HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:06:09 GMT

In article <books.31.0@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu> books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct13.180436.15502@unislc.uucp>, das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:
>>|> Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:
>>|> 
>>|> : As a citizen of this country you have a right to try and change the laws of
>>|> : this country.  As an employee you have a right to try and get your employer
>>|> : to change his family leave policy.  This breaks down when as an employee
>>|>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>|> : you use the laws of this country to force that employer to give you a
>>|> : family leave policy.
>>|> : 
>>|> : This may be legal, but it sure as hell ain't right.
>>|> : 
>>|> : 
>>|> Why does anything break down under this circumstance?  Looks to me like
>>|> a fine way of solving the problem.  As an employee, you are in a low-power
>>|> situation for purposes of bargaining.  As a citizen you are on more
>>|> equal footing with your boss.  Why not try to get it legislated?
>>|> 
>>
>>And if your neighbor has something you want you are in a low-power
>>situation for the purposes of demanding that your neighbor give
>>that something to you.  As a citizen you are on a more 'equal'
>>footing.  Why not try to get it legislated?  
>
>It is, it's called eminant domain(sp).  It's something that's supposed
>to help the majority.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

     How very socialistic.

     Whatever happened to the rights of the minority?

     Oh, I remember.  They don't have enough votes to protect themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: bmasel@igc.apc.org (Ben Masel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: I didn't SHOOT THE SHERIFF...
Date: 10 Oct 92 08:30:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600030:000:586
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Oct 10 01:30:00 1992


Instead I decided to run against him.
THIS MORNING I WOKE UP IN A CURFEW
as the first Drug-War roadblocks appeared in Madison.  I decided
our Republican Sheriff could not stand for re-election un-
opposed, and declared my candidacy as an Independent Write-In in
November. (Its too late to make the ballot.)

I have registered with the County Clerk, and created an official
Campaign Finance Committee, Masel for Sheriff, No More Roadblocks!
516 E. Mifflin St. #4, Madison, WI 53703. Contributions over $20
refused.

See response 1 for my first salvo, a letter to my opponent.

Ben Masel
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:23:32 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:


>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.

You only just figured this out?  I've been saying this publically for the
last 15 months...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:01:22 GMT
	<1992Oct8.203124.5379@das.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Oct8.203124.5379@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
[About ARF's proposal of a boycott of kosher products to bring
attention to Palestinian causes:]
>   No, your target is not supporters of Israel.  Your targets are Jews.
>
>   Lets take the following divisions of people
>
>   1. Religious Jews
>   2. non religious Jews
>
>   Within each, we have Jews who are:
>   a. "Supporter" of Israel
>   b. "anti"-Israel
>
>   and non Jews who are:
>   X. "Supporter" of Israel
>   Y. "anti"-Israel 
>
>   The boycott effects all people who are in sets 1a and 1b, in that a
>   product they like is targeted for the same reason they like it.

You obviously don't understand the effect of a boycott.  A boycott,
especially one with limited appeal, targets manufacturers and
purveyors, not consumers.  The direct effect of a boycott is to
depress demand for a product, which according to standard economics
should lower the price of the product, hence helping its consumers.
Arf's boycott would make kosher food cheaper.

The only way it would hurt the consumers of kosher foods (who, by the
way, are not exclusively Jewish) is if the boycott succeeded in
forcing manufacturers out of business or out of a product line.

>   ...
>   Therefore, your boycott clearly targets a product marketed at
>   religious Jews, not at supporters of Israel.

>   It makes kosher food less profitable (as is the goal of a boycott),
>   thus encouraging manufacturers to not certify their food as kosher,
>   reducing the choice available to jews and Muslims.

If that is really the case, then the real problem here is that kosher
certification is too expensive.  Is there no rabbi who would work for
free in order to negate the deleterious effects of this insidious
boycott?
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:24:51 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

: >You may have a say in how society functions, but no say in what I do
: >when faced with an unexpected and/or unwanted pregnancy.
: 
: Nor does the man.  All he does is supply a bit of raw material.  You
: supply all the work.  YOu supply the location.  You supply the decision
: to create a child.  He isn't in the picture at all.  

Funny.... that isn't what I learned way back in 9th grade health class.
It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:24:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.034616.29319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct8.211349.19801@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead
    >>White Loathsome Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the
    >>Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome Oppressors using dull rocks
    >>to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of Vision and
    >>Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.
    >>
    >From an article entitled "The Real Mothers of Invention" by
    >Pamela Warrick of the LA Times (repeated portions without
    >permission):
    >
    >The telphone. The light bulb. The automobile.
    >
    >Quick. Name the inventors. Of course you can.
    >
    >How about flat-bottomed paper bags, bullet-proof vests and
    >Scotchgard? The dishwasher, the fire escape, AZT?
    >
    >Of course you can't.
    >
    >Why? Because these inventors are women, says historian Anne
    >Macdonald. That's why they're hard to find in history books.
    >Or in any books.

Hmm -- I know the story of the invention, development, and marketing
of the dish washer. And it was NOT by a woman.

Having not the book, I really can't discredit it further.

But it kind of sounds like how the Soviets always used to claim that
some Russian invented the [insert major invention/discovery here].

Guess it must be a conspiracy by all those Dead White Male Historians,
huh?


FemHistory -- like the doggie pooper scooper, an idea whose time
has come. May it go as quickly.

Not that women scientists haven't gotten the shitty end of the stick
a lot -- look at Barbara McClintock. But sometimes they do get
honors -- look at Madame Curie.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:17:08 GMT


In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:

>Keywords: 
>
>In article <MATT.92Oct7115038@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>]In article <1992Oct7.022226.19164@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]
>]> He WAS in the SU in '70. He admitted it on TV last night.
>]
>]"Admitted"?!  It's an "admission" to say that you travelled during
>]your Christmas vacation?  
>
>Yes, admitted. He never brought it up until he was asked as a result
>of Republican digging.

Amazing.

He didn't volentarily disclose that he took a vacation 23 years ago.
Why is it he SHOULD have addressed the issue before the Republicans
"dug" it up?

Do you honestly believe Clinton thought it was important to "disclose"
a vacation he took 23 years ago?  If so, shouldn't Bush "admit" to where
he vacationed in the winter of 1969, and if not, why?


> This is the same guy who has been slippery about
>the draft business, dishonest about the Jennifer Flowers business, and in
>general lies a lot.

A POLITICIAN, LIE!!  Say it ain't so!!

Clinton does not have a monopoly on that, you know.  
His draft record is irrelevant, he has stated he took LEGAL steps
to aviod serving in a war he felt and still feels was morally wrong.

Jennifer Flowers is irrelevant, as any problem exested between himself
and his wife, and they have resolved them.  The rest of it is the business
of no one, unless you wish to take the stand that ALL persons who have had
marital problems should be required to disclose all to the public.


> All sorts of stuff about his anti-war stuff is now
>coming out. I have no problems with him being against the war, but when
>he (a) demonstrates against the US in a FOREIGN country, and, the same
>year (b) travels to the capital of the main embassy while we are in a war,
>I have real problems with his judgement.
>

Why?  It was, in 1969, neither illegal, nor immoral, to either protest
the war, or travel to the Soviet Union.


>[ Bush doesn't deserve to be elected. The american people don't deserve
>  to have Clinton elected. ]

>-- 
>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
> - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -

A liberal is a conservative with his eyes open.


> - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
>
This is the only thing in your post I agree with..
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,atl.flame
From: kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:18:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.000734.26998@u.washington.edu> sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.195203.15406@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena) writes:
>>Apparently you don't listen to Rush.  In a recession with ~7% unemployment
>>the thing we DON'T need is three months of unemployment promised to a
>>worker.  This bill hinges on the premise that employers are cold and
>>mean slave drivers who don't care about their employee's families.
>>I have a revelation for you: they are NOT.
>
>How nice that you have worked for so many kindly ol' employers.
>In the real world, there is no shortage of employers who
>are more than ready to dismiss employees for any number of
>reasons, only one of which is the well known "bottom line".
>Were you watching any of the news stories in recent months
>of people who were fired merely for asking for leave for
>family emergencies.

That is what the ACLU is for, but I understand that the majority of people
holding such voiltle jobs don't bother to further their knowledge on such
matters.  Like the employer is required to give one weeks notice.
>
>The last time I was laid off from a job, I was given
>ONE HOUR'S notice; not a lot of concern for my family here.

Looks like this person has no spine to stand up to the boss.  Typical democrat.

>
>>When 75% of the jobs are in small businesses, imposing such legislation
>>will only result in greater unemployment.
>
>The family leave bill exempts small businesses.

Compared against IBM, most companies are small businesses.
>
>>These bosses know their
>>employees well enough to allow "slack" for emergencies.
>
>This assumption is totally fantastic, not to mention wrong.

It works for me, I guess some people need to take some assertiveness training.

>
>>What good is
>>an unemployed worker in paying bills, providing food and welfare for
>>her/his family?  If this bill would have passed, it would have required
>>"Aid to temporarily unemployed workers who have sick children and who
>>don't have to work".  Get real, family values is working for your children/
>>spouse.
>
>The family leave involved here is UNPAID leave.

I can see this is no mental giant I am duelling with.

>
>And, I'm sure a family leave bill will be brought back soon for
>consideration by Congress, and sent on to President Clinton
>for approval.

Pipe Dreams 101.  Must have been his favorite class.
>
>--
>| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
>| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
>


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50470 alt.politics.usa.constitution:599
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:20:56 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1assahINNhfd@agate.berkeley.edu>, tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) 
writes:
> In article <farenebt.718340867@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> 
> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
> writes:
> ....
> >Finally, I'd like to remind you about how stable and long-lived
> >the nation was under the Articles.
>             ^^^
> 1) this is the correct tense even if it was unintentional

Of course it's the right tense; The US is no longer under the Articles of 
Confederation, so any reference to the US experience under them is 
necessarily past tense.

Did I miss your point?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:01:50 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct12.200432.9297@muddcs.claremont.edu>  weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.153457.11097@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Nova
> >> = (Steven Arnold) writes:
> >>> = (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> >>>> = Jim McMasters:
>  
> >
> >>     Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil her
> >>parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require one who signed an
> >>enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to require one who injures 
> >>another in a car accident to do everything possible to save the life and 
> >>health of the one injured.
> >
> >I hate to *prick* your bubble, but there is no goddamned "contract"
> >signed, and the woman has NOT agreed to become pregnant just by having sex
> >except in your feverishly puritannical mind.  Maybe you dopes are
> >convincing each other, but in a real debate you'd be bleeding on the
> >floor.  Like a woman getting a botched, illegal abortion.
> >
> real cute image. It's not that simple. The point is that with *any* action
> you take you must be responsible for the consequences. Requiring people to
> be responsible for their actions is not a punishment. It is a consequence
> of living in a society with other human beings.
>  
> >>     BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions. 
> >
> >They're hypocritical exceptions.  As Jim stated above, you obviously
> >care more for imaginary bullshit "contracts" and punishing women for
> >having sex then you do the fetus you shed so many crocodile tears over.
>  
> these 'imaginary bullshit "contracts"' are the basis for any government. You
> agree to respect the rights of other people- including a fetus, which may or
> may not be considered human, that issue won't be addressed here- and be held
> responsible for any of your actions that might affect the rights of other
> people. You also agree to sacrifice certain freedoms so that others may 
> enjoy their rights.
>  
> >>Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
> >>children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
> >>INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).
> >
> >Huh?  What kind of dumbass statement is this?  Can you give an example
> >of "incestuously conceived between two consenting adults"?  Maybe you have
> >a real-life example you could share with us.
>  
> The world is a strange and twisted place. Any study of what will or won't
> be legal must take into account all possible actions. There are people who
> have done exactly such things and they will do so again.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:40:36 GMT

arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.171314.26925@panther.mot.com> ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:
>>>>We know you think the KKK,White Aryans,White Supremists and Neo-nazis 
>>>>are really an enlighten bunch of guys, who are way ahead of their time.  
>>>>But most of us find them revolting. 

>>Poorly worded I guess.  The enactments of thier beliefs are illegal.  The believe
>>in segregating blacks, and other minorities from whites.  Reserving the USA for 
>>WHITES only.  Of course Jews or other non KKK type Christains do not qualify as 

>You have lumped a whole bunch of different groups and defined parameters
>that somehow include David Duke.  Remember, he was accused of doing evil
>things?

>Most of what I have heard in the recent past from these people is that 
>they want their own enclave free of others.  That is far different from
>driving them out of the country.  BTW, how do you feel about the nice Jews
>in Israel driving the nasty Arabs out of their country?  And the Billions
>we American taxpayers shell out to help them?
>js

It would be enlightening, I'm sure, to know who "these people" are.  The
KKK?  Or the various White Power groups like WAR, The Order, Aryan
Nations and various skinhead organizations, to name just a few.  If Arf
thinks these people simply want a white enclave, he's sadly mistaken.
Ask Alan Berg, Denver radio "personality" who was gunned down by the
Order.  Or Muligataw Seraw (apologies to any Ethiopians for the
misspelling), who was beaten to death here in Portland by skinheads.  Or
the hundreds of others -- Asians and blacks, particularly -- who have
been terrorized, beaten and killed in racist attacks.

Whether David Duke ever participated in a lynching is irrelevant; he has
preached hatred to others who then committed these atrocities; he is
responsible, just like any other rabble rouser.

If White Power assholes want to wander off into the mountains of Idaho
and live in peace without any niggers, kikes or gooks around, fine.  The
rest of us will be well shut of them.  But their behavior in the
meantime is vile.

Jeff Frane


-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400) 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Creative Sensualities dept, Jacquie's House of Underwear
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:57:59 GMT

and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Oh goody.  First, forced birth, now forced breast-feeding.  What next?

forced missionary position.  didn't the supreme court have something
to say about that recently?

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every time I see the Dakota, I think about that night.
Shots ringing out, the angry shout, a man losing his life. 
It's something we shouldn't dwell upon, but it's something we shouldn't ignore.
Too many good men have been cut down. Let's pray there won't be anymore.
                                                              --Christine Lavin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------