HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why Bother? (Re: FUCK CLINTON, etc.)
Date: 21 Nov 1992 00:21:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") says:

> Cripes, of all the government agencies, breaking down the doors
>of "suspected" drug users, tapping our phones, arresting people
>for blowjobs in Georgia, playing with passport files for political
>gain, selling weapons illegally to tyrants the world over -- it's
>the *Secret Service*, the guys in the ugly sunglasses who try
>to make sure our political successions don't happen like those
>in Liberia or Colombia, that you want to whine about?!!


      i)  You missed the point of the posting

      ii) You may think you're "older and wiser", but I think not.

      iii) You need to read up on the CIA involvement in Columbia
           Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, before making such assertions.
>
>>
>>The sad thing is that anyone thinks that killing Clinton would make
>>any difference, since Clinton is only a cosmetic change at best. Which 
>>seems like a far more rational basis for the discussion.
>>
>
>  Yeah, you're right.  Enhanced radiation warheads detonated every
>5000 metres across the continent is the only basis for real and
>meaningful change.  Right.
>  
>  -- Evan
>
>
>-- 
>
>Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
>Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
>University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
>Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60393 sci.econ:8695 alt.activism:18873 misc.headlines:7060
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:40:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov19.053140.18780@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> Bill Riggs writes:
# #	I was shocked to learn the other day that it is also a 
# #violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...this is just 
# #something they don't tell you in Basic Training. :)
# 
# Clarinews had an recent article about a heterosexual being thrown out
# of the army for oral sex. A bit weird.
# 
# -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

Not weird.  Absurd, unjust, and wrong.  But not weird.  It's
what happens when you say that there are no limits to governmental
authority, as Mr. Hennessy seems to believe.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:59:26 GMT

In article <BD.92Nov18082547@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>>I don't remember the new number but recently it was announced that the
>>average wage of women was now in the mid to upper 70's when compared
>>with the average wage of men.  All of this gain came during the 80's
>>when those evil republicans were supposedly trashing women and
>>minority opportunities.
>
>It would be interesting to know what percentage of the
>gap-closing was due to increasing wages for women, and what 
>percentage was due to falling wages for men.

The 70% figure is supposed to be an error, because "this report
artificially inflated women's earnings by using weekly instead of the
standard yearly wages -- thus grossly exaggerating teh salary of
part-time workers, a predominantly female group....  Later, the Census
Bureau calculated the pay gap for 1986 using its standard formula and
came up with 64 cents."

"...the pay gap had only 'improved' for women by less than five
percentage points since 1979.  And as much as half of that improvement
was due to men's falling wages, not women's improved earnings.  Take
out men's declining pay as a factor and the gap had closed only three
percentage points."

Quotes are from Susan Faludi's _Backlash_, p. 364.



In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law (was: Hillary will not...)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:31:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.135113.26340@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>> > > It's illegal for the President to appoint relatives to positions
>> > > over which he exercises control.
>> > >
>> > > The law was passed in response to Kennedy giving the AG position
>> > > to his brother.  Johnson signed it into law in 1965.
>
>This is interesting... I'd like to see the text of this law, and I'd
>especially like to see how it's constitutional.  After all, Article
>III, Section 2, 2d paragraph, says:
>
>   [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and
>   Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
>   Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other
>   Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
>   provided for, and which shall be established by law.
>
>...which makes it look to me as though any law which restricts the
>President's power to make such nominations would be unconstitutional.

It's de facto constitutional.  No president would dare challenge *this* law's 
constitutionality, even if it isn't constitutional.  A president would have
enough grief appointing a relative -- that grief would only be compounded
if they challenged Congress on it, no matter how valid, Constitutionally,
the challenge would be.  The press would *never* understand the subtleties
and would report it as "Bill sues to give Hillary a job."  And then Bill
still risks having the nomination rejected.  I can't imagine a single
president who'd be willing to waste so much effort and political capital for 
so little tangible gain.  The statute doesn't create a precedent for other
unconstitutional limitations -- the last twenty years has seen plenty of
jurisprudence on the nominations and removals process.

That is, of course, assuming that such a law exists.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics
From: mpp@sdf.lonestar.org (Michael Persons)
Subject: The collapse of communism and the role of the U.S.
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:39:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.144755.26931@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.033656.8548@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>
>>>The interesting question is this: will Ronald Reagan get the credit for the
>>>collapse of communism in America or with the credit go to whomever is on
>
>>why not give the credit to Gorbechev (spelling?)?
>
>Because without Reagan's Defense policies there would have been no
>'crisis' for the Soviet Union, insofar as spending a huge amount of
>wealth and still being faced by the United States, which looked like
>it was able and willing to outrun them indefinitely?  Bush tried to
>claim credit for this one, but he just happened to be the one in
>office when things came to fruition.  The credit belongs (on this side
>of the Big Water) to President Ronald Wilson Reagan.
>
>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

This has always bugged the shit out of me.  I hear right-wing commentators of
all stripes stating that OF COURSE, Reagan's massive military buildup DIRECTLY
caused the downfall of the Soviet Empire.  The problem is, I haven't heard any
proof, period.  I haven't heard a single Republican official who is in a
position to know state this.  You'd think that we would hear from at least one
Soviet official:  "Yup, we tried to spend as much as you did on weapons and it
drove our empire into the ground."  But we hear nothing of the sort.

In fact, what we have heard, in the Robert Gates CIA hearings, is that CIA
analysts were encouraged to overinflate the threat of the Soviet empire, and
to ignore the obvious signs of it crumbling under its own corrupt, inefficient
weight.

Perhaps right-wingers cling to this belief with such tenacity because, if they
let go of it, they would have to admit that Reagan's multi-billion (trillion?)
dollar military buildup was in fact, billion (trillions?) of dollars wasted.

Mike Persons
mpp@sdf.lonestar.org
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61306 alt.politics.elections:24252 alt.rush-limbaugh:10230 talk.rumors:1365 alt.activism:19101
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 22 Nov 1992 22:55:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) says:

>In article <1992Nov18.223918.11569@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.001238.28626@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>>>I *still* haven't figured out what Anita Hill's motive for lying would
>>>have been.  
>
>>How about any of the following:
>
>>1) She's crazy
>>2) She was jealous
>>3) political power (Head of the EEOC?)
>>4) money ($10,000 per speech)
>>5) didn't want a conservative black on the court
>
>>How many possibilities do you need?
>
>One rational one.  One rational one with some evidence behind it.
>
>1 and 2 are just ridiculous.
>
>As for 3 and 4, she didn't come forward with accusations; some Senate
>staffers leaked them.  So it's pretty unlikely she was doing it for fame.
>
>As for 5, why not?  a) She's racist.  She only wants whites on the Court.
>or b) She thinks that a conservative black would hurt black liberalism.
>B) is vaguely possible, but pretty far out in left field; Clarence
>"Ignore the Bill of Rights" Thomas, Clarence "I benefitted from AA, but
>no one else should" Thomas does more to discredit black conservatism than 
>Anita Hill ever could.
>
>-- 
>David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
>niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
>   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
>Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
>
How about, "Hill and Thomas had very different perceptions of the same basic
set of facts, and over the course of ten years or so those perceptions have
colored each individual's recollection of what actually occurred."

In other words, we will probably never know what *really* happened.


-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60653 sci.econ:8725
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:58:39 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
 <1992Nov16.131926.5633@desire.wright.edu> <92322.071734DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>

>In article <1992Nov16.131926.5633@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
>(Stupendous Man) says:
>>
>>In article <92321.103319DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> In article <1992Nov15.223328.5620@desire.wright.edu>,
>>demon@desire.wright.edu
>>> (Stupendous Man) says:
>>>>
>>>>In article <92320.184749DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>>>...
>>>>> The poor did get poorer, relative to the rich, though both groups were
>>>>
>>>>        There's the rub.  Shall we chain weights to the best sprinters,
>>>>telling
>>>>them that they're so far ahead of the guy in last place that it's "not
>>fair"?
>>>>Do that to relay racers who inherit a lead?
>>>
>>> Of course, I never suggested chaining weights to anyone.  What I've said is
>>> that inequality is supposed to serve a purpose in a free market economy.
>It
>>> is supposed to motivate entrepreneurs to risk capital for larger rewards.
>>> That is supposed to pay off for all people in society by raising the
>>> growth rate of GDP.
>>>
>>> I see no evidence that the increase in inequality during Reagan's terms
>>> did raise the long-term growth rate of GDP.
>>
>>        The growth rate improved from 2.6% during the 70s (actually
>1973-1982)
>>to 3.5% (1983-1990).  WWII-1972 was 3.6%.  Certainly the affect was to raise
>>the GDP growth rate.  It's even more impressive when you realize that this
>>growth was achieved during the most intensive period of global competition
>>ever.  A lot of the post WWII growth in GNP was largely because no one else
>>was around to sell.
>
In addition to the selection bias I mentioned, I also would like to
know how you identified the major changes in policy made by Reagan,
in particular, the supply-side tax cuts, as the major source of any changes
in macro-economic performance (income growth, mobility, or whatever).  Why
don't you credit Volcker's Fed policies? Or the fiscal stimulus applied by
increasing entitlements and the military build-up?  What techniques did you
use to isolate the effect of supply-side policies versus the effects of
monetary policy versus the effects of fiscal policy?

In truth, Brett, do you think any macro-economic theory explains reality       w
well enough to draw the kinds of conclusions you are drawing?
I think we both know that the changes in the 1980s were generated by a complex
set of forces, including all those mentioned above.  I don't think any of
us here on the net (nor any trained macroeconomists) can really identify
the independent effects of each.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.veterans
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Compensation for Gays Ousted from Government Employ
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:25:29 GMT

In article <1ee61lINNt7@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU> Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.033059.18007@Princeton.EDU> Jr.
>Frank W. Elliott, elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU writes:
>
>>There are more than a few cases of people
>>who claim to have discovered their orientation after signing
>>up with the military.
>
>You are absolutely right about that, and I apologize for
>overlooking them. However, what does that do to the
>argument that a person is born gay? That sexual
>orientation is determined at birth? 

I don't know.  What does it do to that argument?  I didn't like
broccoli, not so long ago.  I do now.  What does that say about
whether or not I was born with a distaste for broccoli?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60807 sci.psychology:4449
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Politics and Personality Type (was Re: Why????)
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:20:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,sci.psychology
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1ec2nuINNl8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.) writes:
>
>In a previous article, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) says:
>
>>In article <1jNTn1#2hOQHF17YOtt1z6kKQ0ZGhlK=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>>>In <YAMAUCHI.92Nov5171939@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> Brian Yamauchi wrote:
>
>>>> and political
>>>> liberalism with humanist academia and the fine arts (NF).
>
>Hmm, I seem to resemble that description.  I am an INFP: Almost maximum
>Introversion, maximum iNtuition (0 Sensing), Feeling and Perception are
>about equal and not too far from the center of the T-F and J-P scales.
>

	"Please Understand Me" tells you to go read the respective 
descriptions of the other types that you're related to, if you're "on
the cusp", which would be INFJ, INTP, and maybe INTJ, just to round things
out.

>>	A couple of sidebars. ENTPs are called "inventors", and are risk
>>takers. INTPs are referred to as "architects" and love design more than
>>the payoff of making things happen. ENTJs are referred to as "field marshals"
>>and love leading others (for their own ego gratification). INTJs are 
>>"scientists" and are intellectually the most independent of the 
>>classifications.
>
>What are INFPs?

	I cannot remember the handles, but merely that both INFP and INFJ
are contemplative types.INFP is "contemplative passive" while INFJ is
"contemplative aggressive". I suppose that an example INFP would be St. 
Francis of Assisi or Emily Dickinson; INFJ examples would be Joan of Arc or 
John Brown. These are unusual people, and as it stands, INFP/INFJ are also
very infrequent in the overall population (about 1% each). The NT category
is much more balanced among its four "types".
>
>>>I think you're dead on target.  This agrees with my own observations, and
>>>the NT/libertarian correlation is one I had noticed previously.
>
>Does the N have more to do with the libertarianism than the T?
>I consider myself to be libertarian, although not completely--I'm sort of a
>democratic socialist libertarian, et al.

	The N connotates operating in a world of abstractions (basically
a Platonic world view) rather than sensations. The T connotates operating
according to the criterion of logic rather than feelings. As noted before,
libertarians do not have a lock on the NT orientation, although I suspect
INTJ is libertarian country. But INTP (the architect) is a natural "statist",
if the state becomes the vessel for his designs. I strongly suspect that
our President-elect is INTP, VERY INTP. What the guy will need is some ENTJ
"field marshals" to carry out his designs, when the going gets tough, as it
surely shall.


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61218 talk.abortion:49014 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8954 alt.rush-limbaugh:10173
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life a HELL!
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:52:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Nov20.005309.9356@ncsu.edu> delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE) writes:

> I have a gf with fundamentalist parents who treat Rush Limbaugh as
> though he has the answers to life's problems.  Well, I am here to say
> that because of this, I will have to fight in order to marry her.  Has
> it come to the point in this country where conservative ideas like the
> ones he presents are so much a part of the United States now, that two
> people in love can't even marry for fear of outright attack like this?

A)  Her parents listen to Rush Limbaugh.
B)  Her parents don't like you.

Are the two somehow related?

> I fear for our happiness.

And her parents probably fear for her happiness.

> I don't want her to choose between keeping her family or keeping me.

She probably won't choose between the two, but perhaps rather try to
have both.  And you would inherit her family.  Welcome to reality.

> I hate liberals (I am moderate), but even moderates aren't safe from
> Rush Limbaugh!!

Again, how is Limbaugh involved here?

> Can someone PLEASE give me some ideas???

It looks to me like what you need is, rather, a clue.
-- 
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: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:33:09 GMT

From article <102505@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):
> In article <kecguB3w165w@ailanth.UUCP>
> ailanth!ailsa@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
> 
>>kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>
>>> The fact remains that 30% of the men reported being passive in anal
>>> intercourse at least once, but only 4% of the men reported engaging in
>>> gay sex at least once.
>>>
>>> Doesn't this strike anyone as just a wee bit strange?
> 
>>no [...]
> 
> In the original posting the corresponding figures for the French women
> were 20% and 2%. So even if men were just as likely to be passive for
> women as women were for men (NOT LIKELY), that would only account for
> 20%. The men report 30%, so there is is 10% unaccounted, 2.5 times the
> number that admit to having "gay sex" at least once.
> 
> You could make two conclusions:
> 
> 1. People underreport homosexual experience, or define it nebulously,
>    or too specifically (in order to disqualify themselves)
> 
> 2. the sample (size=20,000+) is somehow skewed. Women might underreport
>    anal intercourse,...,etc.

3. Different distribution among the sexes with the distribution for
men being flatter ie more one time participants.  For example,
men    0 0 0 1 1 1
women  0 0 0 0 1 2

Number of events is the same for each, the number with at least one
is different.

SEH
> 
> Brian
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60880 alt.politics.elections:24131 misc.legal:20159