HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment,alt.activism,rec.nude
Subject: Re: Ozone hole farce? (was Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct)
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:07:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:

> Recently I heard a news report stating that peer data (from other scientists
> besides NASA, who publicized this in the first place) does not support the
> conclusion that the ozone layer is being depleted.  The general idea is that
> ozone is highly variable, that holes appear and disappear frequently, and that
> the big hole recently publicized may have been the result of a volcano.  The
> scientists say that overall, ozone had increased by 25% since the early
> 70's (my memory may not be exact here)
>                                  AND.....
> The level of UV reaching the earth's surface has actually decreased 
> in recent years!

Whenever I see the word "scientists" in a posting like this, it
reminds me of the headlines I see in the supermarket checkout aisles.
If you want to have any credibility at all, you'll have to give us
some sources.

Could you please give us references to where you found this "news
report" and who these "scientists" are?  If the Weekly World News can
find "scientists" to support its findings, I imagine that you could
find "scientists" to say just about anything.

Also, please try to avoid confusion between ozone depletion and global
warming.  They are two entirely different issues.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Even the Pro-socialized Medicine Types Hate It
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:36:53 GMT

gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>Considering that none of the half-cocked plans described in the New
>York Times look anything like the plain, straight-out insurance* that
>pays private medical practices and public/semi-private hospitals in
>Canada, Germany and France (hey, just ask Georges Habash! (-;), no
>surprise there.  But as long as "not invented here" thrives and the
>U.S. can't swallow it's pride at how other western free market
>democracies do it, well ...

Care to name me one western democracy with a free market?  Accepting
these restrictions on freedom is just another in a series of long
encroachments on freedom.  A country which regulates the Canadian
content of the music its radio stations certainly might be puzzled at
why we don't want to give up even more.


>(*Not that it won't stop some folks lumping them into "socialized
>Medicine" with what British Labour made into the NHS and what they had
>in the Eastern bloc -- and not that I'd ever expect them to travel to
>Canada, France and Germany either (-;).

Go fuck yourself. :)
-- 
Put your Nose to the Grindstone!
 		-- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.misc,alt.revisionism,misc.headlines
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:33:49 -0400 
From: Andrew B Stellman <as7l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Want facts? "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA? The Alarming Facts"


>
>                         WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?
>                          The Alarming Facts

As an aside, one has to suspect any article whose title contains "the
alarming facts." 

Has anyone else noticed that all of Mr. Winston's anti-semitic (oops,
sorry, "revisionist") posts are all written in the "shocking" and
easy-to-read style of the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News or
the Sun or the Globe? [The rags that run articles such as: "Bigfoot Baby
Found," "Elvis Seen in Shopping Mall," "UFO's kidnap baby and molest
mother," and "Horse With Human Head Adopted By Family Of UFO-Aliens And
Kidnapped By Elvis And JFK While Posessed By The Devil.")


Andrew
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17259 talk.politics.guns:11347 misc.entrepreneurs:1489 alt.individualism:2322 comp.sys.next.misc:13536
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism,comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:26:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dewey, Screwum & Howe, Inc.

In article <1992Mar30.055147.11728@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>...
>A few years ago, Perot gave his prescription for solving crime problems:
>cordon off minority neighborhoods and search house-to-house for guns and
>drugs.
>
>There you have it, folks, a simultaneous urination on THREE
>Consitutional amendments:
>
>II: RKBA (no matterhow you slice it)
>IV: Warrantless seach, security in the home
>XIV: Equal protection of the laws.
>
>You WANT this man as your President?  He's openly soliciting the votes
>of the disaffected, and promising to make the trains run on time.  
>
>This is a man who gave money to Col. Bo Gritz a few years ago.  
>
>This is a man who summarily fires employees who are having extramarital
>affairs.
>
>This is a man who makes Pat Buchanan look reasonable.  
>
>This is a man whose idea of liberty involves him ALLOWING you to be free
>-- if you're good.
>
>Look out.
>...

Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad hand.  Can I
get a new set of cards (candidates) please?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18375 talk.politics.guns:11738 misc.entrepreneurs:1554 alt.individualism:2472
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:37:01 GMT
	<1992Apr2.213645.14868@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr3.045730.16079@news.iastate.edu>
	<1992Apr3.223541.2704@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr6.135722.14824@athena.mit.edu>
	<Apr.6.10.47.54.1992.6323@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
	<1992Apr14.121421.15745@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.


(Steve Shapiro) writes:
   (unattributed):
   >I think we should legalize recreational drugs and treat them the
   >way we treat the alcohol and tobacco industries.  Tax them.  The
   >government is missing out on a great source of revenue here.

   How does this get the drunk driver off the road? It does not!
   Stiffer penalties help quite a bit. In the last decade, the MADD,
   SADD an other organizations along with a public outcry has made
   significant strides in reducing these statistics, however, it is
   still an epidemic proportion. Heck, just this past weekend we lost
   Sam Kinison to a drunk 17 year old driver. Drinking and driving is
   illegal, but that doesn't seem to be the final deterrent. Maybe if
   killing someone with your car while drunk were a felony punishible
   by a mandatory prison sentence, it would at least get THAT drunk
   driver off the street. But I digress...to continue.

First of all, this is a red herring.  The previous author was not
trying to get drunk drivers off the road.  Balancing the budget won't
get them off the road, either.

Secondly, it seems reasonable to me to make inadvertently killing
someone with your car through carelessness, whether drunk or not,
severely punishable.  MADD et al have done some good work, but "drunk"
is just one form of inexcusablely careless.  But to make
any unintentional result a "felony", with its attendant restrictions
on the felon's civil rights, etc., (1) perverts the whole notion of
felony as willful act, and (2) has even more potential than the War
on Drugs to expand our prison system and remove people from more
useful occupations.  It's possible to go too far with deterrence.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.023656.11518@ddsw1.MCS.COM> arf@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>>3. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, there have been consistent
>>charges that the media is "the mouthpiece of the government" and "a
>>tool of big oil".
>
>More likely, the truth is all of the above.
>
>arf

Since when did big oil care about Zionist interests?

Incidentally, arf, in late February you accused the Chicago Tribune of
running an average of ten pro-Israel letters to the editor a week, and
they haven't run a single pro-Israel letter since, while running several
pro-Pat Buchanan letters.  Hardly the actions of a Zionist-controlled
paper.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16996 alt.individualism:2288 alt.activism:7271
From: kenh@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID: (Was: : Where Have All the Liberals Gone?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:49:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: YaleVM.167C1FA94.KENH
Organization: Yale University

In article <15081@drutx.ATT.COM>
dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
 
>
>Suppose I have some money to give to someone in exchange for some good or
>service.  That transaction is only between that other person and me.
>
>However, in your system, government comes along and says, "You've paid
>that person too much!  The fact that you see it as worth what you paid,
>is irrelevant.  So, we will take 40% of it.  And if it turns out that
>they are what we call rich, we will take even more.  We will then, after
>keeping much of that money for ourselves, turn over what's left to those
>that you didn't want to deal with in the first place.  Now, isn't that
>fair?"
>
 
Your case example is all wrong.  The government does not assess income
tax on transactions; THAT would be a sales tax.  What the government
does in the above case is say to the seller:  Collect all your receipts.
If your gains on that and all other transactions did not recover
the expenses of doing business, you are in Poverty.  If you need
assistance surviving (minimal food/shelter/clothing) we offer you meager
assistance.  If you made enough money to live on we will begin to assess
you a share of the burden of the massive infrastructure of public
buildings, roadways, bridges, transit, military protection against
invasion, etc., in small amounts to begin with and increase your
per dollar assessment at designated bracket points as you become
increasingly wealthy and flourish in the system that your tax
dollars have helped create.
 
Now suppose you try conducting your transaction: 1) with no roadways
or transportation to and from the site of transfer; 2) with no court
system to remedy a rip off by the seller; 3) with no police protection
while in transit to assure that muggers don't grab the bucks you were
going to spend; 4) with no bucks printed by a treasury (what are you
going to do? carry around pure gold?); 5) with no education to be
able to count your dollars in the first place; 6) with no regulatory
agencies to set standards of quality which you could never test in
your garage which probably burned down last week because there was
no Fire Department which wouldn't have mattered anyway because there
were no water lines to your house and you couldn't phone in the fire
anyway, because government had never required universal service and
no-one strung wires to your area because it was too sparsely populated
for them to make a profit, etc. etc. etc.  (While some of these services
come from sales and property taxes, etc., income tax filters down
to local levels to help subsidize them in most cases.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Foreign Tax Cheats?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.215438.11904@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>Anyone catch the piece on Prime Time last night (Apr. 10 show) on how
>foreign corporations avoid paying vast amounts of U.S. income taxes by
>shifting revenues?  Here's the scam:  A foreign corporation produces an
>item for $100.  It sells it to a subsidiary in a country that has granted
>a tax concession for $200.  That subsidiary sells it to the U.S. subsidiary
>for $201 so the U.S. subsidiary only shows $1 in profit.  So, they don't
>pay nearly the amount of taxes warranted by the profits they make from
>sales in the U.S.  It gives them a huge unfair advantage over U.S. companies.
>And, the rest of us are subsidizing their ability to operate in this
>country.  
>
>I just thought I'd add this the the list of ways foreign corporations (the
>Prime Time segment specifically sited the Japanese as particularly bad
>offenders) are sticking it to all of us.  Is this protectionist?  You're
>damned right it is.  I fully expect my government to protect me from this
>kind of abuse, but of course we have to have the Japanese in particular
>to buy our debt.  Isn't that ironic?  They rip us off for income taxes
>and then we go begging with our hand out hoping to borrow back the money
>they ripped off.  
>

As if US transnationals don't do this also...in North America, in Canada
and the US, the share of government revenue coming from corporate income
tax has declined precipitously over the last twenty years.  US
corporations play this same game.   

The way around this is to introduce a VAT tax.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: I think I've trapped Clayton Cramer!
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 08:32:20 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Keywords: blah blah

In article <1992Apr9.065705.18232@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt) writes:
    >[If you haven't been following this flame-fest I've been
    >having with Clayton Cramer, it's probably just as well... but
    >I think I've got him pretty well treed a few pages down. He
    >asked me to fabricate a hypothetical situation where he'd
    >have to admit he'd sacrifice his principles to satisfy his
    >prejudices or look foolish trying not to, and I think I've
    >got him. Check it out. (Search for `*****') --JHW.:.]
    >
    >----- [ ******** Here's where it gets interesting
    >************* ]
    >
    >Okay, since you asked...
    >
    >Let's say I run a day care center... from a decidedly
    >alternative point of view (one you *really* don't like). I
    >advertise that I and my caring staff will teach young girls
    >how to be women. I outline in complete detail, right up
    >front, how I give the girls LSD, beat them silly, force them
    >into performing a *wide* variety of sexual acts, feed them
    >low- carbohydrate gruel and continually apply psychological
    >terror techniques until their will is completely broken down.
    >For this service I charge US$20000, and I demand rigorous
    >proof of identification for the purposes of clearly
    >determining that the customer has the authority to give
    >consent on behalf of his/her daughter.

Aren't you kidding? THIS is the BEST you can do?

First, you are unable to make your point -- this is NOT a case of two
consenting adults.

Children are not property. Dogs are property, Substitute dogs in your example
and it would be perfectly "do-able". You can kill your dog morally.

You can not kill your child morally.

We clearly have to accept a coercive presence for a parent [to have to] a child.

Spankings, standing in the corner, going to bed without desert, no TV,
whatever.

The price of allowing initiation of coercion to the not-yet-adults is to
accept a general definition of "allowable coercion to be initiated".

Clearly, physical punishment that does not leave bruises or breaks bones or
that is acceptable by 51% of 1,000 random adults is allowbale and so on.



Anyway, please, make your case about AN AGREED UPON ACT BETWEEN TWO
CONSENTING ADULTS.

We're waiting ...



The fact that you had to bring up a bizarre case of child abuse shows
an incredible weakness.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18069 rec.autos:11295 sci.econ:3719
From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.autos,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Japan could be skirting $30 billon in U.S. taxes annually
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr13.182734.21272@apollo.hp.com> ganek@apollo.hp.com (Dan Ganek) writes:
>
>>   Japan uses countries like Singapore, which do not levy taxes, as
>>middlemen to ship their products to the U.S.  The idea is that the price
>>mark-up occurs in a country outside of the U.S., so when the final productis sold in the U.S., very little profit margin is realized- hence little
>>or no taxes paid to the U.S.  Japan also has another scheme which doesn't
>>involve an intermediate country, but I didn't catch all of it (towards
>>the beginning of the story).
>
>And American multi-national companies don't do the same thing?
>
It's very difficult for an American company to do the same since the
parent company's books are open to inspection by the US gov't.

On the other hand as the report stated Japanese companies use the "dog ate
my homework" excuse when asked for tax and profit figures.

I'm sure all companies do this it is just easier if you are not based
here.
--
/*  -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers.    */
/*      For I can only express my own opinions.              */
/*                                                           */
/*   Kent L. Shephard  : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com   */
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18153 soc.men:8399 soc.women:8929 alt.rush-limbaugh:1172 alt.politics.correct:3678
From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:47:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr11.192820.9255@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu>
rinat@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu (Rinat Kedem) writes...

>In article <1992Apr7.232853.5138@nynexst.com>
>em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:

>>In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>>>  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime 
>>>  by Ron Sonenshine
>>>  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
>>>  -- 
>>>  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>>>  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>>>  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
>>
>>I wonder if she supports homosexuals and drug addicts should pay the
>>bill for AIDS; women should pay for breast cancer; homeless people
>>pay for homeless hotels; Congresspersons pay for the federal deficit;
>>women pay for "everything" related to abortion; etc.....
>>

>Of this list, note that most women who have breast cancer  DO have to
>pay to have it treated, and they DO have to pay for abortions.

This is only partly true.  They have not paid for all the time and money
that has gone into research that studies breast cancer (and other
maladies).  Our tax dollars over a number of years has played the
major role in this.  The majority of money that is paid for treatment
does not go to research it goes to hospital costs, doctors fees etc.
If we expected women to literally pay for the costs of developing new
drugs and techniques to treat cancer very few would be treated.  I
would not want these women to pay for all of this.  Most could not and
would probably die.

I'm not sure how abortions fit into the above scenario.  I don't know
enough about the research/data collection in this field.

The Napa writer has set up a silly argument (if the summary above is
a fair representation of it).  I would have to read the book to see what
is exactly said.  On the basis of Ron Sonenshine description, however,
it is pretty stupid.

Why stop at "women should pay for breast cancer"; add everyone pays
for everything that they want and pay for nothing that helps others.
Just get it over with once and for all.  Let's dissolve society.
Screw you and your problems.
(just a little sarcasm)


-=] Steve [=-           SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: HOW JAPANESE CARTEL DESTROYED US ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
Reply-To: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 04:09:10 GMT


   It was good to see the transcript posted as it was an important
expose that was done.

  I was surprised however to hear Yoshi Tsurumi on the show say
that Japanese workers love the labor relations system.  The 
book "Factory of Despair" by Satoshi Kamata (in U.S. translation
the book is called Japan in the Passing Lane) is an expose 
written by a Japanese reporter which shows the awful working
conditions and the many injuries that Japanese workers suffer
under this labor relations system.

  In the State of Michigan, the Michigan Govt. invested approx
$120 million of State and local money to bring this "Factory
of Despair" labor relations system to Michigan via the Mazda
plant.  Mazda if 1/4 owned by Ford Motor Company and it has
had a high record of injuries and of unsafe working conditions,
and this has been covered up by the local press, though it has
been reported in some articles in Automotive News 2/13/89 "Injury,
training woes hit new Mazda plant" and in 12/9/91 and in 
the Japanese press in an article Asanti Shimbun (Morning News)
Tokyo, April 24, 1989, p. 9. "Analysis: Reportage on American-
Japanese Investment Friction".

  However, on the McNeil-Lehre Report on Friday, April 3, 1992,
there was a report called "Tale of Two Cities" which compared
Flat Rock Michigan (where Mazda resides) with Flint, Michigan
(the GM Engine Plant that is being closed by GM) and quoted
Repr. John Dingell saying that Mazda was a good citizen - 
but Mazda has undercut U.S. auto contracts, Mazda produces
Ford cars under substandard conditioins - but all this was
covered up by the story on public television.

   I'd be interested in people's responses to this broadcast
if anyone else saw it - Historically the maintenance of 
standards via pattern labor contracts at Ford, GM and Chrysler
has made it possible for the U.S. auto industry to concentrate
on producting cars, rather than constantly lowering each others
standards. Mazda's lower standards being used by Ford to produce
Probe's has resulted in GM market share going to Ford and hence
the closing of Flint GM plants - high prices for cars and ever
lowering standards at each of the companies as they try to undercut
each other.

   Thus this use of the *Factory of Despair* in Michigan and the U.S.
is leading to a serious lowering of American living standards and 
the destruction of productive capacity.



-- 
Ronda Hauben  Amateur Computerist Newsletter
P.O. Box 4344   other email addr:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc