HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Needles (was: Re: What, Me Vote?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:50:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>>>sterile needles - something for which you are supposed to have a
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>doctor's prescription), and oh, by the way, abstinence is also a way to avoid
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Interesting.  I can walk into any (so far as I know) feed store in the
>>state and buy hypodermic needles and syringes without any prescription.

When I was a kid, my father got a bunch (probably 100-200) of sterile 
needles probably intended for insulin injection.  We used them for all 
sorts of things.  Refilling pens.  Measuring stuff for my chemistry
set.  (For a while I had a lot of fun playing with invisible inks.) I 
think at one point we used them without the needle part for feeding baby 
rabbits, an injured bird, and sick hamsters.  And one time a needle was 
useful for dispensing carefully controlled amounts of glue for building 
models.  Granted, this was in the 60's, but I don't think my father or 
I had any idea that there was any problem with letting me use them.
Probably the worst actual risk was that I would stab myself with a
needle contaminated with some chemical not meant to be taken internally,
like sodium ferrocyanide.  Well, I'm sure I stabbed myself a few
times, but I probably did a lot worse damage trimming roses or falling 
off a bike.

I also went down to the drug store once and bought a bunch of gelatin
capsules for gradually releasing measured amounts of chemicals.
The only thing the druggist worried about was that I was going to
make bombs out of them.  I don't think my father was with me at the
time, and I was about 13, but I did have permission to get them.

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:56:32 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov16.173540.18186@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: Suppose I'm a citizen and I'd rather go into the City Council Chambers and
>: scream about how much money Fred wants to spend on football.  Can they
>: violate my "freedom of speech?"
>
>I think they can, unless you have followed the appropriate procedures to get
>on the agenda, etc.

But aren't those rules, so the (specious) argument goes, infringing on
my right of free speech?

>: If he wants to read Hustler doing his free reading period - a time when
>: he isn't being paid to work - that's his business.  It was his free
>: reading period, by the way.
>
>I think you're mistaken in assuming that this is his own time.  The school has
>instituted a "free" reading period for the students, but the teacher is still
>"on the clock", unless he doesn't get paid for this reading time, and has the
>option of leaving during this time.

It doesn't matter if it was his own time.  If the teacher could spend the
time reading any other material that can be legally owned, he should be
able to spend it reading the bible.

>:                              I'd argue this on two levels.  The first is
>: that a right to a free press requires the freedom to read what is being
>: printed, and the second (more specifically ...) is that the Constitutional
>: prohibition against making laws restricting freedom of religion make
>: keeping someone from reading the bible illegal.
>
>Maybe so, but your employer doesn't have to pay you a salary to exercise your
>Constitutional rights (even if your employer is the government).

Again, if the teacher can read any other publication - Lady's Home Journal,
Cosmopolitian, Guns & Ammo, the teacher should also be able to read the
bible.  There is no indication that the teacher wasn't being allowed to
read something else.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:56:05 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov16.235939.46253@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote, but wins the 
>electoral vote (it happened in 1876 and 1888 and almost happened in 1960)?  
>Still a feature?  How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote 
>AND the electoral vote and still becomes president (it happened in 1824)?  
>Why have a popular vote at all?  The electors are not obligated to vote the 
>way their states voted.  Why don't we just let them vote for whoever they feel 
>like?  We'd save a lot of money anyway.

My suspicion about where the concept for the Electoral College comes from,
and this is just a suspicion, so ... is that it was felt a President should
have roughly the same support as is represented in the House and Senate.

If the the majority of Senators and House members are from one party, we'd
see a majority of electors for that same party.  I suspect that the states
gummed that up when they started with the "All or nothing" rule.  Even with
this perversion, I still see the Electoral College as an effective means
of demonstrating that a consensus for a particular candidate exists.  And
in cases where the popular vote is so close that you see the anomolies you
point out above, does it really matter who becomes President?  They weren't
that much more or less popular than the other guy.

>                                         What the electoral college does very 
>successfully is make sure that a 3rd party candidate will never be elected
>president.

Recall that Abraham Lincoln was the first President ever elected from
the Republican party.  Something about Proof By Counter-Example.  We've
only had 42 presidents.  Counting Lincoln as only one (and ignoring his
Vice-President, who presumably was also a Republican ...), at least 2.5%
of the time the third party candidate wins ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:46:24 GMT

In article <7887@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.233213.23318@ra.oc.com> tk@pssparc2.mitek.com (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov14.000811.14420@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush) writes:
>>>Of course they don't.  But you can either look back at this post in
>>>four years and laugh at me, or you can think that maybe the 1996
>>>election is where you ought to start voting Libertarian.
>>I don't want Texas to become the 13th province of Cuba in 1997.
>
>Neither do I.
>
>What does that have to do with anything the other Thomas said?

I think Tom Kimball _meant_ to say, 

	I don't want this country to continue increasing the size
	and reponsibilities of government, as I recognize that 
	therein lies fiscal, moral, and economic bankruptcy.  I
	understand that if the voters of this great land do not
	begin to turn out of office those representative who 
	pursue this course, the country will be forced to sell off
	assets, perhaps at cents on the dollar, in the world's
	largest ever bankruptcy sale.  It seems apparent that 
	Texas may be one of the first properties so sold, and that
	that sale may come as soon as 1997.

Or maybe not.

thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
I believe all human interactions should be based on mutual consent.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Bush starts unpatriotic trade war.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:11:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.144057.7348@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Do you have any information to contradict it?  GATT says the French
> are in violation and have been in violation despite repeated warnings
> over a number of years.  The only uncorrected violation of GATT on our
> part that I know of is the threat of reprisals we recently made.
 
The fact that the US is largely in compliance with GATT doesn't have
anything to do with whether or not we have a relatively high level of
tariffs. 
 
> Define 'mercantilism'.  I believe you will find that it is part and
> parcel of the economic system known as 'capitalism'.
 
That's not true.  
 
Capitalism: "The economic system in which all or most of the means of
production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc, are
privately owned and operated for profit under fully competitive
conditions".
 
Mercantilsm: "The doctrine that arose in Europe with the decline of
feudalism, that the economic interests of a nation could be strengthened
by the government by protection of home industries, as through tariffs, by
increased foreign trade, as through monopolies, and by a blance of exports
over imports, with a consequent accumulation of bullion."
 
While not diametrically opposed, they certainly aren't the same thing.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:38:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
: No one complains that the chess club is pressuring children to play chess
: because the members talk about how much fun chess is.  It is hypocritical
: to complain that God-fearing children are pressuring others to believe in
: God.

There's no Constitutional prohibition against respecting an establishment
of chess.  They can "fear God" all they want, but the government isn't going
to support it.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:38:52 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov19.012348.43509@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>David L. Cathey (davidc@montagar.com) wrote:
>: > you are so concerned about where to put the body of a dead burglar.  If he
>: > left enough money to plant himself in the ground then fine.  If his family 
>: > wants to come pick his body up, then fine.
>: 
>: 	So if I walk up and shoot you, it's okay?  You would no longer have
>: any rights (you're DEAD), so it wouldn't make any difference would it?

>I was alive when you shot me.  Are you being deliberately obtuse?  What we
>do with dead bodies is a completely separate issue from how they became dead.

Well, that hypothetical burglar was alive before he was shot, too.  So
what?  If he shoots and kills you, you are dead now.  So what's the
big deal?

>: 	Did I shoot you in self defense?  Premeditated homicide?  Was deadly
>: force required?  Both ways you are dead, but there is a definite legal
>: interpretation in violation of rights.  Which you appearently don't see...

>Of course I "see".  We were talking about medical examiners, who don't make
>that determination.

Remember your remarks earlier about how I needed to 'take a class'
about this?  Maybe you need to take a class about what an M.E. does.
Pay attention to things like cause of death, whether the body has
been moved, time of death, etc.  I think you'll find that the medical
examiner IS among those who make such a determination.  There's more
to determining cause of death than just looking at a body and saying,
"it was this big bullet hole."

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:17:11 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21900@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.173847.38222@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>>There's no Constitutional prohibition against respecting an establishment
>>of chess.  They can "fear God" all they want, but the government isn't going
>>to support it.

>I apparently haven't posted this often enough -

>	Amendment I

>	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>	religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
>	abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
>	right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>	petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Allowing the approval of public exercise of religion on government
property is tantamount to 'support'.  Now, which part of that don't
you understand?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:53:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21895@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <BxtqyH.GCp@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>Right.  And the key word is "originates".  Should we also conclude that
>>the Senate is not responsible for the deficit because they can't originate
>>spending bills?  Anyone who put their name on that bill (House, Senate and
>>President) is responsbile.
> 
>The President, try as he might like, cannot "originate" any bill.  In a
>corporation (more on this in a few lines ...), the president or CEO can
>dictate to her underlings what she wants them to do, policy wise.

Gee, and the President obviously doesn't submit a budget, isn't
allowed to talk to any of his Republican colleagues in the House, or
any of that, either, is he?  That must mean that that liberal
Democratic Congress is responsible for that long stretch of economic
good times that we had.

>>If you tried to pull that sort of semantic bullshit in a business
>>situation you'd be fired.  "Gee Boss, I didn't actually write that report,
>>I just OK'd it". 

>I think this is where you are going wrong.

>The House of Representitives is not "the Board of Directors" or the
>"National Policy Department" with the President as the "Chairman of
>the Board" or "Department Head".  The President is the head of the
>Executive branch of government.  He (or she, for when Jeanne Kirkpatrick
>is elected ;-) does not have any authority for cramming a bill down the
>Congress' throat.

He's also not kept in an isolation booth backstage for 4 years.

>The simple truth is that Pete Wilson is the first chief executive in
>my lifetime that had the guts to stand up to his legislative branch.
>Would it have been better if George Bush had down the same?  Yes.  But
>I don't think that prior to Pete Wilson's hold-out that anyone really
>thought of just saying "No" and meaning it.

Carter did it, and we all know just how much you love HIM.  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:45:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21895@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> The President, try as he might like, cannot "originate" any bill.  In a
> corporation (more on this in a few lines ...), the president or CEO can
> dictate to her underlings what she wants them to do, policy wise.
 
Although the President can't submit a bill, he does make a budget proposal
and there are people in the House who will submit exactly what he wants
(there are still some loyal Repubs).  The only problem is, it wouldn't
stand a chance in hell.
 
Actually, the business example works quite well.  I never claimed it
was a CEO to underlings relationship.  For example, I get documents on
my desk all the time that were written by different divisions (product
development, finance, sales).  I don't have the power to dictate to any of
them what should be done.  However, I do have veto power in that I can say
(as a representative of my division) that I don't agree with something and
think it should be changed.  But it's not an absolute veto, if enough
people disagree with me, it will go through anyway.
 
Just think of the three branches of government as being three different
divisions in a company.
 
Now if product development wrote a document which made no sense (and
clearly wouldn't work) and I recognized that it was screwed up but
signed-off on it anyway and it blew up, do you think my boss would accept
"I didn't originate it, I just signed-off on it".
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 18:46:28 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David L. Cathey (davidc@montagar.com) wrote:
: 	You're right, he is coming around!  He wants to stop giving freeloaders 
: free football programs!

OK, how about if we also stop giving freeloaders free math and science programs?

: 	If football players are as stupid as you think John, soon there
: will be no high-school or college football.

*I* think they're stupid?  Who's the one saying that they don't know enough to
decide what they want to do for a living?

: The Pro teams will be forced to
: start "Football Schools" themselves to get new players for the rookie ranks.
: Kind of like military academies.  Those wanting to pursue that line can do so
: without the expense.

Not a bad idea.  It would also apply to engineering companies starting up
engineering schools and newspapers starting up journalism schools, etc. etc.

: 	We're with you John...  You just don't want to actually want anyone
: to *DO* anything to change the system, just bitch about it.

Not when the cure is worse than the disease.  No.

: 	Let us assume that John is 100% correct here.  This is an actual
: confession that John probably does only just what it takes to get by and stay
: employed at IBM (for now, watch out John, layoffs are here...).

I *chose* to work at IBM.  I'm not here just so I can keep playing football.
Do you see the difference?

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Texas Ed Commissioner Lionel Meno backed off
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:01:21 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin


*10  MENO'S PROPOSALS:  REPEALED TO PRESERVE TEXAS REFORMS
     Texas Ed Commissioner Lionel Meno recently "backed off" his
proposal to discard many 1984 Texas school reforms for "fear" it
would cause Texas to lose its no-pass, no-play rule (Rugeley,
HOUSTON CHRONICLE; See DRC 10/7, #99).
     A student who scores below a 70 in any course during a six-
week grading period is prohibited from participating in any
extracurricular activities for one grading period under the no-
pass, no-play rule.  Meno had proposed to repeal both the six-
week grading requirement and the rule that students must score at
least 70 to receive credit for a course, writes the CHRONICLE.
     There also were concerns about the impact of other proposals
on the 1984 reform law, reports the CHRONICLE.  Officials said
the changes "would eliminate standards, not reduce regulations."
     The State Board of Ed did approve Meno's recommendation that
students no longer be required to take final exams and left that
decision to local schools.  "The board also agreed to recommend
that the Legislature repeal the law prohibiting high school
dropouts from receiving a driver's license before age 18," writes
the newspaper.
     The Board also voted to adopt its recommendations for the
legislative session beginning in January.  One "key"
recommendation would require students in kindergarten through
eighth grades to attend summer school if they fail a course,
writes the CHRONICLE (11/14).

-- 
--
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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: What is atheism? (was Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill)
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:48:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <7909@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>How is that a change? I'm confused.

	My mistake. 

>>	That's enough for me. If you're sure you're apathetic about the
>>label, may I suggest agnostic? 
>
>I am, but it seems that you disagree with Rick Russell, who thinks more or
>less the same way I do but calls himself a "soft atheist"...  

	I think a soft atheist is an agnostic. The key word there is
"soft". If you are, you don't have conviction.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2