HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:11:19 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Libertarians & Butterflies (Was: Re: Causes of the "Cultural Elite")
	<Brp3LA.7t3@apollo.hp.com>

I think this chaos theory stuff is being horribly misapplied to the
discussion of political principles, or at least the connection is not
being made clearly at all.  For one thing, isn't the interesting thing
about chaos theory that tiny perturbations in an initial condition can
have huge effects on the resulting system?  Well, the government is not
a tiny effect, nor is it an initial condition - it is part of the
equations modelling the system's behavior.  Government directly controls
about 40% of our nation's economy, and indirectly (through regulation)
controls a vast portion of the rest of it.  I think it's absurd to say
that radical changes of this magnitude will not cause any predictable
changes in the outcome.

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 17-Jul-92 Re: Causes of
the "Cultural.. Peter Nelson@apollo.hp.c (3200)

>  Bottom line is this:  It is intellectually dishonest for proponents
>  of ANY ism to claim they can predict, even in a general way, what 
>  the result of their policies would be. 

I don't see this at all.  Again, you're changing the equations, not just
the initial conditions.  The beginning of your post simply pointed out
that there are complex systems for which tiny perturbations can cause
huge changes in the outcome, that often greater local stability causes
less global stability, etc.  So fine, you've made some statements about
mathematical equations, and I realize that these sorts of equations are
used to model many real-world situations, but you haven't said how your
arguments apply to government but not to, say, an object moving at a
constant velocity through space.  We clearly are able to predict the
behavior of those things, even over billions of years.

I can clearly predict, in a general way, that the results of communism
will be economic failure.  I can clearly predict, in a general way, that
the results of facism will be a large group of disaffected people.  No,
I don't claim to be 100% correct - there may occasionally be a communist
country whose economy manages to flourish, and there may occasionally be
a facist dictator who makes all of his subjects very happy - but in a
statistical likelihood sense, I think my predictions are valid.  And I
think that when those predictions fail, the reason is more likely to be
unpredictable events which influence the system rather than the
"butterfly effect" of some tiny initial condition.

Anyway, I'm certainly interested in hearing a more detailed explanation
of your ideas.  I just think you're making very overblown claims which
you haven't supported with what you've said so far.  If you're going to
apply mathematical models, point out what the variables are, what the
equations are, what inputs there are to the system, what the initial
conditions are, etc.

--Conrad
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8944 alt.politics.perot:1035 talk.politics.misc:35400
From: ses@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Darlene Wiedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Whadya gonna do about it?
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:13:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa

I've been carrying on email discussions with various netters about this.
I'm curious to hear your opinions.

I read lots of complaining, some venting, mostly complaining.  Hmmmmm.
Why complain here?  Seems to me you should be writing your elected
officials and telling them how you feel. 

The change everyone seems to be referring to starts with us, not
Washington.  

It's been posted here several times that the American people are stupid.
No we aren't.  Lazy maybe, but not stupid.  How many of you know who
your representatives are?  Have you ever contacted them to let them know
how you would like them to vote on an issue and why?  Do you even know
what they are voting for?  How's their attendance record?  Do you only
vote in Presidential elections?

We go to the ballot box, vote for our guy or gal, get them in office, and
then go home patting ourselves on the back for a job well done. 
We proceed with our daily lives trusting our representatives will do
what is right for us.  NOT.  
Our responsibility has just begun.  We can't (and shouldn't) expect
Congress or any elected official to police themselves.  But we do.

This is the change that needs action now.  Make it a point to get off
your butt and remind your representative that he/she is representing you
and you will be watching very carefully.  If they don't respond and it's
"I know what's good for you better than you do" action, then ballot
boxes can make wonderful bullhorns.  

If we are not willing to take a stand and force the issue of TRUE
representation, how can we complain?

There is power in numbers.

Change starts with us.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Darlene Wiedman                  "If you're not part of the solution, +
+ darlene@flash.ATC.Olivetti.COM      you're part of the problem."      +  
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8681 talk.politics.misc:34887
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Adviser on _The Plan_
Date: 21 Jul 92 03:16:00 GMT
Organization: Surely you jest

barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:

> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Jul17.223615.27187@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.
> >>The top 1% and the top %10 pay a larger share of income taxes
> >>(percentagewise) than ever before.
> >I'd like to see a source for this.
> 
> Of course they are paying a larger percentage of the total tax 
> collected.  Their incomes were the only ones which went up
> significantly during the reigns of Reagan/Bush.  They still
> paid a smaller percentage of their *own* income in taxes after
> the rule of idiots.

A true idealogue is an amazing creature; able to find evil intentions in 
any action of the group he despises, able to reverse position faster than 
a Ferrari with a tricked-out tranny...

It's quite obvious that you have no idea what the alternative minimum tax 
is, or capital gains taxes, or even marginal tax rates, for that matter. 

Your statement is a wonderful piece of misdirection and distortion; we 
could take a sample in which 90% of the population saw their incomes 
double, took a 5% tax cut, leaving them paying 90% more in tax dollars, 
and it would still be true.

--
55: It's not a good idea - it's just the law.
The country needs them more than ever: Bill 'n' Opus in '92!
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:01:26 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <22623@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
>writes:
>>    I hope the voters will take a good LONG look at why we would get
>>involved in another adventure overseas.

>And I hope they take a good long look at all the folks like you who
>think that it's just a normal part of political manuevering to send
>people off to war, but only if the politician in question happens to
>be in the other party.

    I'm having a hard time parsing this paragraph. Perhaps you could
clarify a bit?
    The first part of your post seems to say that you think that I think 
that "it's just a normal part of political maneuvering to send people 
off to war."  Did I get this right? If so, you missed the whole point 
of my post.

    I think it's an ABNORMAL part of political maneuvering to send people 
off to war just to boost election year popularity.  It verges on a criminal
activity, and is an incredibly immoral, calous act. I also think that
the "rally around the flag" gambit is within the realm of the possible
given the terrific boost in popularity of Bush after the Gulf war.
    I don't think GHWB is the "great Satan." The "flag" gambit in this 
election is only a slight possibility.  You apparently think that there
is zero possibility of a "flag gambit." You have more faith in human 
nature than I do.  We disagree. I think that power corrupts, and absolute 
power corrupts absolutely.

    The second, and key, point of my post is that the U.S. president
does NOT have absolute power, especially in an election year.
    In the U.S., without significant public approval there can
be no war. Opinion polls tell the President whether it is possible to 
mobilize for war. In an election year, the opinion poll is cast in the 
voting booth, so the Commander in Chief is especialy careful.

    The second part of your post,
>          "...but only if the politician in question happens to
>be in the other party."
is giving me a hard time. What exactly do you mean?  Are you saying
that I think it is O.k. to start a war for political gain for one party
but not the other?  Which party happens to be the "other" party?  Why?

Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: The Myth of the Spendthrift Democrat
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:14:56 GMT

In article <MeP=Hq_00h5yRTh20C@andrew.cmu.edu> cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 21-Jul-92 Re: The Myth of
>the Spendth.. James Barrett@cloudgen1. (1244)
>
>> Anyone else heard about the 3 military bases we own that if sold at
>> assessed value, would generate $3 trillion revenue, thereby eliminating
>> 3/4 of the *debt*.  I beleive one was near San Francisco, one in Hawaii,
>> and one somewhere else in California.
>
>Yes, it was brought up a couple weeks ago.  Someone pointed out that
>those figures seemed completely unreasonable, because the value of one
>base would have to be larger than all of the private real esate in
>California, or something like that.  Do you recall where you heard it? 
>Even if it's off by a factor of 10, we could sure use the $300 billion!!!

I can see the headlines now ... JAPAN BUYS $300 BILLION OF US MILITARY
... last word might read REAL ESTATE.  Worth making the point that a
lot of people wonder who is out there to buy it, and who would want
it, and why.

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Adviser on _The Plan_
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:22:19 GMT

barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:

} thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
} 
} >In article <1992Jul17.223615.27187@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.
} >>The top 1% and the top %10 pay a larger share of income taxes
} >>(percentagewise) than ever before.
} >I'd like to see a source for this.
} 
} Of course they are paying a larger percentage of the total tax 
} collected.  Their incomes were the only ones which went up
} significantly during the reigns of Reagan/Bush.  They still
} paid a smaller percentage of their *own* income in taxes after
} the rule of idiots.

So what?  If the proper role of a tax is to raise money for government,
and rich people paid more in taxes, why should anybody care whether
or not they became better off in the process?

Or are you one of these people who believe in the superstition that
the country over all would be better off if rich people weren't, and
toward that end, the proper role of a tax is to make people less
well-off than they otherwise would have been?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: string@wrs.com (String)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:32:49 GMT

>It is common knowledge (in New York, anyway) that many of the so called
>"homeless" that live in the streets now were dumped out onto the streets
>by the psychiatric wards. Liberals, in the name of compassion, saw the
>poor conditions many of these disturbed people experienced while in these
>wards, so they got laws passed to "free" them from the wards, without
>providing any alternative homes for them. Sure, there are always the true
>hard luck cases, but by and large, advocates of the "homeless" are quite
>dishonest.

Whoa. I would like to see which "liberals" introduced the legislation that
began the "deinstitutionalization" under ron reagan ? Please cite the bill
and the people who drafted the bill. Your right, homeless advocates are 
dishonest, they're obviously trying to help the homeless for their own 
personal benifit and gains. Besides, all the homeless people I've talked with
are there by choice. In fact, most of them really love it; all that eating
garbage, the great outdoors year round, the muggings, beatings, and random
violence make it exciting as hell. Have you ever spent any time on the
streets ? It's a fucking blast out there! 
And yeah, the "conservatives" are a bunch of really nice honest people that
have helped create alot of jobs for people. And their economic policies have
increased _everyones_ income over the last 12 years, and set into place a
system that has long term stability and fantastic insight for growth.
It's warms me inside to know that we've all been paying higher and higher taxes
and had our social programs cut so we can have a military that can destroy
anything and everything on earth if we need or want to. Even without
a threat of any significance, I think we need to keep building complex
weapons systems like SDI in case of attack from space or wherever. Just as long
as we avoid any kind of social programs that may help those goddamn 
lazy, stupid, poor people. 

>The incomes of all groups in the 1980's rose, although some more than
>others, I'll admit. Now, while we should always try to help all the classes
>improve at the same rate, I won't complain as long as all groups are
>improving. I don't agree with the politics of envy.

No, you don't complain as long as your group is improving more than others,
and that others are barely inproving (statistically) so you don't have to 
feel guilty. Be honest now.

peace, 
string.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Perot....GONE!
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:51:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.175733.8875@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>,
johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU (John D. Piscitello) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul18.020749.20533@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>,
|>kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
|>|> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
|>|> 
|>|> >     If I'd have to pick a word for what the Perot supporters
|>feel, it'd
|>|> >probably be "betrayed."
|>|> 
|>|> Why should Perot supporters feel any more "betrayed" than, say,
|>Tsongas or
|>|> Harkin supporters?
|>
|>	Tsongas and Harkin dropped out because they were out of money and
|>out of sight in the polls.

Both were from the start party men. Their supporters knew that they were
running for nomination as party nominee. One of the things you do (or at
least should do) when you run for such a nomination is accept that you
have a duty to actively help whoever gets the nomination. Tsongas
withdrew because he knew that the longer he stayed in the less chance
there would be of a Democratic candidate winning. He knew he was too far
behind to win so he quite rightly threw in the towel.

However there is still saomething deranged about a nomination system
where only half the country gets to vote. The preliminaries should be
set up to all happen on the same day.

|>	Perot had money, and he was in a dead heat. He just dropped out
|>because he didn't feel like running anymore.

Then he announced his intention to set up shop as an old fashioned party
boss whose favour is essential to gain a seat. If people are serious
about wanting a third party to challenge the hacks they must look for
someone who is a completely different kind of politician. Being very
rich as opposed to pandering to the very rich does not count.

How about running one of the headmasters of those successful-despite 
the-neighbourhood-looking-like-a-demilitarised-zone schools that keep
appearing on ABC news's man/woman of the week spots?

How about running the man who organised the workers buyout of a factory
after the company announced it was quitting to set up shop in another
state to get a better tax break?

How about running the organiser of an inner city drug rehabilitation clinic?


How about running some ordinary people for a change?


How about a party where no lawyers are allowed to stand as candidates?


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee)
Subject: Re: Whadya gonna do about it?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:51:00 GMT



While I agree with the general premise of your posting: actively participate
in government, I disagree with one of the sub-premises: posting to the net
doesn't do anything.  Posting to the net is discoure discourse is what
drives democracy.  I'm sure people have been able to air grievances,
discuss, their beliefs, and maybe even change a few opinions here.  That's
what people mean (I think Merton said it, but I'm not sure) by the
"marketplace of ideas."
-- 
*****************************************************************
yvonne_lee@infoworld.com   (preferred email reply address)
yvonne@well.sf.ca.us       (news account) (415) 312-0571 w  (415) 968-3132 h
*****************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8897 talk.politics.misc:35287 misc.legal:14677
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Appropriating vs. spending (was: Obtaining copies...)
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:12:38 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> >rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com sez:
|> >>Michael Polen) writes:
|> >>>  Just remeber,
|> >>>congress taxes and the president spends.
|> >>
|> >>What?  In which country?  I was under the impression that congress
|> >>taxed and spent, and that the executive branch carried out their
|> >>dictates.  
|> >
|> >While Michael Polen's assertion is just silly, Ron's rebuttal is a bit
|> >disingenuous.  In the first place, it's fair to say that both branches
|> >tax and spend: I haven't seen Congress overriding any vetoes lately on
|> >*anything*, let alone on fiscal legislation.  Second, the executive
|> >branch does occasionally refuse to carry out legislation re spending.
|> >I have in mind Nixon's impoundment of highway funds; there are perhaps
|> >more recent examples I've forgotten.
|> 
|> Now you are the one being disingenuous. Congress abolished the impoundment
|> powers used by Nixon in the 1974 Budget Act. That, plus the fact that most
|> of the budget is 'entitlements', in effect forces the President in a box
|> with respect to spending. He cannot change the level of spending significantly
|> without changing the law. Congress, both in legislation and in passing the budget,
|> engages in setting the spending level.
|> 
My assertion may be silly, but I stand by it.  Congress indeed sets the 
spending level.  They do not however set the efficiency level as to how
the budget is used.  When congress says spend $4 billion on waste site clean-
up, the EPA can spend one dollar or 4 billion on pre-clean-up studies.

When congress authorizes $1 billion for school lunches, the Department of
education can, through overhead, contract negotiations, etc. turn that
into 1 billion lunches or 250 million lunches.  Congress does not get
to make that decision.

One argument is that congress could control this by refusing to give money
to inefficient departments.  But if the President's agenda is to scuttle
a program by wasting the money, congress would be playing into his hand
by doing this.

Through enforcement and implmentation policy, it is the President, not congress
that controls what we get for our tax dollar.  This is indirectly true where
congress sets the benefit levels (as with social security).  The President
controls the organization that decides if it takes 200 people or 20,000
people to manage and distribute the social security funds.  And it is this
efficiency level that determines how much those benefits really cost us.

OK folks, if I am wrong, please explain it in terms even I can understand.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republican Convention
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:41:20 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <saurav.712516948@cory.Berkeley.EDU> saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
>
>Just read in the papers that Barbara Bush has been drafted to speak
>at the RNC convention. She will speak on Wednesday night about
>family values. 
>
>They are so desperate that they have to get the prez's wife to
>speak (paper states that she has higher poll ratings than Bush).
>
>Also heard that Bush will be coming out with positive ads in
>the next few weeks before the Convention to portray his accomplishments
>and what he plans to do next. I guess his accomplishments will
>be 1% of the ads. 
>
>			


His ads before the NH primary or Mass. primary had a voiceover
about his leadership -- he led us to victory in the Gulf and to
vicotry in the Cold War. etc.  If anyone seriuously believes the latter,
i.e. Bush caused the downfall of the USSR and Iron Curtain countries
singlehandly all I can say is fiddle -ee - dee.

He might have been pres. during it but I cant say the downfall has
done much good for alot of the pwople there.  Yes, it has brought a
stop to the massive arms race which is very good :-)  but in terms of
lives -- there is alot of fighting in Iron curtain countries as well as the
fringes of the ex-USSR.  And also the resurfacing of ethnic rivalries 
in the Baltic Republics dont bode well for a democratic and equal 
gov't.  I.E.  Latvia has a hatred for Russians since they invaded their
country in WW2 so wants to disenfranchise and not allow them to be citizens
if they came to the country after ww2.  That is a wide sweep -- article in
_Boston Globe_ this past Sunday.  It is too bad that Bush's 
foreign policy "expertise" didnt extend to some kind of help
in negotiating but then Baker is going to leave the Middle East to
campaign!  



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc