HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (green spleen...)
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:23:44 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>)Most of the complaints seem to come from people who feel free to use
  ^^^^                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>)racist, sexist, or whatever language and then object to being publicly
>)identified as ones who stoop to that level.

>This looks like another good example of PC labelling all oponenets as
>'racist/sexist' to me.                               ^^^^

And you, sir, seem to be labelling somebody as PC for making a simple
observation that he felt was true.

Anyway, may I point out that the original poster used the word "most of the
complaints...". You, sir, state that he is labelling ALL. 
JUST WHEN DID "MOST" COME TO MEAN THE SAME THING AS "ALL"?    *AIIIGGHH!*GROWL*

>)But if government steps in it is a different manner.  I support 100
>)students coming to a professor to demand that he keep his sexist views
>)out of a poly sci class, but would object to the state ruling that any
>)professor who used certain language would be dismissed.

>This may be a bit radical, but what if we let blacks complain when people
>called them 'niggers' or bashed blacks, let women complain when people
>bashed women, and let men complain when people bashed men.  In short,
>let the direct victim do most of the protesting - and allow the direct
>victim to protest, regardless of his race or gender, if he or she feels
>that they are being wronged.

Yeah, that's quite radical there, considering the original poster said much
of the same. You just expounded on it.

		Peace,
-- 
      Tom Dobrowolsky     
         LunarWolf        
 trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:21:25 GMT

In article <ku9ti5INN74c@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>Well, looks like the Tories are going to hang on after all.

Terrific (if it works out this way)!!!

>A harbinger of things to come in the fall in this old colony?

If you look at the 15 American presidential elections from 1932 to 1988,
incumbents have run 11 times, and won 8/11 of these times.  The three
losers were Hoover (depression), Ford (Nixon appointee/pardoner), and
Carter (stagflation, military weakness, and malaise).  Bush is clearly
in better shape by this standard, so I was estimating 2-1 odds in Bush's
favor.  British and American elections have been fairly correlated in
recent decades, so if the Tories really win, this may make it as much
as 3-1 (although that's probably pushing it).



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Airline Deregulation
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:56:19 GMT

In article <92104.121308SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Well, I'm sure that money has been saved, but one questions how it has been
>saved.  All following figures & quotes are from America: What Went Wrong?
>by Barlett and Steele.  In 1978, before deregulation, the price of a round
>trip ticket from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh was $86.  Today, it is $260.

Problem #1:  I don't see inflation taken into account.
Problem #2:  Were these regular prices, or a sale?  The lowest prices, or
	     an average?
Problem #3:  Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are in the same state, so *this
	     flight was never subject to regulation*!!!  In fact, this
             was the biggest argument against regulation at the time:
	     A flight from LA to San Francisco (which wasn't regulated)
	     cost far less than a flight from NY to DC (which was.)

>A round trip ticket from NYC to Washington DC cost $38.  Today, it costs
>$142.  If gasoline prices had risen at the same rate, a gallon of gas
>would now cost $2.33.  

Kind of an unfair comparison, given that the price of gasoline has gone
down.  It's like saying, "If prices for computers rose at the same rate,
a VIC-20 would cost $2,000."

>This is savings?  In 1978, the top ten airlines
>accounted for 88% of the air mileage flown in the United States.  Today,
>they account for 94%.  This is healthy competition?  

Is it any more unhealthy?  We need more info breaking it down further.

>[Airlines going out of business.]

This is a sign that there were too many airlines, not that regulation
worked.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism
From: ddavis@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Donald Davis)
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:44:25 GMT

In article <balaji.702750181@yorku.ca> balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V. Balaji) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>>  "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>>  by Charlton Heston
>
>[followed by your usual rightwing crap]
>
>We get enough of this in the mainstream "free press". Why pollute Usenet
>with it?

	I find it interesting that rather than refute the essay, you just
declare it "crap", as if your opinion were law.  I also find it amusing
that despite the preponderance of leftist tripe, you (and doubtless others
like you) go ballistic if someone dares post a single dissenting article.
This *is* political correctness in action.

	BTW, it's a good idea, you didn't try to refute Ed Ipser's article,
because Reagan *was* right!

						Cordially,

						YYZ
-- 
Donald C. Davis (alias YYZ)	"Leave out the fiction / the fact is, this
ddavis@casbah.acns.nwu.edu	friction / will only be worn by persistence.
				Leave out conditions: / courageous convictions
				will drag the Dream into existence...."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AGRAN Exclusion -- BROWN Hypocrisy
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:26:46 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Apr6.052028.6042@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
> In article <9204060447.AA05311@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>Date: 05 Apr 92 22:49:35 EDT
>>From: Agran for President <75300.3112@CompuServe.COM>
>>To: <harelb@math.cornell.edu>
>>Subject: Brown on Exclusion
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>>       A member of the media finally pinned down Jerry Brown on Larry
>>Agran's exclusion from the political process.  You know what Brown said?
>>       "Why doesn't he get a group of people and have an event?"
>>       (THe Burlington Free Press, 3/30/92)
>>       You can just bet that if Jerry Brown was being excluded, he wouldn't
>>be hollering for "separate but equal" candidate forums.  He's the biggest
>>hypocrite of any candidate in any party this year.
>>       Steve
>>
> 
> So if a hundred different people all claim that they are running for
> President, should they all get equal time on the evening news?

	I think the average number of people who run for president is about
117.

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17319 alt.activism:7363 soc.women:8731 soc.college:1816
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:57:08 GMT

sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
>economic crime of tax evasion, you could look at the package deal and
>say "Nope, too much waste and corruption.  I'm not paying until you
>clean things up."  But if the package deal includes enough programs
>that you need, or feel are worthwhile for others, you'll pay and
>then insist that things get cleaned up.  The Libertarians, who
>insist that everything the government does can be done cheaper
>privately, will of course withhold their taxes and spend the money on
>toll roads, private parks, private libraries, and so on.  How about it?

I like it, except where the cards are kept legally stacked as to make
it impossible.  For example, there are often laws in place to make
sure that using an alternative to government supplied services is
illegal.  Those would have to be removed.
-- 
Surly grammarians insist that all words ending in "ly" are adverbs.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18356 alt.politics.homosexuality:2197
From: levin@star-trek.bbn.com (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 15 Apr 1992 18:04:20 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:

>> yup. bigotry.  

>You guys wanna do it that way.... FINE.

>Just don't call me names when I call a spade a spade.

Trouble is, what you are doing is more like calling an
African-American a spade.

	/JBL
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17952 alt.society.civil-liberty:3399 alt.individualism:2412
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Where is B-CPU, you ask?
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:24:52 GMT

If anyone had doubts as to what B-CPU represents, yesterday they
published a long pamphlet distributed by the racist organization
NAAWP (they also gave the address of the NAAWP office in Louisiana
where one has to write to get that pamphlet).

B-CPU represents, and does commercial advertising for, neo-nazi and
racist hate groups. 

-Danny Keren.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:10:56 GMT

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:

>Guess what, wise guy, it IS over the northern hemisphere also. Before you
>react in such a knee-jerk manner, why don't you learn something about the
>issue?

Considering that "they" have been "measuring" ozone levels for "40 years",
don't you find it strange that this "huge hole" suddenly appeared over
the Northern Hemisphere?

Can you say "research funds"? Good, I knew you could.

>Just because "they" were wrong about the new ice age coming, and the
>evidence for global warming is weak, does not mean that "they" are wrong
>about the Ozone hole.

Just because there is a finite possibility for me getting struck by a bus as I 
cross the street means that I should never leave my house?

> The problem with any politicized issue is that, for the non-specialist,
> it becomes difficult to find out the scientific evidence separated from
> political weighting. Thus, my natural tendency is to be skeptical of
> environmental scares. These are the folks who are more scared of nuclear
> power than they are of coal power, after all!

Yes, I've always found the "No Blood For Oil" folks particularly amusing,
especially when you ask them if they would object to a nuclear power plant
being built to replace that oil-fired electric generating station.

>However, sometimes the reality happens to come down on their side, and
>the ozone hole is one.

That's debatable. Sure, there has been some measured decrease in
atmospheric ozone isolated to particular regions of the world, but
there is no evidence to prove that such depletions are man-induced.

>Global warming is, to some extent, another in
>that it is likely that some warming will occur as a result of man's
>activity.

Yeah, until you ask a global-warming advocate why the frost line in the
United States has been moving progressively south.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              / 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17375 alt.society.civil-liberty:3305
From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: ACLU
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:20:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr8.172051.1328
    <1992Apr7.023024.1152@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
    <1992Apr8.020244.10623@nntp.hut.fi>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2271

In article <1992Apr8.020244.10623@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
|In article <1992Apr7.023024.1152@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon (Andrew Baker) writes:
|>>Sorry to break the news, but communities DON'T have rights.  Read the
|>>Bill of Rights and I don't think it talks about groups but instead
|>>defines rights for individuals.
|>
|>Read the whole Constitution.  Its principle purpose is to grant certain
|>rights to the federal government: the right to declare war, the right
|>to regulate interstate trade, the right to collect taxes, etc.  If you
|>don't want to use the word "rights" for the government's prerogatives,
|>that is fine -- but juggling definitions isn't going to make your
|>argument any stronger.
|
|Rights are not granted, rights are practiced and defended by the
|citizens - by force if necessary, that's why the second amendment is
|there - and recognized by the government.  What are granted to the
|government are powers.  If you don't understand the difference, you
|probably don't understand the principles behind the Constitution of
|USA.
|
|And by the way, rights are not defined by the Bill of Rights; the Bill
|of Rights was added as an afterthough and it recognizes some of the
|rights.  Some considered it needless and risky to add the Bill of
|Rights - surely when the Constitution only grants a few strictly
|restricted enumerated powers to the government there's no need to
|specifically forbid the government from doing every possible thing
|which are outside of its powers anyway.  I wonder what these people
|would say now if they were reading from talk.politics.misc how people
|are interpreting the Constitution in 1990's.

At a guess, I would say that they would recognize every single argument
as familiar strains heard in their own day, during the debates over
wording and acceptance of the Constitution, but the general quality of
the rhetoric would seem to have deteriorated greatly.

Of course, I'm posting this from alt.society.civil-liberty, without
benefit of having read the discussion in talk.politics.misc, so please
inform me if there's something new under the sun.



-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17418 soc.men:8196 soc.women:8759 alt.politics.correct:3621
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:35:34 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
# In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
# )
# )  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
# )  by Ron Sonenshine
# )  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
# )  --
# )  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
# )  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
# )  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.

# /* set parody on */

Won't work. You commented it out.

# A usenet author has filed another salvo in the battle between the
# sexes, arguing in a new post that the nations annual $xxxx billion
# welfare tab for supporting single mothers is exclusively a feminine problem
# for which women alone should pay.

Stephenson, author of the above-mentioned book, would probably say that
the abondonment by men of the mothers is what usually makes them single,
therefore it is not an exclusively female problem.

John
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17390 alt.politics.elections:568 misc.taxes:2164 alt.society.civil-liberty:3308
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:02:01 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>That sounds good as far as it goes but my concern is that determining
>cause and effect in pollution cases is much more difficult than with
>a mugger or a burglar.  The difficulties that nuclear test victims
>are having in proving that the decimation of their families is due
>to early bomb tests makes any kind of legal action highly problematic.
>I like the idea of moving pollution enforcement away from its current
>special category and making it a property/personal damage issue in
>criminal law such as normal violent crime is but the delayed nature of
>the injury creates serious problems.  Any suggestions here?


You're going to have the same troubles in this type of situation when
dealing with a private company as when dealing with the government, or
with the government dealing with companies.  In some cases it's
obvious, in others it isn't.  The difference is in the amount of power
available to derail the investigation/suit.  A powerful company might,
but the government can pretty much do what it damn well pleases.  In
these marginal cases I don't see that there's much to do except take
it to trial.  In some cases the defendant is actually innocent.

So I don't have any better method of connecting offenses with results
in these cases, but I do think that the consequences need to be
greater where it can be shown.
-- 
Veni, Vidi, VCR -  I came, I saw, I taped
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: let's start a new party!
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.143435.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>Let's start our own mock party - the Rationalist party  (I hope there
>isn't one already)
>
>
>All opinions are to be presented with logical reasons for their position.
>
>Suggestions?

Yeah.

Let's not and say we did.  It just won't work.

Not enough people in this country are rational enough to get us any offices
anyway.


-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  You can sell your soul, but don't you sell     
dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 	|  it too cheap!
				|  
Standard Disclaimer		|  -Randy Bachman, The Guess Who
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:03:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.174346.4247@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio) writes:
>kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
>>There was a thing on "60 Minutes" about the 1984 Seizure Law.
>>Apparently, the police have the right to take anything and everything
>>they want to at any time if they _suspect_ drugs are in any way involved.
>>They don't even have to charge you with a crime, and they can keep what
>>they've seized.  One guy had to buy back his own seized jet at a gov't
>>seizure auction.  That is bullshit.  I suspect that this law may be 
>>ruled unconstitutional, go to the Supreme Court, and be ultimately upheld
>>by the ultra right-wing court.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it is a very bad
>>law.  
>
>I'd bet that guy's airplane that Thomas would rule it unconstitutional.
>There's an interview a few years back where he refers to RICO and that
>sort of thing as totalitarian.  In fact,the fact that Thomas is very
>pro-property rights is probably one of the big reasons that Bush wanted
>to get him in.   There are a few other pro-property rights people on
>the court.   I dont' know where the scale is tipped today, but if the
>kind of law you mention can't be struck down today, it will just come
>back after the next appointment to tryn.
>
>Can anyonecharacterize each of the justices on their property rights
>views?    I think Scalia is another one.   I don't have a clue about
>the rest.
>Jim Del Vecchio


... But it's not in the best interests of the law enforcement groups to 
let a case get to the Supreme Court. They will try to settle any dispute
that looks like its headed there. Is there any way to get the Court to
decide on a case that's been settled in a lower court?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Sydney Sharpe and Don Braid's new book on the Reform Party
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: ca,usa
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:54:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.160521.26159@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>Agreed. It is indeed possible that the RP have a hidden agenda. [NB the PCs
>were accused of the same thing in 84] That is partly why I have stated in
>the past that I would *not* want them to form a government after the next
>election. The other reason is that a government of first time
>Parliamentarians would be suicide for the country, regardless of political
>stripe. What I would like is for the RP to elect about 20-30 MPs and then I
>would be able to watch them perform and evaluate them. It is my hope that
>this small group of RP MPs would act as the fiscal conscience of Canada in
>the same manner that the NDP has acted as this country's social
>conscience.

Agreed.  My favourite scenario (and the most likely one) would see no
party with a majority after the next election, forcing any party that
wants power to form an alliance to obtain that majority.  Such a
situation would prevent any one power from abusing the system, whatever
its agenda might be.

In my opinion, the best government we've had in Ontario in decades was
the first Peterson term, with a minority government.  Nothing like the
threat of a non-confidence motion to keep politicians on their toes!

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank)
Subject: Jerry Brown info
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:05:51 GMT

anyone out here in net land who wants Jerry Brown info email and
you shall recieve.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17883 ca.politics:3427 ba.politics:2637