HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: "liberal bias"? (Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:08:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep8.144924.23515@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>
>> I still maintain that no honest person can objectively watch or read the
>> majority of the news and *not* see a liberal bias. 
>
>What is the definitian of "liberal bias"?  It seems to me that any story
>left of the "700 Club" is used as examples.

  I agree, but I think that such a bias exists.  It's just my personal
  opinion that there exists a bias in much of the mainstream press to a kind
  of Democratic Party liberalism.  Note that by the standards of most of the
  rest of the world this would be seen as a conservative bias, which is why 
  I think there's confusion about this on Usenet, and why people toward the
  left can correctly say there's a convervative bias.  And note also that
  this leaves people with a libertarian viewpoint out entirely.

  But the worse bias at all among the mainstream press is the "stupid
  bias":  there is a very strong bias towards reducing very complex multi-
  faceted issues to whatever can be expressed in a few minutes with simple
  ideas and a modest vocabulary.   This is an inevitable result of the 
  major news organizations like TV, Time, Newsweek, etc, having to attract
  large audiences.   I can't really fault them on this since it's a free
  market and they're only trying to make a buck. 

  The only way I can "protest" this is to not watch TV or read Time, News-
  week, etc, and I honestly don't know why anyone with a brain would 
  do otherwise than what I've done.


---peter
  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.202747.29927@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.185425.11217@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>> Our society accepts heterosexuality as the normal sexual orientation,
>> something such as the norm. Then, when the term protection from discrimination
>> based on "sexual orientation" is used, the first idea that comes to mind is
>> "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other non-heterosexual orientations".
>> It is like if in this cas "sexual orientation" were a definition 
>> of non-heterosexual, besides it's actual meaning.
>
>Well, the reality is that people are losing their jobs for
>being gay, lesbian, or bisexual.  While it's possible that
>straight people are losing their jobs for being straight, I've
>never heard of it happening.


That is my point. Even if the law says: sexual orientation, in general, it
is mostly applied to GLB.
Even more, if a gay-owned company were to fire a straight for being straight,
mots people would say: They did it because they are gays. Most people
would not say: They did it because he was straight.
That is changing the causality. If a gay is fired for being gay, people 
would say: He was fired because he is gay. They would not say: He was fired
because his employers are straight.
So, the causality is always apply to the same subject.
And, besides this, there is another problem: How to apply the law: How do
you show that you fired someone because he is incompetent, and not because
he is Gay.
There is a problem with the burden of proof, if that persons says: I was
fired because I am Gay.



>
>Be that as it may, during the past year the county where I 
>lived passed a non-discrimination law (or rather extended the
>covereage of an existing non-discrimination law).  The language
>they used was "actual or perceived sexual orientation," since
>there are straight people who are perceived as gay and who
>take abuse for it.

I think that this is smart. However, there is still a problem with how
the law is applied, and how the abuses are controlled.
Also, there is a point about freedom of association.


>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu



      __   __  ___
     /  \ /  \|   \
    |____|____|___/
    |    |    |
    aap@wam.umd.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45715 ca.politics:7846 ba.politics:5368
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 18:48:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.151153.19036@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
> In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
> >but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
> >yes, it does confer de facto special rights.
> 
> Oh yes, the same special rights that women, people of color, handicapped
> people, religious people, and the like have.  Gosh *HOW AWFUL* that
> we might not want to be capriciously fired by some loony toon like
> you.
> 
> Why I feel positively special just thinking about this *HUGE* right,
> NOT!
> 
> Phil, are you sure you don't work at Optilink?
> 
> Ry Schwark
> ry@usl.com

Let me tell you about a recent incident at a company that, because
litigation may still be on-going, I will decline to identify.  There
was a person who worked in Tech Pubs.  He was advanced in years, and
personified the phrase, "An old dog can't learn new tricks."  Rather
than learn how to use the Cut and Paste facilities of the publishing
system, he printed out all the various parts, and manually cut and
paste (with glue) a manual.  As you might expect, the results looked
pretty poor.

Now, because of his advanced age, poor health, and the fact that he
was basically a nice guy, there was a tendency in some circles to 
feel sorry for him, and so he was given good reviews, in spite of 
less than satisfactory performance.  The day came when the demands 
of the department meant that they couldn't continue to handle a 
charity case (or someone close to it).  They fired him for lack of 
performance.

Now, in response, he showed all these positive performance reviews,
and insisted that he was fired because of age discrimination -- and
demanded a sizeable settlement to make the whole matter go away.
(He was remodelling his kitchen at the time).

Now, if that guy had been a white male between 18 and 40, there would
have been no plausible argument of discrimination.  But because we
have created these special protected classes, firing someone has
become a form of gambling.  If you fire a person in a protected
class for anything less than punching out his supervisor, you can
almost guarantee a lawsuit.

Some of the details of this event come from a person in the 
department who is a member of two protected classes, a self-described
liberal, and even she, when I observed that this sort of nonsense
is one of the problems of current implementations of EEO/AA laws,
agreed.  "I'll bet for every real discrimination case, there's
one of these."

Her reponse, "No, I'll bet for every real discrimination case,
there's ten of these."


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Iran-Contra crimes
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:12:20
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Sep10.182647.27390@technology.com>
	<1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com>
	<1992Sep11.163757.11381@hemlock.cray.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rja@redwood26.cray.com's message of 11 Sep 92 16:37:57 CDT

In article <1992Sep11.163757.11381@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

> There were convictions, but they were overturned because the the convictions
> used the convicted peoples own testimony, after being promised that it would
> not be used.

Yep.  Don't you hate it when those courts coddle criminals like that,
freeing convicted, obviously-guilty felons just because of some
silly technicality or another?

Clearly the fault of the Reagan-Bush judiciary.  Naturally.  We need
someone new, to appoint judges who will be tough on crime.


	     Matthew Austern, card-carrying ACLU member.
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: T*d, sh*t, and shinola
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:56:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.belly-button
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <Sep.5.08.05.01.1992.22101@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu sez:
>
> Ollie North is a veritable hero.  You're not even
>fit to shine his shoes.

"I'd be more than willing to spit on Ollie North's boots, on equal
terms anywhere in the world.  OK?  *There's* an even deal for him."

-- 
	       Qui veut la peau lisse, evite la police.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:53:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92255.112110DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
...
care can work.  IMO, the American free market gave it an
>admirable try and is now failing. ...

    According to Barron's, the goverment foots 45+% of the nation's 
    health care bill, not counting the tax subsidies and various
    gimmicks designed to shift the costs to the private insurers.

    Not exactly a free market.

... Rising levels of uninsurance and and underinsurance coupled with 
rising costs indicate the failing of the market.

    When a large, and growing, number of people are getting more out
    the system than they ever put into it, it's only natural that the
    rest of the population ends up getting less and/or paying more.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:47:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.190657.7562@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In <BuBJy3.JzG@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>In article <5156@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>>>Who really cares? But the way he answered the question regarding his
>>>"experimentation" with marijuana makes him look very suspect.

>>It would be political suicide otherwise.

>Perhaps you should explain that to Al Gore.  You see, Al the ecofreak
>admitted that he smoked marijuana which pretty much deep-sixed it as
>an issue.  Clinton could have followed Al's example, but he didn't.
>That's why he is called Slick Willie - he seems to have a
>psychological aversion to telling the truth about things he perceives
>as negative about himself even when there is clear evidence that
>telling the truth won't hurt him.

I find it ironic that on something that there's clear and convincing
evidence that Clinton is telling the truth about, he's called a liar.
If he had said "No, I didn't smoke marijuana," THAT would be a lie.  If
he had said "I'm not going to answer that question," THAT would be
evading the question.  But he went out of his way to give an answer that
was true: "I never broke the laws of this country."   Isn't an answer
like that evidence that Clinton is UNwilling to lie?

George Bush, on the other hand, once said, "I never called it voodoo
economics, and I challenge you to prove that I did," whereupon the
reporter promptly produced the taped speech showing Bush doing so.

Furthermore, if there was ONE slogan in 1988, it was "No new taxes," and
yet he broke his word.  How can we trust a man like that? 

Or a man who said that he never knew anything about Schultzes opposition
to Iran-Contra?  Or a man who claimed that Clarence Thomas was the BEST 
qualified for the job?  Or a man who says with a straight face that a
fetal tissue research bank would encourage abortions?

-- 
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.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: Who Were the "Contras"? Washington Longed for SOMOZA Good Old Days
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:00:12 GMT

Who Were the "Contras"? Washington Longed for SOMOZA Good Old Days

"A study enumerating the former Somoza Guardsmen among contra leaders
is "Who Are the Contras?" prepared by the staff of the Arms Control
and Foreign Policy Caucus of the U.S..  Congress, _Congressional
Record_, April 23, 1985, pages H2335-H2339."

[From _What Are We Afraid Of?_ by John Lamperti, South End Press 1988]


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   -->  [Send the 1-line message GET WHO-WERE CONTRAS ACTIV-L to ]
        [LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET for a copy of the complete file  ]
   -->  [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]
        [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



            =============================================
            T h e   " N i c a r a g u a   L i b r a r y "
            =============================================

*
* =========
* Nicaragua
* =========
*
  WHO-WERE CONTRAS    Contras' origins; make-up; practices - documented
  FSLN     H-RIGHTS  Documented HRs comparison w/Somoza,Guat,ES,others
  FSLN     MISKITOS  Sandinista treatment of Miskitos;Charges & Realit
  FSLN     NICAJEWS  Debunks charges of Sandinista 'Anti-Semitism'
*
  OXFAM84  NICARAG   Oxfam America's 1984 report on Nicaragua, in full
  FSLN     ACHIEVE   Documented: achievements of the Nica. revolution
*
  NICA-84  ELECTION  Documented: Fair under Sandinistas; US subversion
  FAIRNESS NICA-USA  Flwup:`Is Nicaragua More Democratic than the US?'
  NICRAGUA ELECTION  Study in US subversion of '90 Nicaraguan election

NOTE:

======================================
To get a file named FILE NAME from the
archiver (files are two words  separa-
ted by a space), send the 1-line message

GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
[or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
======================================

Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
files available with the GET command.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:38:38 GMT

In article <z1ynkyb.howard@netcom.com>, howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
|> >
|> >>    Strange, I thought that Schwartzkopf (sp?) did a good job conducting 
|> >>the war, but the greatest credit I would have attributed to Bush is that 
|> >>he did a good job of staying out of the way and letting the real soldiers 
|> >>fight the battles. 
|> >
|> >Which is precisely what he should have done.  It's also something good
|> >ole LBJ and Jimmuh Catah just couldn't figure out.
|> 
|> Nixon pretty much missed that point, as well.

Agreed.  Nixon is not thought of fondly by conservatives.

|> Jimmy Carter???? I don't seem to remember any large US offensive in his term.
|> Perhaps you are referring to the hostage rescue attempt.  I also fail to
|> remember him 'leading' the raid.

I read the book by Colonel Beckwith (?).  He recounts their staying in constant
communication by radio with the White House.  At each stage of the hostage rescue attempt
they needed permission from Jimmy to proceed.  This mickey-mousing around instead
of performing a professional operation probably caused the mission failure.

This micromanaging of military operations was ended by Reagan.  In fact,  the
U.S. shot down a couple of Libyan fighters but since responding with force upon
being attacked is SOP noone thought it necessary to inform Reagan until his normal
morning briefing.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:01:36 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep12.184456.28203@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
    >In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire
    >>joe straight, but not john homo because he may file suit)
    >>that other people don't have, yes, it does confer de facto
    >>special rights.
    >>
    >Amazing.
    >
    >Duh, Phool. The phrase 'sexual orientation' covers
    >heterosexuals and bisexuals, too.

The bulk of hetereosexuals seem to feel no need for such a law. And as
the so-called "anti-racial discrimination" laws showed, these kinds of
laws are very one sided (i.e., whites have been largely unable to
prevent lesser qualified minorities from being promoted over them due
to the racial (and racist) considerations).


In the meantime, let us all know when your brain gets back from "shore leave".



-- 
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 ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Real estate decline
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:19:35 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep11.161954.10351@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep11.155235.12359@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
...
>> >	Yeah, but what did those tax changes result in?  Real estate
>> >speculation was no longer economically viable.  All those empty buildings could
>> >no longer be used as "junk equity".
>> >
>> You've missed the point.  As an example for you, try this during the 
>> winter months:
>> 
>> a.  Buy bird seed and begin feeding birds when the snow has covered 
>>     the ground and is likely to for the next several months (if you
>>     get any snow there).
>> 
>> b.  Continue to feed them for at least 2 months.
>> 
>> c.  Suddenly, and without warning, stop putting bird seed out for
>>     the birds to eat.
>> 
>> Obviously this is going to cause havoc in the bird world and you may
>> see some savage behavior on their behalf.  This is exactly what we
>> are talking about in the S&L crisis.  In this case the bird seed is
>> the tax deduction and the birds and the citizens of this country who
>> invested.  Congress, in a fit of Wealth-Envy, cut off the bird seed
>> and starved the S&Ls.
> 
> Don't forget that the 1986 tax reform was Reagan's idea (acually Don Regan
> in the Treasury), passed by a Republican controlled Senate, a Democrat
> controlled House, and signed by Reagan.

	1986 was part of a long series of tax fiddling that started in 1978,
continued in 1981 and then again in 1983.  It was (like the S&L partial
deregulation) a case of causing floodwaters without opening the floodgates.

>> So now those buildings are no longer junk equity, they are merely junk.
>> Are you happy?
> 
> No.  The Reagan legacy, to put it mildly, sucks.

	Not at all.  Partial deregulation is as bad, and sometimes worse, than
complete regulation.

	If lenders would have used different loan rates for different types of
real estate loans, they could have prevented rampant speculation.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: -=| Help Free the American Spirit |=-
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:26:00 GMT

Take off your black armbands
the mourning is over, and
the American Dream is gone.

Take up a black ribbon
for America's Spirit held
hostage by partisan divisions.

But do take care Neighbor.
The Party's ransom is winning
no matter who it cost.

So take off on election day,
but don't vote partisan,
please do =Vote American=.

And Take Back America!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:49:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep10.140810.15716@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <lassppINN6pm@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>> Decreases in jobs is certainly a slower recovery than planned.
>
>A decline of ~80,000 jobs on non-farm payrolls and a decline
>of ~180,000 in private sector employment.  Quite a "recovery".

  No, no, Russ, you don't understand.  These people would have lost their jobs
  anyway to low-cost Asian competitors so it's good thing they lost their
  jobs now or the Mexicans would have, no I mean, the Australians with their
  wool subsid-, uh, college students!  Yes, college students quit their jobs to
  going back to school  and this is a *good* sign because they mean we'll have
  a more educated workforce in the future, yeah, that's the ticket, these people
  were laid off *in anticipation* of the Lordstown strike, because we KNEW
  the UAW was planning something, those sneaky leftists, this is a *good* sign
  because it means American industry is *flexible* it can *anticipate* things,
  fewer workers mean *higher* productivity and *lower* prices; this is a *good*
  sign, we won't need any more two-income families, all those women can go back
  home now so the men who really NEED those jobs can have them, and, uh, it's
  really a *good* sign because laying people off allows companies to reduce 
  their costs and make biger profits so they can, uh, hire more workers, uh,
  or something.   Anyway, unemployment was a lot higher during the Depression.

  See, there's no unemployment problem, and besides unemployment is GOOD,
  it's just those pesky liberals trying to make trouble for George Bush.


>] Most of the following is taken from _Forbes_, August 17, 1992.
>] Interview with Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.
>
>] FORBES: How's the economy?
>
>]       Friedman: If you look closely, and pay attention to the short-term
>] money supply movement, it looks very scary.
>]       President Bush has a policy I've been calling reverse Reaganism.  It
>] promises slow growth in the 1990s.  Now, on top of that, the short-term cycle
>] came down sharply, then started to go up, but has been severely retarted by
>] slow monetary growth.  It may indeed turn into another recession.

  Yeah but Milton Friedman is a well-known liberal, and besides what does he
  know about politics?


---peter