HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:48:03 CDT


In article <1992Apr14.053159.12778@talon.ucs.orst.edu>, mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes:
> Ron Dippold writes
> ><SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> >
> >>In 1978,the average age for our airlines planes was 7.56 years.  Today, it
> >>is 13.5 years. In comparison, the average age of European and Asian planes
> >>is 10.4 and 8.7 years respectively.
> >
> >If the planes are still safe after 13.5 years I don't see a problem
> >with this.
> 
> This is another meaningless statistic that's fairly representative of the  
> methodology of "What went wrong?".  The authors are attempting to show that  
> airline safety was adversely affected by deregulation.  They find a  
> statistic for average aircraft age.  What does this say about airline  
> safety? Nothing.  To do that they'd have to show deaths per passenger mile  
> increased.  I don't believe they have. (Based on memory from statistics  
> quoted in Av Week).  Average aircraft age is a non-sequitur artfully  
> introduced to give the _impression_ of decreasing saftey, despite the fact  
> that exactly the opposite has happened. 

My impression from the original post was that the authors used the average
age number to show airlines were not replentishing their capital stock (buying 
new aircraft).  The implication being that they were lowering their costs
not through increased efficiency, but by delaying capital purchases.  This 
should be taken into account when looking at lower ticket prices (not assume
that lower ticket prices are entirely the result of increased efficiency).

Given the current losses by the airlines I don't think any are in a position
to substantially replace their current fleet.  To a certain degree, the companies
that survive will be the ones that can postpone new capital aquisition the 
longest (lowering costs in the short run) in the hopes of being one of the 
few survivors (that can then use oligopoly pricing to finance the replacement
of their aircraft).

Before I get flamed, I do think that airline deregulation, in the long run,
is better than the previous regulation (because it will lead to greater
efficiency), but it is no panacea (with price wars and capital depletion
followed by ologopoly (higher) pricing to finance new capital acquisition).

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:44:20 GMT



  "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
  by Charlton Heston

  It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. David Hume,
  the great Scottish philosopher, said that. I am a Scot myself. He was
  bloody right. For more than half a century, the shining Republic created
  by the blood of the Continental Army and a few great men has been nearly
  nibbled to death by the Democratic ducks in the Congress and a warmly
  cooperative Supreme Court.

  There is now no aspect of American life, public or private, that the
  federal government does not invade, instruct and finally coerce to its
  will. Farm and factory, home and school, university and research center,
  club and playground -- all are overlaid with a spidery network of laws,
  guidlines, restrictions and Draconian penalties that stifle the spirit,
  the energy, the creative capacity of what was once the freest nation on
  earth. In this hemisphere, now that Ortega and Noriega have fallen, the
  collectivists' sentiments discredited around the world fly best, I fear
  in Cuba and Washington D.C.

  Of course, government is the problem. The armies of bureaucrats
  proliferating like gerbils, scurrying like lemmings in pursuit of the
  ever-expanding federal agenda testify to that amply. Tom Jefferson, the
  only genius we ever had, said that government is best which governs
  least. I am amazed you Democrats are still comfortable with Mr. Jefferson
  as your designated logo.



Reprinted with permission from:
  Imprimis
  Hillsdale College
  Hillsdale, MI  49242
Free subscriptions available upon request.
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Social Security Debate (was Sold Down the River...)
Keywords: deficit
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:11:45 GMT

cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

>The real question is why wealthy people over 65 feel that they have
>the right to a welfare check which comes from the most regressive tax
>in our system.  I don't begrudge support to poor elderly folks, but it
>really grates on me that my tax dollars go to pay welfare to someone
>who needs the money less than I do.

>--Scott

The reason "old folks" want their social security is because it was
not designed as a welfare.  It was designed as a "old age pension."
The system was seperate and completely funded until the 1960's.  Then
congress decided to turn it into a vehicle for reelection (and
thus more a welfare system) by adding cost of living increases, and
beneficiaries which were never intended to recieve benefits.  Even
president Roosevelt, a supporter of the system, said that social
security would not be designed to live off of.  

I think an equitable way out of this mess, is to caclulate the return
for the original, pre cola days, and pay that amount to people over 65
who have a certain level of income.  This would remove any objections
to "paying into a system" and not getting the due benefits.

I find it interesting that Brown proposes to fold the entire social
security system into the federal budget.  This would be one step
closer to a guaranteed income for all, something I bitterly oppose.
				
				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17607 alt.drugs:7417 misc.legal:9086
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:14:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.phsjmhh.feustel
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I think civil forfeiture is considered constitutional because of the
weak interpretation of the "due process" clause. What the government
does to institute civil forfeiture is considered by the Court to be
OK under the accepted definition of "due process".

-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:00:56 GMT

From article <1992Apr8.233514.28115@cs.ucla.edu>, by frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier):

> Being that we live in a republic,
> it *is* the people who've decided that vaccination is "good",
> and we *are* the ones who decided that some tax money should
> go toward vaccination programs, but that most of the funding
> should come from private insurance or the parents.  Just because
> you've lost track of your own little voice in the process
> doesn't mean it wasn't there.
>
> Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier

You are confusing "republic" with "democracy".

A republic always respects the rights of the smallest minority, the
individual.

A democracy does not respect those rights, so, yes, your "little voice"
is lost.


Some ancient Greek philosopher said:

"The only trouble with a republic is that it decays into democracy.
The only trouble with a democracy is that it decays into socialism."


Benjamin Franklin said:

"Gentlemen, you have a republic - if you can keep it."


I say:

"Restore the republic."


---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17990 alt.politics.elections:841
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:18:05 GMT

Last night on the MacNeil/Lehrer report Jesse Jackson was interviewed.
Near the end, he was asked about H. Ross Perot.  Jacksons reply, paraphrased
as best I remember it, was something like this:

"Ross Perot is a great man.  He spent 8 years in the Navy.  He is an 
industrialist.  He has demonstrated his patriotism many times.  He has
worked hard to bring home Americans from foreign soil, both dead and 
alive.  He supports a woman's right to choose.  I will support the
Democratic nominee, of course.   But anyone who has a 10 year plan to
get American business back on track, believes in educating our children
properly, (...and other elegantly stated things I can't quite recall...)
he will get a serious conversation out of Jesse Jackson".

While it wasn't an endorsement of Perot, it was certainly a case of elegantly
stated admiration for him.  Jackson is a Democrat, and therefore he will
support the Democratic nominee.  But with his expression of admiration for
Perot, what do you think the odds are that Perot might get substantial 
black support?  I know several black people who feel that the Democratic
party takes the African-American vote for granted and would love to have
an alternative to voice their protest against this.  

-- 

	Jim Burke				
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:48:50 GMT

From article <13APR199212042177@zeus.tamu.edu>, by gmw0622@zeus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch):
> 
> It's like this: if the majority of the populace is white racists anyway,  
> there's no chance that the government is going to give minorities protection 
> against discrimination,  quite the contrary,  they're going to 
> institutionalize it.  The government may have done a little good with 
> antidiscrimination laws,  but it has done a hell of a lot more harm with
> laws that required discrimination.  Do you dispute this,  or merely think 
> things are going to change in the future?
> 
> Mr. Grinch

I agree.  So does Walter Williams.

See _THE STATE AGAINST BLACKS_ by Williams

for additional evidence of discrimination required by the government.


---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Don't vote for Brown! (Was Re: Perot Or Brown. Vote For Change!)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 10:02:50 GMT

>
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc:
Bcc:

If you don't like capitalism, you must like planned economies.  Deng Xio Peng
must love chumps like you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:30:17 GMT

In article <visser.702539448@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>
>
>
>+>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>+>political party. Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs
>+>least." The party supports civil liberties, a free market economy, and a
>+>non-interventionist foreign policy.
>
>	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
>employment, housing, and "service".  
>
>
>	They believe that it is wrong to
>have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
>an emergency.
>	They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
>corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
>governments abroad.
>	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.
>They believe in repeal of compulsory vaccination laws and in the establishment
>of a free market for human body parts.
>	They oppose laws requiring either air-bags or seat belts to be 
>provided as standard equipment in cars. 
>	In regard to the environment they believe that "strict liability, 
>not government agencies should regulate pollution."  They do not speak of
>what happens when the liable entity has ceased to exist through bankruptcy,
>disillusion or lack of funds.
>
>	[All the above is from the current Libertarian party platform.  The
>	 parts that usually are not part of the public pitch.]
>

So, do you support them or not?

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp              | SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez- |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!stephsf!tacoma!dcb |"Stainless steel bolts are  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232       | ferrous but non-magnetic!" |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (Was: Ross Perot)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:02:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.001936.23296@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>By the way, I am certain that Milton Friedman supported Reagan/Bush.  I
>realize that Friedman is not as hard-line as the Libertarian Party, but
>what I have never seen is any serious refutation by a Libertarian of
>the moderately pro-government stance that Friedman argues for in (say)
>_Capitalism_and_Freedom_.  The only "refutation" I have heard is
>something "rights are right are rights and you must never violate them
>even if it is 'efficient' to do so, and anyway, modern economics is
>all bogus since it rests on a neo-Kantian foundation."

Milton Friedman self-describes himself as a "libertarian with a
small l and a Republican with a capital R".  His reasons he has
always said are purely pragmatic.  As a republican there are people
in positions of power who are willing to listen to him and by that
he may do some good in the world.  On the other hand he has always
encouraged the Libertarian Party in its efforts, especially in its
efforts to remain ideologically pure because he believes that's the
best way for a third party to influence the major parties and thus
change the course of politics.  He remains a popular speaker and
libertarian events.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
From: floydb@rpi.edu 
Subject: ### misc.entrepreneurs not in this destribution ### (Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke)
Reply-To: floydb@rpi.edu 
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Admin. 
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:27:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.194625.4188@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.135722.14824@athena.mit.edu> sike@athena.mit.edu (Michael G Sheldon) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.223541.2704@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@m4-035-4.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>|> ...  Drugs should be legalized.  The illegality of drugs
>>|> creates crime, not the drugs.
>>
>>Then murder should be legalized?  By your reasoning, the illegality of murder
>>creates crime, not the murder.
>
>No, No.  Different effects accrue based upon whether the legalized act
>has a victim who is harmed by the act.  Legalizing victimless crimes,
>like gambling, prostitution, buying firearms, or buying drugs reduces
>crime because the vying "companies/cartels" can resort to court room
>battles instead of violence to settle their disputes, since their now
>legal endeavors have standing in court.  Legalizing violent acts with
>victims--rape, murder, robbery, assault, etc.--won't solve anything and
>will either increase lawlessness or force everyone to hire protection.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17124 rec.sport.hockey:9124
From: lli+@cs.cmu.edu (Lori Iannamico)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:10:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr7.150817.23201@cs.dal.ca> johnston@ug.cs.dal.ca (geoff) writes:
>
>True, but after all, they are the owners.  THEY are the ones who
>have to weigh risks and pay the consequences in millions of
>dollars.  Whereas the players, well, play hockey.  And they
>are very well paid for it.

Yes, and the owners are also the ones who stand to make money, too.  Which is
fine.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  What I see wrong is most owners'
unwillingness to bring the league into the 20th century because it will cut
into their private powerbases.  It's easier for them to short-change the 
players and gouge the fans than it is for them to negotiate a worthwhile
TV deal, or to enact revenue-sharing.  Salary caps would cut into their 
favorite excuse for raising ticket prices.  God forbid these guys put the
best interest of the league and its' fans first over their own self interests.

>However, I don't think the players are greedy, but mislead by 
>Goodenow(sp?) who is basically interested in self-promotion,
>and who could care less about the effect of a long strike
>on the fans, hockey's future, or the players.

No, I think the players are finally doing what they should have done a long
time ago.  Standing up for themselves.  I place the blame for the strike on 
the owners.  They failed to take the players' threats of a strike seriously.  
And now the fans are paying the price for their ignorance.

Lori
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,alt.drugs
From: oleg@crash.cts.com (Oleg Rovner)
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:12:01 GMT

In article <56980@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

>That heritage was irretrievably lost when the average
>voter became an idiot.

Should not that read "when the average idiot became a voter" ?
 Oleg
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why is free will so necessary?
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:09:56 GMT

In article <TOWFIQ.92Apr13095425@crisco.FTP.COM> towfiq@FTP.COM writes:
|>>>>> On 11 Apr 92 21:48:04 GMT, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David
|>>>>> Choweller) said:
|
|dc> You say that "to be perfected" we *must* endure hardships and
|dc> experience the effects of evil.  I don't see why we *must*.  An
|dc> omnipotent God could have created us perfect.  Do you see my
|dc> point?  If indeed there is a rule that we *must* endure hardships,
|dc> who made this rule?  Didn't God make the rule?  Why doesn't he
|dc> rescind it?
|
|  This is an eternal question which has indeed been the obsession for
|mankind for many years.  Baha'u'llah explained this idea in the Book of
|Certitude:
|
|     Meditate profoundly, that the secret of things unseen may be
|   revealed unto you, that you may inhale the sweetness of a spiritual
|   and imperishable fragrance, and that you may acknowledge the truth
|   that from time immemorial even unto eternity the Almighty hath tried,
|   and will continue to try, His servants, so that light may be
|   distinguished from darkness, truth from falsehood, right from wrong,
|   guidance from error, happiness from misery, and roses from thorns.

This doesn't answer my question.  Why is it neccessary to distinguish
light from darkness, truth from falsehood, right from wrong?  If you
create only light, and only truth, and only right, you don't need to
do any distinguishing.  Why try your "servants," unless you get some
perverse thrill from doing so?

|   Even as He hath revealed: "Do men think when they say 'We believe'
|   they shall be let alone and not be put to proof?" (Qur'an 29:2.)

I repeat again: instead of creating flawed beings and trying (torturing)
them for their frailities, why not create them perfect?
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
"I have feelings too - like "My stomach hurts" or "I'm going crazy!"
                -- Homer to Lisa in _Moaning_Lisa_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: It can HAPPEN in *IOWA* [gay rights law]
Reply-To: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 15:02:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.055551.11041@midway.uchicago.edu>, rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu
(nora gayle rivkis) writes:

|> >|> Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
|> >
|> >A most unusual quote, considering the topic.
|> 
|> I didn't pick it for this topic. I picked it because I'm saying
|> Kaddish for the victims of the Israeli embassy bombing in Argentina
|> a few weeks ago -- and will be for Arafat, if he's found dead; I do
|> not like the man or his politics, but I'm praying for his safety --
|> and the sentiment was on my mind. Are you saying a prayer for peace
|> is inappropriate to *any* serious or contested time or conversation?

No, I'm saying that your notion of religious identification being independent
of beliefs seems ironic (not completely inconsistent, but somewhat ironic)
next to a prayer for "kol yisrael".
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16928 alt.activism:7238
From: robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Larry Agran's Program (II)
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:05:14 GMT
Organization: Organization


  I've got to give credit to Agran supporter(s) for one thing -
at least they are honest enough to admit that their program
is to bring about the decline of America.  Too bad the other
statist candidates aren't equally forthcoming.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18494 alt.conspiracy:6431 soc.history:3658 soc.culture.filipino:1569