HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Pena picked for Transportation???
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:06:43 GMT

In reference to former Denver mayor Frederico Pena's selection as Clinton's
Secretary of Transportation, Dick Dunn writes:

>Wonderful.  Pena is the driving force behind Denver International Airport--
>the biggest, dumbest boondoggle in the state's history.
>
>The new Secretary of Transportation will be the guy who drove the planning
>of a major international airport...without planning any roads to get to it!
>It replaces one of the most efficient, closest large-city airports in the
>country with one of the most distant, for no reason better than a sacrifice
>to the almighty god Growth.  (Bad-weather air traffic delays at Stapleton
>will simply be replaced with bad-weather ground-transportation delays.)

My conclusions are the same (I am *not* thrilled at Pena's selection), but 
for different reasons.  Firstly, I think the choice to build the airport
was based more on "It means jobs and federal dollars for Colorado--who cares
whether it's needed or not", rather than "Growth for the sake of growth is 
good".

Secondly, I found the hype both on the local news and in the newspaper (RMN)
to be nothing short of *nauseating*.  On channel 4 news, they flat out said
that the selection of Pena was a good thing because it meant a greater chance
that more federal dollars would be "funnelled Colorado's way".  The Rocky
Mountain News implied as much with it's bold headline and glowing aticle,
crowing about how "good for Colorado" this was.  There is no doubt that
'This is the way politics works'.  I don't have to like or respect it though.

As to Dick's statement that "Bad-weather air traffic delays at Stapleton
will simply be replaced with bad-weather ground-transportation delays", I'm
not even that optimistic.  Though a wider runway separation will mean less
chance of having to close some runways in bad weather, the area of DIA is
statistically more prone to severe weather than Stapleton.

>Bad move, Bill.  I hope the other cabinet appointments make more sense than
>this one...

Robert Reich, with his neo-Keynsian theories of massive government 
intervention in the economy, is running neck-and-neck with leftist Donna
Shalala for the title of "Scariest Clinton appointment".  Of course Tom
Mayer would say something like: "To you Jim, everyone left of Ronald Regan
is a 'leftist'".  Everyone has an opinion, particularly on Usenet.


Jim Rosinski
From: jcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jim Cochrane)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: PC Stuff (386 board, etc.) Has all Been Sold
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:02:59 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.

SOLD:  DTK 386-25 motherboard, with 4MB 80 ns RAM on board.  Board is in need of
repair - intermittent booting problems.  DTK BIOS version 4.26.  DTK model
PEM-2500, full size.  $60.

SOLD:  AT desktop case (used) with 220V power supply.  5 half-height bays, 3
external, 2 internal.  Case includes speaker and control panel.
Case is sold as is.  Power supply carries a 90-day money back
guarantee.    $40.00

SOLD:  4 1MB 80ns SIPPS (used).  90-day money back guarantee.  $25 each.

SOLD:  Trident 8900 VGA adapter (used), w/256K.  256 colors, supports most VGA
monitors and ...

SOLD:  Vendex high-resolution VGA analog monochrome monitor, ...

Jim Cochrane
jcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: edb@teal.csn.org (J. R. Sims)
Subject: Re: Speed Variances on the Highway...
Organization: Colorado Memory Systems; Loveland, CO
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:24:52 GMT

In article <32531@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:

-I moved to Denver from New Orleans in 1977. My boss told me that
-Denver had the worst drivers in the world. I thought he was joking
-until I'd been here about a week and had to agree with him.

You've never been to Boston, have you?  :) I've driven in bot
Massachusetts and Denver.  There's no comparison.  A friend of mine
made a right turn from the left of four lanes, cutting off everyone in
those lanes.  Nobody even honked their horn or blinked.  He prefaced
the turn with "if this were any other city..."

Rob
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general
From: kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary)
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:05:00 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hplsdak.col.hp.com

rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
> 
> If you don't like the way decisions are made on expenditures, think before
> you vote.
> -- 
> Dick Dunn    rcd@eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado USA

In the most recent elections I again did not have the opportunity to vote
for someone who proposed expenditure decisions that I agree with.  The fact
that I get to chose between the lesser of two evils doesn't mean my will is
being represented.  Amendment 1 lets me express my will on important issues.

Dan Kary
-- 
"And that, my leige, is how we know the earth to be banana shaped."
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:28:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.044510.16195@oldcolo.com> swoodcoc@oldcolo.com (Steven Woodcock) writes:
>
>Tom:
>
>   If a local government REALLY feels that something is important enough
>to be an emergency, Amendment 1 does permit them to declare an emergency
>and raise the taxes.  The issue must then go onto the ballot next time 
>around, at which point the voters could (presumably) agree with or disagree
>with the increase.  One also assumes that, if the tax hike was very
>unpopular and/or perceived to be unnecessary, the officials in question would
>find themselves out of a job.
>
>
>
>Steven W.
>One of the Good Guys
>

	Steve:
	
	I think you need to read the amendment again.   If you look at the 
	definition of emergency (which admitedly is poorly defined) the
	only "emergency that would allow governing body to raise taxes
	or spending would be a natural disaster.  We really aren't allowed
	to arbitrarily declare an emergency.  This is one of several
	items in admendment 1 where you have to read the fine print.


				Tom Mayer

				NCAR, Boulder, Co.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer)
Subject: Re: Bear hunt, was Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:38:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.235121.23968@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>In article <1h80ckINNj7l@hp-col.col.hp.com>, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>> 
>> On the flip side, even I think some initiated measures are really bad ideas.
>> Placing wildlife management into the constitution is the silliest law I've
>> seen passed.  What next?  Creel limits?  Designation of catch and release
>> streams?  I guess the Wildlife Division could have headed that one off by
>> changing bear hunting seasons/rules themselves.  Has the spring bear hunt
>> been opposed for a long time or did it just come up?  I hadn't heard anything
>> about bear hunting until the amendment was proposed.
>
>I realize your main article was about amendment 1, but I wanted to comment
>on this.  I agree that the bear hunting law should have been proposed as
>a law, not a constitutional amendment (they aren't the same thing, are they?)
>but disagree with you about the necessity of such a measure.

	Dan & Ilana,

	I believe if you check that the spring bear hunt rules were passed 
	as a statutory provision and not as a constitutional admendment.
	In fact of all the ballot issues I think it may have been the
	only one that wasn't.  Might explain why the Colorado Constitution
	is becoming the size of a telephone book.

>
>-- 
>/\    "I'm only a human girl person.  I ain't always perfect."--Rambling Rose
>  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
>      \______________________________________________________________________


Xref: sparky co.politics:2471 boulder.general:1367 co.general:2267
From: ghog@teal.csn.org (Greg Hoggatt)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:10:26 GMT

>seen passed.  What next?  Creel limits?  Designation of catch and release
>streams?  I guess the Wildlife Division could have headed that one off by
>changing bear hunting seasons/rules themselves.  Has the spring bear hunt
>been opposed for a long time or did it just come up?  I hadn't heard anything
>about bear hunting until the amendment was proposed.
>
>Dan Kary

I don't think the CO Division of Wildlife let people know what was going
on with this one.  My understanding is that this was proposed by an 
animal rights group who is looking to get control of hunting in Colorado.
Control in this case may possibly mean ELIMINATION of hunting all together.
I don't think this would ever happen, but my understanding is that they 
would love nothing more....

They started with something they could quickly gain public support for:
  - Mother bears being killed and then their cubs die !
It sounds awful, and maybe it is, but this is the DOW's job to control 
this, not the general public.  I had heard that the bear population in 
CO is doing very well, and changes were not needed.  But the group that
passed this led you to beleive that all bears were going to die especially
all the poor little cubs......  I think the DOW has a much better overall
knowledge in this area as compared to you and I.

Well, now they have their foot in the door, and I'm afraid that more 
amendments will be on the ballot again next time.  I think we had better 
be careful if we want to maintain our rights to hunt and fish in Colorado!

Greg Hoggatt (ghog@csn.org)
Englewood, CO
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:57:24 GMT

I wrote:

>>When the federal income tax came into being (in 1914 I believe), the
>>combination of federal, state, and local taxes took about 10% of the average
>>wage earner's income.  That number has been on a slow but steady increase
>>ever since, and now stands at approximately 47%.  

tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) responds:

>	The numbers I have for total US tax burden are quite different
>	from yours Jim.  My sources showed thentotal tax burden (federal,
>	state, and local) to be aroud 30 -32%.

Do your figures include Social Security?  They should.  Though perhaps not
technically a "tax", the ~15% employee + employer Social Security payments
certainly fit all the important criteria to be labeled a tax.  These 
criteria which SS meets are, in my view:

1) It is money extorted by government from innocent citizens.  Wrong, you
say?  Try not paying it.  People from the government with guns *will* come
to your door, and you *will* be incarcerated, or worse, until you cough up
what they say you owe.

2) Absolutely no guarantee is provided that *anything* will be given to the
payer in return for his "investment".  As Tom Mayer well knows, I am ready
to put my money where my mouth is in expecting never to see one thin dime in
return for my Socialist Insecurity "contributions".

So I stand by my statement that government takes, on average, 47% of
people's incomes in the form of taxes.  If I were to include less direct
additional costs such as Workmans Comp, adherence to foolish regulations,
and a zillion other things too numerous to mention, the percentage would be
much, much higher.  Call the people who run the state-mandated Workman's
Comp program in Colorado.  Ask them what percentage of a dry waller's salary
his employer must put into the compensation fund.  It is *scandalous*.


Jim Rosinski


Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:47:35 GMT

There seems to be a lot of threats flying from the "public sector" regarding 
the punishment that will be dealt to taxpayers because of the sucess of 
Amendment 1.  Apparently, because we had the gall to ask for control of our 
money, they are ready to punish us the same way Californians were punished 
for Prop 13.  There is a solution.  

The problem is that none of these government agencies are directly 
reportable to anyone outside of those empires.  The solution is to make them 
reportable directly to taxpayers.  The means is through an addition to the 
tax forms.  Mr. Bush suggested a minimal approach to this with his tax form 
check-off for the national debt.  I would propose to extend this check-off 
to every government expense.  This proposal would be given teeth by forcing 
all agencies to live within the budgets allowed by the voter's allowance.  

Here's the basic proposal, then:
1) Include the major categories of all stage agencies in the state income 
and property tax forms.  
2) Allow taxpayers to deterimine what portion of their collected 
income and property taxes would go to each agency.  
3) Require each agency to spend only according to the budget allowance 
allowed by the taxes collected.

There it is, fire away.
Xref: sparky co.politics:2505 boulder.general:1388
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: co.politics,boulder.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 and the Denver/Boulder Anti-discrimination laws
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:08:39 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

The amendment is short, but the Boulder ordinance is about 8 pages and 
the Denver ordinance is about 10.  That's because they are general civil
rights non-discrimination ordinances which also cover sexual orientation.
I have photocopies (as of yesterday, thanks to my spouse) of these but no
scanner or time to type them in.  Anyway, here is the amendment.

 =====
 
 Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
 Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:
 
 NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
 ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
 branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
 subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt 
 or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby 
 homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or 
 relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or 
 entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority 
 status, quota preferences, protected status or claim or 
 discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be in all 
 respects self-executing.
 
==== My parse of this is: ==========================================
 
 [None of] | State of Colorado, through its branches or departments
           | state's agencies
           | state's political subdivisions
           | state's municipalities
           | state's school disticts
 
 
 shall | enact  any | statute  whereby | homosexual | orientation   shall
       | adopt      | regulation       | lesbian    | conduct
       | enforce    | ordinance        | bisexual   | practices
                    | policy                        | relationships
 
 
 | constitute                                  | minority status
 | be the basis of                             | quota preferences
 | entitle any |person           to | have     | protected status
               |class of persons    | claim    | claim of discrimination
 
 =====

The controversy is about the very last item tucked in there; the amendment
apparently means to prohibit homosexuals and bisexuals (but NOT heterosexuals)
from making use of the non-discrimination laws or policies which exist.  The
stuff about quotas, preferences, protected classes, etc was a smokescreen
and was never the issue.  Cheers / ~z~
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: swoodcoc@oldcolo.com (Steven Woodcock)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: The Good Guys, Inc.                                             
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:45:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.223202.4834@ncar.ucar.edu> tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:
>
>	Imagine if a private company had to adhere to a very strict and 
>	arbitrary set of spending guidelines.  That the only way they
>	could change these guidelines would be if they had a vote of the
>	shareholders and that vote was required to occur at the annual
>	shareholders meeting.  I think there would be a lot of very unhappy
>	and frustrated CEOs.
>
>
>				Tom  Mayer
>
>

Tom:

   If a local government REALLY feels that something is important enough
to be an emergency, Amendment 1 does permit them to declare an emergency
and raise the taxes.  The issue must then go onto the ballot next time 
around, at which point the voters could (presumably) agree with or disagree
with the increase.  One also assumes that, if the tax hike was very
unpopular and/or perceived to be unnecessary, the officials in question would
find themselves out of a job.



Steven W.
One of the Good Guys

-- 
    "...Men will awake presently and be Men again, and colour and laughter and
 splendid living will return to a grey civilization. But that will only come 
 true because a few Men will believe in it, and fight for it, and fight in its
 name against everything that sneers and snarls at that ideal..."
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:51:54 GMT

tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:

> Further if you look at the amount of taxes collected per $1000 of income 
> [Colorado is] about 34th in the country.  My question would be where's the 
> fire?  We could have the tax burden of Mississippi, but then again we could 
> have the roads, schools, parks, and environmental protection of Mississippi.

To put Tom's point more succinctly: The quality of life is directly 
proportional to the rate of taxation.

I know you think Usenet readers are too stupid to see through the absurd 
reasoning you have outlined above (you have said as much in other postings),
so bear with me while I point out the obvious: Mississippi is poor because
its *people* are poor.  The government cannot shake down its citizens for
money they simply do not posess.

Tom goes on, comparing the impact of Amendment 1 to private sector spending
decisions:

> Imagine if a private company had to adhere to a very strict and 
> arbitrary set of spending guidelines.

The restriction "Unless authorized by the shareholders, you may not spend 
more than you did last year, adjusted for inflation and company growth" is
hardly "arbitrary".  I even question whether it is "strict".


Jim Rosinski
Xref: sparky co.politics:2482 co.general:2291
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:45:43 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hplsdor.col.hp.com

tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:
        .
	.
> 	For better or worse the legislature and local city councils
> 	spend months studying budgets trying to decide how to allocate
> 	resources.  

And rightly so.  Wise allocation of resources is their job.  They
still get to divvy the pie, they just can't make it bigger.

> 	            I wonder how long the average voter will study the
> 	needs of the various state and local agencies and departments
> 	before voting.
	.
	.

Let's see if I can sum your article:  voters are stupid; government
is wise and has done well.

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:14:22 GMT

> = marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>> =Vince Dugar (v042517@stortek.com) wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: My original input (start of this thread) was the misuse of the word "hate"
>: to fuel the "No on 2" side of this issue.  I still see it and it continues
>: to bother me.  Beliefs, not hate, directed my decision to support A2.

>I agree; you will note I don't use that word.  I do use the word "ignorance"
>to describe the act of voting on something you don't understand, and the word
>"bigotry" to describe deliberately denying someone their civil rights because
>you don't agree with their beliefs.

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong:
1) current expert knowledge wrt gays is that being gay or straight 
   (*unlike* religion) is not a matter of belief/choice (quite possibly it 
   is a genetic trait).  
2) being gay or straight (in itself), just like being German or Japanese, 
   and *unlike* certain religions, has absolutely no effect on anyone else, 
   except that some other person may have the self-inflicted hangup of 
   being upset at the *notion* of a person being gay/straight/German/Japanese.

With this in mind, what words would describe explicitly legalizing all forms
of discrimination against all people BORN WITH a given physical and/or mental 
trait that is of NO RELEVANCE (or no more relevance than, say, race/religion)?  

In some cases, perhaps "ignorance" and/or "bigotry" are more accurate.  
But "hate" is not too far away from "ignorance" + "bigotry".  Can anyone 
really doubt that "hate" *is* the motivation for *many* who voted for A2?

>"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ...shall...
> enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
> orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ...any...claim of discrimination"

-Brian
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: TPS
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:52:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.082929.7384@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> zacek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Daniel M. Zacek) writes:

>Only one criticism from me.  Certain governmental entities ARE directly 
>responsible to their taxpayers.  In particular, fire protection districts are
>controlled by a board of directors elected by the residents of the district.

Other than proximity, this isn't "direct control."  Taxpayers are still 
electing representatives in this system.  Representatives who they don't, 
and practically can't, know.  People who may, or may not, perform the tasks 
they promised to perform in their campaigns.  

Yes, I am saying that I don't believe representational government works 
today.  Yes, I am saying that I do believe that taxpayers should have 
direct control over where their money is spent. I have seen no evidence that 
government officials use better judgement than the average taxpayer.  I have 
seen a lot of evidence that might contradict the assumption that government 
officials use any judgement.
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general