HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Subject: Re: pandhandlers
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:47:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.184426.10151@eskimo.celestial.com>, alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>      If this is the definition of people who "choose" to be on the
> streets then perhaps nobody is really choosing to be there at all.
> Just because a person doesn't accept what you consider how they have
> to act or what they have to do to get off the street doesn't mean that
> they choose to be there.  Maybe they hate living on the street, but they
> hate what you would force them to do and become even more.  You say no
> treatment in the world will help them?  How many different approaches have
> you seen tried?

I think you're heading twoard an important point here.

Yes, there _are_ people on the streets because for whatever reason they
cannot put up with the authoritarian and demeaning environment known as
the modern workplace.  And yes, there _are_ homeless who refuse aid
that's offered in a condescending and patronizing manner that fails to
respect their intrinsic worth as human beings.  And these people are
those who are referred to the "homeless by choice."

Likewise, I suppose the late Herr Honecker could have said that those
East Germans who were electrocuted to death as they attempted to cross
the "anti-fascist protective barrier" [sic] were simply exercising
their desire to have several thousand volts coursing through their
bodies, and thus had become "electrocuted by choice."

Myself, I find neither argument particularly convincing.

--
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Seattle Newspapers
Organization: FYL
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:15:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

bradley@mdd.comm.mot.com (Michael Bradley) writes:

: >same.  I didn't see enough issues to really determine editorial slant.
:                                                                  ^^^^^
: Times - very liberal
: PI - just a little less liberal

Ha ha ha.

-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl or cpac.washington.edu!fylz!fyl
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Keywords: FDA, unconstitutional illegal action,single-issue blindness
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:35:59 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Jul26.215744.5482@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
/Housework by women is not
/considered "work", in the same sense as say, tool and die making is.  It
/doesn't have the same cachet.  Yet, if the women houseworkers (or day care
/workers, or other shitworker) (please, no flames from such workers, esp.
/from "pro-work" workers -- I'm not trying to put you down -- but if your
/work is so important, *why* is your pay so shitty, and why is your boss
/getting more than you?)

I pay a women to come around once in a while to clean my house. She
gets about $30/hr for it. Not bad for unskilled labor.

I have known some tool-and-die makers. They are highly skilled, and their
work is exacting and valuable. If they make a mistake, they can cost their
employer thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. Hence, the high pay.
They are worth it. I have tried doing machine work, I know how hard it is.
I've done a lot of housework too. Housework is boring and dirty, but it isn't
skilled labor and the penalties for mistakes are low.

One reason bosses get paid more than worker bees is the responsibility. By that
I mean that they are responsible for decisions that can have a drastic effect
on the bottom line of the company. If someone is making multimillion dollar
decisions, they are paid not to make mistakes.

/In general, there's just not enough slack in this society, and what there
/is, seems to be zero-sum, and permanently scarce, and evaporating faster
/than hydrogen snow.  Subvert the Planetary Work Machine!

The slack in the American economy is about 45%. This is the surplus skimmed
off and flushed away on non-productive activities by the government. We
are in this recession now because the government is currently sucking out
more of the surplus than exists. (I find the myth of the big Reagan tax
cut rather perplexing, because taxes as a percentage of GNP have steadilly
risen. Reagen merely briefly slowed down the rate of increase.)

I'm sorry you think that this is a zero-sum society. I'd believe it myself
if I weren't sure that we are much better off today than 100 years ago.
We live longer, in better health, and have more leisure time. We'd be even
better off if Congress wasn't constantly holing the ship with more taxes.
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: lampi@polari.online.com
Subject: R Squared Offering Seminar On Unix Data Management
Summary:  *Free!*
Organization: R Squared, Redmond, WA (206) 883-3116
Distribution: pnw
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:44:34 GMT

You are invited to be our guest as R Squared presents a one-day seminar on:

        Data Management Solutions for the 90's

Wednesday, July 29, 1992, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Bellevue Red Lion
Hotel, 300 - 112th Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98004.

Seminar discussion topics will include:
  . I/O servers
  . Near line optical storage
  . High speed data scanning
  . Backup strategies
  . Tape subsystems
  . Disk arrays
  . Network growth in the 90's

(This is *not* an exhibition of a bunch of hardware and salespeople trying
to get you to buy their stuff. Rather, a number of manufacturers are going
to discuss different problem areas and their approaches to solving those
problems in a networked Unix system environment.)

Lunch is provided, but an RSVP is required.

For more information or to make a reservation, please call (206) 883-3116
no later than Friday, July 24, 1992.

--
-----
+-+  Michael Lampi       lampi@polari.online.com
|R|  R Squared           16398 NE 85th St., Suite 101, Redmond, WA 98052
+-+                      (206) 883-3116       fax (206) 883-2676         

-- 
-----
+-+  Michael Lampi       lampi@polari.online.com
|R|  R Squared           16398 NE 85th St., Suite 101, Redmond, WA 98052
+-+                      (206) 883-3116       fax (206) 883-2676
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: pandhandlers
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:19:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: Tomobiki.MS-C.712181957.377401575.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0

Kurt Cockrum apparently considers that panhandlers are `making a living.'

Panhandling is not making a living, for the simple fact that they aren't
engaged in any productive activity.  Panhandling is a worldwide problem, and
around the world the same fundamental cause exists -- substance addiction.  At
least in most of the US we don't have little kids panhandling to pay for their
father's booze.

There are alternatives to panhandling for the down-and-out.  I will never give
money to a panhandler, but I have to buskers on many occasions.  Just as
panhandlers ruin an area, buskers enhance it.  There are also organzations
such as the Millionaire's Club for the down-and-out looking for short-term
work.  [Recommendation: Millionaire's Club is great to get able-bodied and
motivated workers!  Their wages aren't cheap, but they are fair, and you
usually end up tipping them.]
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: bradley@mdd.comm.mot.com (Michael Bradley)
Subject: Re: Seattle Newspapers
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:27:09 GMT

In article <62701@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>Moving day is fast approaching, and thus I will soon have to make that
>important decision: should I get the Times or the PI?
>
>Brief observation indicates that news coverage is about the same.  The
>Times seems to win the comics race hands-down.  Sports looked about the
>same.  I didn't see enough issues to really determine editorial slant.
                                                                 ^^^^^
Times - very liberal
PI - just a little less liberal

>
>What is the connection between these papers?  I notice that the phone
>number for subscriptions is the same for both of them.  That seems a
>little odd.
>
>Does anyone care to offer opinions or suggestions?
>

Probably the biggest decision is whether you want your paper in the 
morning (PI) or evening (Times)

>Oh, while I'm here, what is TV reception like near U of W?  Will an
>indoor set of rabbit ears get the networks (including FOX) reasonably,
>or will I need cable?
>
>--Tim Smith


Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch)
Subject: JOA (was Re: Seattle Newspapers)
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:53:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.070429.5366@u.washington.edu> davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
>
>They are under what is known as a joint operating agreement (JOA).
>Normally this kind of thing would be illegal under antitrust laws, but
>newspapers were granted a special exemption.  Seattle is not unique in
>this regard, other cities' major papers are in a similar arrangement
>(e.g. The Albuquerque Journal and The Albuquerque Tribune).
>
As does the Pittsburgh Press and the Post-Gazette, which is (one of) the 
reason(s) that no one is getting any papers in Pgh today. Seems that the 
Teamsters are on strike against their "joint" distributing arangement.

-- 
  Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox    | That which does not kill me makes me strong.  |
 If my employer only knew... |                              -Nietzsche       |
   standard BS applies	     | ... but why risk it?  - me                    |
From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Keywords: rich money wealth poor work economics
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:31:17 GMT
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

In article <7yXNoB1w165w@eisley.akita.com> wood@eisley.akita.com (Ken Wood) writes:
> If you want to encourage innovation you need an
>open system with no limits.  Otherwise once somebody reaches the limit 
>why not stop and relax?  Of course you can make it a diminishing return 
>as you get higher just as long as it doesn't get to the point where it's 
>no longer worth it.  Well that's my $0.02, see ya'll later.
>     Ken Wood

  I missed your last comment here in my first response to this post.
Yeah, that's a problem limiting income and still encouraging individual
incentive for innovation and production.  But there are limits to what
a person can practically own at the higher ends.  When someone is worth
hundreds of millions (not to mention billions) of dollars they have
such a consumption that it takes millions of working stiffs to support
their lifestyles.  One idea I have is to make a limit of say that top
CEOs can only earn 6 times the starting wage of their company.  That way
they can still continue to get a better income if their company does good,
but the average worker also must get an increase in salary in order for
the boss to do so.  (I also think that the percentage increase in wages
for Congress and the Pres should be matched by equal increases in the
minimum wage - it pisses me off when the increase their own wage by a
full half again as much and vote not to increase minimum wage by a dime)
For those whos income isn't affected by a company and workers below them
I think that high wages (definitely anyone making over a mil a year - though
personally I think it should start at 6 figures) should get the heck taxed
out of them with increasingly incredibly high percentages so that people
still can continue to make a higher wage no matter how much they have
but it gets down to a slower and slower rate and the government (the public)
gets increasingly better returns.
   The economy as a whole does much better if a million people have decent
paying jobs and spend that regularly on common luxuries (cars, appliances,
VCRs, computers, boats, golf clubs, etc) than if one person has a million
dollars and makes a few large purchases ( a mansion, yacht, trump shuttle,
etc)

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Distribution: pnw.general
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:59:36 GMT

monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:


   	(TACOMA)- Pierce County sheriff's deputies shot and killed a gunman
   outside an art studio near Puyallup. The victim is identified only as a
   48-year-old man... who authorities say worked at the studio. Sheriff's
   spokesman Curt Benson says the man walked outside the studio with a
   rifle yesterday... refused repeated orders to drop the firearm... then
   pointed it at deputies, who opened fire. Benson says the man had fired
   the rifle inside the building earlier. Investigators say the gunman was
   upset over an illness and a failed romance. Law-enforcement officials
   say the deputies involved in the shooting have been assigned to desk
   duty while the incident is reviewed.


At least he didn't get into his car with his driver's license and decide
to cross the center line, taking someone with him. Suicide has *nothing*
to do with the US Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Flames > /dev/null
-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th and
 9th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.
From: monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: pandhandlers
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:08:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul27.220843.11820
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <MS-C.712181957.377401575.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
>Kurt Cockrum apparently considers that panhandlers are `making a living.'
>
>Panhandling is not making a living, for the simple fact that they aren't
>engaged in any productive activity.  Panhandling is a worldwide problem, and

You could include most lawyers, all politicians, among others in this
'non-productive' group :)

>around the world the same fundamental cause exists -- substance addiction.  At
>least in most of the US we don't have little kids panhandling to pay for their
>father's booze.

Three causes for homelessnes:
    1)  Substance abuse and inadequate treatment facilities available
    2)  Mental illness and inadequate treatment facilities available
    3)  Job loss and inadequate re-training facilities available


Do you see a pattern here?
From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Subject: Re: pandhandlers
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.231433.4639@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
>: 
>: Three causes for homelessnes:
>:     1)  Substance abuse and inadequate treatment facilities available
>:     2)  Mental illness and inadequate treatment facilities available
>:     3)  Job loss and inadequate re-training facilities available

>      4)  The person likes to live on the street (there are quite a few of
>          these).

       5)  The reasons for #4 being numbers 1-3 above.
       6)  Selfish indifference by insensitive individuals believing #4.


-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************
From: alanj@endeavor18.tek.com (Alan Jeddeloh)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: pandhandlers
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:39:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: shaman.1499
Organization: Tektronix, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.231433.4639@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
-monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
-: 
-: Three causes for homelessnes:
-:     1)  Substance abuse and inadequate treatment facilities available
-:     2)  Mental illness and inadequate treatment facilities available
-:     3)  Job loss and inadequate re-training facilities available
-
-      4)  The person likes to live on the street (there are quite a few of
-          these).

Although it isn't a major factor here, there are plenty of people in
other areas of the country who are working homeless -- they have jobs,
but there simply isn't housing available that they can afford.

--
    Alan Jeddeloh      W:(503) 685-2991  H:(503) 292-9740
    Tektronix, Inc.
    D/S 60-850; PO Box 1000; Wilsonville, OR 97070
    Alan.Jeddeloh@tek.com          Let sleeping dogs^H^H^H^Hbabies lie
From: davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: pandhandlers
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:15:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul28.061507.1141
Organization: University of Washington

In article <1992Jul27.231433.4639@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>, scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>       4)  The person likes to live on the street (there are quite a few of
>           these).

Now why are there people on the street?  Wait!  I got it!  They *want*
to live there.  It's a comfortable, cushy life.  It's far nicer to be
out sleeping under the Alaskan Way Viaduct on a rainy January night
than it is to be in a stuffy old house or apartment.  Yeah, that's the
ticket...

--
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: Panhandling
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:30:20 GMT

In article <TZmLoB1w165w@pdaxs.techbook.com> bbaugh@pdaxs.techbook.com (bruce) writes:
[...]
>Since this thread came up, I've talked with four of them. All four of 
>them agreed that most of the money _they_ had raised through panhandling 
>went for alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. When they wanted food or 
>physical resources, they didn't go out panhandling, they went scrounging 
>behind supermarkets in the wee hours of the morning (when a fair number 
>of employees will make sure that discarded but still good food doesn't 
>end up buried beneath mounds of trash, they say), or to shelters, or 
>wherever.

Maybe if drugs were legalized, one might see less panhandling, since it
would take less $$ to get the drugs.  Of course, if the food-containing
dumpsters were *locked*, or the food were sprayed with poison (both were/are
done in some places, by particularly mean-spirited supermarket managers),
then you could make *sure* that the panhandling money got spent on food rather
than on some frivolous thing like drugs!
A major use (but not, by any means, the only one) of drugs is to ease the
pain/boredom of daily existence.  For some reason, conservatives think that
that is frivolous -- probably because they're tougher than everybody else,
and bear the pain gladly, and wonder why everybody else can't do that.

>Now, it's possible that those four -- who were on the streets in, 
>respectively, Pasadena, Los Angeles, Seattle and Cleveland -- all had 
>experiences that were unrepresentative in the same way. It's also 
>possible that they're all lying to me to reinforce my prejudices, even 
>though one is a socialist and another extremely liberal. But I don't 
>think so.

Let's hear from some conservative ex-panhandlers!

>At least one other person involved here (Mark Crispin) mentioned that he 
>often gives to buskers. So do I. I also give often to people offering me 
>flowers, or nicely hand-painted postcards, or any of a number of other 
>things of value (usually aesthetic rther than monetary). I appreciate 
>their effort to offer me in exchange for money. I don't appreciate those 
>who want my money without either something in exchange or any 
>accountability for how it's going to be used.
[...]

Guess you have no problem with taxes, then...The state and IRS hit you up
for lots more than every panhandler you have ever encountered in your life,
all taken together.  Moreover, they'll make you *into* one of those
panhandlers if you don't watch out; the panhandlers at least don't impose
the dire penalties that the state and the IRS do for non-payment.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: skele@tc.fluke.COM (Martins Skele)
Subject: Re: pandhandlers
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:58:11 GMT

miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller) writes:

>monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:


>> Three causes for homelessnes:
>>     1)  Substance abuse and inadequate treatment facilities available
>>     2)  Mental illness and inadequate treatment facilities available
>>     3)  Job loss and inadequate re-training facilities available
...
>Not really, Tracy. Having worked with several people in the first and third
>category through Christian ministries, it has become obvious that many folks
>would rather stay on the street than accept the responsibilities that go along
...
>take advantage of what is offered and get a new lifestyle. I was surprised
>by the number who turn away help for reasons known only to them.

Could it be because thay had to swallow thw christianity along with the help?
a bitter pill.
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Seattle Newspapers
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:52:10 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <MS-C.712179085.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
/It has been claimed that the Times is `conservative' and the P-I is
/`liberal', but that's only if you think Ted Kennedy is conservative.
/There has been no tax increase or liberal cause in recent years that
/the Times has not enthusiastically endorsed,

The sad state of affairs with the Times was made obvious to me when they
had a headline about "CUTS IN EDUCATION". Upon carefully reading the text,
the "cuts" were actually reductions in the *increase* of the education
budget. As a natural state of affairs, proposed budgets are always higher
than they expect to get, so that the lawmakers can feel good about cutting
something. The wording the Times used implied that the budget would be
decreased from the current budget.

Another facet of their irresponsible reporting is their insistence on
calling a state income tax "tax reform", thus adopting the newspeak
of the tax & spend politicians. Newspapers are supposed to protect us from
that kind of crud.