HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:23:46 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
# In article <4595@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>,
# jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
# >GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
# >
# ># While I
# ># don't want to imply that Perot is as bad as Hitler there are
# ># disturbing parallels between the way people are reacting to Perot
# ># and the way that Germany and Italy fell to fascism.
# >
# >Go for it. What are the parallels?
# 
# I think both societies were at a point where they were looking for
# a savior who would rescue them from what were perceived of as
# very bad times compared to what had been known in the past.  The
# known leadership could only offer more of the same while the Nazi's
# and Facists were untried but spoke powerfully about making the
# system work.  They did so in very broad terms, however, without
# being real specific about how they would get the job done.  Some
# people tried to warn that these ways might be very bad, or that the
# people themselves might not be very nice people, but the majority
# wanted so desperately to believe that their salvation was at hand
# that they refused to believe the nay sayers.

I buy your point that societies look for new leadership when the current
leadership becomes paralyzed. But this a cyclic and commonplace
phenomenon and shouldn't draw a comparison with Nazi Germany for the
following reasons:

  Germany was impoverished by the burden of WWI reparations. Present day
  America is probably the wealthiest society in history.

  Germany is a geographically small nation surrounded by other small
  nations. These nations are for the most part ethnically distinct,
  creating a dynamic and complicated political interplay between them.
  (Look at how WWI started.) The U.S. is a military giant with two
  benign neighbors.

  Except for fringe elements, Americans have accepted multiculturalism,
  so nationalism based on the idea of an ethnic in-group could not take
  root here as it did in Germany.

  Hitler rose to power dutring the brief age of radio. No American demagogue
  can flourish under the scrutiny of modern mass communications.

# Perot offers just this kind of "straight talk" to us today, again
# without being very specific.  Some people are already reluctant to
# believe that he really means some of what he has said; others brush
# them off with assertions that somehow "the people" won't let him do
# anything really bad.  I'm sure that some of the good people of
# Germany and Italy had just such thoughts about Der Fuhrer and Il
# Dulce.

Perot hasn't even entered the race, so it's a bit premature to criticize
him for lacking concrete proposals. The idea that he has some evil secret
agenda is completely unsupported.

John
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:43:51 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords: 

In article <70055@ut-emx.uucp> solomon@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Solomon) writes:
]In the Spring of 1988, the ozone hole over the Antartic broke up when
]sunlight started hitting the pole and changing the nature of the
]jet stream that encircles the region (as it does every spring).  In
]1988, however, large pieces of the hole remained intact, even after
]the hole had broken up.  One of these large pieces drifted right over
]Australia.  This is documented.  I have seen videos of ozone concentration,
]showing a very low concentration region drifting over Australia.  Here
]is a clear-cut example of a situation where the existence of the ozone
]hole has a negative impact on populated areas.  Now, whether the increases
I don't deny that this occurred. However, I keep asking, and no one seems
to have an answer: what was the UV-B increase on the ground???? This is
the critical variable. I was simply pointing out in my post that (A) the
poster neglected this item, and (B) the cancer statistics are almost undoubtedly
nonsense. I don't disagree that the Ozone hole is a problem, and that it
should be studied and understood, and that CFC's contribute to it and
probably should be replaced. I just get sick of phony reports.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ocb@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (owen.c.brennan)
Subject: Quayle for President?
Keywords: Bush looks older than dirt
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:30:35 GMT


Has anybody taken a good look at old Georgie boy lately?  He's 
starting to catch up to Barbara in the age department.

They showed Bush at the '88 convention and for 65 years old he
looked great but this failure of a presidency has taken its toll
on him.

Can we really afford to elect a 69 year old man with Dan Quayle 
waiting in the wings?  I think not.

SAY NO TO FOUR MORE YEARS!!

O. Brennan

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:04:10 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: AGRAN: Op-Ed on Economy
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:04:07 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

	Notice what Agran is proposing under the guise of "helping defense
workers".

	1. A worker "right" to participate in planning what products companies
	will produce.

	2. A Federal Economic Conversion Council which sounds a hell of a 
	lot like an exprement in central planning for the economy.  Of
	course, good post-socialists dont say central planning, the new
	term is master planning I think.  The one thing to clearly 
	remember is that it has not worked and will not work.

	3. Defense workers and their communities are somehow more entitied
	to money and government help than anyone else.  How is someone
	who loses their job in the defense industry "entited" to more 
	government assistance than anyone else who loses their job?
	Industries change and jobs go away....that is a fact of life.  
	Defense workers deserve no more and no less than anyone else.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:07:31 GMT

In article <farenebt.703216062@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>The "esteemed" conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote a column titled,
>"If we elect Bill Clinton we also get Hilary". Needless to say, the article
>went on to ream on Arkansas' first lady. 
>
>The similarly conservative National Review magazine wrote in its
>"This Week" section:
>
>"As head of the Children's Defense Fund (see "The Week", March 30), she
>"fulfills" her profession by seeking to police the family. In our view, a woman
>who inflicted the name Chelsea on her only child is in no position to preach
>others about children's rights."
>
>Gee, this "scholarly" magazine basically makes fun on Chelsea Clinton's name.
>HOW MATURE! I always thought making fun of someone's name, especially
>a child's, was behavior reserved for immature parties. I guess the NR 
>now qualifies.

Just like all the liberals who keep making fun of George Herbert Walker
Bush and James Danforth Quayle.  Look, National Review does not claim
to be a "scholarly" magazine.  It is about as scholarly as The New
Republic or The Nation.  None of these magazines are above having a
little fun on the way to making a point.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:15:44 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Apr4160416@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|> 	Yes, the problem of firearms *MISUSE* seems to be increasing.

I don't know. Seems to me they're getting used more and more these days
for the very purpose they were designed, built and marketed to fulfill.

The problem of too many people using them for candlestick holders and
hole punches might be growing as well, but I'd say that's likely a
function of the increase in the number of firearms in circulation and
the number of people owning them.

-- 
James Woodyatt  Space Systems/Loral   Palo Alto, CA   bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com

``And when he dreamed his ears drooled thirty weight engine oil
He took personality tests and stapled them to his lower lip''
				    --Stan Ridgway,
				      `Jack Talked (Like A Man On Fire)'
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17874 soc.men:8326 soc.women:8862 alt.rush-limbaugh:1149 alt.politics.correct:3646
From: rinat@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu (Rinat Kedem)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:28:20 GMT
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook

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.
-- 
-rinat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:37:16 GMT


Tangent on the issue.  Increased usage effects of legalization for 
alcohol and drugs will not be similar at all.  Drugs (except pot) 
are *extremely* addictive.  So addictive, in fact, that a
one-time experiment can lead to a life-time addiction.  That cannot
be said for alcohol and that is why they are different.  
  
Further, if legalized, the big pharmaceutical companies would take
over.  They would develop drugs, which are 90%-95% addicting 
on the first try.  Picture samples being mailed to every home
in the country.  I think this would be a problem.  Remember,
these are the same people that are busy mapping all your
genes.  (please don't think i am a conspiracy nut.)

I believe that there is hope for winning the "war on drugs".
But the current plan won't work.  The guys at the top are
not touchable.  The guys at the bottom have nothing to loose.
The guys in the middle are vulnerable, but there are lots of
dealers waiting to take their place.  I think with a super
effort to stop money laundering, the middle guys can be
squeezed out.  Stop the ability to spend the profit and 
you stop the drug sales.  This is sort of the way they got
Capone.
---dmg
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Detroit, get a clue!
Keywords: s**t-box, trade deficit, bad design
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:10:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1199@seqp4.sequoia.com> jcurtis@seqp4.sequoia.com (John Curtis) writes:
>
>Pardon me while I spew out invective against the
>US car manufacturers.
>
[details about poorly-designed Chevrolet deleted]
>
>In short, nothing has changed since the mid-1970's.
>
>And the unions are perplexed by the layoffs.  Its a 
>shame that working people are suffering when its
>clear that management is living in a dream world,
>totally unable to compete with a well-designed product.
>
	This sounds familiar.  My last American small car was a Dodge
Omni which effectively fell apart before it hit 70,000 miles.  I knew I was
in trouble when the factory-installed tape player died within 6 months..>:-)>
One particularly egregious example of Stoopid Design on this turkey was the
manual transmission.  The *only* way to check the fluid level was to put the
car up on a rack and remove a plug from the side of the transmission near the
bottom, which make routine checks of said fluid level pretty darn difficult
for the owner.  Which is one reason why I had to put a new transmission in
before 60,000 miles.
	By contrast my '87 Tercel has all reservoirs readily available and
routine maintenance is realtively simple.  It's a minor point, but seems to
indicate a fundamental difference in design philosophy.  The easier a machine
is to use and maintain, the more useful it is to the end user.  It doesn't
matter whether the machine is a car or a PC.  And the more useful a given
vendors machines are, the more likely people are to buy them.  The consumer
is really a much more rational decision-maker than our Industrial Barony
thinks they are.
	This simple principle seems to have eluded American manufacturers,
who seem to feel that it's easier to con the consumers with flashy advertising
or browbeat them with protective tariffs than it is to provide a well-designed,
useful product.  And judging from the recent junket to Japan by a brace of our
overpaid CEOs, they still haven't got a clue.

>If you don't own an American small car (sorry, American-built
>Hondas don't count) - go rent one.  The lesson's learned
>are worth the $20.  One drive is worth more than 
>one hundred articles on  "fair trade".
>
	I've got an even better idea: require all those CEOs to drive one for
a few months.  Might sober 'em up.
>Jack Curtis
>jcurtis at sequoia.com

Chuck

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Date: 16 Apr 1992 19:02:42 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <farenebt.703445408@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
|> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> 
|> >Amen to that. I thought that the comment was quite funny, too. Even if it is not
|> >funny, I don't see how it constitutes "picking on Bill Clinton's daughter." If
|> >at all it does pick on someone, it is on Hilary Clinton. And, by her rather active
|> >involvement in her husband's campaign and the rather obvious influence that she
|> >exerts upon him on policy issues, it is legitimate to discuss her views as well.
|> 
|> I will do my best to not get any more upset by this but the mag was making
|> fun of Bill Clinton's daughter's name. Nothing else, pure and simple. I do 
|> respect Hilary's involvement in the campaign but I wish she would think before
|> she speaks so as not to continually have to apologize. I don't think she
|> exerts any notable influence on him. They are two people with refreshingly

Whoops! She's taken a VERY active interest in her husband's campaign. She has 
strong, public views on every issue of the day, (all of which are good things).
He says things like "We are a package deal", which while being quite funny, is
also not made entirely in jest. I think it is silly to assume that Hilary Clinton,
or for that matter, any candidate's spouse (unless the cand. is Maggie Thatcher)
doesn't influence their spouse. The reason why it has not been possible to make
their views an issue, is because their views have never been publicly
known, and hence, are uncriticizable. You can't analyze something you know nothing
about.

|> independent views. His views are not totally dependent on hers and vice
|> versa. She certainly influences him no more than the Reagans were influenced
|> by an astrologist!	

That certainly would have been a good campaign issue if the Dems. had been able
tp prove that Nancy's belief in Astrology influenced Reagan's decisions on ISSUES,
rather than silly little things like dates, venues, etc.
				
|> 
|> >And they say that Conservatives have no sense of humour!!
|> 
|> Unfortunately, the president is the biggest joke of all.
|> 

And he's no Conservative (or at least, that's what most Conservatives say).

|> 
-srinivas
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: jkgreen@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jere K Green)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:21:08 GMT

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

As far as breast cancer goes, I think that insurance pays most of the
cost for most women so that the cost is distributed among the people,
both male and female, and the corporations paying health insurance
(which is the way insurance should work).

I think that most (not all of course) women who get abortions also get
at least some of the money from their husbands, or the one or more
individuals who may have contributed to the condition. But I'm using
anecdotal evidence here, I haven't gone to the library to look up any
statistics on this.

Jere.
     _______ ______  ____    ______
    /____  // ____/ / _  \  / ____/ * Jere Kavanagh Green
        / // /__   / /_/ / / /__    * Graduate Student
       / // ___/  /   __/ / ___/    * Department of Mathematics
 /\___/ // /____ / /\ \  / /___     * The Ohio State University
/______//______//_/  \_\/______/    * jkgreen@function.mps.ohio-state.edu


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:15:26 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>....
>The point is, it seems almost inevitable that when a scientist, or a
>bunch of scientists, discover something new that might have a
>noticeable effect on the average American, the same thing happens:

>1. A lot of experts come out of the woodwork and make predictions
>about the likely magnitude of the effect.

>2. Most of the predictions are pretty modest.

>3. A few of the predictions are extreme, either in terms of optimism
>("This newest breakthrough in high-temperature superconductivity
>could mean laptop Crays in the next five years!") or pessimism ("At
>the current [apparent] rate of global warming, all of the icecaps
>will melt by the year 2000.")

>4. A lot of laymen -- well, a lot of the ones who are paying any
>attention at all, anyway -- take a lot more note of the extreme
>predictions than of the moderate ones.  (The press often helps this
>process along.)
>.... 

    I agree that only the extreme predictions get the news and that
that destroys scientific credibility.  I blame this on the media.
Didn't newspapers and radio used to investigate and publish 
deep factual accounts of news?  Now all media is like T.V.  All
we get are news-McNuggets.  Everything comes from news services
and is edited down to nothingness.  The articles are short and 
have nice pictures, but little supporting evidence.  
    I can also remember (and I am only 26), when there were 
multiple newspapers in a town.  I think that the present
situation is condusive to the kind of politics we see:  Negative
campaigning, spin-control that always works, and the non-news
of things like the S&L scandel. 
    Net news set us free!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brafman@CS.Stanford.EDU (Ronen Brafman)
Subject: Crime Statistics
Organization: Robotics Department, Stanford University, Ca. USA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:44:55 GMT

Does  anybody have RELIABLE information on the 
trends of the number of violent crimes committed
in the US over the last decade or two.

Ronen Brafman

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Posting from Sameer Parekh (Zane) at ddsw1
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.210030.23591@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.043228.4854@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>>	Anyway, I'm going to be inducted next Wednesday, and I want to do
>>something interesting to advance my agenda and display the lack of reality
>>which NHS is.  Usually inductees are ot wear a flower the day of the
>>induction.  I thought I would wear a hemp flower, but I fear that it would
>>be too illegal and maybe expensive.  (I have no idea how expensive it is..)
>
>Quite illegal.  The "flower" is the part people smoke.  ANd it's pretty
>small, unless you get a big cluster of them, which would be expensive.

Is there anywhere you can buy plastic pot leaves or flowers?

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18129 alt.politics.elections:892
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Actors for Presidents unlimited (was Re: Acting!!! "Government ...")
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:28:58 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.152220.30984@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>Has Ahnold Schwarzenegger expressed any political ambitions?
>>He is a Kennedy, and is on the Bush Council of Exercise,
>>or somesuch.

>What does "a Kennedy" mean, btw?

It means he's related, through marriage to Maria Shriver, to the
Kennedys, who are a powerful political family in the US who have a
propensity for getting shot, getting drunk, and getting it on.  Also
known for their affinity for water and distrust for Protestant bridge
builders.
 
John F. Kennedy was President in the 60's before he got shot.  Known
for numerous affairs, including with Marilyn Monroe.  Wife was Jackie
Kennedy, now Jackie Kennedy Onassis.

Robert Kennedy was up and coming when he got shot.  Not as well
remembered. 

The last big Kennedy is Ted Kennedy, member of Congress, who had a
good chance at the presidency before he drove off a bridge and drowned
a young lady he wasn't married to, under circumstances that would have
put anyone not as well connected in jail for a long time.  Also known
for his alcoholism and constant philandering.

The latest to carry on the Kennedy Legacy is William Kennedy-Smith,
who was recently on trial for the rape of a young woman at the Kennedy
compound in Palm Beach, Florida.  Alcohol was involved.  He was
acquitted, or, as it was reported widely, he got off twice.  Almost as
interesting was Ted Kennedy's involvement and his subsequent efforts
to block investigation.

In short, your typical crooked and powerful political family.
-- 
The history of liberty is the history of resistance ... [it is a] history of
the limitation of governmental power.  -- Woodrow Wilson