HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:03:14 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct07.234507.23650@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>They certainly don't have to.  All they have to do to get a tax
>exemption is "be a church".  Period.

Actually, being a church isn't sufficient.  See the recent Supreme Court
decision which held that some church (and I forget the name, but it was
pretty outrageous and included the word "Aviation") had ceased to be a
church and was now a for-profit organization.

>Actually most of those social services are government-funded, with the
>church *members* donating some of the labor.  What exact value-add the
>church itself provides is a mystery.

Labor has value.  Try getting a brick mason to build you a BBQ pit if you
just hand him a stack of bricks.

>|> The lost Federal tax revenue on that
>|> $400K is likewise dwarfed by the benefits provided by the church.
>
>Benefits to the FEDERAL government?  Name one.

The Federal government subsidises food programs.  Our church contributes
literally tons of food to local food banks.  It also provides the labor
to deliver and prepare that food.  It also provides the labor to staff
free health clinics.  Etc.  These are just a few examples of federal
programs that we provide either the materials or labor to implement.

Now, to be sure, there are many government-funded church-run programs
that exist simply to smooth out political relations between the local
government and some group of citizens, but then the same thing happens
without having the church in the middle.

I know you're having trouble with Fred and his "I'm an economic God,
you're a worthless peon", but you really need to attend church regularly
to see what churches do.  It isn't just cannibalism, funerals and weddings.

>If it makes such good sense, why did the feds get rid of the
>charitable contribution deduction for non-itemizers?

Why did they raise the standard deduction?
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John & Fred
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:42:42 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <gD09RB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
>  What! Fred and John agreeing, in essence, on something? Both 
>think that mirroring disagreeable behavior (here on the net) might 
>somehow change that behavior.
>
>  Actually, it should be no supprise that they agree on this. In 
>matters of substance they may never agree, but in *style* they are 
>all too often identical. 

No, there is a very real difference in our styles.  For example, John
Iacoletti and I differ on quite a few subjects.  He treats me with
respect, and I return the courtesy.  Fred on the other hand disagrees
with John on a number of subjects but is quite rude.  John treats
Fred with a very high degree of respect and Fred still treats him
poorly.

Fred will treat you like dirt no matter how nicely you treat him.  If
you treat me well (and you personally do, for the most part) I will
be as nice as can be to you.  I gave Fred plenty of opportunities to
reform, but he's refused.  Now he's off beating on Iacoletti now
that I've stopped responding to his postings as much as I once did.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:26:23 GMT

In article <21684@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> everything has already been divied up by large conglomerates - there is
> very little real competition.  Throw all of that together and I'd say it's
 
That simply isn't true.  Japanese markets are some of the most competitive
markets in the world.  The markets for Japanese packaged goods make US
markets look like a Little League game.  In fact, the Japanese are so
competitive that the US isn't even willing to play their game.  That's why
anytime the Japanese start selling for even close to cost the US
manufacturers scream and demand the government protect them.
 
> Get a clue.  The Land of the Rising Sun is in for a big come-upance now
> that the material excesses of the 80's have ended.  Any nation based on
> foreign consumption is going to pay dearly when those foreigners decide
> that conspicuous consumption is passe'.
 
Right.  Just a passing fad, huh John?  Reminds me of Ken Olsen railing on
about how PCs were just a fad and they would soon pass.  
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: BullShit
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:14:22 GMT

In article <21676@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.180233.28134@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct3.042322.25896@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>|> Seems to me that someone who
>>|> states plainly that they will lie whenever it is convenient shouldn't
>>|> be trusted even when they give sources.  After all, they could lie,
>>|> selectively interpret, or selectively edit what they see.
>>
>>The nice thing about sources is you can look them up, and quite easily
>>determine whether he is lying, selectively interpreting, selectively
>>editing or whatever.
>
>What Fred is conveniently ignoring is that I qualified my statement with
>the remark that what I had "lied" to others about was none of their
>business.  

And what John is conveniently ignoring is that we have no way to know
if he's determined that something is 'none of our business' or not.
For a man who maintains that Bill Clinton's alleged breaking of
marital oaths means that he can't be trusted in any situation to now
claim that somehow lying isn't lying if he's determined that it's none
of our business is simply ludicrous.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: productivity measures, US vs Japan
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:52:38 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>> out a far superior product for less total cost to the buyer.  American
>> workers are still the most productive in the world, period.

>	I think per worker the Japanese are.  This is mostly because of an

Productivity=GNP/#of workers

In the U.S. this number is $39k, about.

In Japan, it is $37k, about.

This is from my imperfect memory, but the rank is correct.

Japan's productivity gains in the last few years have outpaced the U.S.,
so they are catching up.  That is the real concern.

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 -If you vote against Bush, be fair and throw out Congressional incumbents too-
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Worker Productivity
Date: 11 Oct 92 08:22:30 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21697@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1516@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:
>>One surprise is Germany's low ranking.  The six weeks vacation that
>>every employee in Germany is mandated by law might have something to
>>do with that.  It just shows you that worker productivity and economic
>>success and necessarily correlated.
> 
> I =knew= there was something else wrong with this statement when I
> first looked at it.  This paragraph is what it is.  Notice that the
> statistics that were given do not appear to be PER HOUR statistics,
> but rather some "per year" figure.
> 
> The Japanese are notorious for working overtime, even when it is
> illegal.
> 
> Now, if the Germans can get away with having some "productivity"
> number be lower because they work 4 weeks less than we do, why
> can't we have a lower "productivity" number because we work fewer
> hours per week and have fewer national holidays than the Japanese?
> 
> The answer is simple - America Bashing is fashionable.

	Ah yes, if we don't like it, it's "Bashing", which is so "politically
incorrect".  Sometimes the truth hurts, and this is just a form of denial.

No, the answer is that per person we do not produce as much as the Japanese.
That is not so bad for the Germans, who are doing well in the European region,
and even abroad (where else can you get them nice German cars that so many of
us American love?)  Since our products compete with the Japanese, within the
U.S. as well as abroad, they have greater opportunity to get market share.
We have been losing market share for too long, and we are getting behind.

> John F. Haugh II        [  TSAKC  ] | When Bill Clinton toured L.A. after the
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [ DoF #17 ] | riots, instead of praising law abiding
> !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh   | citizens who defended home and family, he
> @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org          | called for a ban on the tools they used.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Chinascam
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:52:26 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <w2a0RB7w165w@korova.uucp> popec@korova.uucp (Mr. Charlie) writes:
>Paul Harvey!?? ICK!  Nor Rush Limbaugh, nor James Kilpatrick, nor Paul 
>Craig Brown, nor Cal Thomas.  This list could run on some length.
>If it had been just an Anderson column, that would be one thing, but that 
>enough Senators looked into this and demanded action, that is quite 
>another.  It is that action i am more interested in.

I hate to say this, but I read almost all of Paul Harvey's, James
Kilpatrick's and Cal Thomas' columns.  If you give me the dates and
what you says is borne out, then maybe I'll buy into what you've
written.  But the simple truth is that the U.S. Senate is NOT perfect,
it is VERY partisan, and last time I checked, having an "Independent
Counsel" appointed does not mean you are guilty.

If you'd spend some time reading what Col. North wrote about his
experiences with an "Independent Counsel" you'll see that they are
NOT independent.  One rumour from Washington is that the Republicans
voted to extend the law so that they could use it against Democrats
after Republican (presumably) gain control of the Congress.  And the
best indication that Congress doesn't play fair with the "Independent
Counsel" law is that they refuse to allow it to be applied to them.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:36:42 GMT

In <exuptr.759.719097031@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>In article <1527@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct09.152047.25890@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>>
>>>Well there's really two different issues here.  I don't care what
>>>consenting people teach to each other, I just think that they should pay
>>>for it themselves.  The Texas constitution is quite clear about
>>>prohibiting sectarian schools from receiving any public education money.

>Cool enough.  Then get the humanist "do-so" classes out of public
>school!

One hears this complaint a lot.  Just which classes are those?  There
are certainly none that leap out at me that that description seems to
fit. 

>>>The other issue is teaching superstitious mumbo-jumbo to children before
>>>they've had a chance to develop their bullshit detectors.  I think it's
>>>immoral to lay that mind-trip on them.  You can teach your children
>>>whatever you want, but I think publicly-funded schools should be 
>>>restricted to teaching factual information.

>See above response.  Religion is not the only quasi-factual subject in
>school.  Hell, what about Art classes?  Maybe the best approach is to
>include religion, and cover all of it (all faiths, etc...).  Then again, 
>maybe not.  Can you imagine the number of complaints that would be
received from parents if ALL religions were taught on an equal basis
(even assuming there was time in a 12-year curriculum to do that --
which there isn't, even if you exclude all else)?

Sorry, but 'art' isn't generally taught as 'factual', and there are
actual techniques (so I am told) in the production of decent art;
color, form, etc.

>>John, Christianity is not a superstition. Jesus did walk the earth.
>>The question is: Do you believe that He is your savior? 

>This is kinda irrelevant to the discussion, is it not?

I think "kinda" is an understatement here.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: AI (was: Re: Chinascam)
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:46:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <Bw2z3K.MwF@rice.edu>, mcmahon@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael G. McMahon) writes:
> In article <21678@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F.
> Haugh II) writes: 
>>
>>Amnesty International is practically worthless as an organization
>>dedicated to finding violations of "Human Rights".  
>
> Hypothesis registered.
>
>>Does AI support capital punishment?  No.  Murderer's "Human
>>Rights"? Yes. 
> 
>    I see. They disagree with your stance on capital punishment.  They
> must be a bad group.  
>    It's _so_ evil to assert that someone accused of murder still has
> basic rights as a human being...  Or, yes, even someone convicted of
> murder.  At least recognize that yours is a radical stance.

	Depending on your point of view, that is not so radical a stance.
If you commit a felony, you are not longer able (legally, anyway) to purchase
a gun.  But isn't the right to bear arms one of your rights?  A murderer has
so completely and permanently violated a human's rights, that his rights have
been forfeited.  The ultimate forfeit is capital punishment.  Ours (as well
as other countries) criminal justice system works that way.  If AI believes
that all rights are permanent, regardless of criminal action, then they are
the ones with the radical stance.  Crime and punishment should be balanced,
and AI does try to point this out when it sees gross imbalance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:00:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <1992Oct12.200652.20460@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> You picked the wrong example.  Homeopathy IS mumbo-jumbo.  Not only
> does it not pass the "common sense" test (ie. if you dilute some
> solution so much that there is only one molecule of the original
> solution left, what you have left is water), but there has not been a
> single verified controlled experiment showing that homeopathy is
> effective.  See the January, 1987 issue of "Consumer Reports" and the
> Fall, 1987 issue of "Skeptical Inquirer" for excellent overviews of
> homeopathy and its validity.  In short, an idea doesn't stop being
> "mumbo-jumbo" just because some people feel more secure believing it
> to be true. 

Homeopathy is "mumbo-jumbo" only because the current variety of medical
doctors say so.  Right now - in this country - medical screwups are the
number one cause of death.  They account for about 600,000 deaths
annually.  The source for that amusing statistic is the NRA, I think.
Do you still think alleopathy(sp) is such a hot idea?

Now, I don't know just how much truth there is to homeopathy, and I do
know that I think chiropractors are quacks, but there seems to be
something to chiropractic.  And I'd wager that in 10 or 20 years we
see something interesting come out of homeopathy.  I'll probably still
think of homeopathy as quackary at that time, but odds are I might
have changed my mind about chiropractic just a tad.

As for current research, I believe that Omni has had articles on the
subject in the last few months.  If I could just remember where I was
flying to that week I'd remember when it was ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Worker Productivity
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:27:11 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development

In article <21673@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> Nope, it's not just my musings.  American workers are #1 in per worker
|> productivity (or something closely related to that ...)  We have been
|> #1 for years and it hasn't changed recently.  In fact, a number of
|> companies are now re-discovering this fact and bringing American jobs
|> back to America.
|> 

John F. Haugh II is wrong again...

1989 Manufacturing Productivity from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(Source 1991 World Almanac)

US	130.1
Canada  123.8
Japan	144.8
France	125.1
Germany	119.6
Italy	133.8
Norway	131.7
Sweden	119.3
Britian	144.1

It looks like we are distant 4th John.  

One surprise is Germany's low ranking.  The six weeks vacation that
every employee in Germany is mandated by law might have something to
do with that.  It just shows you that worker productivity and economic
success and necessarily correlated.

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Dr. Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:53:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Oct14.133016.16088@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Why did we become convinced that private non-religious schools should
>not receive public funds?  Given a choice between giving funds to
>religious schools and giving funds to non-religious schools, the
>arguments are better against the former than against the latter.
>
Sorry, I thought we agreed on that. So why is it better, if we give public
funds to private schools, to give them to non-religious schools rather
than religious schools? Do you mean purely academic schools?

>>I don't think that a school run by a church receives public funds just because the
>>church is tax-exempt. The school is not a business. No one profits monetarily from it.
>
>What, pray tell, is the difference between paying taxes and receiving
>money back from the State and not having to pay taxes in the first
>place?  A tax exemption is equivalent to receiving public funds in the
>amount of the exemption.
>
And I agree with you on that! But I'm trying to point out that the people 
who fund church schools (the congregation) don't walk away richer. Why should
they be taxed? Maybe you and I are talking at different ends of the spectrum of
private schools run by churches. The schools I know of are small and kept afloat
by the congregations that support them. The tuition they charge is less than 
what it actually costs to educate a child. 

>The argument is that it benefits all if there is education for all,
>whether or not you personally have children to benefit.

And it's a good argument. But if a person is providing his child an education
privately, why should he pay tax twice? If I, with 0 kids, have to pay just
as much as Joe Doe, who has 6, is that fair?
--
Griff Miller - miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com - My opinions are mine, not Western's.
  "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom 
   and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 23:45:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <21679@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> They are tax-exempt because they give more to society in terms of
|> social services provided than they cost the city in property tax
|> revenues lost.

They certainly don't have to.  All they have to do to get a tax
exemption is "be a church".  Period.

|> Our church has an annual budget of $400K or so and
|> property that is probably worth about $1M or so.  Yet by the time
|> you add up all of the services (AIDS Care Teams, Meals on Wheels
|> drivers, El Buen Samaritino, Caritas, Housing Rehab, etc.), the
|> value to the City of Austin far exceeds any amount of property tax
|> the church could ever pay.

Actually most of those social services are government-funded, with the
church *members* donating some of the labor.  What exact value-add the
church itself provides is a mystery.

|> The lost Federal tax revenue on that
|> $400K is likewise dwarfed by the benefits provided by the church.

Benefits to the FEDERAL government?  Name one.

|> It makes good economic sense.  Just as it makes good sense to give
|> a 28% kickback to someone giving 100% to an educational, medical,
|> or other charity.  The Federal and local governments are getting
|> 72% for FREE!

If it makes such good sense, why did the feds get rid of the
charitable contribution deduction for non-itemizers?

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
Newsgroups: tx.politics