waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:  >Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would >be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.  As a libertarian (with a small l) who voted for Clinton, I think that he should abolish the Selective Service and the draft.  If his conscience forbade him to go to war in Vietnam, it should forbid him to perpetuate this system of government-sanctioned slavery.  >Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf. >The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there >is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing >the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail >getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class. >Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get >Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.  If our government would pay attention to SERIOUS domestic issues (the ECONOMY) and choose to stay out of other people's wars (Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia), we would not be in this fix.  An anyway, couldn't the jobs be replaced by improving our domestic situation?  (I'm not for continued deficit spending, but if Clinton and Congress want to spend, I'd rather they improve the  infrastructure than fight other people's wars.)  >In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station >and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being  >required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships. >The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down >a pork happy Congress.  A novel idea:  Getting away from naval bases, what about refurbishing decommissioned Air Force bases as airports?  This would be SO much cheaper than building them from the ground up (Denver's new airport is one of the  most appalling examples of pork-barreling and cronyism I have seen in my lifetime).  Even if no more airports are needed, I'm sure Bill Gates or Ross Perot would LOVE to have their own private airfields, and the money from their purchases could be applied to the public debt.  >Jon Dunn<
From article <C5n90x.EsJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy): > In article <15407@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:  > #There is a big difference between running one's business > #affairs, and actively ripping people off.  > And charging homosexuals more becuase people think that AIDS is a "gay > disease" is actively ripping people off.   Really?  I thought that insurance companies hired all of their actuarial staffs to determine the risks correlated with all groups of people, and that gays are more likely to have AIDS than are those of other sexual orientations. If I am wrong about this correlation, please correct me.  My auto insurance company charges me up the wazoo because I am a young male with a very high performance car.  I always thought that this was based on NHTSA and other statistical data, rather than bigotry and hatred for young men with fast cars.  Of course, with the proper government intervention, we could force the insurance companies to pretend that young men with fast cars are just the same as everyone else...
Doesn't seem like those responsible for the assault were very concerned about the welfare of the children inside.  Seems like they were more interested in flexing their muscle before the media.  My reasoning? Just ask yourself this one question:  Suppose the scenario was slightly different and we had Chelsea Clinton being kidnapped by terrorists, holed up in a compound for 51 days. Do you think Clinton, Reno, the FBI, and the ATF would be so eager to use a show of force?  Nuff said.   --  Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes: |>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the |>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.  |I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been |convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite |sufficient.  What evidence are you aware of. What was reported in the media, or all of the evidence that was presented at the trial.  This sounds to me a lot like the first Rodney King 5 trial. A bunch of people who saw 10 to 15 seconds out of a several minute long video, decided that they knew more than people who had sat through a two week trial.
Announcing the Trincoll Journal                                                        Trinity College's Paperless Publication  The Trincoll Journal is an interactive magizine written in Hypercard.  This publication offers a wide variety of information concerning the "Trinity Campus", and the Greater Hartford Area. In addition the Journal also provides a unique forum for opinion and expression.  We would like to invite the Internet community to participate in the creation of this publication by submitting Articles, Art Work, Events (for the Greater Hartford Area only), and anything else that you think is interesting, to the Journal each week.  Articles may be written about anything as long as they are written well!  We are also interested in mirroring Newsletters and other information not easily accessible to non-intensive Macintosh Users.  The weekly deadline for submitting Materials is Wendsday 10:00pm (Eastern Standard Time). Please send all submissions to: Journal@mail.trincoll.edu  To receive the Journal each Week send a mail message with the words "Subscribe Journal" as the subject line to: Journal@mail.trincoll.edu. Please include Full name and instituion in the body of text.
UJSNYDER%MSUVX2%MEMSTVX1.BITNET@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu writes: > >There is never any mention of how much working Canadians have to  >pay in taxes for their "free" health care system.    Oh, *really*???  >I know that more than 50% of an average daily worker's salary goes >towards taxes in Canada mainly because of this "free" health care. >It looks like we are pretty lucky so far.  I know that when working in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, I was aware that I was paying for health insurance - e.g., in Toronto, OHIP fees were listed seperately on my pay stub.  While I'm not the only Canadian who favours lower taxes and cutbacks in spending, health insurance isn't on the table.  See our polls ... A better one might be the July 1st polls conducted for Macleans (our major English newsmagazine) by Decima Research ... Decima president Allen Gregg is considered one of the world's top poll researchers, and Mulroney's Conservatives have relied on him to keep in power in the face of impossible election situations.  I haven't had a chance to see this year's version due to our library, but previous ones before the Americans started their assault and disinformation had shown satisfaction at 97% and switching to an American all-private system had support within statistical noise.  The Decima polls are considered definitive.  Even the new Reform Party, a breakoff of traditionalists from the Conservatives with a mildly "libertarian" faction, hold our public health insurance as an untouchable but that just a few people have to be reminded that it's not free (the average Canadian/European is more fiscally naive than their American counterparts on issues like these).  Personally, I feel that the universal health insurance approach used in Canada, France and Germany -- paying to private health providers in a nominally free market not unlike America's, minus HMO's -- depends a lot on values in those societies different from the U.S.  The basic health needs for life are not viewed as market, but the insurance does allow the market to address that -- basic health care is not viewed on the level of ownership of a VCR as Americans would see it.  Plenty of room is left for expenditure of private funds as extra insurance or as  >Lastly, there were noises about how the Canadian system was not >containing costs, but, in fact, their system is currently bankrupt.  Please explain this one, hopefully in a way that Canadian readers besides myself can understand and concur ...  gld
In article <1qf2kqINNrkd@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes: > In article <15320@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > |>In article <1q4k3bINNe6k@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes: > |>> In article <15307@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # |## |#2. Professors get summers off; industry employees don't. # |##  # |## What professor gets the summer off ?  The primary purpose of a professor # |## at a university is to publish.  Teaching is secondary.  The summer # |## is when professors are able to do the research required for their # |## papers. # |# # |#I'm told by my advisor that only at some universities is publishing # |#the primary emphasis; many professors in the Cal State University # |#system don't publish at all.  Those that prefer teaching are under # |#no pressure to publish. # |# #  # When discussing and issue, it helps that all participants use the same # definitions, although this rarely occurs on Usenet. #  # When I use the term "university", I think of an organization that has # a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD program.  I believe that Cal State schools # do not.  I call them colleges.  UC schools are universities.  At a univeristy # the number one goal is to publish.  Cal State University system offers bachlors and masters degrees.  The Ph.D. is not offered, because of opposition from UC.  # At the Cal State schools, do the professors you speak of have PhDs?  At  Nearly all the professors have PhDs.  I haven't had a professor who didn't, though my wife has had a couple of professors with just an M.A.  A friend had an instructor who didn't have a degree at all, but because he had been Minister of Culture for the Black Panthers, he was teaching anyway. He had a bad habit of usually not showing up to teach the class, and finally quit in disgust at the racism of a university that expected him to show up to teach.  # a university you have professors with PhDs and then Teaching Assistants (TAs). # TAs were the slave labor, graduate students who got their tuition paid, and # a few hundred a month for living expenses in exchange for doing all the grunt # work.  The professors taught the lectures, with 100 to 500 students per class, # then the TAs taught the labs, with 20 to 30 per class. #  # Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)  At Sonoma State University, typical class size is 20 to 30 per class. Teaching is definitely more the goal, and sometimes, it actually happens. The best professors at Sonoma State U. are equivalent to the best  professors I had at UCLA and USC.
In article <1993Apr15.215912.1807@martha.utcc.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: >In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes: >>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes: >>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C >>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes: >>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling >>>>his so called stimulus package. >>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free >>>>immunizations for poor kids. >>> >>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to >>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents >>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done. >> >>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health >>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give  >>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services >>    delivered to their doorsteps. > >       I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into >problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even >when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe >that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side- >effects, and bad reactions scares them.)        The immunization program is just a "useful first step". Among other     things, the money will go to pay for creating and maintaning a     a computerized "innoculation" database on all U.S. children.     (code-named Big Mother... Just kidding, the name will be Children     Defense Database, or something like that.)      Once the money is spent and little or no tangible results achieved,      the goverment will have to start knocking down doors, in some      neigborhoods, and bribe parents in others (probably the ones that      are paying kids for attending the school - what a fantastic idea!)  > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group >PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day >your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't >love me anymore." - "Weird Al"   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Anybody for carpeting in Bosnia/Serbia?  I mean like, carpet bombing          of Serbian positions?
In article <1993Apr5.040414.14939@colorado.edu>,  ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes... >	Again, the main point.  >	No human being not yet born can be bound to any contract.  Wrong.  It's possible to inherit a debt.  >	Further, no third party can be bound to any contract that >they are not a party to.  See above.  >	The Constitution *for* the United States is just such a contract. >No third party can be bound to it. Further, no human who is not specifically >mentioned in Article 6 and has not taken an oath or made an affirmation >to uphold said Const can be bound to uphold or obey it.  The Constitution is not a contract.  It is a statute.  Please,  Mr. Teel, or anyone, show me one case where the U.S.  Constitution, or any state constitution, is considered a  contract.  >	The Const is designed to limit the powers of government, not to >bind THE PEOPLE.  It is also designed to delineate the powers of the U.S.  government.  >	This argument will be presented in great detail in the next post.  I can't wait.  						Daniel Reitman  HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED  One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as  tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the  survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the  said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights  and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof  at the death of the other."
In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) wrote: >  >  > Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans >  >  [deleted for a very good reason which I'm sure you can guess] >  0. Enact a law that bans people without a sense of humor from    posting allegedly humorous items. If he did this, I think    his approval rating would go through the roof!  > Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993  This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists in your .sigs, folks!
In article <26VB3B9w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says: The word some sums it up, alot of scientist have concluded that without a doubt Global Climate will/is occur(ring) and should be dealt with by source reductions.  This includes making sure that the "price" of fossil fuels reflects their "true costs".
Didn't the new study asked "have you engaged in homosexual intercourse within the last two years" whereas Kinsey asked "have you ever engaged or thought about engaging in homosexual activity".  Sort of like the  difference between "did you have yogurt this morning" and "are you  allergic to lactose".  --                                                   --  Michal
SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It  was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of  quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final  stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers." In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer paying the full load.  These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.
In article <1993Apr5.193616.14521@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:     >Now let me get this straight. After a nice, long rant about     >how people need to take personal responsibility for their     >economic and social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals     >(such as me, I guess) are responsible for poor people's     >lifestyles? Tell me how that works--or do you think that poor     >people are just too dumb to think for themselves?     >     >There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family     >and support systems in general among this nation's poor.     >Somehow I don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at     >the top of any sane person's list.     >     >You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural     >revolution for a lasting change for the worse, try so-called     >"relevant" or "values" education. Hey, it seemed like a good     >idea at the time. How were we to know you needed a real     >education first--I mean, we took that for granted.  The 1960's generation were the most spoiled and irresponsible.  The Depression had create mothers and fathers that were determined that their kids would not want for anything -- going overboard and creating a nation of brats.  Consider the contrast between two famous events in July of 1969.  Apollo 11 and Woodstock.  Which group had large numbers of people that could not feed themselves and reverted to the cultural level of primitives (defecation in public etc.).  And which group assembled, took care of itself, and dispersed with no damage, no deaths, no large numbers of drug problems ....  --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
In article <9308@blue.cis.pitt.edu> cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch) writes: >The Clinton Administration wants to "manage" your use of digital >encryption. This includes a proposal which would limit your use of >encryption to a standard developed by the NSA, the technical details of  >which would remain classified with the government. > >This cannot be allowed to happen. >  It is a bit unfair to call blame the Clinton Administration alone...this initiative was underway under the Bush Administration...it is basically a bipartisan effort of the establishment Demopublicans and Republicrats...the same bipartisan effort that brought the S&L scandal, and BCCI, etc.
In article <C5p0Hx.39E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes: >In article <1993Apr18.001116.19872@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes... >>The difference in the litigation environment is reflected in the fees. >>  >>Lack of defensive medicine and near-absence of malpractice is really >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>why we spend less using the most expensive approach of pure insurance >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Then why do we really need national health insurance then?  >Wouldn't it just make more sense to find some way to cut down  >on the cost of malpractice insurance?  It would if malpractice and "defensive medicine" were the main factors in explaining spiralling US health care costs, but they aren't.  Although Gary is correct in noting that malpractice-related problems are greater in the US than Canada, they by no means account for the overall difference in health care costs.  (They do account for a somewhat larger portion of the difference in physicians' gross income in the two countries.)  Some facts.  Malpractice insurance and awards account for less than 1% of total health care costs in the US.  In 1991, according to a survey of  physicians conducted by a national medical journal physicians averaged paying 3.7% of their practice receipts in malpractice insurance.   Malpractice insurance premiums and malpractice awards peaked in 1985; they've declined significantly since then.  At the same time, health care costs have increased more than any period in history.  As far as "defensive medicine" is concerned, the AMA estimates that its total impact is about $7 billion per year.  That's about 8% of the total current INCREASE in health care costs -- and the estimate is from a group that could be expected to overestimate the impacts of defensive medicine on health care.  As small a problem as this is in the overall scheme of things, however, Clinton has been on record for a long time favoring an indemnification of MD's against malpractice suits if they follow procedures set by their specialties.  This would eliminate most, if not all frivolous suits while retaining the ability to sue for true malpractice.  jsh
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.
In article <C4y3DD.L1n@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes: >Anyone with any degree of sensitivity or awareness has to be   >concerned about the horrendous amount of "child abuse" that  >exists in this country. [...] > >The critical factor here is whether the sexual activity is "forced"  [...] > >When a child is "forced" there is often "damage", on the other hand, >"consensual" relationships are often found to be "positive experiences"  >for all concerned. [...] > >Roy Radow               roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy >North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample  Why all the quote marks, Roy?  I can see that they might be appropriate where there is a legitimate concern that the words are being distorted by context,  or that they have been appropriated Newspeak-style, but, reading your comments above, one might be excused if they assumed that you were claiming that "child abuse", "forced" sexual activity, and "damage" caused by this is non-existant or greatly overblown.  "Positive experiences", indeed!  -Paul Elliott (Member in good standing of the Optilink Mafia)
In article <C5trFx.B38@csulb.edu>, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: >>	Janet, some advice: go with the SEALs/Delta Force/Green Berets next >>time and talk nicely to the generals. >  >   This might be illegal without a very specific Presidential declaration > or even a change in law. In general (sic), U.S. military troops are not > permitted to be used for domestic policing operations.  	Do you mean besides the National Guard?  	Outside of military reservations?  	Besides national emergencies?