HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:16:27 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"

>>What defines this reasonable standard of living?  Is it relative (read
>>class-warfare), or absolute?  (Hint: O'Andy's salary ratio limit is
>>relevant only for class-warfare.)
>
>A resonable standard of living is absolute, which is why in the past
>I have advocated a flat tax with a large exclusion at the bottom
>end (first 10k/dependent - no tax), fairness in compensation is
>relative (say comparable worth, I know you can).

Who defines "comparable" again?  Why is their definition better than
the interaction of supply and demand?

>Note that the ratio limit that andy f. is talking about is a limit
>to how much can be written off on taxes by a corporation, not how
>much they can pay an employee.

Does that really make a big difference?

>>BTW - is O'Andy claiming that double-standards are necessary to get us
>>to utopia, that we have to break a few legs, I mean eggs?
>
>Nope, sorry, I'm not claiming that.

But, O'Andy is pushing a double-standard.  He thinks that the more
productive shouldn't get what they're worth.

>>The means PRODUCE the ends.  The intentions are largely irrelevant.
>
>The intentions provide the motivation and allow one to discriminate
>between differing means; hardly irrelevant.

Intentions COULD provide a basis for discriminating between MEANS with
different ENDS.  I'm pointing out that they aren't used that way all
that often, that "this program is meant to solve problem <x>" is
considered an argument for it and the effects of that program on the
problem are largely ignored.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:06:14 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
Subject:      well, pardon me!

The Sunday Washington Post was full of commentary on the pardons, mostly negati
ve.  One pundit ascribed it to Bush's trying to curry favor with the conservati
ves of the GOP.  An interesting legal point is the pardons potentially increase
Bush's vulnerability as Weinberger et al cannot plead the Fifth Amendment in re
fusing to answer questions now that they're pardoned.
Uncle Ernie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:17:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Technical question
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Since it's been so long, I have forgotten the delicate points on
how to handle LISTSERVS and other net beasties. So this is a technical
question not related to political philosophy at all :

        How do I tell the Listserv at UCF1VM to send me my own posts?
If you don;t know either, then stay around and learn!!!

  -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:14:49 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Ellen:
>Finally America gets a president who genuinely does care about
>women and minorities...

With all my due respect for Clinton, I don't believe he really cares
one way or the other. He acts under pressure of all the interest
groups and of his own promises. In politics personal feelings ('care'),
moral or humanitarian considerations don't play any role whatsoever.
If he appoints women or minorities to high posts, it's not because he
cares, it's because of Realpolitik. There is something wrong with the
system in which the most sizable minority (gays) can be so blatantly
ignored.

Sam.
From: caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL (Grzegorz Albinowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: caius angry? caius afraid?
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:53:30 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

rtf writes:

>> caius, no one to my knowledge has called you a nazi, or is likely
>> to in the future.

Thank you.

>> as far as i can tell, you are either very afraid
>> or very angry. why?

The Nazis has killed 6,000,000 of Polish citizens during WW2 (actually
half of them were Polish Jews). Every family has lost someone.

The Commies has killed ?,???,??? of Polish citizens during and after WW2.
Every family has lost someone.

For 50 years we managed to survive in the middle of the biggest experiment
on the globe ever (called socialism).

And now some of people in the society I always believed to be normal put
an equal sign between me and the nazis (this was not directly expressed
but I have been put into the same category)

Yes I am afraid, I am terrified. I can't believe I am still alive. I can't
believe the communism is over. It is not. Is it 1992 or Orwell 1984?

That's why I scream for help.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:46:13 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: On Bosnia, Serbia and a Potential "Third Balkan War," #800
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Worse than the tragedy already unfolding is the idea of European war.
> It is amazing, and sobering, to a student of history that the nations
> of Europe would be willing to engage in ANOTHER war over this
> war-torn land. The brutal raping of Moslem women, the starving siege
> of Sarajevo, "ethnic cleansing" has created a climate of "war
> crimes," and war, it would appear that fighting is all most of the
> folks involved in this mess think will work. The people of Bosnia,
> Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and perhaps Macedonia and Kosovo will
> probably pay the worst price for war.
>
> Humans are sure slow to learn, aren't they?  VMS
>
Thanks you VMS for that enlighting and sad walk back into history.
I would like to make a comment on your conclusion however.
I don't feel that "_Europe_ is willing to engage in ANOTHER war over
this war-torn land".  It is pretty obvious that except for Serbia,
NOONE has wanted to go to war.  Europe as a whole have engaged Serbia
as they engaged Hitler and Germany, i.e. appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.
It's only now months later, that some teeth are finally beginning to show.
Let's hope that it's not too late.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:22:16 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Which of the Iran-Contra defendants, besides MacFarlane, has admitted
> in open court to his guilt?
>
> Evelyn Duncan
>

I don't have transcripts but North admitted to taking of gifts, admitted
to lying to congress. Poindextor admitted to lying to congress.  Clair
George admitted to lying to congress.  I could go on.  The point is that
there have been 11 convictions.  And if Bush, Reagan et al hadn't hid
documents from Walsh there could have been more.

Jonathan
From: caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL (Grzegorz Albinowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: rejecting a similar message
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:04:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

VMS writes:
>My sending "On Rightism ..." twice was an accident, hitting
>the wrong key as I was sending my file

I withdraw my accusation. I believe you. BTW the POLITICS refuses my posting
if it is *similar* to a previous one, so it still mysterious to me how you
managed to do this.

Maybe some computer/listserv guru will explain how this rejecting
"a similar" works.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:27:10 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet follies
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Apparently there is now a heated battle erupting over the Department
> of the Interior appointment...the environmentalists and the Hispanics
> are fighting over it.  Environmentalists want Bruce Babbitt; Hispanics
> are demanding Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is of Hispanic
> descent.
I read about this too.  I am a real big fan of Babbit.  So when his
name surfaced oh so long ago, I was excited.  Then I heard that he
too was a close friend of Clinton's and I thought this should be
good.  When he ran for President (Babbit that is), I was planning
on voting for him, but he didn't last until California (who does?).

I don't know anything about Richardson.  I am sure that he would be
a fine choice.

But again, I agree with you Ellen, this fighting is getting old and
I wish that THEY (the infamous they) would shut up and put more
confidence in the man that was selected to be president.

Jonathan

P.S.
But I still want Babbitt!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:56:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Cross controversy?

Has anyone heard any news about the Cincinnati (or is it there?  It's
someplace in Ohio that starts with a C.  Columbus?) KKK cross-raising
controversy?  The last I heard, the cross somehow got damaged by a
crowd and was removed because it was a "health hazard" due to the
exposed wood and nails.  Did I hear this report correctly?

I get very nervous when I see groups of outraged people marching and
demanding that the KKK has no constitutional right to free speech.
I hate the KKK and everything it stands for, but this kind of
blatant call for curtailing of free-speech rights just because one
group of people thinks it's dangerous really disturbs me.  It bothers
me that mobs of people are marching in the streets demanding that
a group of people have their free-speech rights taken away.

I think hate speech like the KKK's is dangerous, but I'm sorry, I
think demands to take away their right to free speech is even more
dangerous than hate speech.

Any thoughts on this controversy?


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 13:46:23 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Uncle Ernie:
>The fact that heterosexual couples do, in general, make better parents

I think it's the opposite. Hetero marriages can be based on love, but
not always. Sometimes people live together for other reasons, mostly
having to do with property rights. Gay couples exist ONLY when there
is love between the two people. It is always better for children to
grow up in a loving family. Any disadvantages of growing up in a gay
family are mostly due to outside factors (homophobia, ect.)

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:16:26 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From ???? ( sorry, I deleted the file ) ...
And the same old cliche again, "if homosexuals, why not murderers,
adulterers, etc."  It is amazing (also comforting) that anti-homosexual
people can never come up with better analogies.  They always have to
put homosexuality (which is an act between CONSENTING adults and has no
tangible victims) with other acts which are known to hurt third parties
and often lack consent.

From Me...
The cliche happens to fit.  The activities you cite have a common thread,
immorality.  Maybe you'll be more comfortable with a comparison to
consenting adults making a crack cocaine transaction.  There have been
numerous discussions on this list proclaiming laws against drugs as
misguided.  Some have even claimed drugs to be victimless.  I do not agree
with either of those conclusions.  From your position on homosexuality, I
take it that you agree with both.

As far as having no *tangible* victims, what of intestinal parasites,
perforated rectum, and extremely high risk of AIDS?  Are we to count
these as, no doubt Sam does, *extra* blessings from God?

BTW, Who cares what Aspen decided?  The vote was a *state* decision.
Are you opposed to democracy all the time, or just when the results
are not to your liking?

---Robert

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
 that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have
 everlasting life." John 3:16
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:25:48 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Home ownership among the poor es
              28 Dec 1992 11:31:00 EST from <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

> An additional detail.  In the first post that mentioned this, Brett'
> said that these funds were overhead money.  Now, overhead funds are
> intended as a reimbursement to an institution for costs already incurred
> that allowed them to perform a service for the government (or, really,
> any funding agency).  I don't know how it's supposed to work with
> Medicare, but for research grants overhead funds are supposed to meet
> an institution's cost for keeping up the library, running the personnel
> and other administrative departments, and so forth.  The point is that
> overhead is supposed to be a reimbursement, not a payment for services.
> That should considerably loosen the restrictions on how the money is
> spent.  ................................................................

(I say this with extreme caution because I know that Peter knows
more than regarding this subject.)

...but how is an overhead negotiated between the government and
private/public institutions?  My understanding is that this is
negotiated periodically and every institution is "granted" a
figure which is probabely different than others.  Anyway, the way
it is done is for the institution to demonstrate (based on past
expenses) the amount of legitimate overhead.  Therefore if
an institution (e.g Stanford charged a sailboat for the president
as overhead) LISTS (not necessarily CHARGE DIRECTLY) a disallowed
expense, it would end up with a higher than deserved overhead.

> Peter

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:32:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: reply to ramon
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>My proposal was to leave it up to the
>individual, many people are happy to help others. Do you see this as
>foolish or just what is your complaint?What should we learn from history
>in regard to helping the less fortunate?

        Sorry, no harm intended but yes, I see it as a very foolish belief.
If we look back at a time when no welfare existed and capitalism reigned in
full bloom, we will notice that the poverty rates were enormous. People
died from hunger and overwork by the millions. Children were forced to work
from an early age to survive. Many worked in unsafe and near-slavery
conditions, and this was considered normal. Literature is full of such
tales down here. It still happens in this day and age in countries where
the inmense majority of the wealth is held by a very few families while the
rest live in misery and squalor. If government does not intervene and we
left them to "private charity" they die. Simply as that. It is that way,
and it has always been that way...
        Now, the government may be doing a poor job now. Let's
restructurate. But to deny the need for government welfare programs is
ridiculous and goes against what we have learned throughout recent human
history. It's either welfare or revolution and forced socialism. Roosevelt
and his people knew that.

 -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:02:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

>Gee, I'm glad >someone< agrees with me on this issue.

take heart, ellen. a lot of people agree w/you. as much as i abhor the rhetoric
of orgs. like KKK, for me to have the right to speak against them, they must
retain their rights of free speech also.

the people who espouse fighting the KKK by denying them their rights, and even
more, by violent means, are doing so from a purely emotional base. we must
always be wary of "acting out" our beliefs instead of acting on points of
reason.

i am afraid *of* groups like the KKK. they are conveniently ignorant, violent
and psychopathic group. i am disgusted by them.

i'm afraid *for* groups that fight to deny others their right of free speech,
because if they ever get their way (very doubtful), they will find themselves
living in a world they thought they were fighting against.

HAVE A HAPPY HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON, ELLEN!

-linda
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      common usage : left-right
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:21:30 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <9212211356.AA12490@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,         
Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:
>>In the US it is commonly held that Nazism is a right-wing sort
>>of belief; then again so is extreme conservatism, some brands
>>of libertarianism, etc. There is wide acceptance of the idea
>>that there is a significant difference between the ideologies
>>of these different right wing philosophies.
> 
> Ok, I didn't know about the "common usage" in the US.

The terms "right wing" and "left wing" come from a time when facists and
communists were two extremes on a certai national government.  In the
legislative house, the facists sat on the far right of the room, the communists
on the far left.  Other factions placed themselves inbetween these two extremes
depending on how close they were to one or the other.

> My Longman Top Pocket English Dictionary says:

Haven't heard of this dictionary, I'm afraid.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 11:38:14 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?

>From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
>
>>Could we get real here? What's the authority for the statement that
>>heterosexual couples do, in general, make better parents?
>
>    That the huge majority of good parents are heterosexual couples?
>
>  - Ramon

Bzzzzzzzt. Incorrect answer.
As Ramon has been informed, I am the logic czar around here.

It is incorrect to infer from "the huge majority of good parents are
heterosexual couples" that "heterosexual couples do in general
make better parents."

If necessary, I will explain exactly what the mistake is. But it is
more fun to show how analogous reasoning is obviously wrong.

For example,

The huge majority of law-abiding citizens in the northern half
of the western hemisphere are U.S. citizens. Therefore,
U.S. citizens make for more law-abiding citizens than others.
In particular, Cubans, whose law-abiding citizens are
VASTLY less numerous than those of the U.S. must be less law-abiding.

The huge majority of people with very high IQ's are non-Puerto Ricans.
Therefore, non-Puerto Ricans have higher IQ's than Puerto Ricans do.

The huge majority of the unemployed in the U.S. are white. Therefore,
white Americans are more unemployed as a whole than non-white  Americans.

Contest:
Come up with the most amusing example to demonstrate the fallacy
of Ramon's reasoning.

Jamie
(We'll make a philosopher out of him yet....)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 11:50:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: clinton appointments

I don't suppose the fact that Clinton appointed more minorities than
any other previous governor of Arkansas has anything to do with this
argument?   <grin>


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU