HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Polling Fraud?
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:18:27 GMT
	<1992Apr13.214146.3820@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Apr14.004624.15558@kpc.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research


The reason there is no `Polling Fraud' is that there is nothing to be
gained. Since a reasonably clever polster can get whatever result they
want from their poll while being above board about it, there is no
need for any underhand manipulation.

This is why they don't print the questions asked, the sampling
tequnique etc in the newspaper when they print the result, they just
say that so many percent of people said they support policy X, never
saying how that question was phrased, what other questions were asked
in the same session nor how the people were chosen. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	Bernard, you are a perfect ballanced sample.
				- Sir Humphrey Appelby
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18234 alt.politics.elections:922
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Actors for Presidents unlimited (was Re: Acting!!
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:42:23 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr13.120321.13363@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.152220.30984@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf (Elizabeth G. Levy) 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?!?
>>
>>Has Ahnold Schwarzenegger expressed any political ambitions?
>>He is a Kennedy, and is on the Bush Council of Exercise,
>>or somesuch.
>
>I think I read an article describing him as some sort of an
>acquintance to Bush and doing campaign support for Bush (or was it
>Reagan?  this was probably at the last elections or something).  The
>article noted that Arnold can't become a president, because he's not
>born-in-USA.  Already when seeing the headline I was thinking that he
>would be a natural president to continue the line after Reagan,
>probably would be better as at least he has managed it better than
>Reagan on the silver screen.
>
>What does "a Kennedy" mean, btw?
>
>//Jyrki


Arnie S. was called in by Bush for the recent NH primary.  Bush was
being attacked unmercilessly by Pat Buchanan on t.v. ads.  So, first
George sent Barbara to campaign for him b/c polls showed she was
more popular in NH than George.  Then George came
himself to meet some real live people and try to prove how 
in touch he was and sorry he felt for all the unemployed.
(One way he did this was read his cue card as "Message, I care"
instead of just saying "I care"  but then this is the guy
who went to Austraila and gave them the F-U with his fingers
while thikning he was flashing a V- for victory sign) [ Austraila
and Britain sometimes use their index and middle finger, palm
inward to give someone the finger, notice Winnston CHurchill had
his palm outward for his V-for C]

It was during his I care campaing trip that Arnie S appeared with
him.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17542 alt.individualism:2358 sci.econ:3633 alt.activism:7449
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:10:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702839426
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V. Balaji) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>  "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>>  by Charlton Heston

>[followed by your usual rightwing crap]

>We get enough of this in the mainstream "free press". Why pollute Usenet
>with it?

Please, he can't even begin to approach the output of Harel, et al.
Or is tons of leftist crap fine, but some anti-leftist crap intolerable?
-- 
Taxes:  The one of life's two certainties for which you can get an extension.
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 19:28:40 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:

> soc.motss removed. 

Why do you guys keep removing that followup - after YOU put it in?

> In article <w265HB9w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> :gnn@manray.Berkeley.EDU (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> :
> :> Out of the mouths of babes...  Do you yet realize how this truth
> :> applies to you ?? 
> :> 
> :
> :
> :Think of this carefully: Homosexuals are incapable of creating
> :life.
> 
> How origional - and wrong.
>    ^^^^^^^^^ <-(Is this a new technical term?)
> :This is a relatively trivial exercise for straights.
> 
> Yes - very trivial.  You have the inaliable right to breed this
> planet into oblivion.
> 
> :Go home.
> 
> soc.motss is a 'home' of sorts and you are not welcome there.
> 

Why do you keep coming up with THAT place? - I'm about as likely
to want to show up there as I am to walk into a gay bar. Unlike
certain folks I know - I stay away from things I gripe about. :)

>      Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent, pn400}!uswnvg!dfpedro.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu (Celia Winkler)
Subject: Re: Social Security Debate (was Sold Down the River...)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: deficit
Organization: University of Oregon
Date: 17 Apr 1992 10:59 PDT  

In article <Apr.17.13.03.45.1992.15665@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes...
>cf@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (CF Snyder) writes:
> 
>[followups to talk.politics.misc]
> 
>> I think your comment
>> about people over 65 wanting to ride free on the younger
>> generations is a little over stated.  
> 
>The real question is why wealthy people over 65 feel that they have
>the right to a welfare check which comes from the most regressive tax
>in our system.  I don't begrudge support to poor elderly folks, but it
>really grates on me that my tax dollars go to pay welfare to someone
>who needs the money less than I do.

This is a legitimate beef, especially since the Social Security benefit
to people who have worked for many years at low-paid jobs is so small.
However, there are reasons to have a "universal" program like Social
Security (although it isn't *truly* universal).  Because of the
tendency to stigmatize poor folks in this society, as well as the
tendency for people to not support any program that is perceived as
not benefitting them, personally, unless the program is universal--
giving benefits to folks with high pension/investment income--it is
possible that Social Security would suffer from budget cuts and
stringent eligibility requirements, as in AFDC, Food Stamps, and
other needs-based programs.

Sounds like we need some reforms--but we have to think about how to
do them.  Perhaps we could make the taxation system more progressive?
Work on making the benefits more distributive?  

Maybe:

1)  counting the 10 highest paid years, rather than
an average of all wage-earning years;

2)  treating post-retirement pension/investment income the same as wages
in calculating benefits;

3)  a flat benefit amount, regardless of prior income.

Dunno.  Needs reform.  Just have to think carefully about the kind
of reform.

cw


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:03:41 GMT

>I prefer the right to arm bears!:-)   



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:50:25 GMT

In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
)
)  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
)  by Ron Sonenshine
)  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
)  --
)  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
)  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
)  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
)
)  The thesis of [June Stephenson's "Men Are Not Cost Effective"], which
)  was published in October, is that men are bankrupting the country by
)  the cost of their incarceration. Nationwide, she said, 50,000 men are
)  added to prison populations each year, and males account for 93 percent
)  of all people incarcerated. According to the Criminal Justice Institute
)  of New York, approximately 800,000 prisoners occupy the nation's prisons.
)  The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that it costs from $12,000 to
)  $24,000 per year to house an inmate.
)
)  Stephenson believes that problems having to do with being born male are
)  to blame for rising inmate populations--not poor housing, bad schools or
)  single-parent families, as others have suggested.

Although men may make up 93 (I thought it was higher, actually) percent of
all people incarcarated, they do not commit 93% of the crimes - at least
according to the National Crime Survey.  This nationwide survey on crime
found that 15% of the offenders for violent crimes were percived to be female
by the victims of the crime.  [This was for assult, aggravated assult,
and robbery.  All the results were within a few percent of the 15% number
for these crimes].  Uniform Crime Report  homicide data shows a similar
trend - about 13% of murderers are female (1416 female murders vs 8976
male murders for single offender single victim homicides in 1989).

However, data on State prison immates show that men make up 95.6% of all
people imprisoned for violent crimes are men.  (I lack data for federal
inmates.   [Sorry, don't have the detailed source reference available,
but it was a compilation of statistics from other sources anyway - something
about a 'Handbook of Women's Statistics'].  

Perhaps Stephenson should look at the discrimination against men inherent
in their higher rate of imprisonment vs. the rate at which they commit
crimes, rather than beating the drum to discriminating against them further.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
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 21:10:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.170126.16399@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.150817.23201@cs.dal.ca> johnston@ug.cs.dal.ca (geoff) writes:
>>True, but after all, they are the owners.  THEY are the ones who
>>have to weigh risks and pay the consequences in millions of
>>dollars.  
>Tell me an owner who have paid the consequences in millions of dollars.
>
>Get real. If (a big IF) the revenue increases, why are the owners the only 
>party entitled to the increased profit?

Sure.  Not as if the salaries havent been spiraling upward the past 2 years.


-- 
 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: bell@tigger.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega
Keywords: extraterritoriality, sham, trial
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:31:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <kubnfbINNk6j@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>Yesterday, Manuel Noriega was convicted of violating a whole bunch
>of U.S. laws, even though the acts in question occured entirely
>within Panama.  I'm not sure Noriega had ever even set foot in the U.S.
>before we invaded his country and kidnapped him.

Don't forget:
  500 or more people died in our making the arrest,  including 23 U.S.
    servicemen.
  Millions of dollars were spent.
  A number of convicted felons were given reduced sentences and money
    for their testimony against Noriega.
  Drug trafficking through Panama is worse now than it was under Noriega.

And Bush has the gall to call this a victory in the War on Drugs.

If this is victory,  I'd hate to see defeat...

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Followup-To: anyone.who.follows.this.up.is.a.real.dolt 
Organization: Institute for Pure and Applied Eschatology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:21:36 GMT

In article <XcLViB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes,
in response to an article of mine:
>Why are antagonistic points of view always reported as 'stupid'?
>
>I don't think your 'side' is stupid - I just think they are
>trying to rationalize mass depravity. That's all.

Well, I *do* think your `side' is stupid. As for mass depravity, it's
interesting to note that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol Pot all
are/were heterosexual. So much for who has the lock on depravity.

djk, if I were to announce to the net that your mother was a whore who
was so bad at it that she paid her tricks rather than the other way
round, that you cheated your way through kindergarten, or that your
employer is involved in importing cocaine into North America, you would
justifiedly say `hey, talk about something you know about.' I have no
data on (and, to be honest, no interest in) djk's mother, his academic
record, or his employer; similarly, djk has demonstrated that he has no
data on (though, alas, not a lack of interest in) LGB people. 

(You might ask why I'm following this up. I dunno. Spleen, I guess.) 
--
\    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and
 \   Department of Computer Science      literary excellence cannot coexist."
 /\  University of British Columbia                        -- A. Trevor Hodge
/  \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party Chair to speak at Stanford University
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:35:05 GMT

In article <5c2Q02.TcdSR00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>,
fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>In article <2282.29EC2ABE@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>U.S. Senate Candidate, June Genis, who is running for the 6 year term, will be present to same a few words about her campaign and the political efforts of other Libertarians.
>>
>    This is the same June Genis that reads this group?

Guilty :-)

>  ...explains the previous biased postings against Perot :-)

Why?  He's not running against me :-)

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Employee vs. Employer rights (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:24:45 GMT


The Libertarian Party's position on taxes is very attractive (e.g. I
won't have to pay any). I find some of their other positions less
attractive.

One position with which some may disagree concerns employee vs.
employer rights.

Should it be legal or illegal for an employer to fire an employee because ...
   the employee won't have sex with his or her boss?
   the employee is African-American?
   the employee is female?
   the employee is Jewish?
   the employee advocates a union?
   the employee belongs to a union?
   the employee smokes tobacco off the job 
                      (and pays for his or her own insurance)?
   the employee was put on a blacklist by another employer?
   the employee is a registered Republican?
   the employee writes a personal letter-to-the-editor 
                      criticizing the President of the U.S.?

If I understand the position of the LP (I'm sure someone will correct
me if I'm wrong), because an employee and employer are free agents,
none of these actions should be illegal. If an employee doesn't like
an employer's work conditions, he or she is free to find work
elsewhere.

The status quo position is that most employment is "at will" with
exceptions. So, an employee can be fired for almost any reason or no
reason but not for sex, race, religion, union status. These exceptions
were developed over time in response to problems. They are justified
by "public policy goals" and the observation that employers are
generally in a stronger position that employees (especially if
employees can be fired for union activity and employers are allowed to
have blacklists.)

In most states today, if you don't belong to a union, don't work for
the government, and don't have an employment contract, you can still
be fired for a letter to the editor criticizing President Bush or for
being a registered Republican. Groups like the ACLU advocate dumping
fire-at-will for fire-with-cause. At least one state, Montana, has
done this. Other states seem to moving in this direction. (Others are
not).

If you believe in the status quo (fire-and-will with exceptions) or
"employee rights", then you do not agree with the LP.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 15 Apr 1992 21:30 EDT  

>>cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
>>>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
>>>
>>>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
>>>back then)

I find it amazing that this issue of technology with regards to the intent
of the Constitution is still being debated.  It should go without saying that
only the mentally-impaired would believe that the Constitution is limited or
made obsolete by technology. I would say that the opposite is true.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.162542.16840@aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Think what might happen if the L's are successfull in their campaigns.
>They gradually get more and more individuals in Congress. They don't
>yet have a majority in either House or Senate. They don't have the
>Presidency. They being a minority have not been able to pass any
>Libertarian legislation. Thay have only been able to impede the
>Ds and Rs. Then one election, things are going bad in the country,
>the L's gain the White Housse, and control of both the Senate and
>the House.

I don't think you have a very realistic grasp of the way things work
in a body like a legislature.  There have never been more than three
Libertarians in the Alaska legislature; there are currently two in
New Hampshire and they *are* getting some, although not all, of
their bills passed.  They are able to do it because they don't try
to write things like "The Omnibus <whatever> Act", but rather focus
on narrow and specific legislation that increases individual liberty
is some particular context.

Of course, all they time they're lobbying for those particular bills
they are also busy educating their fellow politicians on general
libertarian theory and the benefits of its consistent application so
that each successive effort gets a little easier.  By the time the
Libertarian Party has achieved either a majority in both houses plus
a Libertarian President or a veto-proof majority in both houses I
think you will find that the country has become very hungry for
libertarian solutions simply because there will already be a track
record of successes to point to.

>Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18525 talk.politics.guns:11796 alt.individualism:2481
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Spat Upon?" (Was: "A disappointment to all military people"?)
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:26:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23274
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <70409@bcsaic.UUCP>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
> 
> In article <ATAYLOR.92Mar26202909@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
writes:
> 
> ><   [Casseres wrote]
> ><   > < The anti-war movement
> ><   > <was hostile (and in isolated cases "aggressive") to the military
> ><   > <establishment and to its civilian controllers, but was never
> ><   > <hostile to the individual soldier who went to Vietnam.
> >
> >	Here's what Wojcik says:
> 
> ><As for being spat upon, I don't doubt that it was a common experience.
> ><Although the number of crazies was small, it was significant.  And it was
not
> ><difficlt for the crazies to make their presence felt in the relatively few
> ><places where soldiers were returning from the war.  Unfortunately, many
> ><returning soldiers who were victimized by this kind of abuse tended to see
it
> ><as representative of the entire protest movement.  It's kind of difficult to
> ><keep your perspective when you risk your life and, something like that
happens
> ><when you return.  
> 
>   [Casseres again]
> ><It is not necessary for anyone to believe me.  What the movement did and
said
> ><and wrote is all a matter of public record.  It never showed any kind of
> ><hostility to soldiers.
> 
> >	Wojcik disagrees with you. So do thousands of soldiers.
> 
> I certainly disagree with the claim that those in the movement *never* showed
> any kind of hostility to soldiers.  But I think that I am in more general
> agreement with Casseres.

In fact we're in complete agreement, since I never denied that some individuals
seem to have spat on returning soldiers.  I denied that "the movement" was
hostile to soldiers, and I stand by that.  What's happening here is that Nosy
implicitly claims that anyone who ever was hostile to a soldier was in fact a
representative of the anti-war movement.  It's a blatantly dishonest position. 
Lots of people who never had the slightest interest in the movement abused
returning soldiers in many way that were far more damaging than spit -- there
were employers who discriminated against them, there were media that invented
and spread all sorts of vicious stereotypes of "psychotic Vietnam vets," and
there was our own beloved government, especially the military itself and the
V.A., which fucked the veterans every way they could invent.  Where are the
right-wing critics of these abuses?  Why, they're busy portraying the peace
movement as a conspiracy to spit on Curt Fennell.  Give me a break.  Give me a
barf bag.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!