HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:09:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <mike02560920813232204@batpad.lgb.ca.us>
mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor) writes:

>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>> Equal protection from police?  You've got it now -- which is to
>> say, straights aren't safe either.  My brother-in-law's wife was
>> thrown to the ground[...]

>why do you refer to your sister as your "brother-in-law's wife?"

I think he meant his wife's brother's wife, not his sister.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44812 talk.politics.theory:4126
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:21:10 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
 <2978@mdavcr.mda.ca> <1992Sep11.132745.10732@ncar.ucar.edu>

In article <1992Sep11.132745.10732@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary
Strand) says:
>
>  [followups to talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory]
>
>hp> Hossein Parandeh
>
>hp> I needed a major knee reconstruction surgery [...] I got it right after
>hp> my injury and for free.
>
>  Nope. Canadian taxpayers paid for it. It was *not* "free". "Free" to you
>  perhaps, but not to the millions of others who paid for it.
>
>hp> My father needed an open hear surgery 3 years ago. He got it one month
>hp> after the surgeons recommended it at no cost.
>
>  Nope. Canadian taxpayers paid for it. It was *not* "free". "Free" to your
>  father perhaps, but not to the millions of others who paid for it.
>
>  I always thought externalization of costs and internalization of benefits
>  was something to be avoided. We read all the time about how polluters
>  should pay for the costs of their pollution, rather than externalize those
>  costs to the rest of us. Does the principle still apply when it comes to
>  health care, or not?

In fact, the aim would be to internalize all costs and benefits, that is,
to try and make people account for all costs (both to themselves and to
other members of society) in making decisions.  If you can set up a system
to do so AND there are no other problems in the market (monopoly power,
uncertainty, etc.) THEN a free market has certain desirable properties.

If external costs and benefits cannot be internalized OR there are more
than one source of market failure, THEN alternatives to the free market
may be both economically desirable AND politically necessary.

So...

The answer depends on whether or not a functioning free market for health
care can work.  IMO, the American free market gave it an
admirable try and is now failing.  Rising levels of uninsurance and
and underinsurance coupled with rising costs indicate the failing of the
market.  It is probably the result of both an inability to develop a
system which internalizes all costs and benefits and the combination of
problems that interfere with price signals in health care.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45401 ca.politics:7762 ba.politics:5302 soc.motss:39049
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:19:17 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep14.165144.4641@panix.com> tovah@panix.com (Tovah Hollander) writes:
    >Clayton Cramer writes:
    >>I would be happiest of all if homosexuals stopped trying to
    >>involve the government in telling consenting adults what they
    >>may do in private.
    >>
    >Are you suggesting that the qualified job-seeker and the
    >bigoted potential employer are both "consenting"?
    >
    >Or the apartment-hunter and the landlord: do they both
    >"consent" to the refusal to rent?
    >
    >Or maybe it's the bash-er and the bash-ee who are "consenting
    >adults"?

It's really very simple. Just ask all parties involved if the agreement
arrived at is mutual, consensual, and without threat or actuality of
coercion. Oh, and they have to be adults as well.

Real simple.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45501 talk.politics.theory:4189 sci.econ:7490
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:40:09 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Free Market Health Care was Canada
 <1992Sep11.164226.26879@ncar.ucar.edu> <92255.134117DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Sep15.001711.8301@clipper.ingr.com>

In article <1992Sep15.001711.8301@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al
Date) says:
>
>Excuse me for saying that the emporer has no clothes, but insurance has
>nothing to do with medical care.  What is needed is MORE CARE,  more
>supply of medical services, more competition.  The govt does
>everything it can to preserve the AMA's monopoly status, including
>raiding health clinics that practice alternative medicine and
>prosecuting midwives.  Costs rise whenever supply is artificially
>restricted.  Further rationing will only make it worse.

Between 1970 and 1987 the number of physicians practicing in the US
rose by 85%.  The number of physicians per 100,000 persons rose 56%.
This is a supply restricted market???  In fact, if you'll check back
to past posts, you'll see I posted a quote from Charles Phelps' book
Health Economics.  He quite clearly summarizes the research in economics
that indicates that a monopoly created by licensure cannot explain the
rise in prices in physician care.





Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Keywords: Not only that, he was a _REAL_ draft dodger!
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:48:40 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep8.214244.3973@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

> Clinton claims that he didn't know about his uncle's actions until
> right before the convention, and didn't think it worth bringing up.

Clinton (bald faced liar that he is) has since _ADMITTED_ that he knew
about his uncle's efforts.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
An Arkansas attorney who was very close to Clinton in his college days
has said that Clinton _HAD_ACTUALLY_RECEIVED_AN_INDUCTION_NOTICE_ and
somehow had it invalidated, and _THAT_ was the reason why he sought to
"join" ROTC.  (The _Los_Angeles_Times_ is reportedly working on this
story.)
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45407 alt.rush-limbaugh:4818 alt.politics.elections:13110 alt.politics.clinton:5388 alt.politics.bush:5100
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:36:40 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep6.182736.22039@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
]john@anasazi.com said:
]
]> What Clinton did was participate in an activity where he was draft
]> exempt because that program required him to enter the armed services
]> later. I guarantee you that he had to keep his anti-war sentiments
]> quiet during that program. What he then did was renege on that duty
]> and slip out entirely.
]
]Why did Clinton have to "keep his anti-war sentiments quiet during
]that program"?  Seems to me that he didn't give up his First Amendment
]right of free speech at any time in the process.

If he had stated anti-war sentiments in a ROTC program, he would have
probably been kicked out, and would certainly have been hassled. Since
we haven't heard Clinton complain about this, I think it is fair to
assume that he had to keep his anti-war views from his ROTC instructors
(which is what I meant about keeping them quiet). In other words, if
he were anti-war, he should not have been in ROTC. 

I would say he was pro-Bill Clinton's skin, but unwilling to be honest and
admit it, then or now.

The issue is not whether he got out or not, it was how he got out (by
defrauding the government) and how dishonest he has been about the issue.
On the other hand, such dishonesty should be expected from the man who
claimed that he "didn't inhale."

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45735 ca.politics:7867 ba.politics:5387
From: brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Cramer's putatively taped eyeglasses
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:03:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.202843.8499@fico.uucp>, ala@fico.uucp writes:
##In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
##Sorry, but I have NEVER taped my classes back together
#                    ^^^^^
# I know an eye witness that used to work with you that says you do.
# 

Having known Cramer for > 18 years, I can't say that I recall taped eyeglasses
as a particularly prominent characteristic.

Maybe Cramer did on some particular day need to tape his glasses, and doesn't
remember this.  If this were only for a day or so -- one-hour opticians are
a relatively recent phenomenon, and in my experience they're more like one-day
opticians -- then it is remarkable that this vision was so indelibly seared
into the memory of your informant.  We myopes live in constant mortal terror
of being deprived of vision by a simple mechanical failure, and it is
reasonable to assume that an incident of near-blinding might be so unpleasant
as to demand repression from conscious recall.

It is at least as likely that someone's stereotyped notion of a person (Cramer)
has diffused into and clouded their memory, at least on this crucial point.
The diffusion of stereotypes into memory is a characteristic of human nature
which is frequently useful, but not unalloyed in its positive attributes.  It
helps to explain otherwise difficult to explain phenomena such as durable
marriage, voting behavior, and the fact that most children seem to survive
adolescence with being strangled by their parents.

We know, of course, that the presence or absence, style, and condition of a
person's eyewear is an immediate and reliable indicator -- perhaps the best
available -- of deep traits of personality.

The condition of the temple hinge is particularly important, as it reflects
the likelihood of a person's coming unhinged.  A hinge secured by tape
indicates that the subject is only a couple of mils of plastic and a bit
of adhesive away from a complete breakdown.  A hinge secured by a paper
clip or other electrically conductive prominence, indicates that the
subject is making a last desperate attept to raise an antenna toward
their masters on the Planet Krypton - if they do not receive orders soon,
they will come unhinged.  Subjects are occasionally observed with one
temple entirely missing - this was at one time considered fashionable, but
it is now more likely to represent a person half-unhinged.

Personally, I lean towards solder, epoxy, or cyanoacrylates.  I thereby
gain not only the satisfaction of expressing my inner nerd-ness, but the
smug assurance that I have done so in a totally invisible way.  This seems
analogous to the sort of personal expression frequently sought through
the wearing of unusual undergarments.

Brad Yearwood   brad@optilink.com   {uunet, pyramid}!optilink!brad
Petaluma, CA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44854 talk.politics.theory:4136
From: bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 5 Sep 92 06:05:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep2.144615.8627@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric
> S. Perlman) writes:
> 
> The point I made concerned the likelyhood of outside assistance. Prey explain
> how likely you consider aid from Britain France or any other EC country except
> in the case of guaranteeing a peace agreement made under UN auspices? 

	Zilch. Zero probability. Unconditional. No exceptions. 

	Have you, EC guys decided by now on how to keep the peace
	in your own backyard?

 
> The axiom on which the New World Order is based is the rule of international law
> as defined by the UN. The UN regards E. Jreusalem as occupied. 


	I doubt there are any axioms to the NWO. I have yet to find
	two different people agreeing on the definition of the NWO.

	The UN also regarded Zionism as racism between '75 and '91(?).
	And I'm not sure, BTW, how it regards West Jerusalem.  
 
 
> |>Other territories are negotiable, but not Jerusalem.  And E. Jerusalem
> |>is *not* occupied territory.  Not when you remember a little history -
> |>like what happened in 1948 and thereafter - Jews were barred from our
> |>holiest sites for twenty years.   
> 
> Not relevant.


	It is relevant. You simply can't understand it. (No offense
	intended.)
 
 
> Phill Hallam-Baker


Noam
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: What if America were a direct democracy?
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:02:06 GMT


Democracy (meaning majority rules) is exactly what the founders of 
the Constitution wanted to protect us from. Democracy would be a 
total disaster, especially for any minority you could name. 


Kathy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45723 ca.politics:7854 ba.politics:5376
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:13:56 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BuMBH6.5BJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <12276@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
> >He came out years ago.  He is gainfully employed by a disk
> >drive manufacturer because of his engineering talents, not
> >because of his sexual preference.  Companies that do actively
> >discriminate eventually go the way of the dinosaur as they
> >lose not only the talents of those that they actually
> >discriminate against, but also of those who don't care for such
> >practices. 
> 
>   Japanese companies routinely discriminate against half the
>   population (I have no idea what they do about gays) and it
>   doesn't seem to have hurt them.  US companies during the 

Because those values are uniformly shared by the population --
even by the female half of the population, there is no
competitive disadvantage, because there are no employers willing
to hire females.  If you wish to suggest that a similar level
of uniformity in our culture exists concerning homosexuality,
then how will you get such laws passed?

>   60's and 60's, i.e., the greatest period of growth for US
>   corporations in history, routinely discriminated against 
>   anybody who wasn't a white, heterosexual male.     Often
>   on the net we hear that discrimination is self-defeating,
>   but I think this is  mainly religion -- I don't see lots of
>   empirical evidence for it.
> 
> ---peter


Thomas Sowell's _Markets and Minorities_ addresses this issue.
He points out that in 1938, there were three black Ph.D.s in
chemistry teaching at American colleges.  There were about
900 working in American industry.  Why?  American industry was
competitive, and non-profit institutions (as colleges are),
aren't.

He also points that guaranteed profit firms (regulated utilities)
were among the last to integrate, because they had no competitive
pressure.  Once the decision was made, they were among the fastest
to integrate.  Competition matters.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Bush supports higher taxes
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:57:01 CDT


In article <9086@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1992Sep13.054606.20803@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
> >Further, this "high taxes" comment is unsupportable.  Even calling
> >Clinton/Gore policies "higher tax" would be weak, given that they have
> >proposed higher taxes on those making over $200k, lower taxes on others.
> 
> If the sum result of all of the Clinton/Gore tax changes result in more
> taxes being collected, then by my definition Clinton/Gore support higher
> taxes.

I think Bush claims that cutting the capital gains tax will result in
more taxes being collected, so by your definition, cutting the capital
gains tax is a tax increase...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:42:44 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep8.155452.19196@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> joseph.m.knapp writes:
> 
>      [On Clinton's uncle trying to get him a naval reserve position:] 
>>
>>I'm still waiting for evidence that this is not just another campaign/media
>>circle-jerk (a la the "Dump Dan Quayle" campaign) that, as Clinton says,
>>does not amount to a hill of beans. Throughout all of the mudslinging, Bush
>>is still way down in the polls. Maybe people aren't concerned about the
>>bogus "issues" he's trying to raise? But keep trying, George. Clinton can be
>>a mean counter-puncher.
>>

	Clinton claims that he didn't know about his uncle's actions until
right before the convention, and didn't think it worth bringing up.

> I'm wondering if the Bush campaign people overdid it in '88 with the 
> Boston Harbor/Willie Horton stuff. That maybe people are looking askance
> at any charge that the Bush people might toss out.

	Considering it was the media that did the Willie Horton stuff, don't
hold your breath.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:16:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T

The Reaganite wing is desperate to somehow disqualify an entire generation
of people who can't be trusted to faithfully tow their political line. The
litmus tests to apply this strategy are Vietnam, drugs, and liberalism.
Hopefully, then, time can be bought until the New Generation of Young
Republicans can move in.

Well, the best laid plans of mice and men...

What I find amusing is the Bush Campaign cowboys on the weekend news shows
glibly stating that "the issue will not go away" or "Governor Clinton is
just going to have to explain this new wrinkle to the American people" and
so on. Say what? There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the public-at-large
give a rat's ass about this or any other vile emanation from Charles Black,
Mary Matalin, & Co. Sure, it gives the news shows something to talk about
for a couple days, so they lap it up.

   Sue Voter in Peoria: "I'd like to vote for Clinton, but I don't think 
   we've really gotten to the bottom of this 1969 draft issue."

Yeah, right.

What I find aggravating is that Bush is willing to try anything to win the
election, including opening up the wounds of Vietnam.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:25:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.223356.13308@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.214509.14914@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <farenebt.716423991@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>>>I am no fan of censorship but I am wondering how the stickering of
>>>record albums ("Parental advisory: explicit lyrics") is any different
>>>from the movie industry rating its movies, G, PG, Pg-13 and R (and NC-17)?
>>>Why is one ok but the other elicits fervert opposition?

>>They're both exactly the same -- a voluntary warning label on a product.

>>What people were objecting to was Tipper using government coercion to
>>scare the record companies into putting labels on albums.  If a company
>>thinks a product should have a warning to parents and puts it on, that's
>>fine.  If the company is only doing it under threat of government
>>action, that's borderline censorship.

>No...it is only fine if the creative artist labels (defaces) their own
>work.  If the company, or publisher, or government, or anyone other
>than the artist does it, it is censorship.

1.) Ordinarily, censorship is normally spoken of as a government action.
2.) Censorship is defined as one who suppresses or deletes objectionable
	material.  Putting a warning label on does no such thing.  Banning
	people from buying an album with a warning label does, but simply
	putting the label on does not.
3.) Since the "artist" is working for the company/publisher, they
	have the right to do that to it.  If he doesn't want the company
	to do that, he shouldn't work with them or sell his product to them.
	It *becomes* the company's own work when he sells it to them.  If I 
	buy the Mona Lisa and burn it, that isn't censorship. 
Otherwise, by your definition, Siskel and Ebert are censors, since they
are not the creative artists, and they're labelling movies.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45720 ca.politics:7851 ba.politics:5373 soc.motss:39181 ba.motss:1640