HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:50:20 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1992Nov8.192932.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.223956.185@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >
> > This is quite true.  Further, Alan Ehrenhardt noted in a NYT Op-Ed
> > last week that it isn't just the economic conditions.  He argues that
> > there is a pervasive lack of faith in future improvement, in being
> > able to hand down to our children a better life.  This is the first
> > time since WWII and the Great Depression that Americans have this
> > general uneasiness, even though we've had higher unemployment, lower
> > growth, etc.
> 
>      I agree with the observation of general uneasiness, but
> we should ask what are the causes of this uneasiness.  I contend
> that the debt burden is either directly or indirectly the major
> cause of economic anxiety.

I'm not sure that most people (>20%) take global issues (such as 
the debt) that serious.  Most people tend to be driven by events 
that directly effect their lives, such as layoffs, or the realistic 
chance of one.  People are afraid of losing their jobs.  People
are loaded with debt (and are trying to pay off their bills).

If people have money, they tend to spend it (the old "burn a 
whole in their pocket" thing).

>                             The debt reduces the amount of money
> capital available to the private sector, it increases the prospects
> for tax-hikes and higher interest rates, etc.  If we see any
> significant increase in inflation (caused, say, by Clinton's
> fiscal stimulus plan), we should also expect to see the Fed
> raise interest rates.  This would immediately hurt the bond
> market, and after a couple hikes in interest rates we
> could see a major correction in the stock market.  (This is
> just one scenario, of course.)
>      I have some thoughts about the media too, but I'll spare
> you of those.  :-)
> 
>      C. Perttunen
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59030 misc.legal:19687
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:08:47 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov8.171534.23853@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:



>>How about adding Hillary Clinton's name to the list?  

>I was under the impression that Bill already promised not to appoint
>Hillary to anything.  She's certainly qualified, but may have to wait
>until her husband is no longer president to avoid potential conflicts
>of interest.

In what sense is Hillary Clinton qualified?  She's a partner in a big
firm in Little Rock, but in the scheme of things, that's not really
saying very much, is it?  She has no judicial or even governmental
experience as far as I know.  Neither is she currently a scholar, even
if she does have one law review article to her credit.



-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: MITI as a model for US industrial policy?
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:57:12 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 13627@awdprime.austin.ibm.com, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>Despite their productivity, which is high, the Japanese standard of
>living is relatively low.  They're just shooting themselves in the foot
>with all their protectionism and subsidies.
>
>And yet we continue to hear loud calls for a U.S. version of MITI.
>
>No thanks.

Actually, there hasn't been a lot of difference between what the US does and
what the Japanese and Europeans do with their funding agencies.  What you have
missed is that the US has historically done this kind of thing through the DoD.
After all, what is DARPA?  Chopped liver?  The real difference is that it is
politically taboo in America to regard military funding agencies in the same
light that we regard foreign civilian funding agencies.  Businesses here must
show a military use for their research and development activities if they want
government subsidies.  But they also get to use the technology to support their
nonmilitary business.  European and Japanese businesses do not have to show
military relevance, only business relevance.  But, given that the military is
a huge bureaucracy, you can justify many things that are relevant to business needs
as relevant to the military.   What Clinton proposes is an alternative to
filtering the subsidies through the military.  That will make government support
for industry far more flexible than it has been in the past.  And if we don't do
this, then our current military-driven level of research and development is likely
to decline, leaving American businesses with even fewer economic sources for 
research and development than their foreign competitors.  When you shrink the 
military budget, some of it is bound to come out of support for R&D activities.

Remember, profit drives you to make short term decisions.  It is very difficult 
for a business to expend lots of money to pay for activities that have little 
return on investment in the short term.  So R&D suffers severely in times of 
economic troubles.  Government funding agencies have a role to play in helping
American businesses to make long term decisions.  The government used the military
to do this in the past, but now it needs a new method.  

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Why "Child Abuse Causes Homosexuality" Really Doesn't Fly
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other THings
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:41:03 GMT

In article <12973@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> 
>
>I posted it in The Mother of All Flame Wars:
>
>    The molester tends to deny his homosexuality.  As Geiser
>    (1979) put it, "It is not unusual for a child molester to
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    express strong feelings against homosexuals" (p. 92)  This
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course!  This explains everything!  Clayton Cramer is hateful
toward homosexuals because he is a child molester!



-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58237 ba.politics:6756 talk.politics.theory:4742
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Socialist health care (was legalizing drugs)
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:07:02 EST
 edu><rabjab.235.721115235@golem.ucsd.edu> <1992Nov7.233006.22715@osf.org>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Nov7.233006.22715@osf.org>, dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) says:
>
>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>
>>>I share the original poster's concern that socialist health care
>>>will result in pressure to "live healthily"...
>>
>>I don't know if I will like socialized medicine.
>
>Don't worry, you won't see it.  Even Michael Dukakis, who has been studying
>national health care pretty seriously since 1988, is against it (gasp!).
>Nobody in power, except possibly a lunatic fringe of the Congress, is in
>favor of it.  (and I am at least well-disposed towards it, having been a
>child of the British NHS).
>
>However, I hope one aspect of socialized systems gets tried here: the local
>non-doctor health practitioner, quite possibly employed by the State.  I'm
>particularly thinking of the visiting nurses who barged into the house
>after the children were born, gave them a couple of thorough checkups (yes,
>Rob, I'm talking about you) and generally dispensed good advice.  Often the
>same woman who handed out iron and folic acid tablets during the pregnancy.

I believe HCFA is already considering the possibility of reimbursing
nurse practitioners and other physician extenders directly for their
services, without the requirement that they be directed by a doc.  Harris
Wofford has also suggested that this be part of the Clinton plan.

>
>We hear of the value of preventative medicine, but not often specifics.
>And, even in a nationalized system, it is not a given that people will
>voluntarily take early action.  This is a concrete and unexceptional
>example.  Don't be too scared; there are some aspects of systemized care
>that are actually quite enjoyable.

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.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:19:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.023941.23946@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <8NOV199201395076@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.155545.15345@news.vanderbilt.edu>, rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes...
>>>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>
>>>    And let's give the impending resurgence of judicial activism
>>>a nice big round of applause.  
>
>>Yeah, nothing like those unelected, unanswerable to anyone legal nerds making
>>laws.
>
>Unanswerable to anyone?  Have you read the Constitution?


    Yup.  Have you?  All federal judges hold their offices for life
during good behavior.  In practical terms, the appointments are for life,
since impeachments are rare.  They have to be nominated by the president
and approved by the Senate to get in, certainly, but they are neither
elected nor representative.  And it is difficult to see how they are
answerable to anybody.  (Their salaries, for example, cannot be diminished
during their time in office.)

>They're answerable to Congress.


    Only if Congress decides to impeach them, and that is, as I said, rare.


>For that matter, "unelected?"  They're no more unelected than the
>President is.  And than the Senate used to be.

   
    Perhaps you should look over Art. I - III again.


>>1996 can't come too soon.
>
>Four more years.
>
>-- 
>David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
>niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 


John Rickert					Quis custodiet 
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		ipsos custodes?
						   -- Martial
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Amusing Technical Aside
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:36:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.194627.23470@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen) writes:
>] In article <Bx86zC.2Fr@cs.uiuc.edu> David Kohr,
>] drk@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>] >Yes, it's a shame they didn't appreciate our efforts to
>] brutalize them with
>] >free-fire zones, carpet bombing, defoilation, and our
>] support for the South
>] >Vietnamese police state.
>] >-- 
>] Dave,
>] I've decided it's doing no good to respond to you. You've
>] got your thoughts on the matter, and I've got mine. We're
>] not going to change either of our minds. 
> 
>Interesting Aside Comment on Clarifying who be who.
>
>When the Evil Somoza was the IkkyYukky Dictator of
>Nicaraugua, he never had the comfort of the the
>levels of Armoured Vehicles as the Subsequent Sandindista
>"peaceful" Regime....
>
>But Somoza, unlike the Sandindistas, was a WarMonger...
>And IkkyYukky Police State....
>
>We Can Only Hope that David Kohr will take the time
>to read 'Vietnames Gulag' and notice the Big Difference
>between the Evil S.Vietnamese Police State where Dissidents
>could get Access to the 'LiberalMedia' and seek legal appeals.
>
>Unlike the Correct Thinking, Forward Looking, Progressive
>Policies of the Communists, who understood that Dissidents
>suffered from 'Mental Illness' and needed to be 'cured.'
>
>] Monte
>] (War mongering baby killer and village burner that I am)
>
>Technical Hit there Monte, the term is:
>
>WarMongerBabyKiller[tm]
>
>A wholely owned, Registered Trademark of
>
>WarMongersAreUs[tm] The Leading Edge Purveyors
>of DeathMerchants Inc. the world over.
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>ps: why is it that Lobbing Mortars into the Hamlet
>market place on market day is a form of Revolutionary Justice.
>{especially if it is a soviet made 82 or 122mm....}
>
>But when Brutal Vicious WarMongerBabyKillers[tm] have
>a round fall short, this is a Clear Indication of their
>Genocidal Racist Intentions....
>
>
>
>-- 
>Modern Day Problems:
>
>just because you may NOT have root on your machine
>does not mean I do NOT have root on my machine!!!!

-------------

I am stunned to know that you did get the book. If someone can read that
they would know what the fate of a sympathizer. This shows that what we
base on to put on debate is real and painful. Alas, Doan van Toai, why
did you make me and your fellows in 1972 heart-broken ? You have failed
our trust. Toai, do you hear me ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:04:01 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov11.104326.7595@samba.oit.unc.edu> Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.161544.9606@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>> Would someone out there please
>>explain to us why Hill is even remotely qualified for either the EEOC
>>or the Court postion?

>Friedman (not an official oracle) wants to know why Anita Hill is
>qualified to take a higher position in an agency where she once
>worked.

Not a higher position.  The highest position.  I have worked at Oracle
for three plus years. I am not remotely qualified to run the company.
Most people on our management committee are not remotely qualified to
be CEO either.  

As before, I'm asking for some evidence that Hill is qualified to run
the EEOC.  "She once worked there" is hardly a reasonable response.

>Now I don't know whether she's the best person for the job,
>and I don't know either whether she's indeed ready for the job.  But
>I don't understand Friedman's "remotely".  Is there not even a remote 
>chance that someone working as a professional in an agency might several
>years later, and having taught courses in that field, meet his stringent 
>standards for promotion in that agency?   

Certainly.  However, that chance becomes more and more remote as the
targetted position gets more important.  Also, I demand a bit more in
the way of qualifications before I say whether or not she is remotely
qualified.

Anyway, I think the point stands - the original poster did not have
the faintest reason to suppose Hill to be qualified.

>After all, might not Friedman himself, when he no longer indulges in
>sophomoric titters about pubic hairs, qualify as a real oracle?

Miller, get a brain.  I work for Oracle Corporation.  I am not in the
fortune telling business.

Alos, I find your description of my original post as "sophomoric
titters about pubic hairs" to be kind of revealing.  Don't you think
it is important that some of Hill's former students are apparently
claiming that she inserted pubic hairs into their tests before
returning them?

Don't you think such allegations should be investigated before she is
given any important job whatsoever?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59937 alt.politics.clinton:17039
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:11:52 GMT

In article <22858@venera.isi.edu> allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) writes:
}I vote FOR legalizing drugs, under the following conditions.
}
}It will not be legal to advertise the newly legalized drugs.

Censor!

}Drugs sales will only be made through government run or regulated drug
}counciling programs.  The price of drugs will be very low, since their
}current high cost is due to the risk involved in selling them.  Drug
}users will no longer have to steal in order to afford their fixes.

Like marijuana now.  Right.

}A drug user must speak with a drug/job/education counciler on a regular
}schedule.

Fascist pseudo-scientific indoctrinators, all of them.

}Lawyers and others, who can afford illegally distributed cocaine
}so as to not be bothered by having to speak with a councilor will
}continue to be a problem, but that's ok, they don't have to steal
}in order to afford their fix, and maybe they'll die of an overdose
}and reduce the lawyer population (which will also be reduced due to
}the incredible lessing of drug related crime cases).

Bigot!

}Another problem which will arise is that ghetto based drug pushers
}will become unemployed, hence reducing the income level to that part
}of society. This is a harder problem to solve, but should be done by
}spending money on education and jobs programs, and not on this stupid
}idiotic war on drugs thing.

As if we aren't spending more money on education than ever before and
getting less benefit from it.  As if job training programs ever worked to
the net benefit of society.

}Put the drug mafia out of business.  Lower police costs.  Reduce the
}number of lawyers.  Lower home theft insurance rates.  Improve the
}quality of inner city life.  Eliminate CIA meddling in Columbia (and
}everywhere else).  Hire teachers, fire drug enforcement officials.
}Regulate drug use in a caring and educational manner, but LEGALIZE DRUGS!

Put the government mafia into the drug business, and accomplish all sorts
of good ends by inimical means.  Right.  This sort of thing is precisely
why Thomas Szazs wrote a chapter titled "The Lie of Legalization" in his
latest book, "Our Right To Drugs".


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58278 alt.rush-limbaugh:9061 alt.politics.elections:22698
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Neal Knox Update
Keywords: Firearms Coalition, NRA, Clinton
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:46:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


Nov. 4 update -- It's going to be a rough four years -- but not as
rough as it could have been.

Bill Clinton pulled so many votes -- in a record number cast --
that we lost many of our best candidates, such as H.L. Bill
Richardson and Tom McClintock in California.  And instead of Bruce
Herschensohn, we're saddled with Barbara Boxer -- as well as HCI
Board member Diane Feinstein -- as the senators from California.

With anti-gun Sen. Wyche Fowler either defeated or forced into a
runoff in Georgia, and anti-gun Sen. Terry Sanford defeated in
North Carolina, gun owners are probably one net vote better off in
the Senate -- despite pro-gun Bob Kasten having been defeated in
Wisconsin.

Whether that one vote gain on a pure gun vote will translate into
the ability to hold a filibuster remains to be seen.

It's a certainty that the intensity of the anti-gun attitude in the
Senate, particularly, is going to increase -- thanks to the
infusion of four rabidly anti-gun women.

In the House, Dave Gibbons of NRA tells me we gained a net 27 "A"
candidates, giving us theoretically almost 200.  With at least 103
new members in the House, a fourth are untested -- but I suspect it
won't be far into the new year before there is a major gun vote
test.

Those numbers and grades indicate that we're probably in trouble on
perceived popular bills like the Brady 7-day waiting period on
handguns, and in for a fight on military-style firearms.  

By no means did we achieve the Clinton-proof Congress that NRA was
hoping to build, but neither do we see all the anti-gun bananas
that Handgun Control Inc. wanted.

The anti-gun crowd isn't going to find it easy to pass the sweeping
gun confiscation and registration laws that they really want.  But
you can bet they'll be trying.

With Clinton in the White House we don't have to worry what he will
do.  That's the nice thing about a known enemy: there are no
surprises. -- Neal Knox
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59641 alt.politics.libertarian:1823 talk.philosophy.misc:2415 alt.individualism:5987
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:33:56 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov8.103716.21487@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1de1mjINN6rr@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}For example, anthropologists have studied division of game in many societies.
>}Usually the hunter and his family have the right to the choicest portions,
>}and the rest get to divide the remainder.
>
>This just seems like a variant on the Anglo-American common law rule of
>first possession.  The only contrast between it and the libertarian concept of
>it is that we'd think that the hunter would have the right to it all, a priori.
>Of course, contractual arrangements could alter this for things like this.
>
>Are you familiar with the libertarian legal theorist Richard Epstein's book
>"Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain"?  He proposes that
>these sort of arrangements can be rationalized by means of the principle of
>just compensation.

Nope.  I'd like to know how he defines "just compensation", and who he says
should decide it.

>In this case, one could argue that the hunter is compensated for his loss of
>the other parts of the animal by values provided by the rest of the tribe,
>thus at least implicitly recognizing his property right.

Why can't taxes be compensated for similarly by values provided by the nation?

>His theory is based upon common law and the takings clause of the 5th amendment
>to the US Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use
>without just compensation."  It's very powerful, although it approximates a
>libertarian system, it doesn't establish an absolute one.  Through it, he
>argues that transfer payments, progressive taxation, rent control, much zoning,
>and other regulation is unconstitutional.

I'd like to read his arguments, though I might not agree with his conclusions.

>He started out believing in absolute property rights, then decided that they
>had been and had to be conditioned by utilitarian considerations.

He and I might agree on some things then.  :-)

Mike Huben

"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
						Nicolas Berdiaeff
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics