
the seven or eight books on SS that I've read which show that SS has
had no overall effect on savings, income, GNP. and many other economic
variables of interest.  My critics can have their naive faith in the
market solution to every human problem.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State <<USUAL DISCLAIMER>>
"I believe that there is social and psychological justification
for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth....But it
is not necessary....that the game should be played for such
high stakes as at present."  John Maynard Keynes
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17245 rec.sport.hockey:9165
From: johnston@ug.cs.dal.ca (geoff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:22:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Apr7.170126.16399@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
[...]
>Tell me an owner who have paid the consequences in millions of dollars.

All of them.  The playoffs are cancelled.  

>
>Get real. If (a big IF) the revenue increases, why are the owners the only 
>party entitled to the increased profit?

They aren't.  Who said this?  

>
>And we haven't talked about the capital appreciation of the franchise yet.

Or depreciation.

>[...]
>Whereas the owners, well, just own. And they are much better paid for it.

Not compared to any other investment of $50M+.


-geoff
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17130 sci.econ:3588
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Reply to Gary Strand
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:04:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702605050
Distribution: na
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid) writes:
>I recently heard a quote that smoking related illnesses account for 2/3
>of the health care dollars in the US.  This includes cancers, heart and
>lung disease.  MUCH larger taxes should be imposed on cigarettes and
>those funds should be put toward solving the health care crisis in 
>the country. 

First, I can't believe the 2/3 figure... That has to be heavily
qualified, but they might not mention that on the radio.

Second, what's the problem?  If they're smoking either the insurance
company is charging them higher rates, or the insurance company is
spreading it over the other policy holders, in which case I'll join
another company.  The only problem is when you start taking money from
other people to pay for smoker illness.  Using this, however, the
government can force you to wear a helmet, keep a careful diet,
exercise, regulate what sports you play, and more, all because "it
might cost the taxpayer money."  The trouble isn't the activity, it's
making the taxpayer pay for it.   And what about smokers who won't get
smoking-related illnesses?  It does affect different people
differently.  Why should they have to pay for the habit of someone who
is more succeptible?
-- 
Wah! Devil machine make numbers come out! With text! In tabular report
format! Computers! Bad juju!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:07:40 GMT

In article <visser.702539448@convex.convex.com>
visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
 
  a number of excerpts from the Libertarian Party platform with which he
apparently disagrees.
 
Mr. Visser seems to think that the government's purpose is to force other
people to behave as he would have them behave.  The Libertarian Party's
position is that the proper functions of government are civil defense and
a system of courts.
 
Libertarians believe that people should be allowed to make their own
choices -- even if Mr. Visser doesn't agree with their choices -- so long
as those choices don't involve the use of force or fraud against another.
 
Brian
"Liberty is a boisterous sea; most men prefer the calm of tyranny."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:58:45 GMT

In article <5J40iB5w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM>, djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> Some people are afraid to go in public
> with me because I _DO_ care enough to speak up  in situations
> like that.

Uh, I doubt very much that that's why people are 'afraid' to
be seen with you in public.  Out of curiosity, do those few who
do appear with you in public wear "I'm With Stupid" sweatshirts,
or do they wear "I've never met the moron, nope, never, and I'm
not responsible for anything he says or does" sweatshirts?

[At least this moron is doing his bit to combat lesbian
invisibility ... ]
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:06:00 GMT

In article  tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Well, Thomas just voted with White, Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens to
>>quash a child pornography conviction obtained through a six-year 
>>entrapment effort.  That's the second time he's dissented from Scalia;

>Ummm...  Hey, Ted, if at least four other justices agreed with him, I
>don't think it's a dissent.  (It's fun to catch you on things.  Keeps us
>sharp.)  :-)

God knows that I love to catch Ted in a slip-up as much as anyone. (Just
because they're rare, not because Ted isn't a great guy.) But, I must
disagree with you on this one. According to my dictionary, if Thomas
differed in opinion with Scalia, then one might correctly say that
"he dissented from Scalia", regardless of who was in the majority and
who was in the minority.

Dang! And I would so like to catch Ted in an error. ;-) Thanks for keeping
me on *my* toes, Terry.

-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: ACTION: Stop Corporate Gag-rule for Social-responsibility resolutions
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:37:30 GMT

In article <9204120655.AA07717@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
[deleted]

I thought creating misc.activism.progressive was supposed to eliminate these
crossposts?
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
From: pds@analog.ingr.com (Peter Schachte)
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID...
Organization: DAZIX, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:14:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.211606.3563@csusac.csus.edu>, emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami) writes:

> All the more reason to work hard and get away from the poverty line and
> become a very wealthy person. Economic hardship is like any other form
> of pain -- it warns you that you're doing something harmful to yourself.
> If you put your hand on a hot stove, it hurts, and so you remove your
> hand from the source of pain. FDR, LBJ, et. al., decided that pain was
> a bad thing and pumped the country full of novacaine. Now we're starting
> to smell the flesh burn.

You're assuming the people weren't already working as hard as they
could to pull their hands from the flame.  I think that's a pretty
stupid assumption.  Do you really think people who are suffering
in poverty aren't doing everything they can to escape it?

No, the flesh was already burnt, and the hand is rotting.  Surgery is
required.  Now, do you want pain killers?

Clearly, a society that pays lots of able-bodied people not to work is
not going to survive.  What we need is a system which ensures that
almost everyone CAN succeed, and that those who can't are not allowed
to starve.  Simply ripping out welfare is not going to solve the
systemic problems that created the problem of widespread poverty.

-- 
-Peter Schachte
pschachte@analog.ingr.com
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:27:28 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <6233@public.BTR.COM>, timlee@btr.com stated:
>conib@peri.gvg.tek.com (Coni Britten) writes:
>|
>|Could you please give some citations of the use of the term "Politically
>|Correct" (*with* its current definition of referring to non-right-wing
>|political views, please) by "leftist student activists" which occur PRIOR
>|to George Will's first use of this term in this way? 
>
>Certainly.  A leftist student politician at Berkeley, discussing
>possible candidates for student government elections, used the
>term "PC" rather frequently as a means of describing the desirability
>of possible candidates for her party.

During my years at a certain Ivy League university (1978-82), the
phrase was common as a way of distinguishing between groups of
left-leaning students.  On one hand, there were those who might be
characterized as Your Average Liberal; on the other hand, there were
truly militant individuals with ideas further out along the
ideological spectrum.  Those of us in the former group (including me;
having grown up in Oklahoma and owning a rifle, how Spartacist could I
be?) referred to these others as the politically correct.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:52:11 GMT

harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>In article <WEYAND.92Apr7222939@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu> weyand@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand) writes:
>>Where did you get the idea that libertarians want to change the country
>>overnight?   e.g. libertarians support the abolition of income taxes.
>>If a libertarian were President would this happen in a day, week, month?
>>No, we all know it would take a significant amount of time.  I believe you 
>>may be confusing the ideals set forth in the platform with their actual
>>implementation.  I don't think any of us believe that we could (or would
>>even want to) establish a completely libertarian society too quickly...

>I don't mean to compare the two political systems, but didn't the
>Communist Party say that government, while necessary today, would
>eventually phase itself out, as the inevitable "perfect society"
>gradually developed?  Once they gained power in Russia, they never
>quite made it to that point...

Well, we don't believe big government is necessary today or otherwise.
It's not a matter of needing it as transitional form, it's a matter of
exactly of having to work with congress as well.  You can bet that if
suddenly there was a L president and congress you'd see income taxes
gone like that <*snap*>, and spending as well.  As it is, since that
won't happen, we're giving people an intermediate goal to shoot for.
If they don't want to go any farther than that, they can vote for
Demopublicans after we get there.

Communism mandated a large government to control the economy and the
means of production initially, until the time was right.  Which it
never was, of course.  Libertarians don't see big government as
anything but a negative - to maintain one is the antithesis of
everything libertarian.  Nor does libertarianism require perfect
people as communism does.  Rather, it attempts to channel those
imperfections into useful results.
-- 
In the beginning there was nothing.  God said, "Let there be light!"  And there
was light.  There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18034 soc.culture.jewish:7915
From: schwartz@nynexst.com (Steven Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: schwartz@nynexst.com
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY
Originator: schwartz@baba


In article <1992Apr13.140609.17239@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.105704.12741@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
> >  EDS has had a bad reputation among computer professionals for a
> >  long time.  In many ways, EDS is stricter than even the Eisenhower
> >  administration.  Jews have been fired for refusing to shave off 
> >  their beards.  
> 
> Does anyone have documentation/additional information about this?

I recently listened to a book-on-cassette (forget the title)
that detailed his rescue of two EDS employees from an Iranian 
prison during the overthrow of the Shah.  In a conversation
with one of the employees, who had grown a beard to look more
Levantine, Perot is claimed to allow him to retain the moustache,
but not the beard, when he returns to the U.S.  This in itself
was to be a change in EDS policy.
-- 
Steven H. Schwartz		Expert Systems Laboratory
schwartz@nynexst.com		NYNEX Science and Technology Center
PROFS: SCHWARTZ@UNIX		500 Westchester Avenue
914-644-2960			White Plains NY 10604
From: dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Danny McGurl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jerry's Tax (was Tax simplification)
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:44:50 GMT
Organization: Revelstone High Command

In <70585@bcsaic.UUCP> lbaum@bcsaic.UUCP (Larry Baum) writes:

>Unfortunately, the doing away with the personal exemptions for
>each family member (currently 1900) greatly outweighs any
>benefit from the rent deduction.  In fact it outweighs the
>comined effect of the rent deduction and the elimination of
>FICA!

That depends greatly on who you are and how much you make.

Cosider a single person.  1900 / 12 is well under 200$ and most people
spend more than that on rent.  That doesn't even include FICA elimination.
For anyone making 30K or so a year, the FICA elimination will be even 
greater than the 1,900$ deduction.
-- 
Danny McGurl                        "No, no Pixel!  Beer is not for baby cats."
Office of Information Technology        --Richard Ames,
dsm@prism.gatech.edu 		        __The Cat Who Walks Through Walls__
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Holocaust Myths/CAN'T...Correction
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:00:50 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

sorry for the typo in the third to last paragraph.
The first line should read:

>Next, this guy will deny that the massacre at Wounded Knee <EVER> happened....

It's a little hard to proofread spelling at this hour, especially when I feel
as incessed and fed up with his propagandistic trash as I do right now.
Joe
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16987 alt.politics.homosexuality:1755 alt.sex:13585
From: robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
Subject: Re: LeHoullier And AIDS
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:44:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

In article <1992Apr04.114414.23632@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>I do not recommend that we limit
>our sex partners to one, I recommend that the best way to fight aids
>is to learn honesty and get tested and then only have sex with people
>who can show recent negative tests and who have reputations for
>truthfulness among their friends and who also only have sex with such
>negative tested and truthful individuals.

And you'll wind up getting AIDS anyway when one of your "trusted
individuals" has a condom break on them, or swallows some female
cum because "it's safe", or gets a false negative, or turns out
to not be as honest as you thought.

Thinking that you can avoid AIDS by relying on the honesty of your
partners is an utter crock.  Safer sex is the only way to reliably
reduce your risk.  That means NO transmission of bodily fluids,
and latex barriers for ALL oral/genital/digital/anal contact.

>If people adhered to a tribal ethic and loyalty about this
>issue, then we could isolate AIDS, and only one more generation of its
>propagation would exist among people.

Bullshit.  If people would adhere to using safer sex, and ONLY safer
sex, and ALWAYS safer sex, we MIGHT have a chance at isolating this
disease.

>So maybe the world is trying to tell us to learn honesty in a
>non-judgmental statistical evolutionary way. It is comforting to find
>that somehow, honesty is regarded by the universe as a survival
>"virtue".

In these plague years, relying on honesty won't save you.  It only
takes one slip to infect you.  YOU are the only person who can
safeguard your health--and the only way for you to do so is safer
sex.

The true survival virtue is knowledge--knowledge of safer sex
techniques and the urgency of using them.  Your "survival virtue" 
of "honesty" is in fact anything but.

--
Rob Jellinghaus                | "Next time you see a lie being spread or
Autodesk, Inc.                 |  a bad decision being made out of sheer
Internet: robertj@Autodesk.COM |  ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext."
AMIX: RJELLINGHAUS             |    -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:52:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.142325.89244@watson.ibm.com> you write:
>djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM:

>FABULOUS!  all we've seen around here is your larger than life asshole.
> i must say that i've seen better looking assholes before, but
>GIRLFRIEND, what i wouldn't give to butter your tight buttocks!
>
>now let's see, should we use margarine for fewer calories?  nahhh,
>we'll be burning off those calories shortly.  the squeezable's always
>laughable -- i get target practice first, and it always lubes so much
>more efficiently than the butter knife.  then there's the whipped
>brands, but they tend to break down...
>
>oh, decisions...decisions...
>
>--
>Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
>Queer Without A Cause!
>"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
>right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon



                 Ah the wit. MUCH to much free time.

Ryan C. Scharfy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18115 alt.news-media:223