HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:38:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.172738.1298@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
|> In article <s377pINN848@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
|> >So they convicted Noreiga of smuggling drugs.  I'm not surprised they
|> >found him guilty, but the major question, which I haven't seen
|> >discussed at all, is this:  by what authority are we trying a citizen
|> >of a foreign country for crimes committed on foreign soil?  Has the
|> >government explained this?  Why isn't it discussed in the news
|> >articles about the trial?
 
|> The only reason justifying military force would be a signifcant threat to our
|> national security.  Noriega posed no such threat--as far as I'm concerned.
|> Unfortuately, in the rhetoric of the "War On Drugs", he might have been
|> considered such a threat.

   But this does not allow us the ability to invade slave pen states for
lesser reasons. As an example, the Iranians were of no particular threat
but we most certainly had every right to go in and liberate our embassy.
Noriega's "government" was nothing more than a bunch of miltary thugs, and
giving them the credence of legitimacy is unwarranted.
   The sad part of this entire affair was not that Noriega was ejected,
(a definate plus for the Panamanians) but that the entire thing was part
of the WOD. Had Noriega been accused of murdering US citizens, the question
of whether we had justification would probably have been much clearer.
Now whether it is _wise_ to get embroiled in another countries internal
problems is another question. This of course is the same as rights in
general: just because you have a right doesn't mean exercising is the
best choice of action...
   Am I the only one who had a sort of perverse desire to see Noriega walk
just to dork old Bush and the WOD?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 06:54:11 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ca
  <56959@cup.portal.com> <10375@optilink.UUCP>

First poster objects to vouchers on these grounds:
1> But what if you feel that the best interest of your children
1> requires that they be indoctrinated in creationism, white supremacy
1> and anti-semetism?  Should I be be compelled to pay because you have

Second poster answers this with:
2> The Voucher Initiative now being circulated has a provision that
2> prohibits the use of the vouchers in any school that promotes
2> hatred based on race, national origin, religion, or ethnicity.

I, third poster, point out that second poster has failed to address
the first posters objections, since, among other things:
3> Creationism usually doesn't promote hate, does it?  Also, suppose

Fourth poster, Clayton Cramer, then launches a SCUD:
4> No.  And to my knowledge, there's no state law prohibiting the 
4> teaching of it in public schools, either.  I would expect, however,
4> that most parents will want their kids to be well-educated -- 
4> and if large numbers of parents don't want their children to be
4> well-educated, do you think that your elitist approach is going to
4> make it happen?

What elitest approach of mine?  All I said was that second poster
failed in what seemed to be an attempt to answer the objections of
first poster.

							Tim Smith
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 1992 00:29:07 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <4281@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
> Americans love to kill Wayne,

Oh no...  I'd better watch out. :-)

> But that will all change the day we lose one of our big cities to a
> martyr's backpack a-bomb. Only then will we as a society re-evaluate
> revenge as an institution.

I don't know what it will take.  It seems that most Europeans are more
enlightened about this, probably because after two World Wars they
have seen more than enough violence, and realize that revenge only
brings about more revenge.  We look at places like Northern Ireland,
the Mideast, and the Crips' and Bloods' turf in LA, and ask, when will
these people learn that the cycle of revenge never ends?  But we don't
see how we are doing the same thing ourselves.

	Wayne
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:42:33 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <rq0nrINN2o4@agate.berkeley.edu> gnn@mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.155903.9232@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>Are we going to just let people decide at random what a "good suit"
>>is?
>>
>Buying a suit is quite different from getting an education.  Having a
>suit of clashing colors will not prevent you from understanding
>election materials or a job application.  
>
>>I find your attitude incredibly elitist.  Freedom means being free
>>to make mistakes as well as to be successful.  There are no
>>guarantees of making the right choices in a free society.  I'd still
>>rather take my chances with freedom.
>>
>
>You would rather take your chances because you are already "educated"
>as are most of the people who are using this medium.  In a country
>with an increasing number of illiterate people I find it foolish to
>suggest that people should be free to fuck up a child's education.
>What I believe will come out of the vouchers is a system much like we
>have today, only people feel free.  Yippy.  What good is freedom if
>you can't read, write, add ??
>

In general, freedom connotes responsibility; in fact, it 
practically demands it, because people feel that it is UP TO THEM.

Although a voucher is liberating only to the parent (at the expense of
the taxpayers), wherever parents have actually been granted the power to 
exercise choice, there has been an upsurge in involvement and renewed
interest in educational excellence.*  


--Al Date

*(East Harlem, Cambridge, Milwaukee)
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:20:23 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

}I would like someone to explain one thing.  Why is the death penalty
}superior to life imprisonment?

Because it removes the criminal permanently and irrevocably from the
planet.  It removes the possibility that he may escape, that he may
kill a fellow inmate or a guard, that the powers-that-be may change
to the extent that he is released.  It may provide some little comfort
to the family and friends of his victims to know that he is totally
gone.  But that, as always, is just my opinion.

--James Preston
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why bother? (MANY GOOD REASONS! - THATS WHY!!!)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:23:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: igor.1992Apr7.002339.28953
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco

In article <3=ljbll.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >Can't you see that there's a big difference between skinheads
>    >(violent bigots) and a group of people who are much like you
>    >or I, except that they are oriented towards loving people of
>    >the same sex?
>    >
>    >Have you really been so ... damaged ... by our culture that
>    >you equate violence with sex?
>
>What -- are you always so quick to indulge in stereotype usage?
>
>I know a skinhead. Very interesting guy. Dresses the part. Says
>he "hates niggers", but, given a few of the things that happened
>to him (he's white, but had an abusive black stepfather for a while),
>it is understandable.

Sort of tells me the guy can't string two facts together and come to
an intelligent conclusion; there's no excuse for racism.  Not that
I'd prevent him from working, so long as he didn't run around burning
crosses in peoples' offices...

>Sure, racism is irrational. So is a belief in astrology. As long
>as the quirks are destructive, well, so be it.

Well, there's a big difference between astrology and racism.  Racism
isn't "quirky", it's a contagious blight on our society.

Don't know whether it's just me but I'm not sure what that third
sentence means.

>As an individual, one on one, my freedom of association lets me
>control how and we I intereact with this person. And he knows
>and accepts my condition of "lifestyle" preference (such as no
>use of the word nigger).

Next question:  would you ever let him come NEAR working in a Human
Resources office?

>But it does leak -- his dislike of motorcycle riders (who are
>generally strongly anti-skinhead) has lead to my three old daughter
>learning about "motorcycle shitheads", which I've managed to
>transmute into "motorcycle poo-poo heads". One day I'll pull up
>at a stop light next to a bunch of bikers, my 3 year will utter those
>words ...

Better get a fast car, then!

     don
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 07:52:29 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ca
  <sd7d1INN8og@agate.berkeley.edu> <2c2.02pIcbx=00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
  <1992Apr14.215141.10191@PacBell.COM>

> you now have two dead people.  If human life is so
> precious, why does the state have any more right to kill
> people than an individual?  As another poster already

The state is not an individual.  Why should there be any connection
whatsoever between what the state can do and what an individual can
do?

In particular, how do you justify prison?  If kidnapping is bad,
why does the state have any more right to put people in jail
than an indivdual does?

If theft is bad, why does the state have any more right to
steal (hello, IRS!) than an individual does?

						Tim Smith
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Is coercion bad? (Was Re: Sexual Orientation Discrimination...)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 18:33:15 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca

In article <rqgs9INN5cl@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>In article <blnjphc.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> 1. Public roads. I can't avoid them. Indeed, if I tried to build a private
>> road I would be placed in jail.
>
>Really?  You mean to say that if you bought a bunch of land, put a
>road on it, and charged people admission to drive on it, you would be
>in violation of the law?  That's really amazing.  Could you tell us
>about this strange law so that we can all write to our congresspeople
>and protest it?

Oh, it is more than one law. Environmental "laws", zoning laws, California
state laws prohibiting private toll roads, density control laws (designed for
zoning control of private parking lots but also affect roads explicitly, for
example, you can only build a road for a new housing development just so big),
lack of provision for rebates on fuel taxes, ...

Just to name a few ...


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: oliver@rhea.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 02:13:10 GMT

I agree with the anti-death-penalty sentiments of those whose postings
in this thread I have thus far seen.  I'm curious to hear from those
who don't.  In particular, I'd like to hear from anyone who wishes to
defend (in a rational tone) the argument elucidated by Steve Baker,
the father of one of the boys Harris killed and the officer who arrested
Harris.  He said (quoting inexactly from memory): "Those who argue
that the death penalty is not a deterrent miss the point.  The purpose
of the death penalty is not deterrence, or to send a message, or to
make a political point.  It is to punish one man for the brutal killing
of two boys."

Now let me say first of all that it is hard to blame Baker for feeling
this way; perhaps he should not for his maximum spiritual good but that
is not for me to judge.  My focus is on whether the rest of us ought
to agree with him.  Because if the purpose is simply to punish, then
what is the purpose of punishment?  Is the suffering of those who do
evil an end in itself?  Can anyone explain *why* it is an end in
itself, or is this simply an axiom?

There is of course an ultra-detached sociobiological way of looking
at this, which is to say that we have the impulse to punish those
who harm us because, in the time of our remote ancestors, those who
had this impulse were on average more successful at passing on their
genes than those that did not.  "Right" and "wrong" according to
this viewpoint are simply those behaviors which have been so tagged
by our genetic makeup and social structures because the genes and
structures which tagged them thus, survived, and the others did not.
I don't guess I'm ready to get quite that detached; I think the
execution of Harris, if it happens, will be wrong.  But I'd like
to hear (at a reasonable temperature) from the other side.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Oliver 
UUCP:...!{ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!oliver
ARPA: oliver@math.ucla.edu
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 08:19:25 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ca
  <f55i02amccy.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
  <1992Apr15.185626.9093@odin.corp.sgi.com> <jjbpb94@fido.asd.sgi.com>

> Allow me to add another argument against the death penalty.  It is inherently
> racist.
> 
> Allow me to explain.  Reports show that a black man who kills a white man
> is 220 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white man who kills
> a black man.  Juries are more likely to find a black man guilty of murder
> and are also more likely to give the death penalty.

Danger, Will Robinson!  Bogus use of statistics detected!

You have to take into account all factors before you can claim that
racism is involved.  For example, I would bet that you would also
find that poor people are more likely get the death penalty for
killing rich people than the other way around.  Since Blacks
tend to be poorer than Whites, this will account for some of
the disparity in death penalty rates.  Before you can show
racism, you've got to take this out.

To show racism, you'll have to compare similar crimes.  You can't
just compare at the level of race of criminal/victim.

						Tim Smith
From: gnn@mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:11:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rq0nrINN2o4
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr6.155903.9232@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>Are we going to just let people decide at random what a "good suit"
>is?
>
Buying a suit is quite different from getting an education.  Having a
suit of clashing colors will not prevent you from understanding
election materials or a job application.  

>I find your attitude incredibly elitist.  Freedom means being free
>to make mistakes as well as to be successful.  There are no
>guarantees of making the right choices in a free society.  I'd still
>rather take my chances with freedom.
>

You would rather take your chances because you are already "educated"
as are most of the people who are using this medium.  In a country
with an increasing number of illiterate people I find it foolish to
suggest that people should be free to fuck up a child's education.
What I believe will come out of the vouchers is a system much like we
have today, only people feel free.  Yippy.  What good is freedom if
you can't read, write, add ??

Later,
George



-- 
Why don't they just hire taller ballet dancers instead of making
them dance on their tip toes ??		M. Rochlin
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:28:02 GMT
  <10295@optilink.UUCP>
Distribution: ca
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> > But what if you feel that the best interest of your children
> > requires that they be indoctrinated in creationism, white supremacy
> > and anti-semetism?  Should I be be compelled to pay because you have
> 
> The Voucher Initiative now being circulated has a provision that
> prohibits the use of the vouchers in any school that promotes
> hatred based on race, national origin, religion, or ethnicity.

Creationism usually doesn't promote hate, does it?  Also, suppose
you wanted to send your kids to a school that teaches a non-hateful
version of anti-semetism and white supremacy?  It should be possible
to find people who think that whites are superior to other races
but that do not advocate hatred towards those races.  Is there
any provision to prevent that?

						Tim Smith
From: mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:43:27 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

Human beings are used syringes? Hmmm?
						MPA
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:17:09 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <56959@cup.portal.com>, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
> > > But what if you feel that the best interest of your children
> > > requires that they be indoctrinated in creationism, white supremacy
> > > and anti-semetism?  Should I be be compelled to pay because you have
> > 
> > The Voucher Initiative now being circulated has a provision that
> > prohibits the use of the vouchers in any school that promotes
> > hatred based on race, national origin, religion, or ethnicity.
> 
> Creationism usually doesn't promote hate, does it?  Also, suppose

No.  And to my knowledge, there's no state law prohibiting the 
teaching of it in public schools, either.  I would expect, however,
that most parents will want their kids to be well-educated -- 
and if large numbers of parents don't want their children to be
well-educated, do you think that your elitist approach is going to
make it happen?

> you wanted to send your kids to a school that teaches a non-hateful
> version of anti-semetism and white supremacy?  It should be possible
> to find people who think that whites are superior to other races
> but that do not advocate hatred towards those races.  Is there
> any provision to prevent that?
> 
> 						Tim Smith

No.  And there's provision to prevent private schools from teaching
that we are all descendants of the inhabitants of Atlantis, either.
At some point, you have to assume that parents aren't going to send
their kids to schools teaching bizarre weird stuff.

Of course, if you are an elitist convinced that only the elite
class knows what's best for the kids, I expect that you don't
believe this.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace
of God." -- Thomas Jefferson
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:09:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.jlm2k8k
Distribution: ca
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <abeals.703465948@melange> abeals@autodesk.com (Andrew Scott Beals, KC6SSS) writes:

>Harris killed two teen-aged girls in cold blood.

No he didn't...

He killed two teen-age boys...




FWA
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: zursch@sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:01:25 GMT

In article <jjbpb94@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>Allow me to add another argument against the death penalty.  It is inherently
>racist.
>Allow me to explain.  Reports show that a black man who kills a white man
>is 220 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white man who kills
>a black man.  Juries are more likely to find a black man guilty of murder
>and are also more likely to give the death penalty.

That doesn't mean that the penalty is inherently racist, it means that 
the system we now have administering it is racist. I agree that it is 
racist, but there are ways around this as well. In any event, that 
doesn't seem to be the case with this particular criminal. 

If you look back over my criteria for when I support this penalty, 
no one who maintains his or her innocence of the crime would be 
put to death. At the moment, one of the thins that allows our 
system to unfairly execute black men is that any Murder 1 conviction
can be used to administer the death penalty. I don't agree with 
that. I certainly do think that all death penalty cases, further,
should automatically be appealed to the Supreme Court (not that 
that guarantees a non-racist opinion). 

>With all the injustices that are obvious in the american judicial system,
>adding the possibility of executing someone who was potentially unfairly
>tried is unacceptable.

I also believe that a condemned person should have a trial that is as close
to immaculate as possible. I'm in no hurry to execute people, Jeff, but 
dammit, I have no patience and damn little mercy for people like RAH. 

But I heard a related case on the radio this morning, concerning a black
man who has been convicted of murder with special circumstances. He shot
an asian woman during a rape. He further admits to having raped over
30 asian women. He held the barrel of a pistol in this woman's mouth 
while he raped her and he maintains that it then accidentally went off,
killing her. His family attributes his behavior to "the pressure of being
a black man in America." The jury will decide soon if he should get the
death penalty.  He admits doing the crimes, and even some he was not
charged with. The crime is heinous. No matter what his color, if I was on
that jury, I'd seriously consider whether this planet would be a better
place if he were not on it. 

I don't believe myself to be a racist. I don't believe that my opinion
on the above case has anything to do with the race of the convict. If he 
had killed a white police officer, I'd say no, he doesn't deserve the 
death penalty. It's not the race of the victim that bothers me, it's 
the circumstances of the crime. 

JZ
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	      One Shift		 ,			   Two Shift
Re d  S   h    i     f      t    ,       B     l      u      e     S    h  i ft