HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ling@watson.ibm.com (David Ling)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:38:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

I've seen all of the discussion about how employers should be free to 
hire/fire anyone at any time for any reason, and that employees should
"choose" not to work for companies that discriminate or are arbitrary,
etc. etc. etc.

I've looked at the e-mail addresses of those who write these posts
and have discovered that they are usually either students at,
faculty at or employees of University or University related institutions.
To these people I say, you haven't the foggiest idea what you are
talking about or about how the real labor market works. You are not
part of the real labor market. Your ideas are as useful to the rest
of us as a Catholic priest's advice to a bride and bridegroom before 
their wedding night.

Real people have families to feed, children to clothe, mortgages to
pay and real people for the most part already live in a world in which
corporations are arbitrary, capricious, and callous in their treatment
of their employees. I suppose it makes for good ideology to say an
unhappy employee should just leave a company if they are unhappy,
but unless you are willing to lose your home, consume your life
savings and perhaps forfeit your children's chances to go to college
you must wait until another suitable job opening comes your way.
Real people in the real world working for real corporations don't
quit their jobs on principle (unless they are very wealthy). Real
people try to get along as best they can in a world they have little
control over.
 
I'm fortunate to work for a company that has
(so far) been pretty fair in its treatment of its employees and its
respect for their rights. My wife has not been so fortunate. I seethe
with anger when I see the way she has been treated and it really burns
me up to hear these head-in-the-clouds, safe-in-the-University types
pontificate about how people in the real labor market should behave.
Go get a real job and see if things are quite so neat as you think.

David
From: poulson@cs.widener.edu (Joshua R. Poulson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:32:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Widener Univ. Dept. of Computing Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: lisa.cs.widener.edu

In article <1992Apr7.180924.2038@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>How many other suitable billionaires do you think we're
>going to find who can pass up both the PAC money and the government
>handouts to help them get elected?

Does this mean that Willliam H . Gates will be his running mate?  That's
an interesting ticket although I'm not impressed with Billy's management
style (and I did work for the guy a while back). 

The two of them together had better be able to put together the
electronic town hall... :)
-- 
Joshua R. Poulson (NIC handle: JRP8)       [Joshua R. Poulson@cyber.Widener.EDU]
Systems Programmer, Widener University     [poulson@cs.Widener.EDU]
"Try to be sensitive..." -- the Usenet Oracle Helpfile (send a mail
message with the subject "help" to oracle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
	<visser.702539448@convex.convex.com>
	<PMETZGER.92Apr6184039@snark.shearson.com>
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:53:00

In article <PMETZGER.92Apr6184039@snark.shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
   We are also pro choice, because we support the right of
   individuals to decide whether or not their wombs are to be put to use
   or not, and to decide whether or not to be a parent.

Not exactly true; the Libertarian party is still split on this issue.
I am Libertarian and pro-life because I oppose the initiation of force
against an unborn child to achieve social goals.  I recognize that the
unborn child has a right to life.  These are my opinions only and
posted solely to point out the fact that all Libertarians are *not*
joined at the brain-stem.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18146 alt.individualism:2443 alt.conspiracy:6325 misc.misc:2436 alt.activism:7683
From: arktik@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Ryan Daum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.conspiracy,misc.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Anarcho-Syndicalist and Anarchist mailing lists and/or organizations
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:34:30 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

I'm interested in contacting any sort of net.anarcho-syndicalists and 
net.anarchists out there. ce3kVq


Are there any mailing lists pertaining to this topic?  If so, please mail 
or post to one of the included newsgroups.  Thanks,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  arktik@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca -- Ryan Werner Daum -- "A man leaves his
----------------------------------------------------  impress on life and
 Opiate on LambdaMOO ... Epicurus on DikuMUD      --  outside of that 
 Citadels, TinyMUCKS                              --  there is nothing."
---------------------------------------------------- Jean-Paul Sartre
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.news-media,soc.rights.human
Subject: Candidate Larry Agran Excluded, Arrested
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:51:11 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: 08 Apr 92 09:38:04 EDT
From: Agran for President <75300.3112@CompuServe.COM>
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

       Regarding "tiny mayor" of a "tiny city," Irvine is one of the 200
largest cities in the United States.  And if they want to insult Agran's
height, well, their prejudice against short people only exposes their
bigotry.
       If they read Agran's biography, they'd see that he's accomplished a
lot than just being a mayor.  And in any case, that's still a lot more
public service experience than some of the bozos running for President (e.g.
Buchanan, Perot).
       The statement that "117 people are running for President" is also
false.  The truth is that there were only four active candidates on the
Democratic primary ballot -- Agran, McCarthy, Brown and Clinton.
       The suggestion that Agran get a crowd of 10,000 ignores common sense.
How can a candidate attract a crowd if the party and the national media
systematically denies him access to the voters?  Jerry Brown recently said,
"Why doesn't he get some people together and hold his own event?"  That was
the same rationale used by white bigots back in the 1950s to keep blacks out
of segregated schools -- "separate but equal."  The Supreme Court threw out
"separate but equal" because it was unconstitutional.  I guess Jerry Brown
didn't get the message.
       Regarding the statement, "It's THEIR party and THEY decide who is
included."  Excuse me, but the Democratic Party does not belong to Bill
Clinton or Jerry Brown or the Democratic National Committee.  It belongs to
the millions of registered Democrats across the country.  THEY are the ones
who should choose their party's nominee.  And the polls are showing that
most of them are quite dissatisfied with the "approved" candidates the DNC
is permitting them to hear.  The problem with the Democratic Party is that
it isn't democratic any more.
       Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 16:09:14 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM:
> To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
> against humanity.

we *knew* you'd come around eventually with regard to gay and lesbian
issues...  not that wasn't *really* so difficult, was it?  here,
suck on *this*, it'll make you feel better.
-- 
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
From: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:48:12 GMT
Reply-To: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: finess.corp.sun.com

>In article <1692@nic.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes:
>	On C-SPAN yesterday (Thursday) in a meeting of the Board
>of Editors of the New York Post, Jerry Brown indicated that he
>was willing to adjust the tax system by upping the VAT 1% in order
>to cushion or eliminate income taxes for those making under
>$15,000.

I _really_ wish Brown had put this into the original proposal. Does anyone
know if the Brown flat tax proposal would continue allowing _wages_ as a 
deductable expenditure? I read an article Brown had written on his flat tax, and
it wasn't clear to me that wages would be a deductable expenditure. If we were to
accept a 14% VAT and 14% income tax, this would mean that we could 
exempt wages of up to $16,000 per employee from the VAT and and allow a $4000 per
earner and dependent deduction on the Income tax(in addition to the rent/mortgage
deduction). This  would be an _enormous_ boon to industries that hire lots of 
entry level people and would take _millions_ of 
people off the tax roles completely. Now these folks would still be paying 
VAT, but it would mean the economies in rural and poor areas would get a 
big boost(or more accurately a relief from the current situation).
 
I applaud Brown for at least bringing this issue into the presidential debate.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17565 alt.society.civil-liberty:3332
From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Lib. prevention of pollution
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:26:45 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.233514.28115@cs.ucla.edu>, frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:

+|> You show that they're damaging your property by going to court.
+|> That's suing.  You go, *prove* that they're damaging your
+|> property and *prove* that you are owed such-and-such damages.
+|> That's how it is now - and it's tough to do, when you (an
+|> individual) are facing a high-powered corporate law team.
+|> Good luck.

+Individual? With millions or more often billions of dollars at stake, and lawyers
+who get 20-30% of damages, lawyers in polluted areas will be BEGGING the
+residents to let them file a suit for them. How many lawyers do YOU know that
+would pass up that kind of money.

Lots.  Top law school graduates go into corporate law and end
up working for firms with corporations as clients.  These
firms are *not* going to take on your pollution cases.  The
lawyers that do take on the case know that (a) there is nothing
in it for them if they lose, (b) the corporate lawyers have
more resources at their disposal, (c) it is difficult (if not
impossible) to assess damages, especially for water or air
pollution where multiple companies are contributing to the
pollution.  The corporate lawyers will simply delay the case
until the citizen groups run out of money and have to drop out.

How did this thread get on so many newsgroups?  Did I do that?
Sorry.  It is now off of misc.taxes and alt.politics.elections.
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tax rate on poor > Tax rate on rich
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:15:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr13.112412.928@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	You fail to mention that payments from social security are also indexed
>this way for payouts (the more you make the less you get).  SS is a pyramid
>scheme, of course the people paying into it are going to get burned.
>
>Brett

Used to be.  Today the social security taxes are pooled with the general
fund and used to partially offset tremendous deficits.  
"social security" tax has come to be just another tax into the general
fund.  As such is is extremely regressive.
-Ted
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17362 soc.men:8173 soc.women:8736 alt.rush-limbaugh:1095 alt.politics.correct:3609
From: serranrj@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (Robert J. Serrano)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:30:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.163019.13460
Reply-To: serranrj@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

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.
>
>  The thesis of [June Stephenson's "Men Are Not Cost Effective"], which
>  was published in October, is that men are bankrupting the country by
>  the cost of their incarceration. Nationwide, she said, 50,000 men are
>  added to prison populations each year, and males account for 93 percent
>  of all people incarcerated. According to the Criminal Justice Institute
>  of New York, approximately 800,000 prisoners occupy the nation's prisons.
>  The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that it costs from $12,000 to
>  $24,000 per year to house an inmate.
>
>  Stephenson believes that problems having to do with being born male are
>  to blame for rising inmate populations--not poor housing, bad schools or
>  single-parent families, as others have suggested.
>
>  "I'm not saying all men are criminals. But most criminals are, in fact,
>  men."
>
>  She proposed that men--not women--should bear the cost of imprisonment,
>  perhaps through a special tax.
>
>  According to Stephenson, women outnumber men in only two of 25 crime
>  categories listed by the U.S. Department of Justice--runaways and
>  prostitution.
>
>  "Boys are just geared for action," she said. "That's the testosterone."
>  --

I don't know how many people on this group read soc.culture.african.american
but I can tell you that this Napa author has been very busy of late, having
written at least two books of the "Not Cost Effective" type ("Blacks are Not
Cost Effective" and this one).  Surprisingly enough, both say exactly the same
thing except substituting Blacks and Men.  Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

						Robert J Serrano
From: mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble)
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:46:00 GMT

>>>  "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>>>  by Charlton Heston
>>

I missed most of the discussion on this. Does this refer to a book,
speech, or newspaper article? If one of the latter, could someone 
please post it (or part of it). I would like to hear what the man has
to say, believe it or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Christian Struble	   |  To shield people from the consequences   |
|  Mechanical Engineering  |  of their own folly is to fill the	       | 
|  University of Houston   |  world with fools  		       |	
|  mece3d@jetson.uh.edu	   |    	Herbert Spencer		       |	
------------------------------------------------------------------------	
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16946 ca.politics:3307 ba.politics:2568 alt.politics.homosexuality:1730
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:20:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA

soc.motss removed. 

In article <w265HB9w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
:gnn@manray.Berkeley.EDU (George Neville-Neil) writes:
:
:> Out of the mouths of babes...  Do you yet realize how this truth
:> applies to you ?? 
:> 
:
:
:Think of this carefully: Homosexuals are incapable of creating
:life.

How origional - and wrong.

:This is a relatively trivial exercise for straights.

Yes - very trivial.  You have the inaliable right to breed this
planet into oblivion.

:Go home.

soc.motss is a 'home' of sorts and you are not welcome there.




     Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent, pn400}!uswnvg!dfpedro.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18580 alt.activism:7837 misc.headlines:3485
From: dmcclory@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Daniel McClory)
Subject: Gun Control, Militias
Summary: Some questions about Congressional control of militia
Keywords: Gun Militia
Organization: Kent State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:27:09 GMT

I've read some of the recent posts concerning gun control, and I have been
wondering about many of the Constitutional issues involved.  Please consider
me a concerned citizen, and not a liberal or conservative on this matter.

Allow me to pose a few questions:

	- Are all citizens of the U.S. members of the militia?
	- Is one of the purposes of the militia to overthrow an unjust
	  government?
	- Is the Congress responsible/permitted to control the militia?
	- If the Congress is allowed to control the militia, and if one
	  of the purposes of the militia is the overthrow of an unjust
	  government, aren't these two ideas contradictory?
	- If the Congress is allowed to control the militia, shouldn't
	  it have the authority to legislate which weapons are 
	  appropriate for the militia to use?  Might this include a
	  ruling that handguns are inappropriate and are therefore
	  outlawed?
	- If we are all members of the militia, and if we are under
	  the control of Congress, shouldn't the Congress be actively
	  promoting the militia to arm itself with the most militarily
	  effective weaponry?  In other words, shouldn't we all run out
	  and buy assault rifles?
	- What is to prevent the Congress from requiring that all members
	  of the militia regularly undergo training in firearms use?
	  Those who refused to comply would no longer be considered
	  members of the militia.
	  
Just a few questions that have bothered me for a while.





-- 
          Daniel McClory               
	  Kent State University        
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:13:25 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

[...]
>Well, Thomas just voted with White, Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens to
>quash a child pornography conviction obtained through a six-year 
>entrapment effort.  That's the second time he's dissented from Scalia;
[...]

One explanation is that Thomas votes with Scalia except that Thomas
  - votes against white supremists (case 1)
  - votes for porn (case 2)

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17303 alt.activism:7355
From: cts@dragon.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: AGRAN, CLINTON, and Free Speech
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:41:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited

In article <9204061844.AA02014@mssun6.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> 
> I see that not only was it not Agran but "his supporters" -- but in
> fact _Fulani_ who disrupted Clinton's speech. My comments about trying
> to excuse the black-listing of Agran *were it* Agran supporters, I've
> already made here.		-Harel
> 

Keep in mind that George Bush had nothing to do with the Willie 
Horton ad... it was "his supporters".  Yet, you have held, over and
over, that this ad was improper, to put it nicely.  Can't have it
both ways;  same standards apply.

[text deleted] 
> 
>        Harel, you should point out that Lenora Fulani's disruption of
> Clinton's appearance in Harlem was not approved nor sanctioned by Larry
> Agran.  We did not know about it in advance, we condemned it after it
> happened, and we told NAP afterwards that we did not want them conducting
> any protests on our behalf.  We are not associated with the NAP, and our
> relationship is restricted solely to the issue of ballot access.

After watching her performance on CNN, I can see why.

>        I'll quote from the Burlington (VT) Free Press, 3/30/92:
> 
>        The issue of whether mainstream candidates have excluded Agran from
> the presidential campaign erupted Saturday at a speech by Arkansas Gov. Bill
> Clinton, also a Democratic presidential candidate, at Harlem Hospital in New
> York City.  New Alliance candidate Lenora Fulani stood on a chair and
> demanded that Clinton do more to include Agran in debates.
>        Gary Chassman of Burlington asked Agran's opinion of the incident.
>        "I expressed my opposition to those tactics," Agran said.  But he
> also complained about his lack of access to national media.
>        "I'm for enlarging free speech rights and giving more people the
> opportunity to speak," he said.  "My rights, in that regard, have already
> been curtailed."

Now, tell me, how is it interfering with Agran's right to free speech? 
Just because no one chooses to listen, including the media and the 
mainstream canidates, does not deny one free speech.  I'm sure that if
Agran showed up at the media offices, checkbook in hand, he could
obtain whatever space he could afford or his backers were willing to
buy for him...  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill Clinton's daughter
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:42:15 GMT

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>In article <92107.125841MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>|> >
>|> >National Review, like most opinion magazines, also has some humour in
>|> >it. They make fun of all sorts of things. So what?
>|> 
>|> Let me get this straight. The National Review, a gigantic political
>|> magazine, teases a twelve-year-old schoolgirl in print over her name, and
>|> you don't see anything wrong whatsoever?

>Sigh. NR was teasing Hilary (as they said, "Pillory Hilary") over her choice of
>names. And no, I don't see anything wrong with that. Now, if they had criticized
>Chelsea Clinton for something, I would see your point. 

>|> 
>|> Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a fundamental difference in
>|> world-views here. The word "yawning chasm" could be used in this context.

>Does the phrase "sense of humor" strike a bell? No? I thought as much.

Yuck, yuck, yuck. 8^(

I think anyone who thinks Dan Quayle is the best choice to be first in line
to suceed the president has a very perverse sense of humor. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL 	  is a bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
CLARKSON '95
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson

			

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc