HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@howard.nafb.trw.com (Russ Vreeland)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: TRW Ballistic Missiles Div. San Bernadino, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 17:46:44 GMT

In article <26583@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Phil Ronzone writes:
** much deleted **
>>Fixing the "shoe" problem is obvious. let the private marketplace do it.
>
>Let's suppose, tho, that you could indeed show the private marketplace
>can do a better job of making "shoes" than any "State" program could.
>Naturally we would want to adopt this better program.  But this is
>where I run into difficulty with it.  What do we do about children who
>can't afford "shoes", or whose parents irresponsibly smoke up the
>"shoe" money, or for religious or personal reasons won't pony up to
>buy their children "shoes"?

I'm probably going to live to regret this: posting to ca.politics -- but
dangit, here goes....

Noone has to "show" anything. The inefficiencies of the public sector 
vis a vis the "perform or die" incentives of the marketplace are 
irrefutable. Take discussions of this point to "alt.dont.argue.with.fools".

I think the point about "affording" is not relevant. The present taxation
system for financing schools ( in general, not in any particular detail )
is one of the few examples of justified wealth-transfer I can think of.
Access to education is guarateed to all by financing the school system from
taxation. In any voucher system I've run across THIS WILL NOT CHANGE -- only
the monopoly of the public school system will be broken.

Also, the voucher system will be just that - vouchers, not cash. No 
opportunity to "smoke up" or otherwise misuse an education voucher will
arise if they are only good for tuition at a school of one's choice.

While on the subject, let's take this voucher idea a step further. Since
California is in some need of budget medicine these days, would anyone care
to estimate how much revenue the state could raise by selling the public
schools? This approach would certainly render moot the arguments about
"creating a 2 tiered school system for  haves and have-nots" or "leaving
the public schools to deal with the problem cases". I think the private
schools could deal with the problem cases very well with just the help
of a (very) small number of regulations providing (tax?) incentives to
prod them to not ignore the hard cases and inner city type school situations.

And where would leave Bill Honig and the Education establishment?
Anybody want to buy 50 or so used limos from the LA School District?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are my opinions in my opinion.
R.E.Vreeland
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:56:02 GMT

In article <12528@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>The last time I gave blood, a couple months back, one of the nurses
>told a donor that there was still about a 1:100,000 or so chance
>of getting AIDS-tainted blood.

That nurse should have been reprimanded for alarmism.  The chance of
being infected with HIV for *donating* blood is 0:100,000.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Darwinfish
Keywords: Tweaking Pat Robertson's nose
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:42:46 PDT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

Has anyone out there seen the Darwinfish?  By now, everyone has seen the
mylar fish on the back of a number of (presumably) Christian automobiles,
frequently with the word IXOYE inscribed in it.  This one has the word
DARWIN inscribed, with little feet growing (evolving?) underneath it.  I
have been looking high and low in the southland for this little guy --
through Melrose and locally in Orange County.  If anyone can help me
locate this item, I (and several of my friends) would be most grateful.
Please respond via e-mail, as I don't read this group regularly.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association vs. Equal Opportunity
Date: 1 Oct 1992 19:46:23 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <97249@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <195270@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>
>pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>
>>Neither side is able to convince the other and neither side is willing to
>>budge. So I have to ask, why continue the debate? For that matter, why even
>>have a debate?
>
>Well, I HAVE budged, a lot. Frankly, I'm tired of the debate, too, and the
>fact that my opponents refuse to concede anything.
>

This is part of thread that I have been putting forth.  There is always a
time when everything appears not to be changing, becuase in general changes
occur in quantum steps, not continuously.  The budging and convince may not
be the most conducive to either side.  It requires that all sides listen
and weigh what they hear, not just against what they know, but against what
they may learn.

>>Whatever happened to the principles of cooperation and compromise?
>
>I did offer a compromise. Not forcing any company to adhere to anti-discrim-
>ination legislation, but instead giving tax credits to any company that
>signs non-discriminatory contracts with its employees.
>
I don't think anything has happened to cooperation and compromise.  We see
this everyday in the government.  Not always what we want to see, but somehow
and somewhere a compromise is struck for the moment.  There will be more and
more debates and compromises that is how progress is made.

>I'd welcome debating this (or OTHER) compromises. Let's leave the basic
>argument where it is...at a stand-off.
>
>Brian

don't give up to soon or easily... you can carry the discussions to many other
people.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Northern Exposure
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:29:46 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs


I liked that episode, but the fact that the two were lesbians had almost no 
bearing on the rest of the story. (which I took to be a good thing...a fair
portrayal of people.)  Aside from a few bits of dialog, their sexuality didn't
really enter into the story, because it had little to do with what they were
doing in the town.  This fit my experience of people's sexuality...that unless
you're having sex with them, it really doesn't affect you. It was nice to see TV
treat an unusual couple in a usual way. 

But then, I think NEXP is one of very few shows that isn't insulting to 
the average person's intelligence... 

JZ
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:03:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics,ca.politics
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Sep26.170507.6280@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> In article <12517@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> 	Removed from soc.motss per the soc.motss FAQ which apparently
> is verboten reading at Optilink.
> 
> 	Back in the old days we could count on newsadmins to be responsible
> for their sites.  Can anyone suggest a solution to this?  I think after
> a year of this misuse of the net, that we've merited some kind of
> plenary indulgence.
> 
> 	Would a discussion of this be suitable for news.admin?
> Something needs to be done, and the passive nature of the net "let
> things work out on their own" simply isn't working in the case where 
> people such as Cr*m*r refuse to follow simple rules regarding improper
> cross-posting.  Since there are several forums for this sort of
> discussion, this isn't a first amendment issue in any way.  IT's just
> continual discourtesy and rudeness for the sole purpose of being
> insinuating.

It isn't appropriate for the political groups either, but that doesn't
stop Clayton.  Come to think of it, he has never posted any of this to
the only newsgroups where it would conceivably be appropriate:  the
psychological, psychiatric, or sociological ones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Saturday Night Live && Shinehead
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:46:37 GMT

In article <athos-041092161341@kip2-43.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>Hi There,
>
>I am wondering if anyone would fill me in on exactly why Shinehead found it
>necessary to insult every Catholic on Earth last night on SLV?  What's her
>beef?

I don't know, but I would assume that it probably has something to
do with the fact that she is Irish.  I can see how you might get a
little turned off to religion by growing up in an area where lots of
people are blowing each other up in the name of "God".

Guido

P.S.  I also think that she likes to jerk people's chains (remember
the Star Spangled Banner flap a while back ?).
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Freedom of Association vs. Equal Opportunity
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:22:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

One thing that I've noticed in the recent debates about the right to
Freedom of Association vs. the right to Equal Opportunity is that both
sides tend to take absolute positions.  Those who argue for the freedom
of association tend to argue that this right is absolute and is para-
mount over conflicting rights.  On the other side, the opposing view
is just as strongly held, that the right to an equal opportunity is
paramount over the right to freedom of association.  Neither side is
able to convince the other and neither side is willing to budge.  So
I have to ask, why continue the debate?  For that matter, why even have
a debate?

My opinion is that these two basic rights are relatively equal in merit
and neither is "stronger" than the other.  In both cases, these rights
are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, but rather have to
be derived from related clauses or even from the Declaration of Indepen-
dence.

My problem with debates like this is that they are unproductive.  The
argument usually degenerates to name-calling and childishness ("is too",
"is not").  Whatever happened to the principles of cooperation and com-
promise?  Whatever happened to "agreeing to disagree"?

In this matter, unlike some others such as abortion, I happen to believe
that there is some middle ground, if the parties involved will only look
for it.  For example, in the area of jobs:  you could argue that in pri-
vately held companies, the right to freedom of association is paramount
and that the owner/manager is free to hire/fire whomever he wishes without
interference.  On the other hand, in publicly held companies and in
government agencies, the right to an equal opportunity is paramount and
the company may be prohibited from discriminatory hiring/firing practices.

I'm not saying that this is the ideal situation and, obviously neither group
gets exactly what it wants, but it might prove a starting point for a more
productive debate than is presently taking place.

In any case, I wish all parties involved would ask themselves if they have
truly posted anything new on this subject in the past few weeks.  If all
you're doing is rehashing what you said before, is it really necessary to
continue the argument?  Is having the last word so important that you
must continue the debate ad nauseam?

Now that I've got everybody mad at me, I'll bow out and follow my advice
by not continuing the debate, no matter what anyone else says.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Many Flavors of Bigotry (Was Re: Republicans vs. Centrists?)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 17:20:59 GMT

In article <26608@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Caroline E. Bryan writes:
>#Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>#> a magnet for peoples of all other cultures does not make
>#> Buchanan or his supporters bigoted Nazis.
>
>#Of course not.  Did you really want to come to America because you perceived
>#its culture to be anti-Catholic ....
>
>#of war.  There are even members of the Republican Party who find Buchanan's
>#and his supporters' positions execrable and don't hesitate to say and behave
>
>Wait a minute -- isn't Buchanan Catholic?  A *devout* Catholic?
>(Perhaps Pharisaically, but that's his business.)

He sure doesn't *sound* Catholic, but let me for the moment assume he is.  In
public speech he makes anti-Catholic statements.  Whether he repents of them
later and mentions it in confession is his business.  If his confessor knows
*his* business he'd urge Buchanan to retract those statements publicly, but
as Buchanan hasn't, either Buchanan hasn't repented of them, or his confessor
is the "make 3 Hail Mary's and call me in the morning" type.

Bill Clinton, in his emphasis on community and on personal responsibility,
sounds much more Catholic than Buchanan does.  And did anyone catch the pro-
foundly Catholic statement that Cuomo made in his convention speech?  It was
along the lines of "Faith is good.  But you have to do works, too!"

Hate is NOT a Catholic virtue.  Anyone who claims to be a devout Catholic, but
who approaches most human situations with hate, is a liar as well as a hater.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "The brain that processes these words as you read them is NOT the one you |
| were born with."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Fascism Invades NASA AMES
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:28:20 GMT

I found the following in sci.space.news:

******************************************************************************
NASA security agents raid Ames, sealing offices and sending some personnel
home pending security investigation.  They refused to tell anyone what
they were looking for or why.  Ames staff are very upset and want to know
what the hell is going on.  It's all very peculiar because very little of
what Ames does is classified.  Circumstances suggest that some specific
leak prompted Goldin to order the raid.
******************************************************************************

I pose the question here and now: If our government has an aero-space research
center in Moscow ...not sure of which company (perhaps Locheed..anyone know?),
then why the hell are these damndable Bush Gestapo agents doing this for?
Just what kind of leak can you have when you are doing state-of-the art
research and development in MOSCOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! 

What's up boys? Your paycheck in danger now that the lie "The Cold War" is
over?

Clean Planet Earth NOW! Eliminate ALL covert agencies world-wide!

Len Bucuvalas

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my own, not my employer's
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Slavery by Law (Re: School vouchers)
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:19:46 GMT
            <1992Sep30.160646.12644@netcom.com>
            <1992Oct1.013218.25077@ntmtv>
            <1992Oct1.161333.461@netcom.com>
            <1992Oct2.205551.18554@ntmtv>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Oct2.205551.18554@ntmtv>
 by jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski):

: In article <1992Oct1.161333.461@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) 
:    writes:
:< This first line is taken from another of Phil's postings. Sincere 
:< apologizes if I misinterpret the intent>:
:>
:> Slavery could not have existed without the coercive State.
:
: How is this?? This sounds like there were laws mandating slavery.

Precisely.

:> Child labor laws are stupid and immoral.
:
: Child labor laws limit the exploitation of children (aka cheap labor).
: How is this stupid and immoral?

There are exceptions for your own children, as it so happens.  
(I suppose the belief is that these cruel, heartless people won't
"exploit" their own off-spring.  Hah!)

Let's look at a restaurant in a strip-mall.  Dad's in back cooking, Mom's
running the cash-register, Daughter #1 is waiting tables while Son #2 is
washing dishes.

What's wrong with that?  Happens all the time.

If I can start a restarant and hire my own kids to wash dishes, what
moral imperative prevents me from hiring my neighbor's kids?

It's too damn bad, because it would keep them off the streets and out of
trouble.  It would seem that "society" would prefer that they sell drugs.

This is essentially the alternative, because there are laws against
using kids as cheap labor.  If you're going to break the law, you might
as well do it profitably.

: Patti Jazanoski

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even
one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:19:11 GMT

In article <12565@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Hospitals, by law, aren't allowed to turn away anyone who is
>in need of immediate care, regardless of their insurance.
>Therefore, if you can find a hospital that doesn't treat
>"any uninsured," they must not have an emergency room.

Of course, the mere fact that they are required by law to treat
people in need of immediate care doesn't mean that they do that
in fact.  When I was living in Southern California there was a
rather large stink over a hospital in Riverside who had turned
away a young Hispanic man who was suffering from a knife wound
in the stomach (this would qualify as in need of immediate care
in my book).  They directed him to the nearest public hospital
which was more than 1/2 hour away.  He bled to death en-route.

More recently, a young black woman who went into premature labor
was turned away from a hospital in the East Bay.  She couldn't
produce proof of insurance.  It turned out later than she IN FACT
was insured, she just didn't have her card with her.  I suspect
that the fact that she was black had a lot to do with her being
denied appropriate medical care.

Of course, these are only the more spectacular abuses which make
it into the papers.  I would assume that this goes on every day.

Guido

Xref: sparky ca.politics:8340 talk.politics.misc:48971 ba.politics:5773
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: For Arthur Hu: Heterosexual AIDS Stats in the East
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:33:05 GMT

In article <12546@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.163033.26743@odin.corp.sgi.com>, zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>> In article <12510@optilink.UUCP>, Clayton Cramer writes:
>> >I know that if heterosexuals were as promiscuous as homosexuals,
>> >American AIDS demographics would look a lot more like Africa than
>> >they do.
>> 
>> Do the Africans with AIDS have the kind of sex practices that you
>> think American homosexuals do? 
>> 
>> JZ
>
>1. Higher promiscuity than American heterosexuals, especially because
>of the large numbers of prostitutes in very poor countries.
>
>2. More common use of sodomy among African heterosexuals in order
>to remain "virginal."
>
>3. Doubtless because of #1 and the poor medical care, lots of
>untreated STDs (which simply the transmission of AIDS in vaginal
>sex).
>
>Sounds like a good match to American homosexuals.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
>increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.

Cramer.....<sigh>....you are persistent. HIV had its first
*major* break out in 1977 in Zaire Africa. Notice the
operative word is *major*.....and it just so happened to
be one year, to date, after the WHO small pox or hepatits B
vaccination program.  Sodomy has nothing to do with the
outbreak and origin of AIDS. If it did, we all would be
getting AIDS every year around April 15th! ;^)

Len
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: Debbie.rhodes@f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Debbie rhodes)
Sender: NewsMeisterII@mcws.fidonet.org
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: 30 Sep 1992 16:26:58 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <k1+ps-q.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1aaavtINNb9v@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>
>Sorry about your cognitive problems. Blue Cross is like AAA. I belong
>to Northern California AAA. Technically, it is CSAA. I used California
>as an adjective in this case.
>
>However, your nit picking does not excuse from a lack of answer to
>your misinformation:
>
>1. Blue Cross is NOT a national company.
>2. Blue Cross of California is doing fine.
>3. Blue Cross in any state has excellent data collection procedures;
>   that is not the source of their problems.

Cognitive problems?  It seems that you made a judgement that everyone
in the world knows what you mean when you say something- 'Blue Cross'
is definitely ambiguous as far as I am concerned.

And as far as number 3) goes where do you recieve your information about
their data collection procedures.  Any process of data collection is
bias to what the company needs.  I would assume that you are directly
involved in their data collection/analysis department?




Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics