HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: austin.politics,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Citizens against Government Waste
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:47:03 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <BxGw6D.64x@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austi

>> They have more power the longer they've been there.  It's not supposed
>> to be that way.  Every congressman should have an equal vote.  Now
>> they're not equal.  And term limits will fix that and by fixing that
>> will reduce pork, or at the VERY LEAST 
>> shift it around so it gets spread out more equally.

>No matter how you stack it, some Congresspeople will be more powerful than
>others.  

Perhaps but term limits would make them only twice as powerful, instead
of 10 times more powerful as they are now.

>Powerful Congressmen aren't powerful simply because they've been
>there a long time, they're powerful because Congress uses a seniority
>system.  Even if you got rid of that (and the seniority system has lost

What is a seniority system if not a system based on length of service?
Length of service would be much more equal and fairly distributed under
Term Limits.  I guess I must not know the definition of "Seniority".
Enlighten me.

>a lot of power in the past 20 yeras) you'll still have people in charge of
>committees and majority and minority leaders.

Right, but not the same guy in charge of the same committee for 40 YEARS!
Only 12 years at most (assumming 12 year limits.)

>> Those are problems too.  Big problems.  In fact they are bigger problems
>> than pork is, I agree.  But getting rid of pork is big enough to be
>> worth doing.

>It's worth doing, but it's worth doing right.  The right way to get rid 
>of it is to expose it.  Term limits are fundamentally anti-democratic
>and are largely a device for Republicans to get rid of Democrats. 

But it's ok to limit the (usually Republican,) President's terms
right?  Isn't that a little hypocritical?

It all depends on which party fields the best and brightest new
candidates doesn't it?  If the Democrats can do that then more power to
them, (literally.)


-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
- FICA isn't a retirement plan. Money's spent. It'll be gone when you need it.-
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: austin.politics
Subject: Re: harlem schools, and why clinton won't help
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:23:19 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: (speaking for myself only)

In article <5888@tivoli.UUCP> bjv@shasta.tivoli.com (Brian Vetter) writes:

>So there are 10 people on the corner and you split them up according
>to income (5 poor, 5 ~).  The gov't has a $1000 burning in its pocket for
>education. Instead of giving each a $100 dollars, you would give the 5 poor
>people $35 dollars each and the other 5 $165 each.  You've helped both,
>but is it really fair?  Frankly, I want my tax dollars spent wisely and
>distributed fairly.

This is ridiculous.  Private vouchers would introduce market forces
into one of the most bureaucratic institutions in American society,
public education.  Money would flow to "good schools."  "Bad schools"
(i.e. inefficient bloated bureaucratic miasmas of social engineering)
would die.  Educational quality overall would increase.

Besides, you aren't "giving" the poor anything.  You are simply
letting the people that EARNED the money SPEND the money the
way they want to. 

If you don't believe that public education is a disaster, you
obviously haven't seen the salary listings -- teachers often
get paid less than janitors (in LAUSD, out of the top 100 positions,
teachers were #99, right below tree surgeon, third class).

Look, in the past few years Texas public school funding has
increased dramatically.  Now, revenues are now relatively constant across the
state (source:  David Anderson, staff assistant to Bob Bullock).

Have SAT scores increased to any great degree as a result?  No.

The new "recapture plan" essentially transfers money from school
district to school district.  It equalizes spending levels (to meet
the new "efficiency" criteria in the proposed Constitutional Amendment),
with a proviso for "enrichment" of up to 40%.  Lost in all this is
the understanding that sending money INTO government ALWAYS results
in some of it being skimmed off for the paperwork.  And, the plan
does not benefit middle class kids -- it will pump more money
into poorer school districts.  It is questionable whether this
will in any way improve education, since there is no market
incentive to do so.

>Brian Vetter
>bjv@tivoli.com

Nothing less than a complete overhaul of the public education system
in this (state, nation) will prepare our kids for the next century.
And market forces are one way to do it.  What are you afraid of?

-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!
From: bade@austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:43:40 GMT
Reply-To: bade@wombat.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: austin
Organization: IBM, Austin
Originator: bade@athena2.austin.ibm.com


I'll be rich, and powerful.  And famous.  I'll have women *crawling*
over my body in search of where I keep my perfect driving abilities.
In short, I'll be the same as Joe Senner.  :-)

You obviously have never seen Joe......  :-) :-).... He sure don't
qualify as tall, or rich or powerful.  (in)Famous maybe.

Joe's point was that straightening out 2222 (no matter how dangerous
the drivers on it are (note the road is not dangerous, it's how the
people utilize the road)) does not fix the root problem of poor driving
skills in the general public.

When I was in Germany recently  I saw first hand what a good strict licensing
policy can do.  There were no buthead manuvers, people drove courteously and
appeared to understand their limits.  Then again I guess a system where you
are required to pay money to be properly trained in driving would be
considered facist or something here in the states.

Steve
-- 
Regards,

        Steve
	   "A good programmer, as a function of what he does,
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:11:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov16.152827.5362@wixer.cactus.org> reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>What happens when a deer or a dog jumps out in front of you?  Or when
>the Yugo (doing all it can at about 80) decides to change lanes without
>looking?

Probably the same thing that happens in Europe when a deer or dog jumps
out in front of you at that speed.  As for the Yugo, I suspect Yugo
owners won't be changing lanes that often if they learn to expect a car
coming up on them at 50MPH.

>Sure some highways are "safe" at high speeds, assuming a) you're the
>only one on the road and b) you have a vehicle designed for those
>speeds.

Correct.  Speeding in an environment that you are not completely
comfortable in and in which you are not able to control all (or at
least most) of the factors is simply not safe.  I-10 between the Texas
border and Lafayette is quite safe at 130MPH, as are parts of I-10
between Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

>As far as driving time goes;  I was talking about traveling 75 - 80 mph
>compared to 65, not 130 vs. 65.  You could shave a couple of hours by
>doing 130... even more by doing 200.  Just let me know the next time you
>decide to take a trip so I can be sure to be out of your way...

That's OK, I was talking about driving fast where it makes a difference.
Saving one or two minutes by speeding is dumb.  The first time I cut 3
hours off the trip from New Orleans to Dallas, well, I got there 3 hours
sooner.  I had exactly one unexpected event, and that was because Gramps
decided to change lanes without looking or signalling.  If I can save
more time by peeing when I'm stopped for gas instead of having to make
an extra pee-stop, then why bother speeding?  But some 10 hours trips
are crying out to be 7 hour trips ;-)
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: States Rights
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:17:17 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:

>If the State of Texas chooses to violate my rights,
>or if the US government does it, to me the interface is the same:
>I lose.  The *only* advantage is theoretical:  by moving power
>"down" the hierarchy, you move it closer to the people, and ostensibly

That is not the only advantage.  The primary advantage is that if Texas
has laws which you disagree with, you can still stay in the U.S, but in
another state, to avoid them.

In other words, a weak central government sets up states in competition
with each other for who has the least oppression, the lowest taxes, and
the highest standard of living.

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
- FICA isn't a retirement plan. Money's spent. It'll be gone when you need it.-
From: szieger@kunikpok.UUCP (Steven Zieger)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:29:16 GMT
Organization: Kunikpok Kennels and Komputers (Pet Project)

Yes, the roads are safe past 130 m.p.h., but howmany DRIVERS are?
From: ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:04:58 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Nov17.133423.11395@wixer.cactus.org> reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>The only problem with that is that police presence around 2222 is
>practically nill -- despite its reputation and history.  I think 2222 is
>covered by Travis County jurisdiction.  In addition to being spread too
>thin, the sherrif's dept has never shown much interest in enforcing
>traffic laws.

That's understable.  A few weeks ago during the election, on some local news
show, it was claimed that at any given time there are only about 12 Travis
Country Sherrif's on the streets...for the whole county.

I am amazed at what a small police presence there is here in general, compared
to the People's Republic of California, which I just left.  In three months
of commuting 10 miles each way on MoPac, I have seen maybe 8 cops, only two
of which actually had pulled someone over.  I could see 8 CHP's every *day*
commuting up I-280 in the Bay Area.


-- 
Ray Shea                               I woke up this morning,
UniSQL, Inc.                           all my shrimps was dead and gone...
unisql!ray@cs.utexas.edu       
DoD #0372 -- Team Twinkie -- '88 Hawk NT650
From: steveb@tivoli.UUCP (Steve Benz)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:42:17 GMT
Reply-To: steveb@tivoli.UUCP (Steve Benz)
Distribution: austin
Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX

In article <4205@unisql.UUCP> ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
>... why have I only seen two people pulled over on MoPac since August?

'Cause hardly anybody speeds on Mopac.  I used to commute down central
MoPac every day, and could count on one hand the number of folks that passed
me at >65mph in a year.  (Ahem.  No, I'm not going at >65mph myself...
One look at my car & you'd know that's a fact :-)  It'd probably take
two hands & some toes to count the number of policeman I saw during the
same stretch...  But who would they ticket?  I wish it was the idjits
going < 45mph -- you run into somebody like that about every other day.

But these days I drive down 2222, and haven't yet seen anybody proceeding
at much above the speed limit.  Haven't seen any cops either.  Of course
I have the benefit of driving during fairly sober hours.

				- Steve
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:44:23 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <HVuauB1w165w@kunikpok.UUCP> szieger@kunikpok.UUCP (Steven Zieger) writes:
>Yes, the roads are safe past 130 m.p.h., but howmany DRIVERS are?

Plenty.  Unless Adolph Hitler was right, the Germans are no different
than us.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: drunk driving (was Re: speed traps on 2222)
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:50:15 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Real/Time Communications

I'd like to second the request for actual statistics on 2222...

Arguments of RR2222's need for improvement aside, I think we all agree
that police presence is too low, traffic criminals are coddled and that
typical drivers are incompetent.

Our roads and highways are like war-zones.  WORSE!  Look at the national
stats -- we;ve been trough wars with fewer casualties.  A drive up 183
is about like a stroll through a city street in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Our law enforcement agencies are overburdened, mismanaged and seemingly
disinterested in taking the REAL steps that are needed to make the roads
safer.

I saw a news piece about a guy (in Chicago, I think) -- a doctor -- who,
armed with his camcorder and cellular phone patrolled the streets
reporting dangerous drivers and recording their actions as evidence
against them...

-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:47:55 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <21894@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>You might want to get your RADAR detector checked out.  I drive on MoPac
>several times a week and usually spot them hiding under bridges and whatnot
>when the RADAR detector goes off.

Don't even have one;  I suppose I should.  But if there are so many cops
out there, why have I only seen two people pulled over on MoPac since August?



-- 
Ray Shea                               I woke up this morning,
UniSQL, Inc.                           all my shrimps was dead and gone...
unisql!ray@cs.utexas.edu       
DoD #0372 -- Team Twinkie -- '88 Hawk NT650
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: States Rights
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:53:07 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov18.171717.8070@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>
>>If the State of Texas chooses to violate my rights,
>>or if the US government does it, to me the interface is the same:
>>I lose.  The *only* advantage is theoretical:  by moving power
>>"down" the hierarchy, you move it closer to the people, and ostensibly
>
>That is not the only advantage.  The primary advantage is that if Texas
>has laws which you disagree with, you can still stay in the U.S, but in
>another state, to avoid them.
>
>In other words, a weak central government sets up states in competition
>with each other for who has the least oppression, the lowest taxes, and
>the highest standard of living.

This is worth elaborating on - how many of you have forgotten that
Maryland was essentially a Catholic colony?  While many of you might
think that having a state dedicated to a particular religious ideaology
is a bad idea, for the Catholics who were fleeing religious oppression
in other countries, Maryland was Paradise.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:31:43 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov17.002128.21788@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>In article <21816@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov2.171850.1514@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
[...]
>>>When in such a quandry, my default is to fall back on the most
>>>decentralized of authority, the individual.  If you wish to
>>>decentralize authority over matters moral to the States, why
>>>stop there?  Why not to the individual whom is most affected?
>>>(Unfortunately, it is difficult to ask the fetus, right?).
>>
>>The fact that there is no Constitutional authority for prohibiting
>>abortion means that the power to regulate abortion falls to the
>>states and if they choose not to legislate on the abortion question,
>>the right falls to the people.
>
>By this logic, then, if the Federal Government can't restrict
>Rights, the States can choose to do so?  That is NOT
>what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  Certainly not just
>any ol' time they choose to.  And, if they did so, revolution
>was a proper course of action.
>
>In this context, the abortion argument revolves around whether or not a woman
>has the absolute right over her own body.  The States may have
>NO jurisdiction in this matter, IF you conclude that the right to
>privacy is preeminant.  I, of course, choose to believe this is
>the case.  The 10th Amendment strengthens the argument, IMHO.
>
>The only Constitutional argument surrounding abortion is the
>question of murder.  There is no other.  Even Justice Scalia
>believes this to be the case.
>
>
>>  Likewise, there is no Constitutional
>>Amendment protecting the right to abortion, so the states are free
>>to restrict abortion as they see fit.
>
>I repeat:  just because a Right is not specified in the Constition
>does not mean I do not have it, by birthright.  This is where
>we fundamentally disagree.  For reference, I refer you to
>Madison and Jefferson.  Not to mention Lysander Spooner.

Instead of just beating on the tenth, re: protecting fundamental rights
not found in the Constitution, take a look at the ninth also.  Throw in
a dash of incorporation and stir.  It might be useful to define either
(Alan's or John's) position with respect to where does one stand WRT
using the 9th to "invent" a right, does one view gov't as having power
unless restricted or no power unless granted, and the individual having
freedoms unless restricted or no freedoms unless granted.

A similar discussion in alt.rush-limbaugh prompted me to buy Bork's
"The Tempting of America" last week - read it an you'll see what I
mean.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:20:10 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov17.133423.11395@wixer.cactus.org> reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>The only problem with that is that police presence around 2222 is
>practically nill -- despite its reputation and history.  I think 2222 is
>covered by Travis County jurisdiction.  In addition to being spread too
>thin, the sherrif's dept has never shown much interest in enforcing
>traffic laws.

Yes, APD at least seems to be more interested in revenue generation
than actually protecting public safety.  Does anyone have any idea
about how to go about pressuring the police to explain their screwed
priorities?  I'm not specifically referring to 2222 - I'm mainly
thinking of the nuts who're blowing through red lights on 183 (among
other places).

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:33:14 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov16.153408.5463@wixer.cactus.org> reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.140820.24408@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>What's the deal with the accident numbers on 2222?  I mean, the road
>>has been there for ages, it's not like it up added some curves in it
>>some night to screw with unsuspecting drivers.
>>
>>If people are stupid enough to get themselves killed on a road as
>>simple 2222, so be it.  If they do it before they procreate, natural
>>selection kicks in and we have fewer stupid genes passed on.
>
>I think 2222s infamy comes more from the nature of the accidents than
>the number... 2222 has long been a favorite road for racing.  Couple
>that with the fact that it carries many drunken lake-goers on the
>weekends and you have some pretty horrendous accidents.
>
>I bet even they did spend millions to improve it the accidents would
>continue.

I received some e-mail last week in which the point was re-iterated
that these bozos who waste themselves on 2222 sometimes end up taking
out others at the same time (which has been brought up before, I know
and I don't deny that it is a valid point).  My two points would be:

a) I seem to recall that the last couple have involved only the car
driven by the bozo

b) Before arguing that we should be spending millions to straighten out
2222, wouldn't it be wiser and cheaper to determine if say, using the
police to ticket speeders would produce the desirable response (i.e.
drivers taking it slower).

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Newsgroups: austin.talk