HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:43:14 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

| peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
| >
| >Oil is far and away the cheapest way to power automobiles.  It is

| This simply isn't true.  Oil is not far and away the cheapest way to
| power cars.  In fact, it is not even the cheapest.  Right now natural
| gas is cheaper than gasoline.

Natural gas is cheaper by what measure?  Per liter?  Or per joule
usable in an automobile?

Note that, in order to say that natural gas is truly cheaper, one must
factor in range and hazard as well.  The lower range requirements of
cities coupled with the higher pollution hazard of gasoline may very
well make natural gas cheaper in urban areas while making gasoline
cheaper elsewhere.

But if under all these measures natural gas is indeed generally cheaper
than gasoline, I'll surrender the point and ask why natural gas cars
are not built.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.iraqi.dictator.bomb.bomb.bomb,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Until...
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:21:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.135431@trc.amoco.com>, zmed0b@trc (Michael) writes:
>You might also take note that President Bush did not order his troops to kill
>hundreds of thousands of his own people to stay in power.  Saddam is ruthless
>and resilient.

Yes, just a few dozen were enough to end the riots.  However he did
make a speech in which he said that he would use whatever force
necessary against his own people who step out of line.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:14:57 GMT

In article <C19vJ4.BD7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  do you think a truly  
progressive party would ever get the
> kind of financial support the Libertarian Party gets? 
Huh?? The Libertarian party is always underfunded and most of their money  
comes from individual donors.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:57:35 GMT

In article <1jmuciINNgpf@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>
>| peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>| >
>| >Oil is far and away the cheapest way to power automobiles.  It is
>
>| This simply isn't true.  Oil is not far and away the cheapest way to
>| power cars.  In fact, it is not even the cheapest.  Right now natural
>| gas is cheaper than gasoline.
>
>Natural gas is cheaper by what measure?  Per liter?  Or per joule
>usable in an automobile?

Natural gas is cheaper on an equivalent amount of usable energy basis or
however else you want to catagorize this measure (such as $/mile, gallon
of gas equivalent, barrel of oil equivalent, ton of coal equivalent, etc.)
Last summer, anyway, natural gas was about the equivalent price of $.70
per gallon of gasoline.  However, this is in part temporary since
natural gas prices were quite depressed back then.  I think they have
recovered some now.
>
>Note that, in order to say that natural gas is truly cheaper, one must
>factor in range and hazard as well.  The lower range requirements of
>cities coupled with the higher pollution hazard of gasoline may very
>well make natural gas cheaper in urban areas while making gasoline
>cheaper elsewhere.
>
>But if under all these measures natural gas is indeed generally cheaper
>than gasoline, I'll surrender the point and ask why natural gas cars
>are not built.
>
One of the most important reasons why natural gas isn't used more is the
lack of a distribution system equivalent to that for gasoline.  Also,
compressed gases I think are viewed as more dangerous by the public (I'm
not sure I agree but this is the general perception nevertheless).  In
the long run I don't think anything would be gained pricewise by
converting to natural gas on a large scale since the massive increase in
demand would cause the price to rise to levels at least as high as
gasoline.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Gas tax
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:05:29 GMT

peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>
>But if under all these measures natural gas is indeed generally cheaper
>than gasoline, I'll surrender the point and ask why natural gas cars
>are not built.

The main problem has been getting access to natural gas sources.  In
Canada, conversion kits are easily available and use in cars is much
helped by the wide use of natural gas for running household furnaces
(like, we need 'em real badly, eh? (-;).  While not widespread, those
who have availed themselves to conversions kits (in Ontario, the Bill
Davis Tories put in a grant programme a decade ago covering the first
$1000, and you cover the rest) are able to plug in their car at night
when they come home from work to top off the tank.  No stopping at
the gas station.  Flip a valve and you can run on gasoline for out-
of-town trips.

Here in NYC, they're still battling out the Algonquin pipeline that
would get natural gas to Long Island ...

Either Fedex and/or UPS have LNG (liquid natural gas) fleets running
in some urban centres now ... they pay for fuel on the monthly LNG
tab, and have stopped employees ripping off gasoline for their own
automobiles.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:917 alt.society.civil-liberty:7489 talk.politics.misc:69278 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1539 soc.culture.usa:9999
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship et al] Government in action
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:19:28 GMT
 <727570232@lear.cs.duke.edu>  <1993Jan23.021519.2449@nntp.hut.fi>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan23.021519.2449@nntp.hut.fi>
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

> 
> As I tried to explain the other day to the Martian anthropologist who was
> writing a paper on our legal system, there are two types of criminals,
> 
> 	A) the kind that seek out unsuspecting, unconsenting victims and
> 	   perpetrate violences upon their persons and properties
> 
> 	B) the kind whose victims have to seek them out and pay them to
> 	   perpetrate their crimes upon them
> 
> Our legal and law enforcement system devotes most of its time, effort, talent
> and (taxpayer supplied) money to tracking down, entrapping, and imprisoning
> group B while claiming itself too short-handed and under-funded to do much
> about group A.  While doing this they also make criminals out of, and
> devote considerable of their scarce time and resources to hunting down and
> entrapping any citizens who would attempt to exercise their constitutional
> right to effective technological self defense.

Very interesting. More paranoia from the plutocracy. Let's be frank
here : the main purpose of the legal system is to protect the rich from
the poor. Gary Fannon, currently serving life in a Michigan prison, is
a working-class boy who was convicted of "conspiracy to sell over 650g
of cocaine" (he didn't even posess the cocaine in question) and
sentenced according to Michigan's 650 Lifer Law. I'd personally like to
see white-collar criminals like those described in the quoted article
and Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, et. al. to be sentenced to life and
put into maximum security prisons. 
What do you think those riots in LA were all about? Rodney King? Ice
Cube? Sorry to destroy right-wing fantasy here, but the people of South
Central by and large have virtually no chance at advancement in life,
and they know it. Every word Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, or William
Buckley ever wrote isn't going to change that. I'll put it this way :
capitalist policy (especially Reaganite supply-side economics) was the
gasoline and the Rodney King verdict was the match. 
So before complaining about how hard the justice system is on
white-collar criminals, take a look at the big picture. The more the
rich get richer, the more the poor get poorer, the more violence you
will see in this country. 




Tim Young - Dartmouth College, Class of 1996
(The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College or Dartmouth students(read the Review lately?))
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." - R.E.M.
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: 200 year debt ( was Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today)
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:11:18 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Distribution: usa

> In article <1993Jan21.004735.14256@Princeton.EDU>  
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >
> >We've had a debt for 200 years.  No problem, unless it gets
> >*too* big.

From what source did you get this?  We have not had a debt for 200 years.

--
You know what would make a good story?  Something about a clown 
who makes people happy, but inside he's real sad.  Also, he has 
severe diarrhea.

                         Jack Handy

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: bosch@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Gerhard Bosch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Promises (complete) in Charlotte Observer
Date: 23 Jan 1993 11:47:46 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ifh-hp2.bau-verm.uni-karlsruhe.de

In article <1jjfn3INNnjd@vttux1.vtt.fi>, leino@rat.vtt.fi (Tapio Leino) writes:
|> 
|> So many promises! Huh.
|> I wonder if Clinton ever gets a chance to try and do all that.
|> I remember having read that it is customary to shoot a president every
|> 20 years and I think now this time is up. Is he the next democrat as
|> president after John Kennedy who is elected by the people? Well maybe

Just to fresh up your memory. As I remember there are the following 
presidents and their parties:

Nixon
Ford
Carter  (dem)
Reagan  (rep)
Bush    (rep)
Clinton (dem)

So there was at least Carter between Kennedy and Clinton from the democratic
party. I myself think that Carter was a good president although his funny
brother. I know the opinions of many Americans in this isssue, but I think
in the European viewpoints Carter was a good president. I was just not able
to deal with the hostages in Teheran before the elections. Actually 
Carter solved the problem, but the hostages were freed in the first few
days of Reagan. Maybe the Iran-Kontra-problem started earlier than we know.
Who knows ?

|> not but I wonder when somebody takes a shot at him. It is sure that he
|> gets all the blame which in fact belongs to the Bush administration!
|> Mark these words.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Tapio Leino
|> Technical Research Centre of Finland / Laboratory of Structural Engineering
|> mail: VTT/Rakennetekniikan laboratorio, P.O. Box 26, SF-02151 ESPOO, Finland
|> tel: -358-0-456 6683, telefax: -358-0-456 7003    e-mail: Tapio.Leino@vtt.fi
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:929 alt.activism:21261
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:20:52 GMT
 <1993Jan23.021457.7705@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan23.021457.7705@midway.uchicago.edu>
sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

> Huh?? The Libertarian party is always underfunded and most of their money  
> comes from individual donors.

Well, they'd have to have a good deal of money to regularly get on the
ballot in all 50 states. In many states, it's hard to get on the ballot
if you're not a Republican or a Democrat. The only people that have
managed were the well-funded Anderson campaign in '80 (he was a
Republican alt. to Reagan), the Perot campaign (no further explanation
needed), and the Libertarian Party. Progressive parties can't do that.
Other candidates have managed to do so once in a while, but these
parties are not usually represented in most legislatures (the Libs here
in N.H. are an exception).

In some ways, the fact that the Libs and Perot can break the two-party
monopoly is good. I think it's possible that we in the U.S. could be
moving toward a multi-party system.

 As far as I know, and I haven't seen any stats on this, the
Libertarian Party is comprised primarily of wealthy people who don't
want the government to stop them from doing harmful things (e.g.
environmental degradation) with their property.

-Tim Young, Dartmouth Coll. Class of '96
(Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu)
"The opinions expressed here at not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College or its students."
"All of us get lost in the darkness : dreamers learn to steer by the
stars."
-Rush  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:06:48 GMT

In article <1jmuciINNgpf@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:

[...]

>But if under all these measures natural gas is indeed generally cheaper
>than gasoline, I'll surrender the point and ask why natural gas cars
>are not built.

	That's because an infrastructure already exists for gasoline
cars, but not very much of one exists for natural-gas ones or, for
that matter, electric ones. There are numerous places where you can
buy gasoline for your car, but not numerous natural-gas or
electric-charging stations. So unless there is a major effort to push
natural gas or electricity or some alternate fuel, gasoline will be
what we are stuck with. Not because gasoline is the best of all
possible worlds in some Panglossian way, because that's what's already
around.

	It's just like the world of VCR's, where even if you prefer
Beta to VHS, you'll still be stuck with VHS because that's what the
large majority of tapes are in nowadays.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:57:57 GMT

In article <1jk6fhINN1rb@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>
>The majority of air pollution related to petroleum is from a percentage
>of older, mistuned cars that are still on the road.  

This is a mightly bold, not to say incorrect, statement given that
cars in total use less than half of the crude oil consumed by the US and
that gasoline is relatively clean burning compared to the other
fractions of crude oil.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.culture.usa
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Rethinking South Central
Date: 23 Jan 1993 23:15:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) says:
>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> So if I have no chance at advancement in life and you do, does that
>> make it right for me to club you, burn down your stores, steal from
>> you, etc.?
>
>     I'm not trying to justify what the rioters did. I'm only
>explaining why they happened. People do not just sit back and accept
>economic subjugation. That's all I'm saying. Racial equality is a long
>slow process, and someday peace between the races will become a
>reality. Getting the Reaganites out the White House is a good start.

      I fully agree, having lived in L.A. for 29 years.  It's not a 
   justification but an explanation that I believe myself.

      I disagree with " Getting the Reaganites is a good start ".

      I'm expecting to see the liberal equivalent of McCarthyism
   start up, under the guise of multi-culturism, or "ethnic justice"  
   or some similar title.

>
>Tim Young - Dartmouth College, Class of 1996
>(The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
>College or Dartmouth students(read the Review lately?))
>"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." - R.E.M.
>
From: JRUNNE@auvm.american.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Clinton's E-mail address
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:22:23 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

Awhile ago, lots of people seemed to have Clinton's Little Rock Compuserve
address.  The folks at the transition team said he'd get a new one once
he got to DC.  Anyone got any followup info on this?  If so, I'd appreciate
it greatly.

Of course, I'll post any info I get on the topic.

Thanks!!  --JLR
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:927 alt.society.civil-liberty:7505 talk.politics.misc:69467 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1553 soc.culture.usa:10030
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Rethinking South Central
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:02:53 GMT
 <727570232@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1993Jan23.021519.2449@nntp.hut.fi> 
 <C19v4H.Atu@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  <C1BF1u.6zC@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <C1BF1u.6zC@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
writes:

> > What do you think those riots in LA were all about? Rodney King? Ice
> > Cube? Sorry to destroy right-wing fantasy here, but the people of South
> > Central by and large have virtually no chance at advancement in life,
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So if I have no chance at advancement in life and you do, does that
> make it right for me to club you, burn down your stores, steal from
> you, etc.?

     I'm not trying to justify what the rioters did. I'm only
explaining why they happened. People do not just sit back and accept
economic subjugation. That's all I'm saying. Racial equality is a long
slow process, and someday peace between the races will become a
reality. Getting the Reaganites out the White House is a good start.

Tim Young - Dartmouth College, Class of 1996
(The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College or Dartmouth students(read the Review lately?))
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." - R.E.M.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:13:42 GMT

In article <1ji3ecINNg2o@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>
>Oil is far and away the cheapest way to power automobiles.  It is

This simply isn't true.  Oil is not far and away the cheapest way to
power cars.  In fact, it is not even the cheapest.  Right now natural
gas is cheaper than gasoline.

[rest deleted]

Paul.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:915 talk.politics.misc:69200
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 14:20:23 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan21.015757.22691@Princeton.EDU>, pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
|> In article <1jk6fhINN1rb@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >
|> >The majority of air pollution related to petroleum is from a percentage
|> >of older, mistuned cars that are still on the road.  
|> 
|> This is a mightly bold, not to say incorrect, statement given that
|> cars in total use less than half of the crude oil consumed by the US and
|> that gasoline is relatively clean burning compared to the other
|> fractions of crude oil.
|> 

Let me correct my statement.  The main concern of this thread is
the gasoline tax.  Someone posted that one reason to have the tax
is to cut down on gasoline consumption which would help with
air pollution.  My comment should have said that a major component
of pollution related to petroleum use by automobiles comes from
a small percentage of vehicles.  The figure is something like 10%
of automobiles contribute 50% of automotive pollution.  Given that
there are easy and relatively inexpensive ways to identify the
offending vehicles, raising the gas tax as a means of reducing
automotive air pollution is a poor idea.  We can reduce the amount
of air pollution by imposing costs on the polluter, not by
spreading the costs to polluter and non-polluter alike.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk,politics,drugs