HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:32:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov16.163306.13761@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>The problem here is that it applies not specifically to women, but to parents
>of either gender who would like to take some time off when a child is born
>in order be at home with the child during its first few months. This sort
>of thing has traditionally been associated with women, but this link is
>getting weaker all the time.
>
>The fact is that current corporate practice is biased against families,
>period. Companies want employees who have no competing interests, and a
>family is just that.

Bias is such a loaded word, it has overtones or connotations of evil or
malicious intent.  Face it, most every boss would love to have
employees whose every thought is for the company, who will toil for no
pay for long hours and who have no life or interest outside of the
company.  Fortunately, most bosses are human and have lives and
families outside of the office, so they realize that they can't dish
out what they wouldn't want to eat.

But the fact does remain - if the entire pool of employees for a given
area is family oriented, and it's a seller's market, companies will
bend over backward to be family oriented.  Conversely, if most of the
pool is NOT family oriented and it's a buyer's market, then companies
won't be giving too much thought to help out the employees who have
kids.  Such is life.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Please pass the word. In other words: X-post this message.
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:35:00 GMT


{ Subj:  = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off... }

Skip work or school. Take a sick day. Take part of the day off.
Cut out early. Take a long lunch. Come in late ...whatever works for ya.

..whether you go see the movie or not. 

Any of the following reasons will do:

1. Because you need a good excuse.
2. To actually go see the movie.
3. Out of respect.
4. To show solidarity.
5. One day less work/school, 
   is one less day of major industrial and commuting pollution.
6. To hide because it won't be safe on the streets.
7. To protest the movie (though you haven't seen it).
8. Put money in the local economy rather than corporate coffers.
9. Because someone asked you to. ("Ask and it shall be given...")

And my favorite:

10. To worry the Government. 

Did I leave anyone out?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Keynes and holes in the ground.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:33:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.142933.5692@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	"In _The General Theory_, for example, Keynes suggests that the
>Treasury should stuff old bottles with banknotes and bury them in abandoned
>coal mines, then lease the rights to the mines, and "leave it to private
>enterprise on well tried principles of laissez faire to dig the notes up
>again."  This would boost demand and elminate unemployment.  He added:
>
>		The analogy between this expedient and the gold mines of the
>	real world is complete.  At periods when gold is available at suitable
>	depths experience shows that the real wealth of the world increases
>	rapidly; and when but little of it is available, our wealth suffers
>	stagnation or decline.  Thus gold mines are of the greatest value and
>	importance to civilization.  Just as wars have been the only form of
>	large-scale loan expenditure which statesmen have thought justifiable,
>	so gold mining is the only pretext for digging holes in the ground
>	which has recommended itself to bankers as sound finance; and each of
>	these activities has played its part in progress--failing something
>	better."
>
>	(_The Seven Fat Years_, pp 188-9.  Robert Bartley.)

Is it me, or do you think Bret missed the point because Keynes didn't
add a smiley?  My impression from reading this is that Keynes was making
fun of the objections of gold bugs to paper money rather than making
a serious proposal.

It seems like Bartley's doing the economic equivalent of writing a book
complaining that Jonathan Swift supported cannibalism.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Bad Example 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:22:43 GMT

In article <22549@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)                                 writes...
>In article <BxxJFK.Aop@hfglobe.intel.com>, labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>} >fact we will if things don't get under control, but we're not at a crisis
>} >point yet.  Just go out to Wyoming or Montana, and you'll see that there's
>} >still plenty of room.  People are crowded together because they choose to
>} 
>} 	Tired old argument. It takes 10 acres of farmland to sustain
>} 	each person.
> 
>Nonsense.  10 acres is 435,600 sq. ft.  That means over 1192 sq. ft. of
>land per day.  Or over 397 sq. ft. per meal.
>I have a vegetable garden in the back yard that measures just about that
>397 sq.ft., and I assure you that while the food I get from it doesn't
>sustain me year around, it provides enough food to last considerably
>longer than just one meal.

That's 397 sq. ft. of rich earth. Just how many square feet do you think
it would take to feed you if the ground were desert or tundra?  

>David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60388 alt.politics.elections:23920 alt.rush-limbaugh:9804 talk.rumors:1305 alt.activism:18870
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Bork is a good judge? (NOT!) (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Summary: my term project will never be completed at this pace.
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:19:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Nov13.201048.23212@novell.com>, bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
> From what I've read of it, Bork strikes me as a strict literalist
> who 1) ignores admendment #9, and b) has a view of government such that
> the gov't has the moral power to do ANYTHING unless it is prohibited by
> doing so by the Constitution.
> 
> On the contrary I 1) do not ignore admendment #9, 2) believe that the
> gov't has the moral power to do ONLY what has been explictly granted to
> it in the Constitution, and 3) believe it is important to try to
> understand what the founder's view of gov't was at the time they
> created it when attempting to use #9 to "create" a new right.
> Consequently, Bork scares the hell out of me.
> 

  What scares me more is a Court which acts in a legislative manner,
  one which looks at the issues of the day and decides them not on the
  written words of the Constitution but rather on imagined 'penumbras'
  which can be expanded so as to make government, rather than the
  individual, the sole judge of our moral values.  The main problem
  expressed by those opposed to the Bork nomination was that he would
  impose 'his moral values' on America.  Personally, it comes down
  to a choice between a pair of diametrically opposed value sets:
  Bork's, which would call on America to get its act together, or
  the Left's, which would place our morals in a gutter.  I prefer the
  former.

> In fairness to Bork though, I think that if you can understand these
> basic premises, each view is consistent in interpreting the
> Constituion/deriding previous interpretations.
> 
> Brendan
> -- 
> Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
> Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
> Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
> 

Kevin L. Stamber
I AM NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT, AND I'M PROUD OF IT!
stamber@purdue.edu
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: paradox.
Keywords: cheat.
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:39:13 GMT


 "cheaters never prosper."

 but politics proves that 

 "the prosperous have cheated."

 the resulting quandry results
 in mass chaos.

 mark.

 "if you're like me, and i know i am..."
 joel. mst3k
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60334 alt.politics.clinton:17226 alt.president.clinton:458
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:13:31 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


     I heard Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole reiterate his support
for granting President-Elect Clinton the power of line-item veto.
However, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and Speaker
Thomas Foley do not want to grant Clinton -- their own man! -- this 
power in full (although they have considered a watered-down version).
     In an earlier post, I posed the rhetorical question, "What is 
the difference between 'investment in infrastructure' and 'pork barrel' 
spending?"  In answering to a reply, I stated that even the most sensible
and targeted investment-in-infrastructure plan (proposed by Clinton) will 
be transformed into pork-barrel spending by the Congress -- because
each congressperson will want a piece of the pie for his/her district
(e.g. Sen. Byrd will want even *more* money for paving West Virginia).
The line-item veto would be the last line of defense for both the
President and the best interests of the country. 
     In my opinion, this country will remain being "on the wrong track"
until "we have the courage to change" the Democratic leadership in 
Congress.

     C. Perttunen   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:40:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.150656.24753@iqsc.COM> rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black) writes:
>Tad Dowe writes:

>>If defense spending were to be cut in half, it would not make any significant
>>change in the deficit. Now, if welfare and medicare were treated equally, the
>>deficit could be reduced in no time.

Not true, of course.  If defense spending were halved, the deficit would
go down by 40%.  But that's besides the point.

>Partisan name-calling notwithstanding, neither Clinton nor Bush provided
>any concrete, courageous plans for attacking entitlements like Social 
>Security and Medicaid, which are the real sources of the debt explosion.
>Both Republicans and Democrats use this "guns vs. butter" canard to
>obscure the fact that without a serious attack on entitlements, esp.
>Social Security, no progress will be made.  

Not true, either.  The fastest growing segment of the entitlements
portion of the budget is health care, and Clinton *has* plans to control
health care costs.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 18:55:23 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <W3F=h+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.235453.6146@pmafire.inel.gov>, cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov17.162601.27809@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>|> >
>|> >I've said it before and I'll say it again: the main argument for term
>|> >limits has to do with the way in which today's money-driven politics
>|> >has made it almost impossible to compete effectively with well-financed
>|> >incumbents. Many incumbents run unchallenged, or opposed only by
>|> >'fringe', single-issue candidates who are usually not plausible
>|> >replacements for the incumbent.
>|> 
>|> If this is indeed the root cause, why not eliminate it, instead of using
>|> a blanket approach?  Why not limit expenditures?  Or maybe publicly fund
>|> campaigns?
>
>If you limit expenditures you will limit the spread of new or different
>ideas.  Image Perot's candidicacy if he were limited by spending.  
>Regardless of what you may have thought about the man, he was able
>to have an impact and offer a different choice.  If you publicily
>fund campaigns, who decides who gets the funds?  Do funds only go
>to those candidates with 'popular' support?  If so, how can real
>change occur.  Change often requires education which requires money.

First of all, this was not necessarily a statement of how I think things
*should* be done, just possible solutions that _address the particular
problem_, not shotgun it.

Spending limits are probably in practice not very workable.  Public funding
is, however.  Who decides?  Well, if you qualify for the ballot, you should
get the funding.  There ought to be a set pot size, and it is divvied up
among the qualifiers (equally).  I know there are other hard problems to
be solved, and I don't claim to have the answers.  I remain convinced,
however, that term limits are NOT the answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61409 sci.econ:8816
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:07:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.200521.17323@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>#I do.  First, homosexuals are dozens times more likely to be HIV carriers.
>
>1) Please document this assertion.

Take a look at the CDC reports some time.  At most, gay men are 5% of the
population, and the figure is probably closer to 2%.  Yet there are more gay
men who've contracted HIV homosexually than there are men *and* women who have 
contracted HIV heterosexually.

>2) It is irrelavent. Argueing that because a random homosexual partner
>is more likely to be HIV+ than a random heterosexual partner mean that
>you can take fewer precautions is like argueing that a person who
>skydives only once a year doesn't need to be as careful as someone who
>skydives 300 times a year.

This is a non sequitur, so I don't know what to make of it.  A heterosexual
male is more likely to die in a car accident driving ten miles to a sexual
encounter with a non-IV using female than from contracting HIV from that
female.   

It's more like saying one should take fewer precautions being a passenger on a
passenger jet than one should take if they are going to be skydiving without a
parachute.

>#Vaginal sex simply
>#is dozens times less risky than anal sex.
>
>For males, perhaps, but I have not seen the figures comparing the risk
>for women.

First, this alone will prevent HIV from reaching epidemic proportions in
heterosexuals.  Women are abysmal transmitters of HIV, so most heterosexual
men will never be at risk, and women that sleep with heterosexual men won't be
at risk. 

They're published in the same place that you see the figures for males.  Jonas
Salk just published a paper showing the same thing.  Check out JAMA.  Eighty
percent of monogamous couples where the male was infected and the female
wasn't didn't result in a female infection, despite the fact that each of
these couples averaged three hundred or so sexual encounters.

HIV doesn't care about sexual practices.  It cares about semen to blood and
blood to blood.  And anal sex is more likely to induce semen-to-blood contact
than vaginal sex or oral sex.

>#Multiply dozens by dozens by eight and a half, and you get "thousands."
>
>When two of the three multipliers are irrelavent, you get a bogus
>estimate.

Luckily, none of the three are irrelevant.

One in 15 gay men are HIV+, vs. about one in 500 heterosexuals (and a far
lower number of non-IVDU heterosexuals).  

Anal sex is an excellent transmitter of AIDS, and vaginal sex isn't.

And half of heterosexuals sleep with women, who are poor transmitters of HIV.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:42:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.213027.11164@netcom.com> ssturgis@netcom.com (Scott Sturgis) writes:
>>I do.  First, homosexuals are dozens times more likely to be HIV carriers.
>Perhaps in the U.S. at the moment yes. But that will change



	Not for awhile, anyway.  There was a big story about a year ago
	that said that the # of teenagers (heterosexual ones) that had
	been infected with the HIV virus had doubled in 9 months.  The
	story included the report, but not the actual figures. 

	Yes, the fastest growing segment of the AIDS population _will_
	be heterosexuals [I am, of course, only talking about the US--
	Africa is wholly irrelavent]--but it is not true _now_.

	BTW:  If anyones interested, the number from the teenagers
	study was somewhere between 400 and 600 <--out of
	how many tens of millions?

	Can you say, "Inspire panic because this is really a non-issue?"


>Again Ted that may be true for the present but the future is a different
>story. There will be many THOUSANDS more to die before the cure is found. 

	
	Show me _one_ virus with a "cure"--any one, I don't care.  Just
	_one_.. 

	Hint:  There is not now, and there will likely _never_ be a cure
	for AIDS.  [Never here being used in relative terms--we wont see
	one in our lifetime].  There may eventually be a vaccine that
	can be used before infection, which is fine.  There may also 
	eventually be some kind of treatment that extends, further, the
	life of someone with HIV (by preventing the development of AIDS) 
	but this is not likely, and these people will simply hang around
	as carriers.

	It is _extremely_ unlikely that there will ever be a 
	successful therapy for someone who has developed full blown
	AIDS.

	Anyone with AIDS now is walking to the grave.  Anyone with 
	HIV now has hope that they wont die of it, but the will 
	_never_ be "cured".  

	A cure or a treatment is _not_ the solution to this problem.
	The cure is to prevent, by any and all means available to us,
	the spread of the HIV virus.  


-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Bread Lines Getting Longer
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Third Baptist Church
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:38:34 GMT

	Thursday morning is the day they give out food to the
hungry at the Third Baptist Church on McAllister, in San Francisco.
	Yesterday I woke up around 7 in the morning and walked
to the front window of my flat to look at the steady rain. I live
across the street from the church, and have noticed that 
for the last year and a half that I've been living there the line gets
a little bit longer every Thursday. 
	Yesterday the line finally did what I've expected it to. It 
reached all the way around the city block so the back of the line
touched the front. The line is three to four people wide, and many of the
people didn't bring umbrellas. Judging from the attire of the people 
standing in the line, they probably couldn't afford the unbrella.
	This isn't a fictional story, and this isn't a slum. The Third
Baptist Church is surrounded by half-million dollar Victorian houses.
(If you've seen the TV series Full House, they show what is known as 
"Post-Card Row" at the start of every show. That row of Victorians is
just two blocks away from my flat.)
	If you were to see hundreds (thousands?) of people standing in
line, in the rain, for a meal every week, then maybe you could understand
why I scoff at the Republicans in this net who claim that the economy 
isn't "that bad".
	As for the capitalists who live in the Bay Area, and still 
believe that the economy isn't that bad, then please come to the 
Third Baptist Church early on a Thursday morning and try to tell the
mostly elderly crowd who are standing in line that things aern't 
really that bad. That if they weren't so lazy they wouldn't need these
hand-outs.

Garrett@Ingres.com


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: americans dont really believe in term limits
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:43:21 GMT


I found the stat i was looking for:

14 states passed term limit initiatives.
In those 14 states, the re-elected 71 (seventy one) members of Congress
	who exceeded their limit just passed.


But, after all, it was a resounding statement against the status-quo.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
CLARKSON '95			
HOBBES: Why do we play war not peace? 	CALVIN: Too few role models.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:22:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov18.185523.23318@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

|>Spending limits are probably in practice not very workable.  Public funding
|>is, however.  Who decides?  Well, if you qualify for the ballot, you should
|>get the funding.  There ought to be a set pot size, and it is divvied up
|>among the qualifiers (equally).  I know there are other hard problems to
|>be solved, and I don't claim to have the answers.  I remain convinced,
|>however, that term limits are NOT the answer.

How do you prevent individuals from spending their own money on behalf
of candidates whom they like without trampling all over the first
amendment.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61197 alt.conspiracy:12370