HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:18:18 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Education and money

Michael:

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of professors' workloads.
I know several tenured professors who a) do not keep up in the field,
b) have no committee assignments and only rarely show up at faculty
meetings, c) wrote their lectures 20 years ago, and have not changed
them, and d) complain that they don't make enough money.

In addition, I know of no other profession in which preformance is considered
to include years of education or prior work.  One is paid for the work one
does, and the work one has already done is experience, not work relevant
to a particular pay period.

Finally, I would argue that "keeping up in the field" is not unique to
professors.  Most businessmen find it necessary to read the literature
produced in their particular field, and, to my knowledge, while the
price of a subscription to a particular journal may be paid by the
business, the individual is expected to do the reading on their own
(unpaid) time.

I am not saying that professors do not deserve to make good money.  However,
I would like to point out that, in comparison to elementary and secondary
school teachers (who are in class most of the day, 5 days a week), the
time college teachers actually spend teaching render them far better paid
than their compatriots at the lower educational levels.  Interesting, when
one considers that elementary and secondary students, being forced to
be there in the first place, are much harder to teach than undergraduates,
who presumably have some level of motivation and are additionally paying
for the privilege.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:36:00 EDT
From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      'air' baker and the debate debate
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>   Actually it will be an advantage.  On the Charlie Rose show on PBS one
>   commentator mentioned that this will effectively keep Clinton from being
>   able to do alot of campaigning.  Clinton will be too busy preparing for
>   the debates.  If Clinton refuses to debate, then people will wonder why
>   when he pressed the debate issue.  In a sense Clinton was am"Bushed."

Just a quick question on this.  Won't Bush be busy preparing for the debates,
too?  I mean, it's not much of an ambush if you get your own guy tied down,
is it?

As far as debates go, it looks like there will be four, one a'Sunday from
Oct 11th to Nov 1st.  Clinton has been publically insisting that the
debates begin this Sunday, the 4th, as the last of the original debates
was schedule for then, but he has his people negotiating with Bush's people
on striking a debate deal.  Guess he's prepared.

Also, is Perot going to be included in this new schedule of debates?  What
of the vice presidential debate that so many of us slaver for?

Whatever transpires, it should be interesting to watch.  I hope they add a
canned laugh track, as it would be entirely appropriate for the atmosphere
of this election.

>Carl-----------+

Gary W. Olson                "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
33 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:37:53 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Virtual election comment ...

>I would offer this to the bEEr issue - all bears are of interest....
>ValeNtiN

  A Freudian slip from Val"Soviet commentator"Smith?

                   -Tim"just bare with me, girls"J
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:01:59 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Education and money

Dear Jason,
  if you want to "try understand how [this] was justified," i.e.
$176 per hour, try counting the REAL workload of a university teacher:
class preparation, keeping up with the field, preparing and grading
exams, meeting with students about their work, committees, curriculum,
research and writing.. if you take all of this into account, plus the
years and investment required to get a PhD, I think you'll find the
salary more in the minimum wage area on an hourly basis. The AVERAGE
university instructor I know, even counting the do-nothing jerkoffs,
works 60 hours a week.
Cheers,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:53:21 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Debates! Debates!

Whoops.  I just looked back at some recent messages I've gotten from this,
and see that I copied some ideas in my last message from a response to me by
Jamie.  Sorry, I didn't mean to plagerize, Jamie.  On the other hand, you
could take it as a sign that your ideas are making an impact....

-Martin     "To err is Human, but -- hey, I'm a Liberal, so my errors
were at least intended well...." -Me, just now.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:34:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: A long precis

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>>>Well, how about this. I am perfectly willing to let some other
>>>student of economics on this list adjudicate.
>>
>>Fine by me.  The question is "does discrimination impose opportunity costs upo
   n
>>firms?"  My answer is yes, it does.  Responses, anyone?

>No, the question is not whether it imposes opportunity costs. The
>question is whether the opportunity costs it imposes are ever
>outweighed by advantages of discriminating.
>Nice try, though.

Way to pull my sentence (the one about how I was certain "beyond any doubt"
that I was right on this point) out of context to twist my meaning.  This is
why I believe your debating skills are slipping -- over the summer, you never
had to resort to such dishonest tactics.

Anyway, if you want to solicit opinions on this broader question, that's fine
too.

>>If you want to test who's falsifying (I for one was willing to concede that
>>Jamie was merely mistaken as opposed to lying), look this stuff up in the
>>archives.  Then we can settle this credibility issue right now.

>Fine. However, since YOU are claiming that I said certain things, and
>I deny that I said them, it will be useless for ME to search the
>archives. So search away.

Actually, I was asking some third party to do this.  I have absolutely no idea
how to get into the archives.  Until somebody can report back on this, I stand
by my assertion that you made the statements question.

>>That same grad student (I assume you mean Jimbo) ALSO said that you're hypo
>>does not correspond to real life.

>In fact, he did not.
>Well, to check this, I can either send the entirety of Jimbo's response,
>or we can just ask Wales himself.

Jimbo wrote me a private letter earlier today (yesterday?) that said this, and
since I have already purged the file, you'll have to consult him personally.

>Jamie

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:28:59 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nukes

>  After all, we don't need enough weaponry to wipe out
>  (most of) the world population.

The tools to kill all humans on this planet were invented several
thousand years before nukes.

>  And having all those ICBM's and
>  things lying around is kinda dangerous, don't you agree?

If they were lying around, that might be relevant.  They're not.

ICBMs are available to anyone with the relevant technology and the
desire for an ICBM.  No self-limitation on the part of various govts
can affect that.

-andy
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: New Tax Structure
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:05:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Right, Linda. You got it.
If you make $50,000 and save $25,000, and I make $25,000 and save nothing,
then we pay the same amount of taxes.
Under the proposed scheme, I mean.

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>I assume
>this is to replace federal income tax, right?

Right.

>Also, how on earth do we
>keep track of spending?

You don't have to.
You just report your income, then subtract all documentable savings.

>thought the general idea with taxes was something like: whatever you want
>people to do, don't tax it; what you *don't* want folks to do, tax it.  If
>we are to tax consumption but not savings, then we'd be encouraging saving
>over spending.  Now, that may not be a bad idea, but won't that have a
>pretty nasty effect on the economy?  If folks cut consumption down to food,
>clothing, and shelter, then even more people will be out of work, no?

Probably in the short run. But in the long run saving adds more jobs
than spending.
Folks (economists, I guess) often complain that Americans save less
than comparable nations. The idea is that if we collectively forgo
consumption now, then we have more real wealth to invest in the
future. Investment pays more returns than consumption. So in the long
run we benefit.

One question is whether we can afford to look to the long run. A big
problem with Perot's plans, for example, is that they would put
the squeeze on the economy right now to reduce the deficit. Reducing
the deficit should help in the long run, but not if it crushes the
economy. For example, if we drastically cut spending in favor of
saving, and that deepens the recession, then we'll have a smaller
pie, and so wind up with even less to save (and a smaller tax base,
so maybe we don't even reduce the deficit).

That's just one problem, of course. I agree that the Nunn/Somebody
plan doesn't look very progressive when you think about it.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:45:00 EDT
From:         DFIELD1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rush

>In case you are interested, in the New York Times OP-ED Wednesday, Sept.
>23, 1992 edition, page A19, there is a very interesting article entitled,
>'Yes, 128 Clinton Fees and Taxes. Count Them.' In the NYT, no less.

1. It was not an article, but an editorial.
2. It was written by the Bush's campaign manager (I forget his name.)
3. The list includes things such as driver's licence fees, etc.....
   With that kind of tactic, ANY governor, whether republican or
   democratic, could be accused of constantly raising taxes and fees.

This post was brought to you by the letter Z and the number 8.

Derrick Field
dfield@ithaca
From: ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tim Johnson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Just as carl has quieted down....
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:18:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>>I have no response for JasonZ
>Ah!  The sweet silence of concession!
>Jason

  I wonder, Jason, whether you think
there is anyone but you who believes
that.  This may come as a surprise to
you, but it isn't the noisiest who wins.
Perhaps you have been arguing all along
under this misconception.

  If you are simply and consciously
puffing yourself up here so your ego
won't suffer from your having been
bested, then I apologize for spoiling
that for you.  But if you actually
*believe* what you are saying, then
someone needed to provide the reality
check.

There may not ever be hope for you to
become competitive in an environment
where the focus is reasoning, but
admitting your problem will be the
first step toward getting you there.

                     -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:28:38 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Serious question--honest

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> I am not trying to be funny or snippy here, but:

You failed.   :-)

> If the major problem of the world is that there are too many people on
> it, and activists are dedicated to the lessening of the population,
> why don't they just advocate suicide and then practice what they
> preach?

That is not a very efficient way.  Another method is for a few
person to start a war and get rid of 100,000 people at a time.

> Why do they want to *lessen* the population by merely *preventing*
> its increase, if the problem is more urgent?  It would be much simpler
> to take care of the problem we have now by mass voluntary suicide of
> those convinced there are too many people in the world.

What if a million people think that the earth is overpopulated
by a billion?  It just doesn't add up.

> Problem is, those who advocate such philosophies always seem to think
> that the world would be better off with *other* people not here; they,
> apparently, are individually indispensable.

Yeah, it reminds of people who think abortion is murder
but would support their own daughter if she seeks one.

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:54:24 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cable bill revisited
              30 Sep 1992 13:30:16 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>> Revenge is such a good basis for policy.

>> But who said anything about revenge (except you, of course)?

> I wonder what "makes them deserve what is coming to them"
> means to KAT?

You got this backward, Andy.  You should ask the question
first, THEN make assertions/accusations.

>> It is as simple as that.  If you ask for monopoly, we are
>> gonna impose price control.  Since the cable companies are
>> not willing to give up the monopoly we will give them the
>> price control.

> Hint: the cable companies don't have to be willing to give up the
> monopoly.  It is an artificial monopoly that will fail without our
> continued actions to maintain it.

Hint: I already agreed that, if possible, I prefer competition.

> If the "fix those evil cable company" people are really concerned
> about evils of monopolies, why are they creating/maintaining the evil
> monopolies in question?  Are they stupid or are they really concerned
> about something else, something that they're unwilling to admit to?

You forgot the ellipse in that last sentence.  Will you
give me a "Hint"?  (I can't believe I said that.   :-)

I don't know the answer to that.  Why do people want term
limitations while it is them who in the first place elect
those politicians?  (Bad example, since I am against term
limitation.  Just curious: are you against term limitations?)
The thing is that it is not the people who grant monopolies;
it is the politicians.  So after this "club" (good analogy
for monopoly used by Andy) is given to these companies,
they start swinging at you, and swinging hard.  So then
after a while people are fed up and start thinking about
taking back the "club."  What is wrong with that?  Don't
people have the right to take the "club" back?

>> OK.  But are you also against monopolies?

> I'm against artificial monopolies.  However, if we insist on creating
> them, I think they should be given free reign to teach us why we
> shouldn't do that.

Sorta like "we deserve what is coming to us," right?

Can you give examples of "artificial" monopolies as opposed
to, what? natural monopolies?  Will you give those examples
free or should I pay for them?  :-)

> Creating a monopoly is like giving someone a club and letting them
> take swings at you.  KAT thinks that the appropriate response is to
> ask them to swing gently and maybe put a pad on the club; I think that
> we shouldn't create the situation in the first place.

Say we made a mistake and gave away the "club."  Why shouldn't
we be allowed to take it back?

Though your analogy is close, it is not perfect.  At any rate, are
you saying once the "club" is given to someone, that that someone
is allowed to swing at you and you don't have the right to fight
back?  Again kinda "we deserve what is coming to us?"  Is revenge
a good basis for policy."

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:14:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: New Tax Structure

>You tell the government (in effect) how much money you spent this
>year. If it's a whole lot, they tax it at a higher rate than they
>do if it's just a small amount.

okay, but what if you make say, 20 grand a yr. you need all of it to pay rent,
utilities, food, insurance, and on and on.
you put away very little if anything. you live pay check to pay check.

will you be taxed at the maximum rate because you were unable to save a dime?

now the guy with 50k needs only say 25k to live on. he sets aside 25k. what
rate is he taxed?

i could see that unless there's some structure so that those who spend the
most because they have only subsistance (did i spell that right-i'm too
stressed to look it up) wages would end up being unfairly taxed and those who
have the ability to save (invest in mutual funds and money market accts. and all
those really cool things that i've only heard abt.) would pay the least.

sounds like same ol' shit to me.

- linda (but then, i count w/my fingers and when playing monopoly i count the
dots on the dice to figure out how many spaces ahead to put my shoe-i'm always
the shoe)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:50:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Virtual election comment ...

        Might I also mention that buying votes is perfectly legal in a
virtual election, and since the subject of beer has been mentioned this
seems like a good place to start.  Now being a dedicated Kerry supporter
I will of course continue to support Kerry Stephenson in spite of her
withdrawing temporarily from the race, as she is still on the ballot in
my state (temporary insanity).  I do of course reserve the right to bolt
the ticket if the price is right, but before she gets mad at me I will
also reserve the right to lie about it and vote for her after having bolted
the ticket (I know this is lying and she would disapprove but what can I say?)

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
By the way, anybody planning on building new breweries in my state?  The
issue here is drinks, drinks, drinks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:14:00 EDT
From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      hatstand (was: re: FREE-ENERGY technologies)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Does anybody else get the impresion that the author of this is
>completely hatstand ?

Ho-ho!  Tree-mendous fun, eh, readers?

>Dunstan

Gary W. Olson, who reads
  Viz when he can find it    "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
33 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:07:31 MST
From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject: The Decline of America: Health Care (III)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Socialized Medicine won't work..... To many people have too many things
>wrong with them ... or so they say... Americans are to neurotic, they
>find a specialist for problems that anywhere else we would be told to tough it
>out
>              John Stith@ Allocation of Services is a point too
>
>                     Stustith@eku

On the other side of the coin, John, are those unable to get and/or pay for
health care because they are MARRIED and EARNING A LIVING!  Especially
affected are the children, whose parents must split up to get medical care
and expenses taken care of, or just wait until the child dies and file for
bankruptcy.  (I'm speaking specifically about the hemophiliac children who
have contracted aids from transfusions.)  What kind of family values message
does this send?
                                              ---roger

"If you find any *answers* in anything I've said, you've misunderstood me."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:11:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: A lengthy precis

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>> Over the summer I had to explain to him that an increase in the
>> tax rate has no direct effect on the money supply, which he
>> erroneously believed.

>That's wrong. I suppose Jason thinks he can get away with
>saying this because no one will bother to look it up.

>I never said nor believed that an increase in the tax rate
>directly effects the money supply.

>>  Also, I had to explain to him what it meant to shift a supply
>> or demand curve.

>No, you didn't.

>I have to wonder, after a while, whether Jason continues to
>make honest mistakes about what I've written, or whether
>he is deliberately falsifying.

This is another area where Jamie has been dishonest.  You notice that he does
not actually come out and accuse me of lying (mainly because he knows I'm not).
On the other hand, he strongly implies it by "wonder"ing aloud about the
possibility.  Of course, such innuendo is blatently intellectually dishonest.

Jamie:  If you'd like to call me a liar, please do so explicitly so we can then
evaluate your own credibility when you are proven wrong.  Otherwise, please
show a little more integrity in your accusations.

>Jamie

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:00:12 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: No Subject

My Dear Robert,
  I finally made it through the thicket of malapropisms, non sequiturs,
and multiply fractured polysyllabics to the part where you express a
tender (albeit chilling and downright threatening) concern for my health
and well-being. You could hardly provide a better demonstration of the
inherent id-laden violence of the gun lobby if you did so deliberately.
Instead of assiduously cultivating the psychotic need to hurt people,
couldn't you spend your libidinal energy in somewhat more pacific channels?
But I do appreciate your concern. Given the lunatic devotion to firearms
that makes a trip to the corner store an outtake from Rambo (and renders
the U.S. a pariah among civilized nations), I need all the safety help I
can get.t/
          $D
Uncertainly Yours in these Perilous Times,
Michael