HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:51:23 GMT
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

> [refugees]
>
>International law and treaties require this.  The US is breaking international
>law by turning away Haitian boats and forcing Haitian refugees to
>return without a hearing.

No. International law refers to political refugees. It doesn't bother to
indicate how to tell between economic migrants and political refugees.

The fact that someone wants to live in this country does not obligate
us to let him/her/it in. According to the current administration, the
majority of Haitian boat people are economic migrants and do not qualify
as political refugees.

As a general comment, the administration is probably accurate - very
few seemed to have been involved in politics, or give reason to believe
that they as individuals would be persecuted by the government.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 03:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.201402.9663@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

   >Okay, so we make everyone more efficient.  then we need fewer workers.
   >Then we have more unemployment,

On All Things Considered today, they reported that the above effect
actually appears to have happened over the last two months.
Productivity is up, but employment is not up; more is getting
produced, but by the same number of people.

However, that's because of the current recession and the 80's debt
overhang; there's no evidence that it's a long-term trend, and it
would be surprising if it were.  Because:

	   Greater efficiency means fewer workers for a specific task.
   It also means less $$$ wasted which can be channeled into new
   initiatives utilizing the workers no longer needed for the 
   initial task.  This in turn provides more productivity (since
   we're getting all these other things accomplished that we
   didn't have before when we had hired you) and an overall 
   increase in the status of life.

Exactly.  In the long run, and when the economy is out of the present
doldrums (sooner or later!), new businesses and jobs will get created.
(The increased productivity of the constant number of workers that
we are seeing now will, in itself, help boost the economy.)
From: spike@coke.std.com (Joe Ilacqua)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:18:45 GMT
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.com>
Organization: Software Tool & Die

In article <BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote:
<>	After the US practically gave them an invitation.  Why
<>didn't the US try to dissuade the invasion _beforehand_???
<Hey, ok, we'll accept your premise: We lied, we changed our mind, we
<didn't think it was a very good idea to tolerate such behavior after
<the fact. Does that make us wrong in the end? Does that make Saddam
<Hussein right?

	Right or wrong aside, there is a claim the the State
Department told Iraq that the U.S. would not interfere the DAY BEFORE
to invasion.  There are two schools of thought on why:

a) The U.S. figured Iraq would take the disputed oil fields along the
   border and stop there.

b) The U.S. for whatever reason was trying to start a small war.
   (Reasons include oil prices, Bush's approval rating, help for the
   defense industry, new footage for A&E and the Discovery channel).


->Spike
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:50:41 GMT
	<1992Sep3.151621.12567@burrhus.harvard.edu> <Bu0stq.qJ@world.std.com>
Organization: The World


From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
>Now if you want an example of a heterogeneous society (Four language groups)
>with a lot of guns (assault rifles in the home via the militia) and a low
>violent crime rate,  look at Switzerland.
>	What does this mean?  That heterogeneous + guns != violent crime.

It probably means they've been adjusting to that heterogenous mix for
about 1,000 years.

Obviously there's more to heterogeneity than mere heterogeneity.

I suspect you need a heterogeneous population where some large group
feels treated like an underclass.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:59:45 GMT
	<BtFK2u.7Lw@world.std.com> <1992Aug23.171718.12083@spdcc.com>
	<BtGE96.9Ly@world.std.com>
Distribution: ne
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: cmr@world.std.com's message of 23 Aug 92 20:29:29 GMT

In article <BtGE96.9Ly@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:

> This is not discrimination
> by sexual preference since it applies regardless of 
> the sexual preferences or relationships of the individuals.
> (except in as much as the right to marry is restricted).

	You hit the nail on the head, kinda buried in
a whole lotta distracting garbage, which may not hold
anyway (cf. the Sharon Kowalski (sp?) case), but there
none-the-less.  Marriage, formal and common law, doesn't
apply to homosexual couples.  With a hetero-couple, if
one dies intestate then an argument can possibly made for
common law marriage even without a will.  And of course
a formal marriage even more so guarantees the SO rights
to property.

				--Jeff Turner
From: limey@hri.com (Craig Hughes)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Observations on schools & money
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:46:49 GMT
Reply-To: limey@hri.com
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.155248.15819@osf.org>, buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:
|> Throwing money.at schools doesn't help?????
|> 
|> Then how come Weston, Brookline, Wellesley & Lexington schools
|> regularly are ranked among the best in MA.

Money  for the schools is only part of the answer; kids that go to these
schools go home to nice upper-middle class homes and neighborhoods, not
to poverty or families that cannot (for whatever reasons) provide
support, role models and an encouraging environment that will inspire
them to learn. 

--craig 



================================================================================
| Horizon Research, Inc.		E-MAIL:   limey@hri.com
| 1432 Main Street			PHONE:	  (617) 466-8300
| Waltham, MA 02154			FAX:	  (617) 466-8323
================================================================================
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: I'm in a gay mood!
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 13:57:53 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:

> I don't find the thought of a homosexual experience arousing, but I can 
> easily live with the fact that other people do.  What is your problem with 
> this?  Why can't you just let them alone?

Because they insist on holding jobs that would place them in a position of
being a role-model for my children (if I had any) as teachers.  I disagree.

Now, if you'll let me have my voucher system for education, I'd have no
problem.  Will you compromise?

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Corporate Tax Ballot Question
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:04:04 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:
>Does anyone have the text of the question.  Who proposed it and
>why?
>I read in the Globe that James Braude from TEAM is for it and
>that Mass
>Taxpayer's Foundation and the High Tech Council are against it.

Braude of TEAM was trying to use the threat of this ballot question
last year to gain concessions from the business lobby.  Failing those
concessions, he went ahead with this initiative petition.

As for the text, CPPAX endorsed this proposal at last week's board
meeting.  They have the text of this question; call 617-426-3040 and
see if they'll make it available.  (I'm on the CPPAX board so let
me know if you have any difficulty.)

> Does anybody have a more detailed account of the pros and
>cons.  (Like what ballot question is it and has it been
>approved for inclusion on the ballot this Nov.)

The statewide questions are numbered 1 through 4 this year, and I
don't remember the order.  The others include a packaging/recycling
initiative which would force manufacturers to minimize packing materials
starting in 1996 and a 25-cent additional cigarette tax modeled after a
California law which provides money for anti-smoking campaigns (the
problem here is there is no legally-binding way to earmark money
collected in the state's general fund, and a cigarrette tax is inherently
regressive).

The business lobby is opposed to disclosure, because they would face
increased minimum taxes once the public became familiar with the fact
that many big Massachusetts business have to pay no state tax owing to
their deductions and writeoffs.  It's not clear to me that a new state
law is required to make this fact known; a publicity campaign which
clarifies already-disclosed information about corporations would go a
long way toward accomplishing TEAM's goal.

America is suffering from information overload, and the way to counter
this is by presenting it in clear, concise ways.  It is in the best
interest of corporations and governments to obfuscate and bury information
under the gigabytes of new data created daily.  They've been winning this
battle for a long time now, and have even succeeded in getting people to
tune out information and not even care or notice that anything's missing.

-rich
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:58:27 GMT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

> [...]
>
> >Diplomacy is not doing what the US says
> >because they have the might and say their right.
> 
> It sure as hell is.
>
> [...]

Oh, brother, it's going to be one of those days.
I just agreed with one of Mr. Shein's posts!

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: GUILTY AS CHARGED (Was: In politics, why as why?)
Summary: A nit picked
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:47:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Sep1.144311.27493@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <w2s3PB9w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>>borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>>
	(debate on war for financial reasons deleted)
>>
>>> Nevertheless, I do believe that that was one of George Bush's reasons for
>>> going into the Gulf.  Which only reinforces my opinion that George Bush is
>>> one of the vilest, most disgusting people that this planet has had the
>>> misfortune to produce.
>>
>>Given that congress is the body that declares war, do you extend your bile to
>>that Democratic body as well?
>>
	Just to pick some nits,  war was not declared in the Gulf conflict.
We haven't had Congress declare war (like it says in the Constitution) since
1941.  What Congress was offered before the Gulf conflict was an audition as
cheerleader,  and not even head cheerleader.  

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Efficiency, auto vs computer
Date: 4 Sep 92 09:55:46 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

>From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
>Date: 3 Sep 92 17:55:12 GMT
> US$252 for about two pieces of stamped steel, perhaps 40 pounds
>of it (a pipe and muffler).  Turns out that's a pretty typical price
>to pay these days.

>As much as I detest the computer
>industry's lip-service approach to "open systems", at least they talk
>about it and take a few lame steps toward it.

When is the last time you got a computer fixed on a "time and materials"
basis for only $252?

Actually, my peave on mufflers and pipes is that they rust out too fast.
Like the resonator on my ford Bronco-II. The damn thing lasts less than
2 years.

I'd be willing to pay 3 times as much for stainless steel. But stainless
would cost me 10 times as much because it is a totally custom bend-job.

Some kind of plastic would be nice.

-gjc
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Militia rights (was: Bearing arms)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:58:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Note followup. This discussion does not have any relevance specific to new
england, so it belongs in the overall group.

> [...] Therefore, the right of the people 
> to bear arms for the purpose of forming militia may not be infringed upon. 
> Is that clearer?

Yes, but no more accurate. The ammendment refers to the right of the people
to keep and bear arms. It does not say anything about the right to form
militias. It justifies the right to keep and bear arms by stating that
militias are key to the security of a free state. By the way, in several
other ammendments (e.g., first & fourth), the term "people" has been
held to indicate an individual, *NOT* collective right.

> [...]
> And it is open for debate as to weither Jefferson etal would have argued 
> for unrestricted access to the type of firearms we have today.

As I said, all serious debate today is centered on the fact that circumstances
today are different than in Jefferson's time. No serious debate exists over
what was intended at the time (at least, not in the federal legislative
bodies).

In other words, it doesn't matter what the ammendment actually says, or
what the framers intended, the only issue is whether we find it convenient
to follow it.

Sen. Chaffee has taken this to the logical conclusion and has filed a bill
to repeal the second ammendment. If you so strongly believe that our society
is so different as to make this ammendment unworkable, you should support
his efforts.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
	<2797509893@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> <7100@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com>
	<1992Aug25.061659.22931@odi.com> <DRG.92Aug25085524@bubba.ma30.bull.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 02:45:51 GMT

In article <DRG.92Aug25085524@bubba.ma30.bull.com> drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:

   Some argue that the 14th Amendment in effect incorporated the entire
   Bill of Rights.  

Perhaps, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court does not take
this view.

		    I don't agree with the "no-op" contention because the
   bills currently before Congress are federal bills.  Certainly the 2nd
   will apply to them even if it is decided that the 2nd does not apply
   to state laws.

Apologies.  I should have said "so far"; yes, I don't know what might
happen with it in the future.
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Highway spending
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:32:39 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

Today, I caught an interesting article in the _Globe_ about a study
ranking Massachusetts 40th out of 50 in delivery "bang for the buck"
spent on its highways.  A Weld administration official claimed that
it's all Dukakis' fault, and that we'd be number 1 if the study were
repeated today.

Funny.  I've observed a rather expensive highway construction project
along my way to work each day for the past 2 months or so.  It seems
that some knucklehead bureaucrat decided that an important use of my
tax dollars was to replace the guardrails along a 6-lane, 5-mile stretch
of Route 2 between Cambridge and Lexington.

How can some of these stupid spending practices be justified in the face
of declining conditions in many other locations?

-rich
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Summary: Switzerland example brought in 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:56:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.151621.12567@burrhus.harvard.edu> pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu (David M. Pfarrer) writes:
>In article <BZS.92Sep2201456@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>Perhaps because their [other west. democracies] populations 
>>are a lot more homogeneous and the
>>problems lie elsewhere in heterogenous situations?
>>
>>Look at Germany right now, start some strong immigration and wham-o,
>>problems. Not that that argues against immigration, just that it's not
>>as simple as you present.
>
>Certainly my one paragraph post was a simplification -- how many
>aren't (ok, end of whining). I have no argument w/ the explanation
>above (i.e., the root of much violence comes from having heterogenous
>societies.  
	(deleted)

Now if you want an example of a heterogeneous society (Four language groups)
with a lot of guns (assault rifles in the home via the militia) and a low
violent crime rate,  look at Switzerland.
	What does this mean?  That heterogeneous + guns != violent crime.

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345 
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Carl Rowan (was Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense)
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:11:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <2498@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
> re your experiences. Did you read the Boston Globe today?
> A policewoman shot and killed her son, while presumably trying to
> kill or scare her husband.

That's an idea. Gun control should disarm the police and leave the
citizenry armed!

> As far as accidently shootings go. Let's try to be a little more
> suspicious here. Remember Karl Rowan, the very pro-gun-control 
> columnist who "accidently" shot an intruder with a gun that
> was not legally registered to him? The gun "just went off" in that
> case too, I suppose.

It wasn't accidentally. Two teenagers were skinnydipping in his pool
and he went out (after arming himself) to tell them to clear out.
One of the teenagers lunged at him, and got shot for his troubles.

What pisses people off is that Rowan had been adamant that citizens
had no business owning guns, but apparantley didn't think that applied
to him. The gun was in his son's name (an FBI agent, as I recall), and
he didn't think it had to be registered because of that minor detail.
I personally am offended that he didn't go to jail for violating a law
that he personally advocated in numerous newspaper columns.

Rowan appears to have changed his tune since that incident.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:46:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <2798112719@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
> Sorry about the confusion on the name.  My transfer server seems to keep 
> replacing my name...

Funny how nobody else in the building seems to have this problem.

> Certain investors (mostly overseas for some strange reason) pay 
> less than 1% tax. Is that a fair share when the middle class pay 30%??

Since your diatribe is on economics, you might chance to think in economic
terms. Tax breaks for overseas investors are to attract investment. The idea
is that without the tax incentives, they'll take their money somewhere else.
Presumably, they pay income taxes on this in their home countries (certainly
americans earning money overseas do).

There is significant justification to this idea; our own Ireland plant is
there because of tax incentives. Without them, we almost certainly would
not have built the plant there.

> The only exception I favor is inability to pay.  If paying your taxes puts 
> you into poverty (and therefore increasing the strain on the system), then 
> at least some portion should be waived.

I can certainly set things up so that by the end of the year I can't pay.
Or that paying taxes would push me into poverty. (By the way, define poverty.
In absolute terms, applicable across time and distance). I certainly have
*felt* poor as a result of paying taxes.

> The demand will be filled because the wealthy investors want to 
> make money.

If you persuade wealthy investors that you are determined to soak them
(devalue their earnings), they'll pick up their marbles and go elsewhere.
It's happened in a number of 3rd world countries where governments set out
to prevent rich furriners from making money.

> And to other posters who have accused me of advocating "soak the rich", I 
> find that an unusual definition for "let's have everyone pay taxes". 

What I've seen from you so far seems to be oriented towards a goal of
everyone achieving identical net income (after taxes). That somehow having
money is wrong and the possessor should be punished by the government for
the transgression.

If I misunderstood you, my apologies. But that's how you have been coming
across.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc