HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:27:14 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <2798990422@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
> In article <2679@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
> 
>> But how many Lotus employees currently live in cambridge.
> 
> I doubt I'm reading this right.  You seem to be saying that Cambridge 
> should give in to Lotus' request to avoid losing homeowners. 

I was thinking that if a lot of Lotus employees lived in Cambridge it
would be more difficult for Lotus to move to another location.

But your other interpretation is good too. I think that Cambridge
should be thinking about how it could be losing residents that hold jobs.

> Most of that 14% that have moved out of Cambridge probably still *work* in 
> cambridge!

You think so? Since the 1960's? 
Have you ever heard of companies with names like:

  - GENRAD (General Radio) moved to Concord years ago.
  - SIMPLEX WIRE AND CABLE. Moved far out on route 2 somplace. Fitchburg?
    MIT now owns the land. And it tooks YEARS AND YEARS for MIT to get
    leap all the hurdles in order to be able to develop some real industry
    back in that area.
  - MITRE (when?)

I'm pretty sure these guys moved out in the 1960's. Right before
Cambridge decided it was having a "housing emergency."

Of course, more recently there are names like

  - INTERLEAF
  - SYMBOLICS

that have moved out to the burbs.

-gjc
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:23:25 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.151142.2960@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> are political refugees, and the US obligated itself to hear their cases when
> it signed those treaties.

Oh, I forgot this part. The U.S. *IS* hearing these cases. The debate is 
about whether an officer on a cutter is enough of a hearing, or a full
fledged court appearance with lawyers on both sides is required.

The former is fast and cheap, and the latter is slow, expensive and
encourages others to try to get into the pipeline. As I understand it, the
major reason for implementing the immediate return policy is that huge
numbers of people were making a life-threatening journey for the
opportunity to join this queue.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:10:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <JTURNER.92Sep10065148@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
> 	Just a question.  Where are all the usually vocal libertarians
> defnding the Haitians and opposing any immigration quotas on the
> grounds that they are restrictions on personal liberty?

This issue seems to be polarized on pro- and anti-current administration
lines, and less so on personal liberty lines.

Interestingly enough, the same people who are against the North America
Free Trade agreement because it will cost american jobs, seem to be for
letting in unlimited numbers of Haitians.

I don't pretend to understand why. The only connection I can find is that
both stances oppose the current administration.

To forestall some flames on the subject - my position on the haitian
boat people is as follows: Encouraging people to undertake a 1000km
sea journey to gain admission to the U.S., is closely akin to murder.
If you're going to allow immigration, do it on a rational basis that
does not require people risk their lives on the way.

AND: Allowing entry into the U.S. on the very basis of having taken a
life-threatening sea journey, is encouraging others to do the same.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Private vs. public education
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 05:14:32 GMT

In article <5Tg3PB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>By the way, I find it passing strange that private schools do a better job
>BY FAR with MUCH less money than what the public schools spend.  It kind of
>shows you that money is not the real answer; the real answer is HOW that money
>is spent.  Another large part is the discipline demanded from a student in a
>private institution.

Gee, let me pick and choose which students I let into my school and I will 
also give you a much more efficient school with better disciplined students.

The problem with the voucher system will be that it will force the private 
schools to become more democratic (since they will be supported with govt. 
money, they will have to let in any kid who wants to come in).  Rather than 
making public schools better by competing with private schools, it will make 
private schools more like public schools, because they will no longer be 
allowed to keep out the rabble-rousers.

>Wrong.  You just like that large government, huh?  Government has to oversee
>everything in your mind.  Consider that the paying customers can readily judge
>whether their money is buying the kind of education they expect.  If they
>don't like the product, they can shop elsewhere, thank you.  No big deal.

Sorry, but if that voucher money is somehow coming out of the tax environment, 
it is goverment money.  That means govt. regulation via courts, etc.  You 
are supporting a scenario where the private schools can be regulated like the 
public ones.  That means no more "pick and choose", no more religion in private 
schools.

>You can't just say that without backing it up.  How do you know that handing
>education over to a "zillion religious denominations" will make things worse?
>What, will it make it worse than what we have now; soaring drop-out rates,
>illiterate children being promoted to the next grade without a grasp of the
>previous grade, and ever increasing school budgets?  All this under what we
>have now.

I see no evidence that the vouchhr system will improve the public schools.  
In fact, I suspect the voucher system will deteriorate the private schools 
(more influx of class clowns) and also deteriorate the public schools 
(less money as many try to go to private schools).  All schools will get worse 
under this system.

Better to try to make one school system work rather than to try making a 
zillion school systems work.  (Do you really want whole generations of 
students to lose out while the "free enterprise" system slowly ferrets out the 
bad schools?).  

>
>Change.  Everyone wants change.  LET'S MAKE _THIS_ CHANGE!

Change the public schools, don't flee them.

>
>                                      - - - Murph
>
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: S&L deregulation
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:56:14 GMT
	<53077@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <53077@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   From the republican "chicken hawks"...
   ...to folks like Congressman Bauman,
   ...from "I was out of the loop" Bush,...
   ...to "Never Indicted" Ed Meese, it's been twelve years of sleaze...

You appear to be wearing polarized sunglasses.  Not that I want to
defend the Republicans but I think the Democrats can share the blame
equally.  How about Foley, Cranston and Mavroules for starters?
That's why I refer to them as the Republicrats---can't tell the
difference between them.  I think it has been closer to 130 years of
sleaze.  Maybe more.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:09:31 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <BZS.92Sep13191103@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>... judges
>being what they are and our nation's history of equal protection under
>the law (and tax parity as an ideal if not always a practice) it would
>be very likely that one or more of the others would merely have to
>make an argument in court ...

Does equal protection under the law apply to corporations the same as
individuals?  Even if it does, there must be a lot of ways to enact
tax reductions in ways that don't seem discriminatory.  If there
weren't, would the federal tax laws be so large?



--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<2798822096@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:52:53 GMT

DW> == Dave Wetzel <Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com>

 DW> If Cambrige gives a tax cut to Lotus, then the revenues lost will
 DW> have to come from somewhere.  It will probably come in the form of
 DW> increased taxes on residents and other businesses.  In effect,
 DW> you'd be taking from one group of people to give to Lotus.

Well, for the sake of completeness (not that I expect Cambridge to
actually *take* this option, of course) they could always cut back on
expenses by whatever amount the tax break "cost" them.

But, as I said, I don't expect this.
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
From: cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: S&L deregulation & responsibility
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:05:32 EDT
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

In article <53077@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>Certainly one has to hold rioters responsible for their actions, but
>even making this comparison is absurd. You excuse those at the pinnacle
>of power from responsibility for the disasters which took place during
>their time in office, yet want to go on at length about the individual
>responsibility of those who have essentially zero power.

This is predictable and unimpressive.  Ideally, we would want to assign
blame exactly in proportion to the guilt, whether dealing with a mugger
or a president.

>Back before the neo-right introduced it's warm and fuzzy notion of the
>responsibilities of powerful officials, it was generally accepted that
>when one voluntarily accepted or grabbed a higher office, one should
>be held accountable to a higher moral standard than that applied to 
>ordinary citizens. 

I think that Hamilton's (the Real-Old-right, I guess) view of the
executive makes sense.  He emphasized duration, responsibility, and
power.  While this may seem too imperial, the results of the current
diffusion of power, muddled responsibility, and split government with
limited presidential and unlimited congressional tenure may be worse.
	Mike Cherepov
		solely responsible
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:35:15 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BZS.92Sep10181505@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> It's just a pure leverage argument, from everything I have heard.
> Everyone here is trying desparately to turn it into a matter of
> fairness or justice which I don't think is the issue at all.

Then I'm not stating my case well enough.

I'm not arguing fairness. I'm arguing that Cambridge has SET ITSELF UP
for the kind of problem it is facing with Lotus.

(1) Commercial taxes are too high.
(2) city services, simple things like making SIDE-WALKS that are
    not dangerous, SUX in cambridge.

Apropos #2, my personal experience trying to get Norfolk street fixed.
And how MIT is negotiating with Cambridge right now to take over
control/ownership of some streets, so that they can be repaired
properly.

And how about basic security? You have BIORAN having to pay for its own police
force to patrol city streets now! Good idea. It is making the area
around Norfolk, Bishop Allen Drive, Mass Ave, in Central Square a bit
safer already.

-gjc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:51:02 GMT
	<BZS.92Sep10181505@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep12.194354.1198@miki.pictel.com>
	<BZS.92Sep12222436@ussr.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <BZS.92Sep12222436@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

   Since Lotus is merely being required by Cambridge to pay at the same
   tax rate (i.e. same application of tax laws, even if the specific rate
   comes out differently) as every other commercial entity in Cambridge
   it would seem that the burden is on Lotus to show that a tax cut
   especially for them is justified.

No.  Lotus is perfectly free to attempt to negotiate any deal it can.
Lotus has absolutely no obligation to remain in Cambridge or any place
else if it doesn't suit them.  How're ya gonna keep 'em if they wanna
split?
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Don't forget. Cambridge lost 14% of its people '60=>'90
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:08:39 GMT

In article <2680@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:

   Here is a "fact to not forget" when thinking about the issues
   around "Lotus possibly getting out of Cambridge".

   According to U.S. Census figures, Cambridge has lost 14% of its population
   from 1960 to 1990. Going down from 95,776 to 81,769.

   Where did these 14 thousand people go? Who were they?

   The population loss slowed in the 1980's, but who is to say
   that it will not start picking up again in the 1990's?

   The political and economic environment may be right again for
   further losses of jobs and people.

So what?  That 's Cambridge's problem, not Lotus's.  Sorry, I'm no fan of
Lotus but I just don't see how it's their obligation to stick with
Cambridge under any circumstances.

If Cambridge is losing residents it might be good if they looked at their
own policies.

Actually, you said it when you referred to the political and economic
environment.  Not Lotus nor Thinking Machines or the Coop has any
obligation to Cambridge to hang around and keep the ship from sinking.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Again, lest I be misunderstood, I have absolutely no truck with Lotus.  I
have a lot of truck with businesses being free to do what the law allows.
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:52:27 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>The fact that someone wants to live in this country does not obligate
>us to let him/her/it in.

When it finally becomes obvious to Americans that economic opportunity in
the long run is somewhere *outside* this country, because of our idiotic
hell-bent rush toward spending our children's inheritance and that of
theirs as well, it'll be interesting to see how Americans feel about
anti-immigration policies enforced at the borders of those other more
sensibly-run countries.  True, *most* countries are run even more poorly
than our own, but eventually it'll become obvious that we're a Second
Rate economic power and that somewhere else is First Rate.

Wonder if us poverty-stricken Americans will be welcomed with open arms?

-rich
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: S&L deregulation & responsibility
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:15:15 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <15607@ksr.com> cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov) writes:
>In article <53077@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Certainly one has to hold rioters responsible for their actions, but
>>even making this comparison is absurd. You excuse those at the pinnacle
>>of power from responsibility for the disasters which took place during
>>their time in office, yet want to go on at length about the individual
>>responsibility of those who have essentially zero power.
>
>This is predictable and unimpressive.  Ideally, we would want to assign
>blame exactly in proportion to the guilt, whether dealing with a mugger
>or a president.

Incorrect. We have a right to expect that those in the highest office will
be somewhat more selectively chosen than those in the county jailhouse.

>
>>Back before the neo-right introduced it's warm and fuzzy notion of the
>>responsibilities of powerful officials, it was generally accepted that
>>when one voluntarily accepted or grabbed a higher office, one should
>>be held accountable to a higher moral standard than that applied to 
>>ordinary citizens. 
>
>I think that Hamilton's (the Real-Old-right, I guess) view of the
>executive makes sense.  He emphasized duration, responsibility, and
>power.  While this may seem too imperial, the results of the current
>diffusion of power, muddled responsibility, and split government with

Another excuse. Poor George, the "diffusion of power" made him unable
to properly supervise the FDIC. It wasn't his fault, oh, no. He was
just the President of the United States. Sure, he was chief executive, able
to hire and fire, able to appear on TV whenever he chose, able to 
organize a military force of 1/2 million 10thousand miles away without
congressional interfernece, able to propose budgets, to veto, to do
all sorts of things, but it would be unfair to hold him accountable for
what those bad folks at the FSLIC did. And, it wasn't really their fault
either, was it? No, it was just some of those complex social conditions, 
that diffusion of power, maybe something in the air, or maybe those
tenured congressional democrats. It's really all the fault of homosexuals,
democrats, and those minorities anyways, isn't it. There, feel better now?





-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:14:17 GMT
	<DRG.92Sep1145232@bubba.ma30.bull.com>
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com's message of 1 Sep 92 18:52:32 GMT

In article <DRG.92Sep1145232@bubba.ma30.bull.com> drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:

>To see where your idea may lead, look at the drug trade as an example.
>Suppose we did enact federal controls.  What would stop drug smugglers
>from delivering guns and ammunition along with their loads of drugs?
>Think for a minute how fantastically successful the smugglers have
>been in delivering goods to the American public.  It makes the Berlin
>Airlift look like small potatoes.  Suppose there were an international
>resolution to control guns.  Why would it be any more effective than
>the international control on drug trafficking?

	Uh, marijuana which is quite bulky, especially compared
with its price, has to a great extent been reduced to a native
grown crop.  It is primarily cocaine and heroine that have been
successful in maintaining imports.  Guns in cost and bulk
probably have more in common with marijuana than with cocaine or
heroine.

					--Jeff Turner
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:13:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.151142.2960@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> In article <6181@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
> >No. International law refers to political refugees. It doesn't bother to
> >indicate how to tell between economic migrants and political refugees.
> >
> It is a treaty violation, because the people on those boats are not given the
> chance to make their cases.  They're just turned back.  Some of those people
> are political refugees, and the US obligated itself to hear their cases when
> it signed those treaties.

Which treaty? The only ones I'm aware of are the geneva conventions, and they
don't offer definitions. In particular, when the refugees aren't merely
looking to get out of their own country, they are seeking to enter a specific
country, they are unlikely to be *political* refugees. If they are merely
trying to avoid persecution, Cuba, Jamaica, Dominican Republic and the
Bahamas are all easier to get to - but none of the refugees are interested
in going there. A fact conveniently ignored by the haitian advocates.

> I heard a little over a month ago that a high court ordered the administration
> to stop turning the boats back at sea, that the Haitians had to be allowed to
> arrive and make their cases.  Does anyone know what has happened since then?
> Did the administration oblige?  They better have; if they didn't, they're
> criminals.  Of course, Iran-gate suggests that the administration is criminal
> anyway.

I guess you didn't listen very carefully. A stay was issued that same day.
I didn't listen carefully enough to remember if it was the supreme court
or a federal circuit court (but then I don't go around accusing people of
being criminals on the basis of what I didn't bother to listen to) but the
end result was that the administration still has the chance to argue it in
court - it hasn't been scheduled yet.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.152125.1077@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	I noticed some of you out there like to bring up Germany's
>'successful' government sponsored social programs.  Here is an article
>in the New York Times September 3,1992;
>	"In Rostock, Asylum-Seekers Lived in Powder Keg"
>  ROSTOCK, Germany, Aug. 30-

Well, how much of Germany's resources are devoted to reunification?
Is the United States engaged in such a large enterprise?  Does half
the US have a wrecked economy, 50% unemployment, etc?  Were the people
in the much-less fortunate half of the US promised the instant miracle
of capitalism, only not to see any gains for years?

--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:34:12 GMT

In article <BuH2rG.xr@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:

	   Oddly enough,  one organization that does have such a vision of
   immigrants as assets is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. 
   They have editorials in support of "Open Borders" as often as they have
   them in support of the line item veto.
	   Of course,  a lot of the rest of their attitude is like the
   first part of your last paragraph.

For another example of the neo-conservative pro-immigration philosophy,
see the book "The First Universal Nation" by Ben Wattenberg.
Newsgroups: ne.politics