waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In the hopes of adding a little life to, what seems to be, the same old debates, I would like to add a few bits of info and ask for comments.  1) A couple days ago the headlines were splashed with stories of proof    that the North Vietnamese had held U.S. hostages after the war ended. 	Way back in today's newspaper (Page A7 of San Francisco Chronicle)    there is an article about the document that held the proof. 	[used without permission]  	"The document, which was discovered in the archives of the Soviet     Communist Party in Moscow, is a Russian translation of what is described     as a September 1972 report prepared for the Vietnam Politburo by General     Tran Van Quang, who is identified as the deputy chief of staff of the     North Vietnamese army."          [later on in the article after it talks about the claim of 1,205            Americans in North Vietnamese prisons] 	"Phong said the easiest way to prove that the document is a      fabrication is to review Quang's career. In 1972, he said, Quang was      not deputy chief of staff; he was the army commander in Military Region 4     in central Vietnam."  2) I heard on the radio that the Church of Scientology has filed for     bankrupcy becuase the employees of Cocolat , owned by CoS, filed a     class action suit against them for requiring the employees to pay dues    to become members of the Church. Anyone heard more about this?  3) Micheal Jackson went into business with Micheal Milken. No lie.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson "This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com settled into the situation and found my bearings. THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes) writes: >And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations, >this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.  It will be ironic in the extreme if Spector manages to uncover a government conspiracy and cover-up in this case. Maybe he'll posit a Magic Grenade that lit fires in three wings of the building at once.
On 20 Apr 93 13:34:03 GMT, Gary Piatt observed:  : First, the median does not imply that half of the men are : above and half below 7.3: it simply means that 7.3 is the mid-point : between the maximum number of partners and the minimum (which is most : likely zero).    Actually, the median *is* defined as the 50th percentile.  If the median number of sexual partners for men is 7.3, it means that  at least 50% of men have had 7.3 or fewer sexual partners, and at least 50% of men have had 7.3 or more sexual partners.  (Question: What is 0.3 of a sexual partner?  :)  To confuse matters more, take the following data set:  [5.0, 6.0, 6.0, 7.0, 7.0, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, 9.0, 250.0]  The mean (arithmetic average) of the above set of numbers is 29.4. The sample standard deviation is 73.2. The mode is 9.0. The median is 7.3.  -- Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama
>In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes >: >>>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives >on >>> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that >>> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watc >h >>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge >>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to   Even if Rodney King had come out of that car waving a gun and they  managed to disarm him, the police still had no right right to beat him senseless the way they did once he was on the ground.  If they  can't handle their jobs, they should be relieved of them.  Additionally, Anna Quindlan of the New York Times said it best (paraphrase): Many people bring up what happened before what is shown on the tape.  Here's what came before:  the 80's, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, racism,...
In a debate about the student government here at our university, a question was raised by one student senator:    "Why should I represent people who didn't vote?"  and by implication, this raises a different question:  "Why should I represent people who didn't vote for me?"  I feel that there are many good reasons that anyone elected to public office (in student government or any other government) should strive to represent ALL the people in their constituency (class of '95 or a geographical area, or whatever).    I would like some help from others in phrasing a reasonable argument on this topic.  Thanks.  Followups are directed to talk.politics.misc, but email is preferred.
In article <1qqikr$sd1@morrow.stanford.edu>, XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu ( writes... >In article <1993Apr17.033050.24901@pony.Ingres.COM>, >garrett@Ingres.COM (GREP A FRIEND) writes: >>In article <1993Apr17.023116.23031@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian  writes... >>>I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.  It sounds good, but in >>>practice it too often becomes tyranny, because there are too often >>>conflicting ideas of what constitutes "improving the human condition". >>>Far better to let people and their organizations pursue whatever goals >>>they think best, and let "the human condition" be improved by those who >>>are willing to do so without coercion. >> >>There will always be conflicting ideas on what constitutes "improving the >>human condition", that's humanity. You seem to believe that libertarianism >>will improve the human condition by lifting all constraints, and that >>people will have a better chance of improving themselves in that environment. >  >Let me try to put it another way.  Libertarians believe that an >unconstrained environment provides the best chance of solving any >problem because it maximizes creativity.  However, there is never >any guarantee that a really good solution will ever be found to any >particular problem.  "Utopia is not an option."  Utopia is a myth (although we can do a lot better than what we have today). But I think that you must pitch Libertarianism as a progressive agenda (ie You can do better under our style of system).  >>        I admire a lot of what the Libertarians stand for, but you >>guys are some of the worst salesmen I have ever seen. And when it comes to >>politics, you need salesmen whether you want them or not. >  >What we need are more people who agree with us, know something >about marketin, and are willing to both do that marketing and teach >others how to.  Are you in?  I'm flattered by your invitation, but I'm afraid you have the wrong person. Although I completely agree with your civil liberties agenda, I'm not  in support of your economic agenda. What I DO like about the Libertarian party is that you guys are so good at shaking up the tired ideas of the past. I encourage you guys to continue your crusade, but I'm afraid I can't ride along.  >  >>>Ian Sutherland >>>ian@eecs.nwu.edu >  >>"Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson >> come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com >  >/June  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson  come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com "The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: >Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare >a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control >the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that >they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and  >attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang >the doorbell.  Of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have staged the raid in the first place.  >The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked >assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they >expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who >would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up >in a tank and broken the door down on day one.  >The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by >ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police.    >If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing >the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could >hear it.  Napalming seems a bit redundant.  The Stupidity was in the BATF mindset 'We're from Washington We Know Better"  Execute Plan A: Storm the compound in a No-Knock - the locals are gullible rubes, who cares that they served warrents by knocking on the door.  Such an old fashioned, out dated method of Law Enforcement anyway.  Gotta have the latest Armament Technology, doncha know?  Sweet baby buddah - didn't these clown ever read "Dealing with Paranoids"?  chus pyotr   >Phill Hallam-Baker
arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:  >In article <1pprtvINNctl@aludra.usc.edu> sgoldste@aludra.usc.edu (Fogbound Child) writes: >>arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes: >> >>>In article <1993Apr1.164804.1105@Rapnet.Sanders.Lockheed.Com> babb@k2 (Scott Babb) writes: >>>>Jack Schmidling (arf@genesis.MCS.COM) wrote: >>>>: jac2y@Virginia.EDU (Jonathan A. Cook <jac2y>) writes: >>>>: :  >> >>[...] >> >>>>Why do you restrict your condemnation of racial strife to Israel? >>>>Do the situations in Bosnia, Tibet, China, etc. not merit your comment? >> >>>As far as I am aware, we have not sent close to $100 billion dollars to >>						  ^^^ >>				Let's not exaggerate.   >I notice you did not offer an alternative number.  Try this one on for >size..... by the year 2000, American taxpayers will have given Israel >one dollar for every star in the Milky Way Galaxy.  >I will let you look up the number.  OK, I admit I have no hard data on this. Why don't you help me with this? If you would compile a commented list of all grants, un-repaid loans (if any), and direct aid, I'd be very interested to see it. If you could give me references from, for example, Congressional Budget Authorization Hearings, I could look them up here and I'd be happy to post a verification of your data.  Otherwise, I'll try my hand at this, but unfortunately I won't have sufficient time available until the end of this month, so the results would be delayed.  Let me know if you're interested in doing this.  ___Samuel___ Mossad Special Agent ID314159 Media Spiking and Mind Control Division Los Angeles Offices
Sorry, but I just wanted to be the first hypocrite to say it. I hope I'm not too late. Has everyone been watching their local/national politicians?  Rick
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares....**PAID** Maternity leave...  F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. Compares....**PAID** Maternity leave...  ===================================================================  Duration of nationally provided PAID maternity leave in weeks, 1988  ===================================================================   ============================================  COUNTRY          WEEKS  COUNTRY        WEEKS  ============================================  United Kingdom      40  Germany           14  Finland             38  Ireland           14  Denmark             28  Japan             14  France           16 28  Spain             14  Italy               22  Netherlands       12  Norway              20  Sweden            12  Canada           17-18  Switzerland     8-12  Austria             16  United States      0  Belgium             14   Source: International Labor Organization, "Work and Family: The Child Care  Challenge," Conditions of Work Digest, vol. 7, February 1988.   ****************************************************************** From page 11 of:    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     _We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New       World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.       New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.      $10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -      [Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)]       ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.          This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The          facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But          ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.''
In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says: > >FURY OF MOTHER NATURE > >Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those  >of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy  >Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data,  Atomic Energy Commision - Hmm, they would say this.  The Earth may spew alot of substances into the atmosphere, but the quality  of your toxic output can easily make up for the lack of quantity.  Furthermore,  the planet is a system of carbon, sulfur and other chemicals which have been acting for billions of years, we are but newcomers to the system - we must adapt and control in order to bring about stability.  Also, two wrongs do not make a right,  so continuing our practices despite overwhelming data is just ignorance in (non)action.  >LOS NINOS >Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global  >warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in   Educated and open minded environmentalists do not.
As quoted from <c115184.734895755@assn119> by c115184@cs.UAlberta.CA (Merth Eric William):  >  > >In article <C4vBM1.Gs0@NCoast.ORG>, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes: >  > >|>As quoted from <C4vCtB.J1H@dscomsa.desy.de> by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker): > >|> > >|>> Isn't it wonderfull the way people can make the sadistic and indescriminate > >|>> murder of the Bader-Meinhof gang sound like altruism? > >|> > >|>Gee Phil, I'd remember where you are and that these people are monitoring the >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >|>net.  I'd also remember that they have about as much sense of humor as Ed >    ^^^ >  > Damn. It isn't Big Brother after all? And all this time I thought that all > those revolutionaries, while blowing things up and killing the odd > innocent person in the process, really did love all us proles. ('cause > _everybody knows_ that dialectical materialism will save you [even > if it has to get you killed first]). > What a fool I've been.   What you fail to see is that in order to make a nightmarish stew of psychosis and repression, you have to break a few eggs.  You the evil productive  elements in society, are those eggs....  Damn the spirit, full speed ahead....
In article <stevethC5nwnn.49t@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri tes: >In article <1993Apr18.001338.21323@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus. acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: >>>No social problem, however great, is worth destroying the freedom in America . >>>The destruction of freedom is never an answer to any social problem. >> >>You can't even walk down the street at night alone in America because of drug s. >>Freedom my ass. >> >>Ryan > >Why exactely can't you walk down the street safely?  It it because somebody >will jump out from behind a shadow, and, SELL YOU DRUGS?  Hardly.  Or mug me. >  On the >other hand, it's certainly possible that you are walking down the steet of >a bustling lawless part of your metropolitan area.  Lawless and bustling: read >underground economy.  Why must you pursue this fantasy that all crime is derived from "underground  economies".  >  There, it may not be a very safe place to be at all. >Unless of course you're there to buy some drugs... > >I explained how the WOD is a major cause of large-scale crime in America.  The >head of the Guardian Angles agrees with me: legalize drugs and watch violent  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Haaahaaaahaaaa  >crimes significantly decrease. > >As for me, well, I think I'll go take a walk tonight--alone.  I feel safe.  I >just hope the FDA/FBI/DEA/BATF isn't back at my apartment confiscating all my >property because they found my phone number written on a phone booth that was >also used by a drug dealer.   Yeah buddy, this happens all the time.  Tell me, HAS IT EVERY REALLY HAPPENED  TO YOU?   That's what I thought.  > In that sense, I don't feel safe.  I'm an honest, >law-abiding citizen (drug laws included, FTM), why is it that I fear the >government more than I fear criminals? >  Your foolish.  >Freedom MY ass.  This is NOT what the founding fathers (some of whom would be >thrown in prison under today's drug laws) had in mind.  All of these problems >you come up with pale in comparison to the fact that the very fiber of our >country--the US Constitution--is being destroyed.  What good would it do           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Must I ask again, what part?  >even IF the WOD actually reduced crime: we just created a new class of >criminals, headed up the gang's current leader: Bill Clinton.  The DEA, etc. >are private armies that answer directly to the president.  They possess >advanced weapons and survailance technology.  Does this sound familiar to >anybody? > >Do you support "Mein Furher Clinton"?  Hmmmmmm?  You seem to have come out >against the current adminstration: why are you eager to endow it with >even MORE power?  (Power of the most dangerous kind, too). >  All I ask is that drugs stay illegal.  I don't think it's too much to ask.
In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes: >In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for >>their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have  >>understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything >>against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning  >>signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh >>into killing the children. > >Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the >president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and >the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision. > The fact that Reno is actually taking responsibility (gee--that's a new one for a politician) is a new thing for a member of Clinton's administration. I actually respect her for having a backbone ( I never thought I'd say that about someone from that bunch).  The way I understand what happened is that she discussed with Clinton what was being planned for Waco.  Clinton didn't say no, so gave de facto approval for the operation.  Things got messed up, and a lot of people died horrible deaths.  (if I am incorrect about this, please  feel free to correct it.  This is just what I've been able to pick  up.)  I've just got a couple of questions about this whole thing. (1)  Why did the government feel they needed to assault that compound? (2)  Why didn't they try to flush them out in the first week of      this fiasco instead of waiting 50 days. (3)  Janet Reno jumped up to take responsibilty to take heat away      from the President.  Does this sound anything like what a couple      of Reagan's aides did?
In article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes: # Mr Cramer- #  # You are on one hand condemning the news media as; #  # "The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions" that # was your message subject I believe. #  # Then you turn around and actually take; From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, # April 15, 1993, p. B2:  #  # Male sex survey: Gay activity low title. #  # You even use such a title for the San Jose Mercury News- the Murky News. #  # Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around # and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory # doesn't it.  If you can show me that the Press-Democrat misrepresented the Guttmacher Institute's study, do so.
In article <1993Apr22.182545.29072@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes: > In article <1r51iiINN8p9@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > :In article <C5u9Ev.4tA@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes: > :> > :>B.B.C. world news service, on short-wave, originating out of London, > :>reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when > :>making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene > :>lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the > :>people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly. > : > :We're hearing it.  It sure rings true-- it's consistent in a way that > :mass suicide by fire is not.  This survivor is also saying that they >   > It rings true???? >  > There was a separate report that an overhead helicopter which was recording > the entire incident on video tape has a visual record of SEVERAL files > (I think the number 3 was mentioned) starting at different parts of the > compound.  Has this video been made public?  The FBI spokesman also said they  first knew of the fire when black smoke started pouring out, but later said that *three* different FBI agents saw B-D members starting the fires.  Also the FBI claims to have listening devices (bugs) in the compound.   Will they make public the tapes of what the B-D said?  > To me, this attempt to blame the FBI for starting the fire simply looks > like an attempt by a survivor to shift blame away from the B-D's. >  > I think it is a crock.  Well sealing the initial search warrent, keeping the media miles away, not letting the B-D talk to the public, making contradictory statements, not releasing the vidio & tapes are not steps to ensure public confidence  in their actions.
A person sees the front of their home is strewn with garbage. That person removes the trash, and sweeps the sidewalk. His next door neigh- bors have not. The person then approaches his two neighbors and talks to them about cleaning the front of their homes, and why it would be good for their own living conditions, and that of the neighborhood.    There's nothing wrong with holding your neighbors accountable for their actions. That is the basis for a viable, safe community.  Regards,