HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 23:31:20 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <altar.716021744@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
[ ... ]
>>  have a nasty tendency to kill birds, rabbits, frogs, and other cute
>>  creatures. "A housecat hunts for fun," says Merrit Clifton, former editor
>>  of The Animal's Agenda. "It gets all its calories indoors, and then it
>>  goes out to devastate whatever there is to devestate."
[ ... ]
>Now, if you want some real facts on this issue about cat
>predation of urban wildlife then read:
>
>    B. M. Fitzgerald  "Is cat control needed to protect urgan
>          wildlife?", ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 1990, 17(2):168
>
>    P. Jarvis  "Unban cats as pests and pets", ibid, p. 169.
>
>Both authors argue that there is no real problem, that cats
>are simply replacing other predators like weasels and that

If this is the extent of Fitzgerald's and Jarvis's argument, then
it's at once perfectly correct and utterly stupid.  When the weasels
kill too many of the small birds and mammals that constitute their
food supply, they don't come home and meow for more Kat Krunchies.
Some of the weasels die too, the "food" population recovers, and
the normal boom and bust cycle of a "balanced" ecology continues.

But the kitties come home, get fed, and return to hunt down the last
survivors ...   (It's the humans who should know better, of course.)

>Anyway, I doubt that anyone here is really interested in the
>facts.  The desparate concern here seems to find some sorry reason
>to again vilify animal rights advocates.

Hmmm, a new wrinkle -- the preemptive ad hominem argument ...   :-)
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:36:37 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep10.045351.10823@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>	Bill Clinton had his chance, during the Vietnam War,
>	to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.
>
>		If he didn't have it back then,
>		what makes anyone think he's got it now?
>
>
>				This public service announcement
>				was brought to you by Radio Free Lafayette

We could, of course, do one of those little search-and-replace
commands, and put J. Danforth Quayle's name up there.  One wonders
what Bush was thinking when he choose a <gasp> DRAFT-DODGER for
Veep.

In any case, in the words of James Carville, "The economy, stupid."




--
"I wish there was a way I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Crimes of Nicaragua (VI)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:00:09 GMT

The Crimes of Nicaragua (VI)


"Achievements in health care have also been great. 80,000 volunteers
were trained in preventative medicine. One result was a 50% drop in
malaria. The incidence of measles, a prime killer  of children in
Somoza's day, decreased from 3,784 in 1981 to 219 in 1982. Effective
use of oral rehydration techniques has led to a dramatic decline in
deaths from diarrhea. The percentage of the national budget spent on
health has increased 600%"

From Oxfam America, _Facts for Action_ [September, 1983];
"Nicaragua: Development Under Fire"


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   -->  [Send the 1-line message GET FSLN ACHIEVE ACTIV-L to     ]
        [LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET for a copy of the complete file  ]
   -->  [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]
        [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



            =============================================
            T h e   " N i c a r a g u a   L i b r a r y "
            =============================================

*
* =========
* Nicaragua
* =========
*
  WHO-WERE CONTRAS    Contras' origins; make-up; practices - documented
  FSLN     H-RIGHTS  Documented HRs comparison w/Somoza,Guat,ES,others
  FSLN     MISKITOS  Sandinista treatment of Miskitos;Charges & Realit
  FSLN     NICAJEWS  Debunks charges of Sandinista 'Anti-Semitism'
*
  OXFAM84  NICARAG   Oxfam America's 1984 report on Nicaragua, in full
  FSLN     ACHIEVE   Documented: achievements of the Nica. revolution
*
  NICA-84  ELECTION  Documented: Fair under Sandinistas; US subversion
  FAIRNESS NICA-USA  Flwup:`Is Nicaragua More Democratic than the US?'
  NICRAGUA ELECTION  Study in US subversion of '90 Nicaraguan election

NOTE:

======================================
To get a file named FILE NAME from the
archiver (files are two words  separa-
ted by a space), send the 1-line message

GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
[or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
======================================

Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
files available with the GET command.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45679 ca.politics:7835 ba.politics:5357
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: I want Line-Item Tax Allocations for me
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:41:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <19980@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:

>How's about we abolish taxes altogether, and if you want to cut a check
>to the NEA, then by all means, do so.

Let's do it TODAY.

>(Personally, I think that if the NEA evaporated tonight, our culture
>wouldn't even notice its passing.)

Agreed. Simply because our culture has already been vivisected and all that's
left is the dried carcass. Can't kill something that's already dead.

									MPA
From: gt4627b@prism.gatech.EDU (gt4627b Matthew Kramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Forcing your opinions. What does it mean?
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:30:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

It is very common these days to hear the term "forcing your
opinions on somebody else", both in the press and in conversation.
It usually seems to come up when one person is advocating the
adoption of a policy that another opposes. Now it is true in a democracy
(or constitutional republic), that any law passed forces others
(At least those in the minority on the issue) to act in a certain way.
If a person puts a gun up to your head (or a policeman, or D.A., etc.)
and says, you must _believe_ this, that is mind control. If they say
you must not violate this law, adopted through a democratic process,
that does not violate contitutional rights, I do not believe that this
constitutes "forcing your opinion".
Most of the time I have experienced this statement is if I am discussing
with a liberal a particular issue, and say "This should be illegal",
and they respond "No, You can't legislate morality".. "No, you can't
force your opinion on me". It seems to be the last resort of someone
who has run out of ideas.
What do you think? 
-- 
 *----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | ARPA: gt4627b@prism.gatech.edu  | Chairman,Georgia Tech College Republicans|
 | Matthew C. Kramer,(404)881-8402 | First Meeting:Sept 28th 7pm, SC Room 320 |
 *----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.163850.26137@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
 tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
>
>Isn't the Libertarian's canidate the one who couldn't be troubled to serve
>his full term in an elected office in Alaska?  

Nope.  Andre Marrou served his full elected term.  Granted, he
happened to be out of the state at the conclusion of said term, but
then this is common and anyway I believe that the legislature wasn't
actually in session for most of the time that he was gone.

Perhaps you're thinking of one or the other of the two former
Libertarians who betrayed both their Party and their principles after
getting elected, and who switched to Republican, some years ago in
Alaska?  I don't know a whole lot about them; it's entirely possible
that one of them flaked out on their service in the legislature and
resigned from office.  I do know that both had been Libs for a very
short time when they got elected...... almost as if they were merely
riding on our coattails.


Watch out for vicious disinformation from the Republicans and in
particular from a person named Sean Ryan (son of a congress-critter in
Alaska) about goings-on in Alaska; they seem to be doing all they can
to derail our efforts there --- including outright lies and violations
of election laws (like interfering with petitioning).  This latest
just sounds to me like more of the same.

--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45436 ca.politics:7775 ba.politics:5312
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Brian Kane claims pedophilia != child molestation
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:00:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <95783@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12209@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <95609@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
# ##rape is not a sexual orientation.
# 
# #Rape is not a sexual orientation?  Perhaps your dictionary has
# #different meanings for "orientation" and "sexual" than mine.
# 
# Evidently. ORIENTATION to me does not connote action.
# 
# ##Neither is child molestation. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
# 
# #Oh that's right, pedophilia (adults having sex with children) 
# #isn't child molestation.
# 
# That's right. Pedophilia is an orientation. Child molesting is acting
# on that orientation. If you are a pedophile and you don't act on your
# compulsions, no one gets hurt.

So you would agree that if a person known to be a pedophile (whether
actually convicted of child molestation) applied to a day care center,
or sought to be a teacher, and was turned down for the job because
of that, he should have legal recourse against the employer?

# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:15:46 GMT

In article <8SEP199214192850@rosie.uh.edu> st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)  
writes:
> As a potential libertarian, this is one of the areas that really bothers me.
> It seems to me that in the real world, wealth concentrates and then empowers
> a small group of the population.  These people have more 'rights' than the  
rest
> and there is no way under libertarian policy that I can see to correct this
> problem.  In our current system, you see people who have money break the law,
> some times perhaps even kill other people, and get away with it because they
> have more money.  It seems to me that liberterian policy only works when the
> disparity of wealth (and hence access to good lawyers) is not to great.
> How does the liberterian philosophy try to deal with this problem?
> ---
> Stephen McLeod

Many of the laws of non-libertarian governments are geared toward empowering  
and enriching people who already have wealth.  Have you ever wondered why  
legislation intended to restrict the activities of an industry are often  
heavily supported by that same industry?  Usually these laws create heavy  
restrictions for new entrants into the industry and limit the competition for  
the companies already in place.  Notice in the recent cable TV regulation going  
through the congress that they are talking about regulating rates (and, BTW,  
not reducing rates), but not about eliminating local cable franchise  
monopolies.  This protects the wealth of the companies already in the cable  
business.

In a libertarian government, more people would be free to enter business  
because they would not have the massive regulations and taxes that currently  
prohibit many people from starting businesses (and if you don't believe these  
are obstacles, go out and try to start a business -- it is VERY enlightening).
Businesses that are already in place would not be given a monopoly or oligarchy  
by government fiat. This would create a higher standard of living for the  
entire society as well as giving individuals the opportunity to increase their  
wealth based upon their productivity.

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 21:59:30 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Jason Austin) writes:
|> 
|> 	Rush Limbaugh made a good point about this bill today.  Bush
|> has vetoed this bill in the past and the Democrats know he will veto
|> it now.  They want him to veto it, because when he does veto it, they
|> will scream, "SEE! He doesn't care about family values!"  The
|> Democrats know there's a sucker born every minute.
|> --
Sort of like when Bush asks congress to throw partisanship aside and
pass a Republican-partisan bill he wants.  He knows they won't pass
it.  Welcome to the sucker ranks, Jason.

Doesn't it embarass you to see only one side?  Is Rush L. your idea
of objective reporting?

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45726 ca.politics:7857 ba.politics:5379 soc.motss:39183 ba.motss:1642
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:34:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Sep14.173812.2523@midway.uchicago.edu>, by elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher):
> In article <12274@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) sniffs:
>>Besides, would you want to work for a company that fired people
>>because they were gay?  I wouldn't.

> It's nice that you can pick and choose.  Millions of people out of work
> in this country can't.

Yes, it is indeed nice.  And many of us who can choose
cause market forces to bring pressure on companies who
do not choose the most qualified people for the job.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: hagstrop@oberon.mathcs.carleton.edu (Paul Hagstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Forecasters of doom
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:15:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <BFsmqB1w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)  
writes:
> part 2 of 3 parts wrong wrong wrong...........
>    Over the years , environmental luminaries have been WRONG TIME AND TIME 
> AGAIN. For example, 3tanford University professor Paul Ehrlich predicted in 
> his 1968 BEst Seller THE POPULATION BOMB:"In the 1970's the world will 
> undergo famines----HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are goin g to starve to 
> death in spite of any crash program embarked upon now" He also warned of 
> severe water shortages: "In 1984 the United States will quite  literally by 
> dying of thrist."

Sure, predictions can be wrong; even those based on good evidence.  In fact, it  
could very well be that the extremity of the view was more a "scare tactic"  
than an honestly believed one.  The point, though, shouldn't be lost -- people  
are incredibly careless with the environment, and more respect should be paid  
to it.  Whether or not we're going to run out of paper in 20 years because no  
trees are left, we'll run out of paper (and trees and the oxygen that they help  
supply) EVENTUALLY with CEO's sending memos to every staff member to tell them  
that Mr. What-and-such is retiring or with a lot of the current beaucratic  
nonsense present in the legal world (like, for instance, the continual  
publishing and republishing of statutory corrections which include the whole  
text of the statute for one correction at the end -- I type these things for a  
[part of a] living, so I know that they exist, and in great quantities).  What  
it mainly shows in unconsciousness to the environmental problem, which is  
excusable only if that unconsciousness is soon removed.  Those who are  
conscious of the problem and dismiss it as less important than their memos, I  
find not excusable -- those who don't want to go along with recycling or paper  
reduction because it seems "trendy", those who are out mainly to irritate  
co-workers rather than to think about issues.

The point?  These inflated predictions of doom shouldn't discredit the entire  
environmentalist cause.

Another thing: I missed the other "parts" of this (I assume part 3 has yet to  
be posted), so perhaps I'm not arguing against the author's intent -- if so,  
wonderful.
--
schmotsignature.
Paul Hagstrom
(hagstrop@carleton.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45103 alt.rush-limbaugh:4678 alt.politics.elections:12964 alt.politics.clinton:5123 alt.politics.bush:4886
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:37:11 GMT

In article <BuL02M.Hqp@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.173512.28371@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>If parents need a "ratings" service, some entrepreneur should take
>>up the challenge, if the current media reviewers on TV and newspapers
>>are not enough. 
>
>  If they do, fine, but this has not been proposed.
>
>> Of what use is an "rating" by an anonymous reviewer
>>for a parent who is truly concerned...one would think a truly concerned
>>parent would want to have a reviewer who they can choose and be
>>certain as to their qualifications and values.
>
>  This would be a good supplement to labels, but again, it's 
>  hypothetical.  If my (also hypothetical) son were to come home
>  and ask if he could buy a particular CD, there's no way
>  to "look up" a particular review of it.   If I *happened* to
>  see one in some newspaper, great, but most reviewers review
>  only a miniscule fraction of the CD out there, so developing 
>  loyalty to a particular reviewer doesn't help.  
>
>  Labeling is not the be-all end end-all of the problem.  But it
>  does provide one more data point than exists now to help 
>  parents make decisions.   
>

If the people who were interesting in imposing "rating" systems
to help parents, and not interested in censorship, one would think
they would set up a reviewing business, and promote and advertise
that for use by parents...but the fact is that they aren't interested
in helping parents but in censorship, in restricting the rights of
others to see, hear, and read what they might want to...which is
why they propose "ratings" systems instead.

Gerald

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44004 alt.politics.elections:12529 talk.politics.theory:4069 misc.legal:16938
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Seizures, stops and searches (was: Political Parties in the
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:47:22 GMT
  <1992Sep1.185755.17716@auto-trol.com>
  <1992Sep6.182018.21584@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

In article <1992Sep1.185755.17716@auto-trol.com>, 
katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) said:

> Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even
> charging you with a crime! Our wonderful (NOT!) conservative supreme
> court has upheld this.

It is my understanding that BATF and the IRS routinely did this,
in the name of "gun control" and "making sure the wealthy paid their
Fair Share of taxes", well before prohibitioNazis like Reagan caught
on.  Our wonderful (NOT!) social democrats started it all.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Jobs and growth (again)
Summary: Partial 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.185233.10017@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)       writes...
>In article <1992Sep15.142146.16304@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>As has been posted before (thanks to Peter Nelson):
>>
>> year    '50 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87  
>>    %     5.0 5.5 4.5 4.9 8.5 7.1 7.6 9.7 9.6 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.2
>>  (source: BLS)  
>>
>>It PEAKED at 6.2% in 1987 !?! harrumph. It peaked in '82, at 9.7%.
>>
>>Note also that these numbers hide the huge increase in total jobs,
>>something like 16 million from '82 to '87 alone, as the labor force
>>was expanding.
> 
>	Well, thats ok, but it was 13 million in '76-'80, better then either
>of Reagans terms (taken independantly) and we don't need to remind you that
>the number of jobs has *decreased* under Bush.
> 
>	I would really like to see numbers relating the calculation methods
>for unemployment before and after 1984, when the long term unemployed (ie:
>over 6 monthes) stopped being figured in - I suspect that the current rates
>would look be a lot closer to 10%. Anybody know how to do this?
> 

I can't help you for every year, but I have dug up a few years.
If you take into account the long-term unemployed, and the under-employed
you get a high for Reagan of 15.4% in his first term. As for the spring 
of 92' under Bush it hit a high of just over 11% (that was spring's 
numbers).

-Garrett 

>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
> nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
>                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43845 ca.politics:7467 ba.politics:5055