HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 (was: What happened to all the refe)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.180631.1250@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>[followups to co.politics]
>
>tc> Timonthy Cuffell
>sc> Shawn Copeland
>
>sc> This means that it is unconstitutional in the state of colorado to provide
>    state-wide or local protection against discrimination. [...]
>
>tc> Great.
>tc> Are you gay?
>tc> Yes.
>tc> You're fired.
>
>  Or, if companies/others protecting themselves from claims of discrimination
>  (usually by statistical means), enact quotas:
>
>  Employer:  "Are you gay?"
>  Applicant: "Yes."
>  Employer:  "You're hired, because we need 3 more."
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

First, if this amendment hadn't passed, nothing would happen.  There are no
quota systems in effect anywhere in Colorado, and it is unlikely that there
would anytime in the future, Amendment 2 or no Amendment 2, unless we the
people elected legislators which reflect our desire for quotas.  Extremely
unlikely in this state (no a bad thing), and if it somehow did happen, it
would reflect the will of the people.

Second, and most odious, is that is seems that Amendment 2 gives employers
a lot of power in a state where they have too much already.  You can be
fired for being gay.  It seems that 54% of all voters are willing to accept
this inequity.  I defy you, Mr. Strand, or anyone reading this, to prove
to prove to me you are not gay.  It's hard.  Hard enough that all an
employer has to do is suspect you are gay, and it's food stamp time.  I am
not gay.  But I have long hair, longish fingernails, a lot of pink clothes,
and do not make sexual overtures to the women where I work.  I am not
effeminant, or act in any stereotypical "faggish" way, but because I happen
to have a lot of pink dress shirts, I now have a legitamate fear of losing
my job under amendment 2.  And so do you and every other employed person
reading this.
-- 

-Tim Cuffel
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Limiting babies (was about taxes)
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.221520.22051@convex.com> rgordon@convex.COM (Rob Gordon) writes:
>In article <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>:	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>:	income have 3 kids????
>
>Some people value children over material items. 
>
>:
>:	People have to be held responsible for their actions - until they
>:	are held accountable for generating mouths to feed, I can't
>:	see subsidizing it!
>
>What do you suggest as the ratio of income to children? What should
>be the limit on the number of children I can have?

The limit is two children (in the appropriate units :-) ).

The present system of deductions makes sense for many people - with
more mouths to feed you get more deductions and presumambly this allows
you to feed these kids.  Unfortunately, there are some people who don't
use their deductions to feed said children.  Also, the present system
gives N deductions for N children which may be an incentive for large
families.  It would be tricky to cut off deductions above a certain
number as a method to decrease the desire for large families since some
people "inherit" dependents (adoption, grandparents, relatives, friends
[or as we say in Hawaii, hanai]) without creating them.

--
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: #2 - bad for business too
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:08:11 GMT

Well, it took less than a day for the first sign of an organized boycott of
Colorado business from outside the state, based on Amendment 2 passing.

This was predictable.  We've already seen what happened with Arizona and
MLK Day.  Amendment 2 is a major embarrassment to the state, and the rest
of the country isn't likely to let us forget that soon.

[cynicism++]
    Moreover, in the current depression, you look for ways to gain business
    advantage.  One way is to convince people to patronize your business
    instead of the other guy's.  What better way than to find a reason to
    boycott the other guy?  "Hey, you gonna buy from the rednecks in Colo-
    rado?  You hear what they did?"
[cynicism--]

This was also pretty stupid, for a state like Colorado (with such a strong
economic dependency on tourism, i.e., external business) to enact a
provision like #2.

[None of this is meant to belittle the importance of #2 on people's lives,
which goes much deeper than business success!  But I wanted people to think
about this additional effect of Colorado having just portrayed itself as a
bunch of closet bigots.]
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: alt.religion,co.politics
From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: Amendment two and the bible
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:29:22 GMT

jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

[...]
>I have to add my opinion to this (sorry .. couldn't resist. I know
>I'm gonna get flamed, but frankly: I don't care):
>How any intelligent human being can base his 'modern' views and morality
>on a book (of which I have yet to be convinved that it's not a work
>of fiction), that was written anywhere from 5000 to 2000 years ago,
>is pretty sad and incomprehensible to me. I mean, come on! Some of the
>stuff makes sense. I admit that. Don't kill. Don't steal. and so forth.
>But some other stuff, like not eating pork meat! Give me a break. I can't
>see WHY you would still follow that now. It made sense at the time, since
>there was not good way to keep pork fresh, other than eating it RIGHT away,
>and that it was prone to go bad quickly and contain worms and so forth.
>But nowadays? We eat pork all the time. That's because the stuff can be 
>held fresh and treated. End of discussion. Let's throw that outdated
>thing out of the bible. 
>If you threw everything out of the bible, that doesn't really apply to
>modern life anymore, then you'd have one hell of a skinny book.
>And the same goes for homosexuality. Who cares if someone once wrote that
>it's bad. It's a SIN. OOhh... That was someone's opinion at the time, and
>YOU have to go ahead and take it for law? Didn't they teach critical thinking
>in school? Let's take the bible apart logically and critically, and not
>much of a book will be left.
[...]
>-- 
> Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
> (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
>--------------------------------------------------

I think Jan has summed up my feelings exactly here.

My values and beliefs are BASED upon the Bible - that's the way I was raised.
As I got older and learned to use my own mind, however, I realized that a 
whole hell of a lot in the Bible just doesn't apply to the modern world.

Let's face it, a lot of the Bible is outdated, and shouldn't be used for
arguments about whether something is right or wrong.

Scott

--
J. Scott Farrow-Student SysAdmin/Programmer, University of Colorado at Boulder
Computing & Network Services, phone: (303) 492-4428, farrow@spot.colorado.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment Two - Shame On You, Colorado.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:06:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.175948.17993@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
>Particularly, I'm referring to the approval of amendments 1 and 2, and the
>no vote on amendment 6.

This is almost a strict Libertarian agenda, oddly enough. I think Clinton
over Bush is explainable partly by the strict Republican anti-choice stance
(as are a lot of the local state races unseating Republican incumbents)
and partly by the current bad state of the economy (which always makes
it tough for an incumbent President to win reelection).

I think government spending is way out of control. I voted for #1 and
against #6. I'm stunned by #2. We live in a state of closet bigots who
were mostly ashamed to admit they supported #2 (hence all the pre-election
polls showing it being defeated). There is bound to be a court challenge.

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: pcr@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Pablo)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: None of your damn Business.
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:35:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.194503.116@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>ag> Andrew Gerber
>ag> If Amendment 2 sticks, people can be fired or thrown out of their apart-
>    ments just because they are gay.
>
>  Taken at face value, this sounds bad, but if the apartment I'm renting is
>  actually in my own house, I should have the right to discriminate against
>  potential renters by any measure I choose. This was disallowed by the Boul-
>  der law, which was a mistake, IMO.

actually, boulder's ordinance allows churches, small
businesses, and people renting rooms in their home or
residing in a unit of their apartment building to 
discriminate all they wanted.  is that okay?

oh, and last i heard, amendment 2 won't go into the
constitution until january of '93, so let's stop saying
that the existing protective ordinances are "repealed."

                                         paul 

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund)
Subject: Re: Vouchers and school competition
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:06:06 GMT

In <1992Nov10.185641.11361@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:

>...  Does this low rate have any
>connection to the ability of a private school to avoid teaching
>handicapped students?  What about the ability of a private school
>to summarily dismiss recalcitrant pupils?

Alternately, perhaps these policies need to be rethought.  Too often
"mainstreaming" handicapped students seems to involve putting them in
a standard classroom and forgetting them.  I don't think a return to
separate schools for the handicapped is a good idea, but the current
method doesn't seem to be working either.  (note -- I can't base this
statement on any real facts, just a couple conversations with teachers
and a general perception, I may be very wrong).

For disruptive pupils, perhaps it's time to get them out of the
regular schools where they disrupt the majority of students.  The
arguments about how public schools have to take certain students which
private schools can dismiss show a problem which should be solved in
the public schools, not an advantage which private schools have (not
counting, of course, private schools which specifically take
troublesome students).

>Certainly, there are private schools which require more than 3 times
>this amount per student (and thus cost more than the current public
>schools).  A detailed comparision would indeed be interesting to see
>just how much administrative overhead and inefficiency exist in
>our public schools.

In terms of private school cost, I happened to find a national private
school directory in the Longmont library.  It's obviously the high
priced schools (many were boarding schools) and the schools probably
pay to be included.  Tuition seemed to range from about $5000 to
$12000 per year.  That compares to about $5000 to $7000 for public
schools.  Not 3 times higher, but not lower either.  Again, these are
the stereotypical "elite" private schools, not the lower cost
parochial or inner city private schools.

In terms of administrative overhead, I'd point back to an item I
posted about New York City schools.  The NYC public schools had about
5000 central office staff when this study was done.  The catholic
schools, about 1/4 the size of the public schools, had about 50, or
1/100th.  Of course, NYC public schools are probably an extreme case.
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: quotas and amendment 2
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:07:09 GMT
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO

dd> Dick Dunn
gs> Gary Strand

gs> If it's so hard to figure out if an employee is gay or not, then why are 
    so many people worried that gays will be fired in great numbers now that
    #2 has passed? It's one or the other -- employers know who's gay, so they 
    can be fired, or quotas for gays can be created; or employers don't know 
    who's gay, so they can't be fired, and quotas for gays cannot be created.

dd> To establish a quota system, you need sufficient information about a person
    to use the information in a legally binding way.

  Or, like I said, to fire someone because of their sexual orientation now that
  it's not illegal to do so.

dd> Do you honestly believe that people are going to allow a form with a 
    question like: [quiz on sex partners and their gender(s)]

  I would. And I'd let as many people as possible know about such an employer
  as well. I certainly wouldn't use the mace of the state to prevent it.

dd> OK, having dispensed with that one with adequate silliness, let's consider
    an employer not-hiring/firing someone for being gay.  What really happens?
    You're not going to see a form letter saying "Sorry, but we have examined
    your sexual preferences, and we find you unsuitable..."  Discrimination is
    rarely so blatant, because people are rarely so stupid...

  Exactly. What was actually gained by the ordinances of D/B/A that wasn't al-
  ready overriden by a little common sense on the part of homophobic employ-
  ers/landlords/&c?

dd> but it still happens and can still be obvious.

  Using statistical arguments, I'm sure. Bingo, instant quota system to avoid
  these kinds of arguments.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: pcr@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Pablo)
Subject: quotas and amendment 2
Organization: None of your damn Business.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:40:16 GMT

there are a couple of non-issues being bandied about here.
they're further clouding a discussion that was murky at best.

the amendment was presented as a "block" against LesBiGay
requests for minority status, quota preferences, and
protected status.  it was as if such things had been asked
for in the legislative forum and this were a way to vote
against them.  no such luck.

minority status: as far as i know, this wording has no legal
meaning in the colorado constitution.  legislatively labeling
a group a "minority" gives it no extra rights, nor does it
take any away.

quota preferences: even if they had been asked for, which they
hadn't, it's laughable to think they could be enforced (or 
that companies instituting a voluntary quota system could make
it work).  how do you figure out how many of your current
employees are gay?  ask them?  try to figure it out on your
own?  

protected status: if someone can tell me what this means,
i'll be glad to address it.  if everyone who responds agrees
on its meaning, i'll be very surprised.  i think the 
ambiguity is deliberate.

oh, look, i left off "or claim of discrimination," which was
made to look as if it were tacked on as an afterthought.  it
wasn't.  in my opinion, the amendment was drafted, petitioned,
promoted, and propagandized to get that little phrase into
the constitution.  scare them with an intimation that the
nasty homosexuals will have untold (literally) power if they
don't vote yes, and you can legalize discrimination based on
sexual orientation.  

so, if you want to stick to the issue on amendment two, discuss
discrimination against people based solely on their sexuality
(excuse me, homosexuality, not heterosexuality), and whether or
not it should be legal.  that should have been the issue all
through the campaign, but the smokescreens and propaganda were
just too thick for many people to see through.

                                                   paul crook
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Vouchers and school competition
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:56:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.012537.7508@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>
>>Specifically, what numbers would you like to know?
>
>Numbers which can explain, for example, why a huge tax increase is necessary
>when private schools already deliver a vastly superior product at almost half
>the cost (I posted these figures earlier).
>
I have heard that it costs about $2500/student to educate them, quite
adequately, in private schools.  Does this correspond to parochial
schools where the nuns (teachers) receive minimal salaries or the school
is additionally funded by a church?  Does this low rate have any
connection to the ability of a private school to avoid teaching
handicapped students?  What about the ability of a private school
to summarily dismiss recalcitrant pupils?

Certainly, there are private schools which require more than 3 times
this amount per student (and thus cost more than the current public
schools).  A detailed comparision would indeed be interesting to see
just how much administrative overhead and inefficiency exist in
our public schools.

--
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: laszlo@eclipse.cs.colorado.edu (Laszlo Nemeth)
Subject: Re: The END of Colorado?
Organization: University of Colorado Boulder, Pizza Disposal Group
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:10:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.165753.6536@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, wilbanks@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wendell Gee) writes:
|> I hate to be a nay-sayer, but Colorado has suceeded in knocking itself into
|> the dark ages with a mere four votes. It this the end?
|> 
|> If my out of state tuition rises by $2,000 dollars or more a semester, I'm
|> moving to Oregon or Washington. I can't afford to stay here when there will be 
|> no money for higher ed, becuase it will all be moved to fund primary and 
|> secondary education.
|> 
|> Last Californian out of Colorado, please turen out the lights.

about time you guys left. i was getting seriously annoyed at all 
the people moving into the state after screwing up their old states
economy.


laz
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Summary: are folks in an ecnomic fantasyland?
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:12:43 GMT

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
[quoted hypothetical scenario of someone fired for being "suspected" of
being gay]
>  Why would you want to work at such a place? There are other jobs, and unless
>  you're a masochist, working at a place where the only thing keeping you from
>  being fired is an ordinance like the kind Boulder, Denver, and Aspen have
>  is pretty dumb...

Gary, this is the second time you've come up with this sort of fantasy-land
view of the job market--"if it's such a lousy job, you can just quit...why
work at such a place?"  You're trying to wish away the problem by inventing
a view of the world where you think it wouldn't matter.

Get out in the real world and look around.  Jobs aren't that easy to find.
Moreover, if we set the stage so that discrimination based on sexual orien-
tation (excuse me, non-heterosexual orientation) is legal, jobs are going
to be a lot harder for some folks to find.

Saying "if you're afraid you might get fired, just quit" is a small step
from saying "if you're afraid of the consequences of being different, get
out of here."
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Vouchers and school competition
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:47:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.185641.11361@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:
>I have heard that it costs about $2500/student to educate them, quite
>adequately, in private schools.  Does this correspond to parochial
>schools where the nuns (teachers) receive minimal salaries or the school
>is additionally funded by a church?  Does this low rate have any
>connection to the ability of a private school to avoid teaching
>handicapped students?  What about the ability of a private school
>to summarily dismiss recalcitrant pupils?

The $2500 number is the average. I suspect parochial schools are below
average (but teachers in public schools aren't payed all that well: I
doubt this is a major advantage...) As for "handicapped" and "recalcitrant"
students, do you really think it tripples the per student cost? (Denver
schools are running well over $7000/student.) If _all_ the students in
public schools had such problems, that might be right, but most don't.

>Certainly, there are private schools which require more than 3 times
>this amount per student (and thus cost more than the current public
>schools).

Actually, about the same as public schools. And provide a higher
quality of education.

>schools).  A detailed comparision would indeed be interesting to see
>just how much administrative overhead and inefficiency exist in
>our public schools.

I've seen such numbers for the California school systems, but it
would be nice to see them for Colorado... (The Califorina numbers
had a factor of ten greater administrative/non-teaching expense
in public schools than in private...)

                                   Frank Crary
                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rgordon@convex.com (Rob Gordon)
Subject: Re: Co. Springs Town Hall Re:#2
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:46:18 GMT
Distribution: co.politics
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

BTW, the meeting is tonight 11/13.  Don't miss it.
Newsgroups: co.politics