Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ?
Message-ID: <7800697@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 14:55:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800697
Posted: Thu Nov 21 14:55:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 20:59:06 EST
References: <7800672@inmet.UUCP>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:inmet:7800672:inmet:7800697:000:1774
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 21 14:55:00 1985


>[Mike Huybensz  ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh]
>In article <7800672@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>> The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review"
>> of Nov 29, page 10:
>> "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country
>> has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or
>> 78.4 per cent.
>> ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since
>> 1980 has gone to women, not men."

>Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly
>hidden in the title.  Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your
>reasoned conclusion from this quotation.

Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu-
lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*.

Of course there are other factors involved than govt  policy,  so
the  conclusion  is merely an inductive conjecture. That is why I
added the (?).  But if you wished to accuse me of a logical  fal-
lacy, it should've been "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", rather than
"non-sequitur".

Instead, you interpreted my note as a blanket endorsement of  the
present  administration.  To dispel that impression (and I really
should not have to) let me list a few areas where I disapprove of
its  policies:  MX  ; abortion; death penalty; school prayer; re-
vival of detente; choice of welfare cuts; incoherent  mixture  of
monetarism and supply-side'ism; indiscriminate DoD funding; empty
rhetoric on terrorism. I could name many, many more.

Now please re-read your response calmly - and I know you can be
logical when you try. What do GI casualties have to do with
the text *or* the title of my note ? Watch that knee, Mike:
it jerked in mid-word! Right between Reagan- and -omics.

		Jan Wasilewsky