HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 13:39:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.181541.13187@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.143730.22889@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>> I'm sick of greedy athletes.  Return to the ice and get the playoffs going.
>
>You don't think greedy owners have anything to do with it?  An owner makes
>a million dollars per playoff game, and each player gets under $800 to play
>in a horrific playoff schedule.

I'm sorry.  I have no sympathy for athletes making hundreds of
thousands or even millions of dollars a year.  Unfortunately, many of
the fiscal woes of the NHL are due to the mismanagement of John
Ziegler.  Because of this, there is no major network contract in the
United States and only six teams routinely make a profit.  Some strong
marketing in the United States and many Americans will see ice hockey
for the exciting game that it is.
>-- 
>Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
>1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
>U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
>Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS   1-0   at Tigers Monday (4-2), Wednesday and Thursday
 End the strike.  Get back on the ice.  Get the playoffs going.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ocb@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (owen.c.brennan)
Subject: Who to contact in NJ for Perot petition?
Keywords: A Texan not from Greenwich, Connecticut?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:13:22 GMT


Can somebody please email me or post in this article the
NJ contact to sign a Ross Perot petition?

I think somebody like Perot is what this country needs.  And I don't
believe those who say he won't be able to get anything done with
the House and Congress.  

Because unlike the career politician, the "Texan" who was born and
raised in a mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut, George Herbert Walker Bush,
Perot has had to go out and work for a living.  You don't make a 
$3 billion dollar company without being able to communicate and bargain
and work with people.  

Thanks in advance for anybody who sends me the info i requested.

SAY NO TO FOUR MORE YEARS!!

O. Brennan

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17231 alt.politics.elections:524 misc.taxes:2145 alt.society.civil-liberty:3286
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:32:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <82A602f5c8ss00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>
>>[Perot on] Deregulation of airlines:
>>
>>  "A sad situation brought on by people who don't understand business.  If
>>and when I"m ever up here, I do understand business and we will not implode
>>whole segments of an industry... The fact is we didn't get cheaper airplane
>>tickets, we got more expensive airplane tickets."

>I believe this is factually incorrect.  Does anyone have the exact figures?

According to the Brookings Institution, it's $15 billion dollars a
year saved.  I certainly know it costs me less.  And with American's
latest round of cuts and others following suit it's going to be even more.
We've also got more flights, up 40% or over for most cities according
to Domestic Affairs.  I wish I could give the out the citation for
that BI paper, but I don't have it here.
-- 
Among economists, the real world is often a special case.  -- Horngren
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Lib. prevention of pollution
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:56:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.202645.4049@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr8.233514.28115@cs.ucla.edu>, frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>
>+|> You show that they're damaging your property by going to court.
>+|> That's suing.  You go, *prove* that they're damaging your
>+|> property and *prove* that you are owed such-and-such damages.
>+|> That's how it is now - and it's tough to do, when you (an
>+|> individual) are facing a high-powered corporate law team.
>+|> Good luck.
>
>+Individual? With millions or more often billions of dollars at stake, and lawyers
>+who get 20-30% of damages, lawyers in polluted areas will be BEGGING the
>+residents to let them file a suit for them. How many lawyers do YOU know that
>+would pass up that kind of money.
>
>Lots.  Top law school graduates go into corporate law and end
>up working for firms with corporations as clients.  These
>firms are *not* going to take on your pollution cases.  The
>lawyers that do take on the case know that (a) there is nothing
>in it for them if they lose, (b) the corporate lawyers have
>more resources at their disposal, (c) it is difficult (if not
>impossible) to assess damages, especially for water or air
>pollution where multiple companies are contributing to the
>pollution.  The corporate lawyers will simply delay the case
>until the citizen groups run out of money and have to drop out.
>
>How did this thread get on so many newsgroups?  Did I do that?
>Sorry.  It is now off of misc.taxes and alt.politics.elections.
>-- 
>
>
>Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier

I think a key thing here would be to get rid of corporate shields.  If
the result of corporate misdeeds of any type was that executives went
to jail (or paid the fines personally), rather than passing fines on
to shareholders or consumers, even a small percentage of convictions
would have a significant deterrence.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: ACLU
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:02:44 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Apr7.023024.1152@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon (Andrew Baker) writes:
>>Sorry to break the news, but communities DON'T have rights.  Read the
>>Bill of Rights and I don't think it talks about groups but instead
>>defines rights for individuals.
>
>Read the whole Constitution.  Its principle purpose is to grant certain
>rights to the federal government: the right to declare war, the right
>to regulate interstate trade, the right to collect taxes, etc.  If you
>don't want to use the word "rights" for the government's prerogatives,
>that is fine -- but juggling definitions isn't going to make your
>argument any stronger.

Rights are not granted, rights are practiced and defended by the
citizens - by force if necessary, that's why the second amendment is
there - and recognized by the government.  What are granted to the
government are powers.  If you don't understand the difference, you
probably don't understand the principles behind the Constitution of
USA.

And by the way, rights are not defined by the Bill of Rights; the Bill
of Rights was added as an afterthough and it recognizes some of the
rights.  Some considered it needless and risky to add the Bill of
Rights - surely when the Constitution only grants a few strictly
restricted enumerated powers to the government there's no need to
specifically forbid the government from doing every possible thing
which are outside of its powers anyway.  I wonder what these people
would say now if they were reading from talk.politics.misc how people
are interpreting the Constitution in 1990's.

//Jyrki
From: robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tax zap cap
Keywords: theft
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:10:06 GMT
Organization: Organization

In article <1992Apr6.190940.27233@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>
>basically be detrimental to society.  So why don't we cap incomes at some
>very high number, say 1,000,000 dollars a year.  No person can possibly use
>more money than this.
>
>  Or the cap could be a straight one, with the govt taking anything more
>than that in taxes.  The extra money would be kept in the corporation, to


  Why would anyone make more than that, knowing it would all be taken?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17143 alt.drugs:7279 misc.legal:8947
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:43:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Apr7.174346.4247
Organization: Western Washington University

kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:

>There was a thing on "60 Minutes" about the 1984 Seizure Law.
>Apparently, the police have the right to take anything and everything
>they want to at any time if they _suspect_ drugs are in any way involved.
>They don't even have to charge you with a crime, and they can keep what
>they've seized.  One guy had to buy back his own seized jet at a gov't
>seizure auction.  That is bullshit.  I suspect that this law may be 
>ruled unconstitutional, go to the Supreme Court, and be ultimately upheld
>by the ultra right-wing court.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it is a very bad
>law.  

I'd bet that guy's airplane that Thomas would rule it unconstitutional.
There's an interview a few years back where he refers to RICO and that
sort of thing as totalitarian.  In fact,the fact that Thomas is very
pro-property rights is probably one of the big reasons that Bush wanted
to get him in.   There are a few other pro-property rights people on
the court.   I dont' know where the scale is tipped today, but if the
kind of law you mention can't be struck down today, it will just come
back after the next appointment to tryn.

Can anyonecharacterize each of the justices on their property rights
views?    I think Scalia is another one.   I don't have a clue about
the rest.
Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:21:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.044435.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> you write:
>In article <1992Apr8.054420.25066@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) writes:
>>
>>
>>   "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>>   by Charlton Heston
>
>    Great another actor who thinks he knows how to fix the gov't! Who's
>next? Tom Sellack?!?
>

No, their is a whole group of the.  They call themselves Democrats.

R. Scharfy
Ohio State
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18390 alt.individualism:2474 sci.econ:3799 misc.legal:9351 alt.discrimination:1628
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:06:35 GMT
	<RJC.92Apr13200716@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> <rdippold.703198965@cancun>
	<1992Apr14.145442.11702@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.


  (Ron Dippold) writes:
   |> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
   |> >In article <1992Apr13.024846.6240@nuscc.nus.sg>, Ed Ipser (ei) writes:
   |> >ei> The cosmetology board has been hounding Cornrows & Co.
   |> >ei> because its employees are not licensed cosmetologists. In
   |> >ei> 1989, it slapped owners Taalib-Din Uqdah and Pamela Farrell
   |> >ei> with $1,000 in fines for operating a beauty salon and
   |> >ei> training program without a license.
   |> 
   |> >Now, I realise that the customs of a foreign country can often seem
   |> >strange, and I realise that the USA leads the world in employment
   |> >protection for lawyers, but... 
   |> 
   |> >How on earth did anyone get a `cosmetology' board and licenses for
   |> >hairdressers set up? If the references to Washington and dollars were
   |> >removed I'd assume this was an anti-Brussels joke, and a poor one
   |> >because it is so unbelievable. 

(I give up on trying to straighten out this mess of attributions!)

One of the seemingly innocuous events that has prodded me gently away
from previous socialist leanings and toward the Libertarians was walking
into a Massachusetts barber shop with my two young children (boy 7 and
girl 5), asking for simple haircuts, and being told with horrified
intonation proclaiming me some kind of ignoramus (but every
retailer around the dungheaps of Boston and New York act like that):
"Oh, we can't cut the little girl's hair---we don't have the license."

Now it's bad enough that the State licenses barbers at all (I didn't
need a license to grease cars in high school, and that had far greater
safety implications), but requiring additional training and certification
to perform the identical procedure on a member of the other sex has
to be the ultimate in lunacy.

Then there are taxicab licenses (in towns where you can never find
a free cab).

Oh, well, that's statist democracy, I guess...  (I agree with Brown
about the corruption of government and the power of special interests;
I just wonder whether _he_ believes himself.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: steinly@zeppo.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective
Reply-To: steinly@zeppo.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Organization: Theoretical Astrophysics, Caltech
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:06:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.030456.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, ddc1@jaguar writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.054550.29806@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:


>>   The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective

>>   Bill Clinton:
>>     If he lied to his wife, will he lie to the country?

>>   George Bush:
>>     If he lied to the country, will he lie to his wife?

>	George Shrub also had an affair, in 1987 with an aide. Ask Barbara
>about it and she gets red and steaming and refuses to say anything. She won't
>even denie it. And I'm sure Clinton has lied to the country..."I didn't inhale"
>So then he didn't really smoke pot he just held a joint and didn't like it...

Both the LA Weekly (1988) and the Santa Cruz Good Times reported
allegations that George Bush had had an affair with a State Department
aide, name Jennifer (with a J! I think Doonesbury was being
deliberately coy...). As far as I know there is no evidence for this
accusation. They supposedly met in China! - No wonder he's nostalgic
about the place!!!

More to the point, does it matter? Does the US _really_ want to be
governed by a Saint? Who cares who the candidates have sex with?


BTW: I don't speak for anyone at all on this one!
Just opinion and hearsay!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Union Dues or Taxes -- King George is Exactly Right!
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:17:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.162536.987@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> 	You left out the fact that it was *non* union members forced to pay
|> dues to unions who can now prevent the unions from using that money for
|> political purposes.

Not that you don't have a point, Brett, but there are those who would
argue that individuals who choose to work for a company whose contract
with the union says that all of its employees, regardless of union
membership, must pay union dues, can vote with their feet and quit
their jobs if they don't like what the union does with the money they
collect.

I'm not one of those people, but there *are* people on this newsgroup
who seem to continually assert that any government intereference in the
employment contract is an anathema to the free market and should be done
away with immediamente.

Just thought I'd point that out.

-- 
*\ James `Dr. Strychnine' Woodyatt  . ``You asked talk.bizarre to suggest
**\ bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com       . a new nickname for yourself?'' ``Yeah,
***\ Space Systems/Loral            . I thought it would be funny.'' ``You
****\ Palo Alto, CA                 . haven't any shame, do you?'' ``No.''
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17235 talk.politics.theory:1977 alt.individualism:2318
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:37:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: esd.1992Apr8.013752.23681
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support

From article <1992Apr6.084808.10698@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, by baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker):
> In article <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>>
>>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>>political party.
> 
> Is it really the fastest growing?  Is it growing at all?  By what measure:
> votes, money raised, TV and newspaper coverage, or what?  Please post the
> relevant statistics or retract this claim.

In Texas,

There are only three political parties recognized in Texas.
The LP is one of them.

LP average statewide vote tripled between 1986 and 1990.

LP Dallas County general membership has doubled in the last 12 months.

LP Dallas County dues-paying membership has tripled in the last 12 months.

LP Dallas County contributions have quadrupled in the last 12 months.

Two local radio talk show hosts have endorsed the LP this year (so far).

No other Party is growing faster in Texas.


---------------------------------------------------------
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
Subject: Re: US Election Results (Regional Ministers)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:55:36 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <01GIP4QR5700000B19@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
>        ===   Election Results for New Regional Ministers   ===
> 
>                Great
>                Lakes          
>                -----------    
>                Pat            
>                Schroeder      

	Ack!  Never!

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:25:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.162547.4968@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <allan.702804563@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>>Please don't draw any conclusions on the basis of the Shark's current
>>success. After all, they are an expansion team, they are new, and
>>hockey is a fad in California (Partly due to the presence of 
>>Wayne Gretzky in LA). Instead, wait for about 5-10 years, when
>>Gretzky is gone, and the California hockey fad is over, THEN you can
>>draw conclusions from their attendance.

>First it was San Jose didn't deserve a hockey team because they didn't
>support the last one, now it's 'well, it's only been one year'.  The Sharks
>have been quite well-marketed in this area, and I don't believe this is
>just a fad.

>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com



Exactly.  The Sharks might not make it.  That's what this is all about. But 
instead of pointing at the Sharks and saying show me again, we should be 
asking why the Seals failed and why the Kings weren't doing as well as they 
now are.

Perhaps we'll hear: Hockey won't make it where people see ice every three 
years and maybe the Seals and Kings didn't fight enough.  Perhaps that's 
it.  Maybe the day Gretzky was traded to LA there was a big snow storm and 
the Kings started fighting so much more that the hockey-ignorant American 
media could finally understand how great the game was and got the word out 
to all the puzzled American fans who can only understand fighting and THEN 
the game took - as a fad.

As for the argument not to change things based on unproven markets -  look 
at how the proven markets are doing right now.  Changing nothing and failing 
to stay contemporary is what people are upset with Ziegler about.  That 
logic goes out the window when it involves working with the image of the 
game.

Yes, Gretzky will retire.  But brand new players to market come along. 
We're all familiar with Lindros.  You think marketing himself and his image 
has nothing to do with his reasons for wanting to play in a major US city or 
Toronto?

Warren
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17568 alt.drugs:7408 misc.legal:9082
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:55:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: CSD-News.1992Apr9.205534.10718
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

In article <1992Apr8.220532.1186@hsv3.uucp> mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>But what possible good would that do?  If a Supreme Court is willing to
>rule that the Constitution doesn't say what it quite clearly and
>unambiguously says, then what makes you think that your ammendement
>will be immune to the same treatment?

The history of the 14th amendment's jurisprudence is relevant; it was
ignored for decades and the "privilege and immunities" clause is still
dead.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17992 soc.culture.african.american:4541
From: robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Social Spending Constitutional?
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:18:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.1992Apr12.091843.2210
Organization: Organization

In article <1992Apr6.141801.17827@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> kniaz@cat6.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Kniaz) writes:
>>From the Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 8:
>>(Entries shortened for brevity.)
>>
>>   Congress shall have the power:
>>	1.  To collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common
>>		defense and general welfare of the United States".
>	.
>	.
>
>	How doesn't urban infrastructure, job training, drug rehab, etc,.
>	fit under the 'general wlefare [sic] of the United States?'

  Whether it "fits" or not is irrelevant, since Congress is not given power
in those specific areas.