HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Drug regulation by FDA(Was: Re: Private Discrimination)
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:44:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.022259.4028@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary  
Strand) writes:
> js> Jim Stiver
> 
> js> It is theoretically possible to be legally ignored to death under a lib-
> js> ertarian government.
> 
>   ...and we know that we can be "helped" to death by a non-libertarian gov-
>   ernment. For example, the new FAA rules that states that young children
>   must be in a child seat on the plane. Therefore, the parents must go to
>   the expense of another ticket, since airlines are not going to give away
>   seats for free, generally. This can be expensive. Ergo, the parents choose
>   to go a cheaper route, say, driving. Driving is much more dangerous than
>   flying, ergo, more kids will be in cars than in planes. Ergo, more kids
>   will die in auto accidents. Net result: more kids' deaths. 
> 
>   What a helpful rule!
> 
> 
> --
> Gary Strand

This is a very good point.  This is very similar to the regulation of drugs by  
the FDA.  It's not very easy to track the number of people who are dead, or   
were unduly ill because the federal government prevented them  from taking a  
drug that could cure their disease.  There was a heart drug (I do not remember  
its name) that effectively treated a condition that was estimated to kill  
15,000 people per year.  It took ten years for the FDA to approve this drug,  
killing approximately 150,000 people.

The FDA is an example of a dangerous federal agency. Why not turn the FDA into  
an "advisory" council, with no regulative authority and let patients and their  
doctors decide if they want to use a non-approved drug?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: SigGraph, Chicago, and Unions
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:03:25 GMT

In article <9208201355.AA27597@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
>
>   Hold it, hold it!   Before we go too far with this thread would
>   either of you care to describe your metrics for the US "losing
>   the productivity battle"?   The Economist says that the in terms
>   of overall industrial productivity the US is the highest in the
>   world. 

You're quite right.  US has the highest productivity in the world, and
I don't believe it's declined one iota.  However, productivity growth
has slowed drastically since the early 1970s (the first oil shock).  I
believe it went up again during the 1980s, but people worry about this
because the productivity growth of other countries (read: Japan) has
been increasing at a higher rate than ours.  Being Americans, we have
an exaggerated sense of ourselves.  Actually, more importantly, wages
are linked to producitivity.  Real wages have been at a standstill for
at least 15 years.  Being used to a rising standard of living, we're
quite unhappy about this.



--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug21.042023.27253@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:24:56 GMT

<In article <1992Aug21.042023.27253@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
<   In article <1992Aug20.231603.5717@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick writes...
<   >In article <64289@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: 
<   >>Yet, I seem to recall Nixon and Ford having massive problems with
<   >>inflation -- with Nixon having to introduce price controls, and
<   >>Ford coming out with WIN buttons ("Whip Inflation Now").
<   >>Am I misremembering?  I don't recall things being as bad under Carter
<   >>as far as inflation goes as they were with Nixon and Ford.
 
	What was the massive inflation rate that Nixon claimed
	"justified" his foolish wage and price controls?

	4% per year....

	What was the inflation rate when Ford left office?

	4% per year.....

<   >Ford (or perhaps the Fed Reserve) brought inflation down.
<   >This was apparently unacceptable to Carter.

<   *sarcasm on

<   I think you're on to something now! Carter wanted inflation. Of course!
<   I'm also sure that the Republican's voted against deregulating oil
<   prices (which caused the inflation). The Republican's would never vote
<   for something that would cause inflation. 
<
<   *sarcasm off

	Another "economist" heard from. 

	Did Carter "want" inflation? Hard to say; certainly he
	used the "misery index" (the arithmetic sum of the 
	inflation rate + unemployment rate) to drub Ford with...
	and was bludgeoned with the same thing 4 years later...
	an unemployment rate not much different from 1976
	but an inflation rate of at least 13% per year.
	Inflation is inconvenient to many, but it is 
	downright cruel to "the poor" and others on
	fixed incomes...the very people whom many Democrats
	profess great sympathy for.

	However, it is certain that the Congress, controlled
	by Democratic party members, liked inflation in one
	way; cost-of-living-allowances pushed people into
	higher tax brackets (there were, what, more than
	20 different tax brackets in the 1970's?) which
	caused them to pay more income taxes to fuel the
	pet programs of Congressmen. 

	Indexation of tax brackets and the standard
	deduction has made it not worthwhile to Congress
	to continue inflation.

	I will go so far as to predict that if Governor
	Clinton is elected President, within one year
	there will be tremendous pressure to eliminate
	indexation of tax brackets.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41100 talk.abortion:32869 alt.politics.bush:2404 alt.politics.clinton:2492
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Note to those who will respond to my posts
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:31:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

Hi.  Short note:
   I will probably be leaving the net in the near future (possibly for
a LONG while) so if you made any responses to my posts and I don't respond,
please don't take it personally.  Same with personal email.

   It's been fun discussing things.  Perhaps when I come back, totally
new topics will be introduced? :)

  Thanks.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40020 ca.politics:6848 ba.politics:4556
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: This is Crap and nonsense ( was Re: A Retraction)
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 09:20:18 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> # #Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
> # #shun child molesters?
> # #-- 
> # 
> # Homosexual support for child molesting-  plain B.S., sure there is always 
> # somebody or some group that want to do things that everyone disapproves of
> # so stop trying to indict a group of people into something that most of them
> # are against.
> 
> Then shun NAMBLA.  They are STILL marching in the S. F. gay parade.

And getting booed and hissed at.  They did not march in LA Pride nor
in Long Beach Pride, nor in San Diego Pride.

There are a handful of people on the SF Pride committee who made the
decision to allow NAMBLA to march.  In typical Northern Californian
lying fashion, you seem to think that the world revolves around San
Francisco.  It does not.  Fuck off, please.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41179 talk.abortion:32926 alt.rush-limbaugh:3836 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4743 alt.politics.clinton:2544 alt.politics.bush:2454
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LINE ITEM VETO (was Reducing Spending)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:17:19 GMT
 <JTURNER.92Aug8160024@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>   
 <1992Aug10.080216@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov> <1992Aug11.182454.20908@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> <Aug.12.12.18.38.1992.5178@math.rutgers.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

>hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:

>> Is there a single country that provides the president/head-of-state
>> with a line item veto? Does it have a presidential or parliamentary
>> government? Hopefully a political science expert will answer the
>> questions for us.

>Several states have line item vetoes for their governors.  

Some even have 'amendatory' vetoes, which are even more fun!

Of course, I like Wisconsin's law which enables the governor to veto 'any
part of any bill'...Tommy Thompson has managed to chage entire bills by
marking out individual letters and groups of letters to form new sentences.
It's great fun!  And upheld by the courts!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:58:01 GMT

matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>Except, of course, where Bush's or Quayle's relatives are concerned...

You wouldn't happen to have a reference for this libel, would you?

Thought not.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!mpd         /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:27:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <l8l7diINNfvb@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

> I guess it all depends on how "connected" you think that Floyd Brown
> is to the Bush campaign.......

I have never met Floyd Brown, but I am acquainted with Brent Bozell
(who has worked together with Brown on occasion on certain projects).
I can tell you for a fact that, since they have put together
independent pieces promoting certain political candidates, they are
PROHIBITED BY LAW from having ANY contact with either the candidate
himself or with his official campaign whenever they happen to be
independently promoting said candidate.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: SigGraph, Chicago, and Unions
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:53:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug20.160325.29190@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <9208201355.AA27597@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>>
>>   The Economist says that the in terms of overall industrial productivity
>>   the US is the highest in the world. 
>
>You're quite right.  US has the highest productivity in the world, and
>I don't believe it's declined one iota.  However, productivity growth
>has slowed drastically since the early 1970s

  True.  Although somewhere in the business press I read lately that
  it has started to rise faster in the 90's.  The writer cynically noted
  that this was die to layoffs -- many comapnies are producing more
  stuff with fewer workers now than in the late 80's.

>are linked to producitivity.  Real wages have been at a standstill for
>at least 15 years.  Being used to a rising standard of living, we're
>quite unhappy about this.

  True.  But I heard a lecture by Lester Thurow recently in which
  he suggested that this was the beginning of a long-term trend,
  the inevitable and largely unavoidable result of life in a 
  world economy.  He seems to expect a gradually declining standard
  of living in the US over the next several decades.

 
>But this is.

  ?


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:59:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
>poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
>years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
>opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!

Be patient: our Great Patriarch, George "Basher of Democrats and Conqueror
of Parts of Iraq" Bush will reveal to us how Unending Wealth will
fall like manna from heaven if he is retains his Holy Office.  Those
without Faith will be cast out into the Wilderness.



--
But this is.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39959 talk.abortion:31898 alt.politics.bush:1715
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:46:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug15.224848.29286@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <adams.713802433@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
>
>The life begins at conception idea is mainly scientific and biological,
>not religious.  
>
Surely life is a continuum.  Are the egg and sperm cell not both alive prior
to conception?  It seems hard to defend the "life begins at conception" idea
even on religious grounds.  What happens in the case of identical twins, where
the fertilized ovum splits and develops into two distinct people?  Do they
share a common soul?

Peter Lauren.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:28:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.202017.17578@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug6.013932.29133@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>>	My solution to the US public schools' problems:
>>
>>	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!
>>
>
>I agree 100%
>
	So do I, but I have concerns over some of your figures.

>US Public schools have FAR more administrators than private/independent
>schools. But US public schools do a much worse job of educating America's
>kids.
>
>We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student, yet their
>students are far more educated than ours.
	How much of this is due to our overall cost of labor being higher?
Or is that assumption still relevant?


>On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in math/science.
>
	Why 13 nations? were these 13 chosen to be the 13 best nations in
math/science, or was some other method used to determine why there's
only 13. Does the US rank 13th among all nations in math/science?



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:31:12 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug15120641@graphics.nyu.edu> 
fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

> Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
> the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
> the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
> third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
> is a human being.

In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either scraped
out of the womb or vacuumed out, thus killing the fetus in the 
process.  This nonsense about the woman not contributing to the
"well being of the fetus" is a euphemism which helps people
to avoid confronting the fact that abortion kills a human being. 


Doug Holtsinger
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:17:16 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug17.132255.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
<   situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
<   for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
<   1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
<      insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.
 
	Since you are basically criticizing the policies of Jimmy
	Carter, what's your point?

	Recall, if you can, the fact that limits on Federal insurance on
	S&L deposits was increased from $20,000 to $100,000 PER
	ACCOUNT, not per person, the Congress essentially gave
	the S&L's free rein to do any old thing. Speaker of the House
	Wright, on the other hand, prevented the S&L regulators 
	(who were part of the Administration) from closing virtually
	any Texas S&L's for some years.

<  2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
<   American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
<   back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
	
	Excuse me? Income taxes (excluding FICA) were ELIMINATED
	for anyone with an income of less than $10,000. Is that
	a cut? Income taxes for people making between $20,000 and
	$50,000 were cut. Income tax RATES for "the wealthy" were
	cut, but actual receipts show them paying more taxes.

<  3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
<   rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
<   monumental deficit in the 90's.

	By spending 1.5 dollars for every 1 dollar in revenue, the
	Congress of the U.S. contributed to that there deficit as
	well.

	You DO recall that the 1990 tax increase was supposed to
	be used almost entirely to pay down the deficit? Darn,
	where did the cash go?

<   Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
<   that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?

	Sure, but the first requirement is an audience which has
	some understanding of economics. The second requirement
	is an audience that isn't trying to rewrite recent history.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Bush the hypocrite
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:22:51 GMT

In article <4768@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>-Bush's acceptance speech:
>-
>->   That will especially help small businesses.  They create
>->Two-thirds of the new jobs in America.  But my opponent's plan for
>->small business is clear, present--and dangerous.  Besides new income
>->taxes, his plan will lead to a new payroll tax to pay for a government
>->takeover of health care, and another new tax to pay for training.
>-                                                         ^^^^^^^^
>-  And not 5 minutes later....
>-
>->   Here's what I'm fighting for...
>->   --Job training.
>-
>-Huh?
>
>James, thanks for printing the text. However, please note he's fighting
>for job training, not TAXES TO PAY FOR job-training.
>
So Bush has found some way to have job training without any economic
cost?  Or is he going to pull the clean air act trick and mandate that
businesses provide job training and then in the actual implementation
decide that it is too great a burden on business so cancel it?

Paul.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40366 ca.politics:6908 ba.politics:4634
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: This is Crap and nonsense ( was Re: A Retraction)
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:46:55 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <JwXLPB8w165w@batpad.lgb.ca.us>, mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > Then shun NAMBLA.  They are STILL marching in the S. F. gay parade.
> 
> And getting booed and hissed at.  They did not march in LA Pride nor
> in Long Beach Pride, nor in San Diego Pride.

  Nor in the OC parade yesterday. Funny thing, at the OC parade which
was a fairly dull event (as in folks not much out of the ordinary) the
only thing that was uniquely Not Dull were the fudies that came to
preach the gospel to us.
  The police had the fundies boxed off behind a fence and yellow tape
in what can only appropriately be called a "Bull Pen". Screaming and
shouting with their crosses, bibles and invective they snarled at the
folks who were there. 
  Should I take this to be who "Normal Christians" are? Where were the
howls of protest from the "Moderate Christians" who disapprove of
these loonies? When will I hear their renoucement for the mainstream
Christians?
  Gads, and the fundies have the audacity to claim that WE are depraved.
 
> There are a handful of people on the SF Pride committee who made the
> decision to allow NAMBLA to march.  In typical Northern Californian
> lying fashion, you seem to think that the world revolves around San
> Francisco.  It does not.  Fuck off, please.

  With God's speed too. 
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39107 ca.politics:6676
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:39:55 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11706@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> Imagine if the Republican Party Convention upcoming had people
|> holding up signs for the KKK, or Aryan Nations.  "By not completely
|> ostracizing racists, the Republican Party keeps the fringe of
|> 'acceptable' political expression on the fringe.  If racists are
|> completely ostracized, then the people attacking racism will go
|> after Christians (or pro-lifers or small business owners)."
|> Do you see the silliness of this argument?  Would you consider the
|> presence of such signs and groups at the RNC to be evidence of
|> something terribly sick?
|> 
Ahh the GOP, you mean the people who first ran Willy Horton ads and
then decided to try to dump David Duke when the pressure got too
hot?  The GOP, who got a president elected who appointed a
memeber of the KKK to the Supreme Court?

|> "By having a fringe group of racists -- and they are an extremely
|> fringe group -- we can keep mainstream Republicanism out of it."
|> You can't keep your foot out of dogshit by rubbing the edge of
|> your sole in it.
|> 
I'd be very surprised to find that the GOP did not think this way.

-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40437 alt.activism:15026 misc.headlines:5708