HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:59:16 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <MATT.92Sep10141201@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>>	(2) Every major newspaper I have seen has a "business" section,
>>	    complete with many pages of information that is of interest
>>	    only to well-off investors.  When is the last time you saw
>>	    a newspaper with a "labor" section?

>  What would you put in it?   I'm an investor and I'm also
>  "labor" in the sense that I work (sell my labor) for a
>  living.   Every day I peruse the business section looking 
>  for information on companies or industries I follow or 
>  economic trends that I can use to make investment decisions.

>  What would you put in a "labor" section that would be similarly
>  useful in decision-making?   (note that statistics about labor,
>  e.g., employment, productivity, wages, strikes, workforce com-
>  position, etc, are *already* in the business section.)


Newspapers used to have reporters who covered labor issues and it
wouldn't be at all hard to put together a regular labor section, perhaps
one that alternated with a business section.  Of significance to people
in the production (rather than the investment) end of the business world
is news about what other working people are doing.  Organization efforts
and strikew news, among other things, get short shrift in virtually all
daily newspapers, television and the newsweeklies -- unless the strike
succeeds in affecting daily lives of other people.

You may think labor issues are adequately covered, but pretty obviously
members of the labor force disagree.

Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400) 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:45:10 GMT


  I just want to note that the article that started this post was
really a reflection of the opinions of its author, Robert Rector.
Mr Rector is a policy analyst for welfare and family issues at
the Heritage Foundation.  Such has been noted in other newsgroups,
but is simply being referred to as the WSJ article in this one.

  Call me a stickler for attributions.

Pat



-- 
Patrick Sugent				Email me if you really want  
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4089 alt.politics.perot:1398 rec.humor:27890 talk.bizarre:28938 talk.politics.misc:43829
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:46:47 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep14.142835.16612@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>The reason I haven't bothered to be as thorough on this thread is that
>I make it a rule NEVER to debate with rude and obnoxious individuals. If
>somebody with more class would like to debate this issue at a polite level,
>I will be more than happy to continue.

>Dr. Norman J. LaFave

I guess this means that the good doctor never talks to himself.  
So far doc you have been the one who has been rude and obnoxious.

I guess you consider it rude for us to point out just how big an A**hole
you have been.  It takes a lot more than some fancy degree to give somebody
class.  I guess you aren't educated enough to figure that out for
yourself.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4991 alt.news-media:1262 talk.politics.misc:44920
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:51:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BuA18H.511@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com I write:

>>  this country, I believe that they *do* have some degree of obligation towards
>>  objectivity. In a way, your attitude is like asking a jury to ignore the facts
>>  of the case (ie, forget being objective) and concentrate on irrelevant factors
>>  when making their decision.
>
>  But juries have certain advantages: they only have to make a yes/no decision
>  and they have a standard (the law) to base that decision on.   Now before you
>  say that journalists also have a standard, "the truth", consider that most
>  journalistic bias, at least in the US, is not based on telling untruths, 
>  but on matters of emphasis.   It is "the truth" that many economists say
>  that NAFTA will generate 400,000 new jobs; it is also "the truth" that many
>  economists say that 150,000 existing jobs may be lost.

  I should have added that it is also "the truth" that economists have a 
  truly lousy track record at making any predictions and that, in any case, 
  economists disagree on NAFTA, other experts disagree on the noneconomic
  social side-effects.   What would constitute an "objective" treatment
  of a topic like NAFTA, especially when operating on a time or space 
  constraint?   If you try to present "all" points of view how do you
  decide what's a relevant point of view?   How do you decide what weight
  to give different claims, or different sides of an issue?   Should you
  give everything equal weight or try to give more emphasis to those
  views with more following?  In the recent balanced budget amendment
  vote over a hundred leading economists including a number (I think 6)
  of Nobel laureates signed an open letter opposing the amendment.  Did
  this represent the majority view among economists, or merely that of
  a vocal minority?  How should this be "objectively" reported?  Should
  the press have actively sought out enough leading economists who 
  supported the amendment to provide "balance"?   


---peter



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:35:10 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:


>     All of the people you refer to as the "radical right" are
>ministers (not all good ones) -- it is a minister's *job* to teach
>Biblical morality.  I am not a minister, hence I am not out to
>teach morality to peers of mine.  But this does not mean that
>I feel any less strongly about moral issues than do ministers.
>Also, I do not believe all these guys are out to shove morality down 
>others' throats -- have they shoved morality down your throat?

First off, I don't see that it's morality they're shoving because many of
their views certainly aren't very moral.  But it's some twisted
agenda that they're shoving.

Now, my point what place to they have in making their religion
be part of the U.S. government?  Do you believe that all people who
are part of this country are Christian?  There is a freedom to
practice the religion of your choice in the US.  Even tho most
presidents (maybe all) in my lifetime have been supportive of a
religious lifestyle, I've looked to them for the economic guidance
and security for our country but certainly not religion.  I look to
myself, my family, and maybe a clergy person for guidance.  I don't
go to the dentist to get my fuel injectors adjusted although he may
well be a competent mechanic and work on his own automobile.

I watched a bit of the 7** Club last night.  I do indeed feel that
Pat R*b*rts*n is indeed shoving his religion on us.  He was
commenting on how proud he was that his agenda was influencing US
policy.  He was hoping for a victory in the US gov't for the
Christian Coalition's agenda.  He was quite happy that the
republican national convention focused more on the gov't limiting
what you can do in your bedroom instead of unimportant issues like
the budget deficit.  Based on the trash he's putting out and pumping
money into, he wants to encourage laws that condemn people and deny
them of their rights.  It is not "shoving morality down our throats"
because, simply, it isn't moral.  But it is very imposing to
people's livelihoods in an area where gov't has no business.

They say the party that R*b*rts*n supports wants to get gov't out of
people's lives...yeah right.

Now, of course not all religious people are doing this.  Many are
quite displeased with the influence some are trying to gain in the
gov't.  Those who are trying to use religion as policy are pretty
alarming.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4998 alt.politics.bush:4786 tx.politics:5127
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: The debates about health care
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:51:23 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas


	I've seen lots and lots of discussion about all kinds of health
	care -- everything from socialized to nothing!  Comparisons of
	what is available in other countries with all kinds of questionable 
	statistical evidence.

	For some time, I've been  mulling over JUDY's MIRACLE HEALTH PLAN
	FOR AMERICA and I'd like to toss it out for discussion.  It goes
	something like this.  

		1) Companies are required to provide major medical for
		employees; this means about $500 deductible per year.
		In other words, employees pay most of the bill themselves
		and insurance would pick up on the "major expenses."
		This would cut premiums dramatically (anyone know any
		statistics on this one?), thereby cutting labor costsd
		to businesses drastically, yet providing a safety net
		for employees protecting them against major expenses.

		2) Some manner of basic health care such as prenatal,
		immunizations, etc., provided by government to those 
		who can't pay for it.  

	And, PLEASE, this is not some scheme to "help the poor;" it is a
 	realistic approach ( ? ) to a social issue that most (no, not
	all) people believe needs to be addressed as a critical U.S.
	infrastructural problem.


	If anyone cares to develop this discussion or shoot it down,
	I'd like some opinions.


		Judy.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4370 alt.politics.homosexuality:5781
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:59:15 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: usa
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
|> Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
|> the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground, or
|> the "straight" guy getting beat up because he made a pass at someone's
|> girlfriend.  While none of these is truly acceptable, the source of the
|> problem has nothing to do with homosexuality; it has do to with low
|> tolerance for someone else's views or lifestyle, or in the latter case,
|> selfishness and (usually) insecurity.
|> 

Yes, you're rambling.  Why don't you call CUAV (Community United
Against Violence) about bashing statistics.  Then come back and
talk.  Or how about stepping out with the Street Patrol in the
Castro (SF California) and see how they can't even cover that small area
to protect people who are simply going to the local bar or heading
down to Walgreens for their meds.

Later,
George

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.014657.19620@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep11.183734.6657@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
> |> We have had 12 disasterous years due to these sheep. Ronald Reagan presented
> |> them with flags, bombs bursting in air, mom, apple pie, and baseball and they
> |> bought it hook, line, and sinker. The sad thing is that they have been the
> |> ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
> |> these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
> |> a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).
> 
> I see.  These rednecks are so dumb they don't even know they're suffering.
> Thank you Dr.
> -- 
> Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               
> 
> It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
> 
> 

I grew up with these people Eric, did you? They are so blinded by their in-bred
biases and bigotry that they are blind to their own lot. I challenge you to go
to any small southern town and look at the conditions of their local economy,
or the conditions the people are living in. Afterwards, go and start a political
discussion with the locals and find out what they think the real issues in the
election are. I think you might find it surprising.

Norman (for you anti-intellectuals)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:44:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
: >varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

: >: 	This country was founded on the idea of free trade. 
: >
: >No problems here, except I dislike the idea that we are doing so much
: >trade with countries that are all but closed to U.S. investment.
: 
: Was it really?  This country was _very_ protectionist during the late
: 1800's when our industry was devloping.  

Was this before or after the legendary "yankee traders?"

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(Homosexuality is) "more of
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			a choice than a biological
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			situation.  I think it
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		is the wrong choice."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle          

Marrou/Lord in '92







Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5225 alt.politics.bush:4967 alt.politics.marrou:1145
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:01:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <BuA65H.97M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>What bothers me about the "Family Values" plank is how some of the
>Republicans at the national convention were reacting to the idea.
>I'm talking about the folks who were cheering and holding up "FAMILY
>rights, not GAY rights" signs, and the anti-choice folks.  C-SPAN
>did some rather...interesting camera work during that part of the
>convention.

I have absolutely no problem with "Gay rights".  I do have a problem with
having a lifestyle shoved down our throats (sorry).  I think there was
a mistake made with signs like that, but it's a reaction to the other
side with their intolerance with people who don't agree with them.  What
you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, when it becomes
a public issue, it begs for an argument, from one side or the other.  

Hetrosexuals, as a rule, don't wear their sexual preference as a badge of
honor, and when homosexuals do, it creates a conflict.  I have worked
with and like folks from both persuasions, but dislike it when either
type make an issue of their personal lifestyle.

And as for Bush pandering to the ultraconservative, why not?  The
Democrats have been pandering to the ultraliberals for years.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu  
Subject: TRANSCRIPT OF CLINTON'S NOTRE DAME SPEECH WANTED
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:42:00 GMT

Would anyone who has a copy of Clinton's speech at Notre Dame (Friday,
Sept. 11, 1992) please send it to me at:

	rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
or
	rlc1028@tamzeus.BITNET

Thanks in advance!

R.L. Cox
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: sex-ed
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:14:19 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
: 
: 	I would like to request that only people with children
: enrolled in U.S. public schools, who are near the age at which
: theyt are expected to study sex-ed, should publish.
: 	Everyone else has at best their own agenda.
: 	So post if you have kids of age in public school in the U.S.
: 
How about those of us who hope to have kids in the not-so-distant future?
Can't we throw in our three cents' worth?  After all, most of us will
be sending our kids through the public school systems of this country,
and considering how long it takes things to change in this country....

Or how about those of us on the net who went through the public school
systems not so long ago, and know first-hand just how inadequate the
current "sex-ed" curriculum is.  What?  You don't want us to speak?
Wonder why....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:19:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.145020.781@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.050324.16807@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
>wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>> [Much deleted]
>> You will note that jews didn't go
>> around in the old testament to non-Jewish areas and kill homosexuals
>> because they were homosexual.  They may have killed the homosexuals
>> if they were threatening the Jews, but they did not go out of their way.
>
>Gee john peter, the implications of what you are not saying here are
>quite interesting.
>
>So, then why did the Jews go around in the old testament to non-Jewish
>areas and killed homosexuals?  And were there like tribes or bands or
>gangs of homosexuals that wandered around in biblical times and
>occasionally threatened Jews?  And you also seem to be implying that
>there weren't any homosexuals that were also Jews.  (Of course if
>there were, luckily they had another tribe they go join.)
>
>Jim - (who realizes that most of this was just sloppy attempt to

	So, I suppose you are ignorant of the story of the city
which wanted to forcefully copulate with a Jewish family.  You are
probably familiar with the name.  Angels escorted the Jewish family out
of the city and God destroyed it.  There were no instances in the bible
in which Jews went out of their way to kill or molest homosexuals.  That
is what I said.  In your defensiveness you lend yourself to ignorance
and fear.

			J. Wagner
P.S. Do you have a problem with my name?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC flamefest
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:37:58 GMT

In article <BuMKH1.E5K@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> 
> In article <9121@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep14.214958.696@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> >MW:I didn't grow up with them, but then again some of my best friends are
> >MW:rednecks. ;^)
> >
> >MW:I am sorry you feel this way.  Sounds like you need to get some professional
> >MW:help to get rid of these feelings of hostility.
> > 
> >DOC:Sounds like you need to go home and have your mother reteach you some manners.
> >DOC:If I sound hostile, it is because the irresponsible voting of this
> >DOC:portion of the electorate does affect the rest of our lives.
> 
>    What is "irresponsible voting"?  Is it just voting that disagrees with 
>    your views?

Absolutely not! If a person does his patriotic duty to study the
issues and the programs of the candidates and still disagrees with
me, I can respect that.

>    There are many different bases for deciding who to vote
>    for - who is to say which is the most legitimate one?   Should I vote
>    based on what's in my perceived best interest or that of my district, 
>    or that of the country, etc? 

That is up to the individual. However, if you have a family, I think an
individual should give their long-term health, safety, and prosperity
the greatest priority.
  
> 
> 
> ---peter
> 
> 
> 

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5131 alt.politics.bush:4893
From: bjcg2405@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (gn0tt)
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:12:45 GMT

garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:

[stuff deleted]
>I
>took a course in high school in speed reading and read (not kidding!) at
>over 10,000 words per minute with something like 75% comprehension.  
[more stuff deleted]

>	Gary

Gary, if you are not schizophrenic, then you still have a serious problem.
You are completely full of shit.  No crime here, though.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton