waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Patrick Townson <ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu> writes: >So ... the Jury will be making its announcement at 7:00 AM Saturday >morning Pacific Time .... 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Why such an ungodly >hour? > >Maybe by making the announcement at 7:00 AM on the west coast, >they figure all the rioters will be asleep, giving the troops >time to move into place.   Since the actual verdicts were not known by the authorities, it was smart not to allow "Friday night for fighting" (sorry, Elton) and to seal them for this morning.  Also, it allows for maximum daylight to wear down and frustrate any potential troublemakers, as well as give more preparation time.  >I guess we can look forward to a weekend of rioting, eh?   Are you a local news intern? (-;  >The Mayor of Los Angeles, in a press conference about 3:00 AM >Saturday morning, ...  Actually, that was 8 PM 'cos it was shown live on our 11 PM news and cut into CNN's 11 O'clock Sports (sorry, but I didn't watch the Devils-Islanders game!  No SportsChannel ...).  >Meanwhile, following the announcement of the jury's verdict, the >judge, jury and assorted court personnel will be evacuated from the >building via helicopters landing on the roof of the courthouse. They >can't  even walk out through the front door with their heads held >high.   We had cutovers to LA's KNBC on our WNBC, and I didn't recall this detail.  But I'll not comment further on that ...  >Won't the rioters have a surprise waiting for them when they wake >up later today!  A net-contact in L.A. tells me that the alert will remain over this weekend, as some elements may find excuse over the not-guilty verdicts on three of five charges (the aiding-and-abetting).  Those acquittals seem to balance out the fact that Rodney King himself was not any kind of angel that night, speeding and fleeing et al.  However ...  Another consideration is any street celebrations over the two convictions on the excessive force charges (Koons for incompetance, and Powell for overreacting --- both guilty as heck even from the view of NYPD cops interviewed) that might get out of hand. )-;  Also, some elements may take the acquittals as an excuse to challenge the cops (a dumb move, obviously).  And, Koreans are still scared and certain people are really mad over how they have armed themselves in the last year.  A Commander from Nassau, Long Island was questioned about how his people would have handled Rodney King, and he said "We'd have let him roll around in the dirt 'til he got tired, then handcuff him".  gld
In article <VEAL.731.734985604@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: >In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@ alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:> >>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes: >> >>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they >>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible >>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they >>have in Europe) >>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate >>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give >>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform,  > >       The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase. >There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase >incrementally. > I was a graduate student in the early 1980s, and we had a conference on  Reaganomics where Jerry Jordan, then a member of the Council of Economic  Advisors, was a speaker.  I had the pleasure of driving him back to the  airport afterwards, and since taxes were the main topic of discussion I  thought I would ask him about the VAT.  I have favored it for these reasons  you mention, that the income base is too hazy to define, that it taxes  savings and investment, that it is likely to be more visible.  He agreed,  and reported that the CEA at that time was in favor of VAT.  So why not  propose it?  I asked.  He replied that the Reagan White House feared that  the Democrats would introduce VAT *in addition to* the income tax, rather  than in lieu.  Better not to give them any ideas, he said.  Pretty prescient.  >       (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of >Europe's that makes it "visible?") > Yes, any Canadian readers, please tell us if the tax is displayed on price  stickers (I'm relatively certain it is not in Europe).
In article <1993Apr17.093826.5227@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes: > In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> >      rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: # #Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men,  # #because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and  # #with social pressures, probably would at least try. #  #    Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months* # ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show, # up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must  Cite a survey, other than the obviously bogus Kinsey studies.  # be an even *larger* percentage of people who have had homosexual erotic # fantasies.  But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we # say about these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated # gay potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or, # more accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social # sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual. #  #    Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.  I can't speak for Kaldis; but "force of religion and social sanction" played no part in my sexual preferences.  Neither had much influence on me as a teenager.  # elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)
> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at  > the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior  > Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?    > Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers  > get brought out.  Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops), who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the density of the crowd in small regions.  These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers, so as to justify bigger budgets.
johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes:  >Nigel Allen (ndallen@r-node.hub.org) wrote: >: Here is a press release from the California Department of Insurance. >:  >:  California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to >: Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies >---------------- >I may be a little dense but I would have thought that protecting consumers >from scam insurance companies would be the prime objective of something  >called the Cal insurance Commission. If they aren't accomplishing that now >then why do we need them?  Very simple.  An 'Insurance Commissioner' is a bureaucrat - a regulator. It is his/her duties to make rules to enforce laws.  He/she cannot make laws.  If there is no law that covers a specific subject, say scam insurance companies, a regulator cannot create one.  So they have to go to a proper legislative body to get such a law enacted.  For the California Insurance Commissioner, there are two possible legislative bodies:  the California State Legislature and the U.S. Congress.  We all know how little the California State Legislature accomplishes, esp.  along the lines of insurance reform legislation (negative movement).  So Garamendi wants the feds to do it, because: (a) he has a better chance of getting a federal law through, and (b) since many of the scam companies work across state lines/national borders, it is better to have a law that reach out into other jurisdictions.
In article <mattm-140493165729@mcmelmon.apple.com>, mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes: >  > Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Anyway, I was under the impression that the Marines > in question invited Clinton down for the same treatment.  While a > bar fight is a bar fight, threatening the Commander in Chief seems > a rather unprofessional thing for a professional soldier to do... >  > Also, it appears that two of the three Marines have some sort of charges pending against them from another fight they were in a week before.  Interesting.  Frank   --------------------------------------------------------------------------  Frank R. Chloupek  CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu  Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University (Not just any Ohio State University)
In article <01APR93.17160985.0059@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:  > Mark Anthony Young:  >> PPS: Many Americans have a "special legal status" based on "a mere >> accident of birth".  Only people born in the US can become president >> of the US.  And since Parliament could theoretically replace the Queen >> with _anyone they want_ (even a "ferigner") US law is in one dimension >> more restictive than UK law as regards birth privileges.  > This is not just theoretical.  Note how "ferigner" William III was > imported from Holland to kick out local boy James II, [...]  Which provided the basis for the denoument of the film which introduced Errol Flynn to the world.  (Love interest was Olivia de Havilland, who went on to appear with Flynn in 7 more films.)  [Exercise for non-old-movie buffs: what film was this?] [Exercise for old movie buffs: what were the 7 more films?]
In article <1993Apr18.200255.13012@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... >In article <18APR199314034390@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: >>In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... >>>  :>:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal :>:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose :>:that never seems to occur?... :> :> :>I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant :>combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also, :>they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable :>society anyway.  :  :And the reason that the Soviet Union couldn't achieve the ideal of pure :communism was the hostility of surrounding capitalist nations...Uh huh. :Somehow, this all sounds familiar.  Once again, utopian dreams are  :confronted by the real world... >Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM       Steve,  you're the one who suggested that a failed government should be an  ideal proving ground,  I never felt that way in the first place.  Quite the  contrary,  I think a better proving ground would be someplace that already had a governemnt that would prevent outright acts of agression,  yet had a strong spirit of individualism and initiative.  Someplace like... Texas :-)
In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Clayton Cramer writes: >#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, >#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that >#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general >#male population.   > >Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing >to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more >willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly >promiscious)?  > >I didn't think that you did. > >-- >-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia  It is obvious that Mr. Cramer has the 'ability' to take the 'leap of faith'. I have listened to several of the men involved in this study, and even they claim that the men involved will not 'tell the whole truth'.  I put little value in extrapolating from these types of 'studies' or 'surveys', they have limited subsets of individuals, and there is alot of skewing due to improper selection methods, and the bias of the people involved in the studies on both sides- subject and researcher.  Would you admit to be part of a group that was not very well liked?  Would  you admit to having had sex with other people at some considered abnormal rate (this applies to heterosexual men).  In fact, as one gay man and one straight man put it, "men lie about the number of partners, because that's the thing to do"- our culture for the male almost requires this type of response.  It may seem harmless and silly, but carries a large emotional and mental price tag.
In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes: >>I would be upset that, although abortions would continue, they would be >>a lot more expensive for the rich, and a lot less safe for the poor. > >So now things are supposed to be legal just to keep their cost down >and the safety factor high??    In the case of victimless crimes yes, I think so.  Think about it.  If I rob or beat up or rape or kill someone, it's very clear to anyone not a sociopath that I've done something immoral.  On the other hand, if I smoke grass or have sex with a consenting adult in a manner illegal in that state, the morality or immorality of that act is merely a lifestyle choice; it doesn;t clearly hurt anyone else.  IMO, if such an act doesn;t hurt another person it should not be interfered with.  >Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower >the cost and definitely make them safer to use.  I think so.  And I don't use drugs, outside of the legal ones (alcohol and coffee).
In article <1993Apr17.201310.13693@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes: >In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu ( David Smith) writes:>>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will  improve these kids' chances>>of getting another job in the future, but what  inner city kid would want to hold>>down just one more minimum wage job when  there is so much more money to be made>>dealing drugs?   > >What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so >much more money to be made dealing drugs? > >Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner >city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids >are incapable of doing legitimate work?  I suppose the correct answer is not "family values"?  S'pose not.  Never mind.  Sorry.
In article <C5217t.J5B@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes: >details that you are seeking, is that the Grahm-Rudman budget controls >were working.  In fact, they were working so well that unless the feds >did something, they were going to have to start cutting pork. So Bush >and the Democrats got together in a Budget Summit and replaced >Grahm-Rudman with the now historic Grand Compromise in which Bush  Yea, it turned out that Gramm-Rudman was a sham to fool the voters into accepting the borrow-and-spend policies of the last 12 years.    >As it turned out, the taxes killed the Reagan expansion and the caps 					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Anyone can expand the economy by chargeing $3 trillion on their credit cards.   Big deal.  Deficit spending only expands the economy in the short term.  In the long term it shrinks the economy for numerous reasons. I would  have MUCH preferred that the taxpayers had that $3 trillion instead.   >The result is that Clinton now HOPES to reduce the deficit to a level  >ABOVE where it was when Reagan left office. > >Chew on that awhile.   If Reagan had kept his campaign PROMISE to balance the budget by 1983, there would have been no need for Bush or Clinton to raise taxes.  And all Reagan had to do was balance that puny Carter deficit.  Chew on that awhile.
Rejoice! The Streets of Amerika are much safer now that the Branch Davidians no longer have those nasty assault weapons. Your children will no longer lie awake at night wondering when the next Brand Davidian will attempt to shoot them from their rural compound.      Men, women, and children have been murdered by our great BATF, but the greater good has been secured for all.
In article <C5Dsyr.325@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:  |>|In article <C5BupH.FCp@dscomsa.desy.de> |>|hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: |> |>|>The filibuster does not make sense because the senate is elected as a last |>|>gasp assembly. It is designed to be the repository of doddery old men with |>|>no power. |> |>|       Phill, I don't know which Senate you're discussing, but it ain't |>|ours. |> |>Phill probably thinks that the US senate is supposed to be the equivalent |>to the UK's House of Lords.  The status of the House of Lords today is quite different to its status  in 1789.    |>Which just goes to show that where the US is concerned Phill still has no |>idea what he is talking about.  Maddison and Hamilton were both studying existing forms of government for several years before they wrote the federalist papers. That the US system is based to a considerable degree on the UK model is pretty widely accepted. At the time there was no other major country with a representative body. The French plebicite had been suppressed for 140 years and its restoration eight years later would mark the start of the French revolution.   After the UK system the major influences were the Dutch system and of course the classical systems. Nobody seriously suggests that Rome or Greece were  models though because the political systems of both countries were acknowleged disasters. The main lesson learnt from Greece was that unless a federal state was constructed a war would be inevitable. The Greek democracies were always fighting amongst themselves which is how Rome managed to invade. Had the federal consitution been rejected the new Roman empire in the shape of Britain would quite certainly have reabsorbed much of the colonies in due course. Moreover the states would have been at each others throats as soon as the Louisiana purchase situation arose during the Napoleonic period.
In regard to Woody's post, I thought I would remind him of something in the midst of his tirade against academia: As a member of the generation likely to pay for the crap Reagan and his cronies started with the deficit according to the brilliant Laffer curve (NOT!) I think we need to look with open minds upon any ideas which will allow us to directly address the problems of the gigantic federal deficit and debt and continue to allow our economy to expand--and I don't remember Woody and co. complaining about academia while Laffer implemented his policy, Stockman approved it while being fully aware the numbers not adding up, and Reagan completing the largest con job of the century which my generation and I will now have to pay for.
In article <1993Apr18.192508.12442@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: > In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:  > >|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to... > >|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..." > >|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I > >|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.  > >You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your > >own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted > >but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not > >a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That  > >poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages  > >in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who > >think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you > >really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting > >the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?  > Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general > welfare" in another portion of the constitution.  > Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect > taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL > WELFARE of the United States..."  > I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they > said in the preamble.  > ...But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense > in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional > functions.  Right?      James Madison, Federalist Paper 41:      "It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and      collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts,      and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the      United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise      every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common      defense or general welfare...      "No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which      these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a      misconstruction.  Had no other enumeration or definition of the      powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the      general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection      might have had some color for it; ...  But what color can the      objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by      these general terms immediately follows, and is not even      separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?  ...  Nothing is      more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and      then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. --
In article <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes: >>> where they belong. > >> Don't count on it, sweetheart. > >Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is >inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.   Wrong.  >Throughout >history, nature has always asserted itself.  Quite true. And evolution made "decided" that homosexuality had a place, otherwise it would have disappeared quite quickly. There are very few animals which do not exhibit homosexual behavior. It has been here before humans existed, and will be here after the human race has gone.  >Don't be so arrogant as >to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the >nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.  Quite true. 2000 years of religious idiocy have not changed the nature of man. You tried to rid yourselves of us for 2000 years and failed.
In <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes:  +>Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been +>better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?   After the seige began:  Surround the place with Razor wire and then let them sit.  Do not have daily press conferences, do your best to keep things out of the press.   As things get more and more miserable inside, one of two things is going to happen:  	1. People will start coming out.  	2. They will commit suicide in mass at some point.   The thing to remember about (2) is that hysterical situations and "assults" play into the hands of a "leader" who has picked this course.   Its much easier to stampede people into something like suicide if there is gas coming in and bullets in the air.  Let them be hungry and miserable for longer and longer and it will probably be more effective.  	The "possiblity" that they would all kill themselves at some point would not bother me in the least or alter tactics.  If people are going to take their own lives, the best you can probably do is prevent yourself from giving them the opportunity or an excuse to do it.