HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:51:55 GMT

William December Starr writes
> Don't private schools generally have a lot more leeway than public
> schools in deciding which prospective students to admit and in
> disciplining/expelling troublemakers and poor students?  If so, it
> isn't too surprising that, all other things being equal, the private
> schools turn out a better "product."

  Exactly.  In my limited experience, most private schools operate on  
principles similar to those of an insurance company.  That is, if the risk you  
carry is to great, you are dropped.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12937 talk.politics.misc:45059 ca.politics:7688 alt.politics.correct:5285
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:05:36 GMT
	<1992Sep8.050626.26509@ncar.ucar.edu> <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org>
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
   To take the case one step futher.

   Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
   stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
   for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
   is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.

   Would this be legal in a libertarian world.

I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12999 alt.flame:12801
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Lets not blame Reagan for everything....
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:45:18 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep12.171711.25763@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:

>The Cuban Missile Crisis only served to show just how stable the Cold
>War was.  The nuclear deterrent was SO strong that the Soviets backed
>down even though it meant an MONUMENTAL political defeat.

Yeah, stable.  What would have happened had we not spotted the missiles?

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12522 talk.politics.misc:43992
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:36:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <farenebt.715532461@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, 
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) said:

> A famous court case called Marbury vs Madison established the
> precedent of judicial review. That's where. Much like many other
> traditions, jud review is not written anywhere but has just been
> following that precedent (and basically is now accepted).
>
> For example, the V-P is President of the Senate according to the
> Constitution but precedent has established that he only attends
> sessions in order to break a tie vote.

This tradition only seems to be general... I think I recall seeing
then-Vice President Bush, acting in his capacity as President of the
Senate, performing the duty of receiving and announcing the official
results of the 1988 Electoral College balloting.  Admittedly, this was
a purely ceremonial event -- Candidate Bush would have become the
President-Elect even if it hadn't been Vice President Bush presiding
over the ritual -- but it _is_ a case of the VP-as-Senate-President
doing something other than casting a tie-breaking vote.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:11:48 GMT


In article <Btz25F.F07@encore.com>, 
rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) said:

> I saw on CSPAN a few weeks ago a session on proposals to reform the
> presidential election process.  Basically, they were discussing
> getting rid of the electoral college, making each vote equal, and
> requiring a run-off between the top two candidates if no candidate
> receives a simple majority.

[ * * *]

> Also, having a run-off rather than letting the Senate decide would
> encourage people to vote their best choice (read Libertarian) rather
> than do the horse-race thing?  For example, let's say the country
> votes 49% Dem, 48% Rep, and 3% Lib.  In the current system, the vote
> would go to the Senate, the majority party (Dem) would win.  Now, in
> a run-off, the Libs, having had their say, could then vote the
> lesser of 2 evils.

I have an alternative suggestion: why not dump both the electoral
college and the run-off idea and simply declare the candidate with the
most popular votes to be the winner?

(I've heard the run-off concept defended by argument that the
democratic system, in order to retain a veneer of legitimacy, "needs"
to be able to display a winner who garnered a majority of the votes; I
suggest that twiddling the democratic system in order to generate such
a result _artificially_ instead gives the system a smell of hypocrisy
that does more harm than good.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13012 talk.politics.misc:45198 alt.politics.marrou:1142 alt.politics.bush:4963 alt.politics.clinton:5222 alt.politics.perot:1462
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Yet another wager for the cowardly
Date: 8 Sep 1992 01:52:57 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>Who'll bet their hard earned cash on these promises? My $20 says he's lying.

Of course he is.  That's the whole point of the election process.  The
best liar wins.

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! ***
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:27:24 GMT

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>
>>Quite simply because the people of the state of Wyoming would have their
>>legitimate interests subordinated to the interests of, say, New Yorkers.

>Doesn't it work that way anyway?  Doesn't each state have a number of
>electoral votes based on their population?  

A state's electoral vote allocation is the total of its number of Senators 
and Representatives. Since all states have two Senators regardless of
population, and at least 1 representative, the minimum allocation is 3 votes.
So you might say it's only partially based on population.

This appears to give very small states an advantage in terms of number of
electoral votes per capita. However, there is another effect that favors
large states and largely wipes out any small state advantage. I don't
know if I have this exactly right, but it's something like the swing vote
in each state has fewer electoral votes per capita than say, Wyoming, but
those voters "control" a much larger block of electoral votes that move as
a unit. Anyway, the way it works out is that the importance of a state in
terms of where to allocate campaign resources is proportional to the 3/2 power
of its number of electors. So, for example:

      EV      EV^3/2   popul.    EV per 100K pop  EV^3/2 per 100K pop
      ==      ======   =======   ===============  ===================
CA    54      397      29.8mil        0.18               1.33
WY     3      5.2      0.45mil        0.67               1.16
NY    33      190      18.0mil        0.18               1.06
NH     4      8.0      1.11mil        0.36               0.72

So candidates would do well to spend almost twice as much per capita in
CA vs. NH.
---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
76.3
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: None are so fallible as those who are sure they're right
Summary: Yup, jking really screwed up the theodora (toni) nathan question
Keywords: EV, electoral votes, libertarian, electors, toni nathan, snafu
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:10:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

(I'm keeping the subject line because I sure did screw up on this point,
 but I would like to say that I never said I was sure I was right, just
 what my reading of the almanac was.  But anyway...)

stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>Well, I *could* quibble and say I had said electoral votes, plural, but
>>that doesn't seem fair.  For whatever it's worth, my almanac only noted
>>the maverick elector in a footnote, and didn't list a party.  I take it
>>that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
>>ticket that year?  For what it is worth, the elector came from Virginia.
>
>The LP ticket was headed by John Hospers and TONIE Nathan.
>
>Theodore is a man's name, and I expect Tonie would be chagrined to hear
>you call her that.

Yup, I blew it.  The name in the World Almanac was given as Theodor*A*
Nathan (without the stars :-)), which I pretty witlessly masculinized.
As it turns out, Theodora Nathan doesn't use that first name, which
probably didn't help me out.

>The elector, Roger MacBride, was chosen on behalf of Nixon and Agnew.
>In 1976, MacBride was the LP nominee.  He has since rejoined the GOP,
>where he has worked with the Republican Liberty Caucus, a libertarian
>organization.

Any word on what Nathan is doing now?  The short bios posted recently
don't take us out of the 70s.

>>I'd probably mark it down as pinch runner scoring from third on a
>>sacrifice fly.
>
>Hard to say.  Faithless electors are nothing unusual, though they have 
>more often voted for the chief opponent of the man on whose behalf they 
>were nominated.  I'd pick a somewhat more commonplace analogy.

Hmm.  I thought the analogy was very close and pretty well matched for
frequency.  Neither event is an error, and neither accounts for more
than 1% of the scoring.  Faithless electors *are* quite unusual,
apparently running on average less than one per election even
recently, when it has become something of a fad.

(Aside: In 1872, the Democratic electors refused to vote for Horace
Greely, due to a technically, e.g. he was dead. :-) And in 1960, Sen.
Byrd got 15 EVs, inlcuding 8 from the Democratic Unpledged electors in
Mississippi; where did the others come from?  Remember I'm bad with
fine print.)

The World Almanac makes explicit note of the
following unfaithful electors:

1956	1 Alabama elector fails to vote for Stevenson
1960?	Senator Byrd gets 15 EVs, 8 from the unpledged MS electors, and...?
1972	1 VA elector goes Libertarian (see above)
1976	1 WA elector goes for Reagan instead of Ford
1988	1 elector goes for Lloyd Bentsen instead of Dukakis.

We're talking about a fraction of 1% even if there were 7 faithless
electors in 1960.

jking
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Date: 7 Sep 1992 00:22:53 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:

| Sad to say, I don't think the Libertarian ideals take people into
| account in their principles.  Here's a hypothetical. Let's say I
| am looking at buying a PC.  I am a poor grad student, so I can only
| afford, at most a $1500 computer.   Part of my income tax, say $2000,
| goes to SS, education, and federal disaster relief.

| Now under a Libertarian government, income tax is eliminated and I
| have that $2000 back for me.  Now would I spend it in donations to
| private charities, old folks homes, or schools, or would I redirect it
| to my PC purchase so I can buy a $3500 machine?

A valid point, but you don't follow up with it.  The extra $2000
dollars doesn't just go to hell.  It goes to buy a better machine,
with better or more design, better or more parts, and better or more
labor.

In other words, it goes into corporate and labor pockets, increasing
(a) investment and productive capital and (b) employee wages.  The
former means more productivity at lower cost, and the latter means
more employment at higher wages.  Given this, people can afford
their own SS, education, and disaster insurance.  Or do you believe
that because the government puts its golden hands on it, the $2000 is
somehow worth more to its recipients than if it flowed to them through
voluntary trade?

| Again, the LP's math doesn't work out.  A precedent was established in the
| 1980s with the S&L scandal.  S&Ls were deregulated in the hopes that
| more money and fewer restrictions would increase the amount of wealth
| in the country for more people--exactly the scenario envisioned by the
| LP.  Instead, the S&Ls bought stock in overpriced real-estate and
| burned most of their capital in frauds and risky investments, and all
| that wealth was pissed away.  I don't want to risk that happening in
| general with Libertarian governments.

If you think that the S&L mess was prompted by libertarian (i.e.,
mutually voluntary) association, I have a deal for you.  I will take
$1000 out of my savings account and try to make $2000 from it for
myself.  But, if I lose any or all of the $1000, you send me a check
for my losses.

Deal?

Or do you see just who the nonvoluntary participant is in this
arrangement.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Gore on Sunday Interview Show
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:01:02 GMT


In article <16855CE46.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, 
JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com said:

> My favorite line from Gore on one of the major shows (sorry I cannot
> recall which one) this past Sunday a.m.: After spending 5 minutes
> bashing Bush for his reneging on the "No New Taxes" pledge, Gore was
> asked "How did you vote on that budget package, Senator?"  Gore's
> answer: "Oh, I voted for it. . . uh. . but I had recommended a
> different package."
> 
> Dear Mr. Gore:  That is exactly what Bush had done.  

But had Gore previously made a "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge to
the nation?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:37:21 GMT

In article <1685EB8C1.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
> 
>>     [...]
>>Too late.  Ronnie already did that.  Yes, any clueless people who
>>might be reading this, RONNIE destroyed the economy, NOT George Bush!
>>Does this mean Bush is free of fault?  Of course not.  What did he do?
>>Well...nothing.  :)
> 
>Speaking of clueless! That's the centerpiece of the revisionist 80s
>history, isn't it? Reagan presided over the longest peacetime economic
>boom in the nation's history-> ergo we will assert it didn't really exist.
>The Reagan-era debt was not particularly large historically- so we'll
>report it in nominal terms to make it look big.

Speaking of simple-minded blind partisanship.  Has it never occured to
you that economic policies can have *future* rather than immediate
repercussions?  No, obviously not.  If the economy looks fine, then
the current policies are fine.

CLUE:  There was no "boom" in the 1980s!  The economic "prosperity"
  was never anything more than an illusion.  Reagan borrowed money and 
  called it prosperity, and now we're paying for it.  And shockingly,
  when the man who was the first to aptly describe Reagan's
  borrow-now-and-spend-spend-spend-and-worry-about-it-later economic
  plan as "voodoo economics" took over as president, he continued the
  same idiotic policies.

>Yes, George, in his bipartisan way, killed the boom. The argument posted
>by "bis" and so many others seems to be that if there was a boom, Reagan
>killed it (taking twelve years to do so), but there really wasn't a boom,

Clearly you live in the media's litte black-and-white world of right
and left, and of neatly predifined opinion-packages.  If someone
states an opinion that belongs to a certain opinion-package, then you
can take it for granted that that person subscribes to that opinion-
package, and if you attack any of the package's contents, whether they
have anything to do with what the person actually said or not, then
you weaken that person's argument.  Extremely simple-minded, but
unfortunately most people think in those terms.

>and Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president.

Did I say Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president?  Did I even *imply*
that was just a *good* president?  No.  So why did you assume I think
so?  Because you're a simple-minded idiot.

>Got it.

No, obviously you don't.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: None
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:26:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.164235.17688@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>After reading the "Blame the Democrats" thread and seeing the debate over
>term limitations come up, I must ask a question.  Why do some favor it?  It
>seems to me that if a Senator/Representative is not doing a good job, the 
>people could just vote him/her out.  And if said politician is doing a good
>job, then term limitations would eliminate a good leader.  Term limitations
>seems like a bad idea but I would like to hear arguements in favor of it.
>
>  -- Scott @Brandeis


I am opposed mainly because incumbents have considerable advantages
that challengers lack:
1-Incumbents have the franking privilege, essentially free use of the
  mail. Ever notice how we hear from your elected politician a lot
  more often just before an election.
  This can be worth LOTS of money when you think that there are
  just 2 senators in a state. How can a challenger send mail to
  50% or more of the state without spending a small fortune?
2-Incumbents attract special interest money since special interests
  tend to back winners and do so to curry favor.
  Challengers do not have the same level of attraction.
3-Incumbents may become too distant from the people. That is one
  reason they call the US Senate the most exclusive club in the world.
  The same is also true for the House of Representatives.
4-Incumbents can swing money/projects/funds back to the district and
  thus look good near election time. Challengers cannot do this.

Regards,

Joe
joec@morgan.com
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: pat robertson
Date: 30 Aug 92  12:20:00 EST

-> >Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
-> >amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
-> >
-> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
->
-> I don't think the text of the amendment is the point.  The article
-> shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be
-> running around loose.
What's more frightening is the fact that Robertson, known affectionately around these parts as The Virginia Beach Ayatollah, is a serious whacko with serious political clout.  "Rev." Robertson has stated that Hinduism is Satanism, his prayers stopped a hurricane (where was he during Andrew?), and, in his recent speech to the Republican National Convention, that "It's time for America to get rid of its left wingers!"

Pat Robertson is a purveyor of neo-McCarthyism (see the above quote), religious bigotry (see his quote on Hinduism), and miscellaneous nonsense.  May he go the way of Jim, Tammy, Jimmy Swaggart, and the other Elmer Gantrys who worship at the altar of Mammon and political power."

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Free speech is life itself."
           --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 04:32:30 GMT


Okay the President is responsible for none of the US problems.  Reagen
and Bush nonetheless _are_ taking credit for ending the Cold War.  
Please explain just what a Republican President does to obtain
this unique position.  If, as you seem to suggest, the President
has no effect on laws or the economy, than perhaps Bush shouldn't be 
talking about taxes and creating more jobs, and Reagan shouldn't be
taking credit (or given credit) for tiny improvements in the
economy.

Just a few thoughts and questions.

 
======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections