HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: Phone Zap - Astra in blinding PWAs with ASTRAnomical Greed
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:22:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.161549.21160@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <10AUG199211425792@mary.fordham.edu> madlansacay@mary.fordham.edu (MADLANSACAY, NOEL) writes:
>>
>>But is it F.A.I.R. to charge a blinding price of $24,000+ wholesale for
>>Foscavir for a compound that was discovered decades ago?
>
>I do not know.
>How much is the cost of making the  drug? Maybe it costs Astra about $20,000?

I doubt that a LOT. 

>>Is Astra F.A.I.R. ?
>
>I don't know. I guess that there is not F.A.I.R.ness in bussiness. There is 
>only profit to meassure. This is a free market economy. Offer and demand.

Sure, Supply and Demand. The problem here is that this is a drug treatment
for a FATAL condition. With AIDS drugs, if you don't have them you can't
really fight. 

I seriously wonder how it would be handled if a cancer drug were found and
the company that made it charged $24000+ a year for it? Would the government
step in? Would people scream so loudly that the company changes its price?
I know that it is a hypothetical question, but the population at large and 
the folks in the White House right now seem to still think that this is a
condition only in gays and drug users. If it came knocking on THIER door I
really think they would jump. :/

>The problem here, I guess, is not Astra but the health care system that alloes
>this to happen. 
>Is it F.A.I.R. that millions of people have no health insurance? Is it 
>F.A.I.R. that for those people a bottle of Tylenol is as expensive as 
>if it costed $24,000?
>
>This is bussiness. There is no moral in bussiness but offer and demand.
>In this case, where the "merchandise" is human health, it sounds terrible, 
>but this is not different from the cost of food or education for poor people.

Ah, 'Let them eat cake'.. I see.

If I came up to someone and said "Pay me $xxxx or you will die." I would get
tossed in jail for blackmail. If a company does this you claim it is okay
simply because it is free market? Funny, but I thought that the government had
an interest in getting rid of monopolies because they don't provide fair price,
service and competition. 

The merchandise here isn't human health. It is human life. BIG difference.

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+     \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: Levis Drops Boy Scouts...
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:32:51 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

kahn@emav131.webo.dg.com (Mike Kahn) writes:

[...]
>When Levis withdrew their support of the BSA they were in effect saying
>that the BSA was wrong (something which I, in fact, agree with).
[...]

Levis didn't say that the BSA was wrong; it said that BSA policy was
incompatable with Levi's policy.

[...]
>However I also know that if company X came out in public and said that
>I am wrong about a particular belief I would choose not to do business
>with company X.
[...]

Given that BSA policy is incompatible with Levi's policy, I wonder if
there is any way that Levi's could stayed within it's policy without
having many BSA supporters thinking that Levi was saying the BSA was
wrong. (The Levi's statement was very polite.)

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.scouting,alt.athiesm
From: bn566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ward Chanley)
Subject: Re: Bisexuality and Choice (was Re: Levis...)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 05:15:17 GMT


Re "Choosing" bisexuality...

I think sexuality is this massive subject, and sexual orien-
tations are like bellybuttons...everbody's got one but 
no two are identical.  I respect bisexuals who tell me that
they chose their orientation, or chose to begin sleeping 
with members of the same sex; I have no right to tell them
that their orientation is inborn if their experience dictates
otherwise.

That in no way alters my own assertion that my own sexual
identity is indeed inborn and non-volitional.  That's my 
experience.  Perhaps being born gay is something unique to
me, perhaps not.  BUT, the issue of choice only gets on my
nerves when bigots start telling me that not only can I 
change my orientation, but that I must.

If being gay is a choice (it isn't) then I choose it,
thank you.
-- 
You know life is an impossible scheme,
And love, an imperceptible dream...
     --- Pet Shop Boys
bn566@cleveland.freenet.edu (Ward Chanley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.scouting,alt.athiesm
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Levis Drops Boy Scouts...
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:19:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.215839.8088@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:

>Homosexuality =IS= a changeable trait.

So?

>It is as changeable as your
>religion,

Oh, I see your point.  It should be a protected trait, just like
religion.  Exactly!

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Rock Hudson
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Clinton is an Economic Realist (NYT 8/4/92)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:49:14 GMT

In article <19205@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>
>} Right now, our budget deficit is essentially financing our trade deficit.
>
>The budget deficit came about by government's spending more than than the
>amount it took in.
>
>} That's not a good thing for the long term.
>
>The trade deficit isn't the problem.  I have personally built up a huge
>trade deficit with my local grocery store -- I have bought lots of things
>from them, but they haven't bought anything from me yet.  The nation's trade
>deficit was done basically the same way but on a larger scale, and it is
>just as meaningless.

	This is a misleading analogy. Your trade deficit with your local
grocery store is offset by your trade surplus with your employer. If your
overall trade had a deficit over a long term, you'd be heading for bankrupcy.
The same holds true for a country. That's why there's concern over the 
trade deficit.
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:24:26 GMT
Distribution: na

Bradley K. Sherman writes
> Thanks for the great straight line, but I'm feeling magnanimous tonight.
> Let's just pretend that your original claim never occurred and we can
> choose something else as a basis for discussion.

Oh, absolutely not. So far we have my claim against your utter lack of any  
claim at all. If you do the work and find a source which claims that reporters  
and editors in the large news organization have voting behaviour which is _not_  
to the left of the general populous or at least if you screw up your courage or  
screw down your common sense and _claim_ so, then I'll have to get sources.  
Until then my statement stands as undisputed and you are just blowing hot air.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: POLL for non-U.S. residents:  Is U.S. envy of world?
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:59:11 GMT

A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET writes
> "I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
> "I brought peace over the world, now let me bring peace in the USA"
> "We have changed the world, now let's change the USA".
>  
> Apart from that one should work on his/her faults first,
> the above makes some of us (over here in Europe) puke.  Most of us,
> however, just laugh about this outraging stupidity.

  I, for one, am very embarrassed when American politicians make statements  
such as those above.  I'm sick of hearing claims that America is the envy of  
the world, and that all other nations in the free world look to the U.S. for  
guidance.

  I think an informal poll might be in order, primarily targeting those posting  
from outside of the U.S.:

****   Is the United States of America the envy of the world?  ****

Please send replies either through direct email or by posting to  
alt.politics.elections.

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11150 talk.politics.misc:41009 alt.politics.bush:2353
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic (European?) Arrogance makes us lau
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:37:44 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

[foreign policy stuff deleted]
>
>>The thing is that Bush does not have a coherent domestic policy
>
>This line is getting tired ... it is quite untrue:
>
>Bush has submitted proposals on Banking reform;
     I hope this works better than the S&L deregulation.....                    
>an Economic recovery package which includes capital gains tax cuts,
     This is the same old story.. why did we not have so much
     trouble with investment in the bad old days when capital gains
     could have been taxed at higher rates than they are now?
>R&D investment credits, and housing incentives.
>He has proposed enterprise zone legislation to reviatalize our inner cities.
     This is Republican economics? Seems like twisting the arm of
     capital resources to go somewhere the market wouldn't take them
     naturally.....
>He has negotiated a free-trade agreement with Mexico.
     So? I go to Mexico frequently and I can tell you we're not going to
     sell much to those folks. I'm not a protectionist, but it's going
     to take maybe 5-6 years before this will have a positive
     effect here. I like the idea because it will benefit Texas...the
     folks in Michigan will probably come out on the bad end....
>He has asked for a line-item veto and balance budget amendment to control
     Refried beans again. Until the voters of BOTH parties get weened
     from federal spending, this is just blowing smoke.
>deficit spending, and has submitted spending recissions (like the Seawolf,
>which failed in the House).
>Bush has submitted a significant proposal on providing health insurance
>for the currently uninsured.
     Tell me more.
>He has recently asked the Dept of Labor and other departments to review
>regulations to lessen the burden of regulation on the economy.
     Another boogey man. WHich regulations are thought to be dragging it
      down.
>He has proposed legal system reforms, which are intended to reduce the cost of
     I usually need a doctor a hell of lot more often tha I need a lawyer.
     This is just pandering to corporate special interests.
>litigation. He proposed and enacted the ADA bill, providing access and
>rights to disabled Americans in businesses and in employment.
>He pushed and enacted the 1990 Clean Air Act, the first significant
>piece of environmental legislation in two decades.
     Good. One point on this one.
>
>---
>Pat
>" Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
>Compromise in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush Exposed For Lying About Lying--CNN
Supersedes: <92236.022458U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 23 Aug 1992 02:48:05 CDT
From: Brady Woodward <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>

Forwarded note:
=============================================================================
CNN Transcript

"About Bush's hyperbole on Clinton's taxes:  Charles
Black, senior advisor to the Bush campaign,
almost admitted that Bush was lying about the taxes and argued
that Bush was trying to make a "rhetorical point."  (!) *

Fred Barnes, conservative writer, asked Black why Bush was saying
things about Clinton's proposals that are not true.  Barnes pointed out
that Bush said Clinton's plan would raise taxes for everyone holding a
job -- which is simply false.  Black tried to say that Bush did not say
that, but Barnes informed him that Bush did say that.
Black then mentioned the rhetorical point and shifted attention to
something else.

Anyone who supports Clinton should disseminate the fact that the Bush
campaign has launched itself with a fundamental strategy of deception.
It is amusing that they are not only getting caught lying,
but are also being exposed for lying about lying!"


                                           *Evans and Novak, 9.22, CNN

Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of my employer.  Brady Woodward U56503@uicvm
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Liberal v. Conservative
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:31:20 GMT
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes
> Is that so? I guess I could be better informed on this, but I
> was under the impression that the Republican policy was
> to increase funding to  *private* schools, the idea being
> that this will increase competitiveness and result in
> better education overall. I see a darkly ironic parallel 
> between this and Reagan's trickle-down economics, if
> this is indeed a  good representation of Republican
> policy. I also think that Head Start  hasn't received
> enough funding. 

No, the Republican policy is to increase funding for schools which education  
consumers choose and decrease funding for schools education consumers don't  
choose. Schools can be public, private or parochial. The Democratic position is  
- as usual - anti-Choice.

And, contrary to the public harping from all sides on the matter of Head Start,  
it is so tiny compared to the educational industry as to be utterly irrelevant.  
The same can be said of almost all other federal educational funding as well.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Source for Republican platform?
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:46:40 GMT

I'm rather curious as to what the Republican platform contains _other_
than the much-publicized abortion plank.  Is it available
electronically, for posting or ftp?  If not, how would one go about
getting a paper copy, and how much would it cost?

Mike

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Some truths about the economy
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:56:46 GMT

In article <16842BFB1.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>The Wall Street Journal published an article (August 11) which dispells
>alot of the "crisis", doom and gloom rhetoric of the Denocratic Party.
>Soem excerpts (I encourage all of you to read it):
> a) the poorest 20% of households mean income, adjusted for inflation,
>    rose 5% during the 80's

Does this mean that the wife now has to work to keep _family_ income
at the same level it was before Reagan?

> b) the average income , again adjusted fro inflation, is 40% higher for
>    25-35 year olds compared to that age group 30 years ago.

Note, 30 years ago (1962) was the start of the largest post-war
economic expansion.  Where did the income rise take place?  Back
then or during Reagan?  The WSJ stats are incomplete without this
information.

> c) Family incomes adjused for inflation have grown 5% in the last 20 years.

Again, how have the demographics changed in the last 20 years?  Certainly,
more women are now in the work force.  If the wife brings in another
$25K, certainly _family_ incomes would go up.  Remember our image
of the 1950s, where only one member of the family worked?

>
>And so it goes.  The only way to get a democrat into office is to scare
>the public into thinking our world is crumbling.  It isn't.

The only way a Republican can keep the office is to misrepresent
stats.


--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:17:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.103221.1442@news.Hawaii.Edu>, blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
|> >
|> >Again, the analysis was intended to normalize the increase in net
|> >income to the increase in gross income. Since we were playing with
|> >contrived numbers and since the number chosen for the poor was
|> >picked to be arbitrarily small, I chose normalization as it eliminated
|> >all but the crux of the argument: that is the degree to which the
|> >rich either received or didn't receive a tax break. In any case,
|> >the rich paid more dollars in taxes than the poor.
|> >
|> >-- 
|> >Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
|> >(415) 903-3832 wk                           (408) 253 4541 fax
|> >
|> 
|> Bzzt- the issue is that the rich tend to pay a lower *percentage*
|> of their income in taxes than the middle class. It's criminal
|> that someone making 20-30 thousand a year pays almost twice the percentage
|> of their income that someone making 1 million. Who do you 
|> think has more disposable income??? You deliberately choose
|> to stick to dollar amounts because you know that in the only 
|> figure that counts- the percentage of an individuals income
|> that goes to taxes, the rich DO pay less. If things were truly
|> equal everyone would pay the same percentage, the rich are paying less
|> so they DID get a tax break. End of story.
|> Kristin 
|> 

Kirstin

If things were truly equal everyone would pay for what they get.  Everyone
would assume responsibility for their own actions.  Income tax is used by
the government to rob from the responsible working class and give to those
who are irresponsible.  End of story.


Fred

##############################################################################


The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not shared by my 
employer or my friends. However, they should be.

If you receive more than one copy of this notice please pass it on to a 
friend.

Fred Seals
409-845-2298

##############################################################################
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:31:05 GMT
Distribution: usa

ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Cary Zeitlin) writes:

>Some numbers, please, to back up these rather wild assertions? I don't think
>any knowledgable person believes that Soviet military technology was equal to
>the U.S.'s. An "obscene advantage in sheer numbers" -- numbers of what? Nukes?
>Troops? If they had such a tremendous advantage, what kept them from attacking?

Try 'Janes World Aircraft' and 'Janes Wold Ships' for some factual
(non-US) evaluations of state of the art Soviet war equipment. Their
best matches our best, but the second string (where they got alot of
their numbers) was not as good as ours. And they did enjoy a 3 and
sometimes 5 to 1 advantage in Europe in tanks, artillery, and men. The
only thing that kept them from attacking was what you mentioned
earlier - MAD.

>Sonny boy, read some history. There were over 1 million (that's million)
>Soviets killed during WWII. The pain and cost of war is something deeply
>etched in their conciousness, in a way it is not so etched in ours. No
>living American has ever had to defend the U.S. from invading armies.
>They didn't need Ronnie (What the hell did he do during WWII? He made
>*movies*, wow.) to make war look ugly to them. You're totally wrong here,
>totally presumptuous, and totally ignorant.

The ugliness of war you speak of did not stop the tanks from rolling
in the 60's when their interests were at stake, nor did it stop them
in Afghanistan. So it is not the 'horror' of war that stopped them, it
was the thought that they could not win. They thought they could win
in Eastern Europe (which was correct) and in Afghanistan (which proved
to be incorrect).

>>But freedom is never free.

>No, but it *can* be extremely profitable for the military-industrial complex,
>given enough fear-mongering. What a great bunch of patriots those defense
>contractors are.

Who are  now downsizing their industry, just as they did in the late
60's and the early 50's. If what you said is true, then why has
defense spending been decreasing in real terms since 1985? (Of course,
some polititians want to keep spending on outdated defense programs
that the Pentagon does not want. See Clinton in Connecticut and the
Seawolf sub program for details :)).

>Cary Zeitlin                              ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.Edu

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Transcript of speeches? --> GOP Convention
Keywords: GOP conventions transcript
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:01:12 GMT

I'm sure that someone will be posting transcripts.  A good place to ask
would be in alt.politics.bush.

For those of you who do have prodigy accounts, there's one good thing
prodigy is good for.  They've *already* got the Buchanan, Reagan, and
Bush speeches from the first day of the convention.

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: LA Times poll -- Convention bounce
Summary: Clinton by 8
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:09:14 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

The 22 Aug LA Times reports that Clinton's lead dropped from 23 points to
8 points over the week of the convention.

"If the election were being held today, for whom would you vote?"

	Clinton Bush    Other   Don't know
21 Aug  49      41      2       8
14 Aug  56      33      2       9

From other questions, Bush's gains were apparently on the economy and taxes,
while opinions on foreign affairs and health care were more constant.

The Times polled 1186 registered voters by phone Thursday and Friday.
Margin of error +/- 3%.

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	jim@rand.org