HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:45:08 GMT

is> Ilana Stern

is> As far as #2, I agree with Greg that those who voted for it were clearly
    embarrassed about it, as they lied to the pollsters -- nobody expected it
    to pass.  Maybe Gary can say something about whether it's a LP viewpoint
    -- I would think that its overrule of "home rule" would be contrary to the
    Libertarian view.

  So far as I know, the LP is not in support of anti-discrimination laws in
  general, so that a doctrinaire libertarian would vote *for* #2. However, I
  voted against it because the group supporting it makes me puke. It's one
  thing to be against "gay rights" because you're a hardcore libertarian and
  don't think anyone should be able to sue if they're discriminated against,
  but it's another thing entirely to be against "gay rights" because you hate
  gays and think they're an "abomination to the Almighty God" or some other
  bullpucky.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: brian@sgmlinc.com (Brian E. Travis)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 18:28:13 GMT
Organization: SGML Associates, Inc.
Reply-To: brian@sgmlinc.com


In article <1992Nov6.212746.5694@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com writes:
 > 
 > That sounds like trickle-down, and I don't like it.  Tax should be
 > based on ability to pay.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his 
need". Sounds like we are the only socialist country left in the 
world.

 > All taxes, for obvious political reasons, should be levied on those
                  ^^^^^^^
 > best able to pay them.  Many taxes, for other political reasons, are
 > avoided by those best able to pay them.

Sorry, but it's not obvious to me. Haven't we learned yet that 
higher taxes (Americans now pay 47% of their income in taxes) 
leads to lower productivity, more bureaucracy, and other evils 
that brought down the former communist cartels?

It's time to debunk the myth that taxing is the way to improve 
our lives.

----
Brian E. Travis                                           brian@sgmlinc.com
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... R
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:47:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.025101.3887@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>  [followups to co.politics]
>
>dg> Dirk Grunwald
>
>dg> When was the last time you heard of people going straight-bashing? 
>
>  I can't say as I have. Then again, some people engage in bashing for the 
>  sake of bashing, the specifics of the victims being irrelevant.
>
>dg> As it is, there has allegedly been an increase in gay-bashing since 2
>    passed; people view this as a sanction to condem behavior their deem
>    abhorent.
>
>  I'm not quite sure what your meaning is here; anyway, the point is that if
>  some people view #2 as an "excuse" to bash gays isn't #2's fault, it's the
>  fault of the people doing the bashing. That's like saying Bob couldn't help
>  but stab Bill, after all, lots of places sell knives. How can he resist?
>
>  Besides, #2 doesn't condone violent attacks on gays.
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

So, when a couple years back, Louisana passed a law making assault on a flag
burner a $25 fine, it was the people, not the law, that was to blame when
flag burners got assaulted?

-- 

-Tim Cuffel
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: #2 - bad for business too
Summary: boycott Perkins, tax Focus on the Family
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:20:31 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov9.210522.11204@colorado.edu> fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (j. a. fielden) writes:
>
>It's a shame that the rest of us are going to suffer also as a result
>of these(CFV) people. Too bad they can't be the only ones affected  by any 
>drop in money coming into Colorado as a result of admendment 2.

An appropriate target for a boycott would be Perkins Chrysler-Plymouth,
whose owner was one of the biggest proponents of amendment 2, and who
contributed a large sum of money to the campaign.  Perhaps if his business
falls off significantly he won't be able to fund the next stage of the CFV
agenda, whatever that is.

Just as a side thought, is Focus on the Family a non-profit organization?
Is there any chance that they've violated some law by political campaigning
(even though they formed an "independent" organization, CFV, to do the
dirty work form them)?
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Mo Clinton
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:44:48 GMT

In response to a posting suggesting one way to attack the national debt would
be to sell government-owned land, weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T.
Weverka) writes: 

>Let's see we'll start by selling off Yellowstone, Estes Park, and
>Mount Rushmore.  That alone ought to bring -billions- of dollars
>in to cut the debt.  Now, how much was the debt again ? 

Pardon me if I'm being dense, but is your primary point here that selling 
government land wouldn't amount to a hill of beans (so to speak), or are you
just suggesting it would be a stupid thing to do?  Or both?

I would like to address each case.  First, I think when you consider the
*vast* size of U.S. government land holdings, it amounts to much more that
peanuts.  Not just national parks, but national forests, military bases
(someone already mentioned the Presidio), and government buildings would be
on the auction block if I had my way (obviously I won't).  And don't forget
the additional savings of tax dollars which will no longer have to pay for
administration costs for these items.  Administrative costs are not a
one-shot deal either.  These savings will acrue every year.

As to the second point, I cannot imagine who could do a worse job of taking
care of these currently federal lands than the U.S. government.  The massive
Yellowstone fires, and destructive clearcutting of our national forests are
examples of your tax dollars at work.  I say sell the national parks to
organization(s) with a vested interest in their preservation (Sierra Club,
Nature Conservancy), and remove them from the perview of political hacks.
Sell the national forests to loggers, hunters, or conservation groups.  And
sell the buildings owned by the former IRS, which will no longer need to
exist after the federal income tax is eliminated, to the highest bidder.

Will it ever happen?  Doubtful, not in my lifetime anyway.


Jim Rosinski

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcw@teal.csn.org (Robert C. White Jr.)
Subject: Re: A reason to be VERY concerned about November 3rd.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:46:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov1.234705.16983@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>In article <29949@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) writes:

>>I am for Ammendment 6.
>
>What a guy!

Yeah, as a matter of fact I am.  The stakes were high for me.  How about
you, bud?

I guess it is of little consequence, now.

>Insufficient funding is *not* the problem.  Lack of competition is.  The

This is so wrong I can't believe it.  If competition is the basis for
the improvement of schools, then the ones with the best basket weaving
electives are going to win.   So you want schools to have a marketing
budget.  Is that what I hear?  Why is MS-DOS the most popular operating
system in the world?  Certainly not because of its technical excellence.
Those school systems with high marketing horsepower won't necessarily
represent the school as it actually  is - those that need to market 
wouldn't be able to afford it.  The point is for now, mute, with the
massive defeat of 7.

>>My brother is principle of a school in eastern Colorado, and I've seen
>>his figures.
>Please enlighten us.

I will, next time I'm down to Lamar.  Speaking to him the other night,
he will lay off the instrumental music teacher in the next phiscal
year.  I hope you ammendment 1 people are happy with yourselves.
Kids must also purchase their own floppies as well - so you pay anyway
through increased mickey-mouse fees like this.

Specifically, what numbers would you like to know?

>
>>[The proposed sales tax is] tough on the people who live here, but a 
>>necessary sacrifice I think.
>
>Then by all means, SACRIFICE.  But do it with your own goddamn money, not mine

Actually, I believe the way it works is the majority of voters set the
policy.  This time your side happened to win.  It hasn't always been that way,
and probably won't always be that way in the future. 

>or anyone elses.  I am really sick of high-horse know-it-alls who want to take
>other people's money because *they* have a better use for it.

This rather silly position could be taken on any spending issue.

Education is a basic right and the quality thereof ought to be guaranteed in 
this country.  There are a number of things that need to be done to reform
the system, but just like in Russia, the entrenched bureaucracy will be 
the last thing to leave the education system.  They hold the power, and they
are pulling down huge salaries.  Therefore, the kids are
going to suffer first.  That's the reality.  The consequence for Colorado
will be steadily deteriorating schools - just like in California where
prop 13 passed those many years ago, and prop 2 1/2 in Mass.

>Jim Rosinski

-- 
Robert C. White, Jr.					rcw@whitestar.com
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Originator: youngm@mica
Reply-To: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Organization: Center for Study of Earth from Space, U of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:02:41 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.194503.116@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|>Newsgroups: co.politics
|>Path: boulder!csn!ncar!colossus.cgd.ucar.edu!gary
|>From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
|>Subject: Re: Amendment #2
|>Message-ID: <1992Nov6.194503.116@ncar.ucar.edu>
|>Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu (USENET Maintenance)
|>Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
|>References: <Nov06.060107.50183@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <1de4ejINNev0@marvin.solbourne.com>
|>Distribution: co
|>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:45:03 GMT-0:09
|>
|>ag> Andrew Gerber
|>
|>ag> Regardless of the wording of Amendment 2, it is a stab in the back for gay
|>    people through the state of Colorado.  It is saying that Colorado doesn't
|>    value gay people.
|>
|>  No, it doesn't. *All* it says is that individuals cannot use legal recourse
|>  if they have been discriminated against (or believe that they have been dis-
|>  criminated against) because of their homosexuality. There's lots of people
|>  in the same boat. Just because you can't file a discrimination charge again-
|>  st someone doesn't mean that the given state doesn't value your existence.
|>  Let's not go off the deep end, OK?


Who else "cannot use legal recourse if they have been discriminated against"?
If *anyone* falls into this category (on any basis other than incompetency), 
s/he is clearly a victim of the law. Currently, protection against discrimination
on the basis of religion, ethnicity, and sex are written into law everywhere;
protection on the basis of political affiliation and sexual orientation
are common.  But we cannot discriminate against someone just because
they are not explicitely protected by the above.  That is not the intent 
of the law!

Please clarify for me:  What is the difference between discriminating
against Catholics and discriminating against Bisexuals?  Both are 
choices people make of their own free will.  Both are viewed as "wrong"
by at least some groups of people.


mY 
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: swoodcoc@oldcolo.com (Steven Woodcock)
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: The Good Guys, Inc.                                             
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:05:27 GMT

In article <721160893snx@sgmlinc.com> brian@sgmlinc.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov6.212746.5694@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com writes:
> > 
> > That sounds like trickle-down, and I don't like it.  Tax should be
> > based on ability to pay.
>
>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his 
>need". Sounds like we are the only socialist country left in the 
>world.
>
> > All taxes, for obvious political reasons, should be levied on those
>                  ^^^^^^^
> > best able to pay them.  Many taxes, for other political reasons, are
> > avoided by those best able to pay them.
>
>Sorry, but it's not obvious to me. Haven't we learned yet that 
>higher taxes (Americans now pay 47% of their income in taxes) 
>leads to lower productivity, more bureaucracy, and other evils 
>that brought down the former communist cartels?
>
>It's time to debunk the myth that taxing is the way to improve 
>our lives.
>

   Amen!  The perverse idea that somebody who makes more money is somehow
less deserving to keep it is a ridiculous concept.  IF we must have income
tax (and I for one favor a consumption-based tax instead of a production-
based one), then a flat tax rate is the only fair way to go.  


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
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: quotas and amendment 2
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:28:30 GMT

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>p > quota preferences: even if they had been asked for, which they hadn't,
>    it's laughable to think they could be enforced (or that companies ins-
>    tituting a voluntary quota system could make it work)...
...
>  If it's so hard to figure out if an employee is gay or not, then why are so
>  many people worried that gays will be fired in great numbers now that #2 has
>  passed? It's one or the other -- employers know who's gay, so they can be
>  fired, or quotas for gays can be created; or employers don't know who's gay,
>  so they can't be fired, and quotas for gays cannot be created.

Boy, that's bulletproof reasoning, isn't it?

OK, not knowing whether you're really that simple, or hoping the folks
you're arguing against are, I'll try to explain it very slowly.

To establish a quota system, you need sufficient information about a person
to use the information in a legally binding way.  Both rights to privacy
and existing values would prevent such a system: Do you honestly believe
that people are going to allow a form with a question like:
	37.  Within the past year, I have had sexual relations with
	     a. person(s) of my own sex
	     b. person(s) of the opposite sex
	     c. both (a) and (b)
	     d. neither (a) nor (b)

OK, having dispensed with that one with adequate silliness, let's consider
an employer not-hiring/firing someone for being gay.  What really happens?
You're not going to see a form letter saying "Sorry, but we have examined
your sexual preferences, and we find you unsuitable..."  Discrimination is
rarely so blatant, because people are rarely so stupid...but it still
happens and can still be obvious.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: quotas and amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:54:49 GMT

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

[...]
>  I happen to believe that a person ought to be allowed to discriminate using
>  sexual orientation as their sole metric. Same with race, gender, age, phys-
>  ical or mental handicap, Vietnam-era veteran status, height, weight, appear-
>  ence, marital status, whatever.

Hmm. I didn't see religion in there. Maybe Gary does have limits.

>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Well, I think we can all see where Gary stands on the issue of discrimination.

I suppose it means what you mean by "discriminate". Everyone has preferences
about almost anything. That is a rather different thing than the 
"discrimination" that we are talking about here.

I, for one, draw a sharp line between discriminating against someone because
of a choice they have made, or because of an inborn trait, condition 
or behavior that is not voluntary. As Gary lumps such things together 
(ie race and appearance), he obviously does not.

(appearance is somewhat iffy, how about marital status - certainly a choice
there)

I know of no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice. It is either
environmentally determined or genetic (perhaps some of both). The current
evidence leans towards a social/environmental cause, but regardless, its
not a voluntary condition. Furthermore, I really don't care if it is or not.
Why should I care whether someone else is homosexual or not?

If there is a Hell, Gary, I'm sure the Devil will enjoy your company, along
with Kevin Tebedo and the whole lot of CFV.

Scott

(My opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of 
 Colorado)

-- 
************* Repeal Amendment 2! - Shame On You, Colorado. ******************
J. Scott Farrow-Student SysAdmin/Programmer, University of Colorado at Boulder
Computing & Network Services, Boulder, Colorado, USA, phone: (303) 492-4428
Internet: farrow@spot.colorado.edu, farrow@cs.colorado.edu
--
************* Repeal Amendment 2! - Shame On You, Colorado. ******************
J. Scott Farrow-Student SysAdmin/Programmer, University of Colorado at Boulder
Computing & Network Services, Boulder, Colorado, USA, phone: (303) 492-4428
Internet: farrow@spot.colorado.edu, farrow@cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:03 GMT

ag> Andrew Gerber

ag> Regardless of the wording of Amendment 2, it is a stab in the back for gay
    people through the state of Colorado.  It is saying that Colorado doesn't
    value gay people.

  No, it doesn't. *All* it says is that individuals cannot use legal recourse
  if they have been discriminated against (or believe that they have been dis-
  criminated against) because of their homosexuality. There's lots of people
  in the same boat. Just because you can't file a discrimination charge again-
  st someone doesn't mean that the given state doesn't value your existence.
  Let's not go off the deep end, OK?

ag> A recent Dept. of Education study estimated that up to 50% of all teens
    who commit suicide are gay.

  Teens, gay or no, commit suicide for all sorts of dumb reasons. There's ad-
  ditional pressure for a teen if he/she is gay, and others know, to be sure,
  but there's also additional pressure on a teen if he/she has bad acne.

ag> People will die because of the passage of Amendment 2.

  This is ridiculous. How do you know that people "*will* die"? It isn't clear
  to me that Amendment 2, in and of itself, says "Go ahead and kill all the
  gays you want, nothing will happen to you". I'm sure someone who wanted to
  kill a person for being gay would not have been restrained by the kinds of
  ordinances that Amendment 2 disallows. 

ag> #2 was not about "special rights".

  However, the ordinances passed in Boulder, Aspen and Denver did create an
  additional basis for legal recourse, ie, one's sexual orientation, that was
  not given to everyone. I'm aware that Boulder's anti-discrimination ordin-
  ance did not mention homosexuality *per se*, but I'd be very surprised if
  a heterosexual could have used it successfully as a grounds for a suit.

ag> If Amendment 2 sticks, people can be fired or thrown out of their apart-
    ments just because they are gay.

  Taken at face value, this sounds bad, but if the apartment I'm renting is
  actually in my own house, I should have the right to discriminate against
  potential renters by any measure I choose. This was disallowed by the Boul-
  der law, which was a mistake, IMO.

ag> These are the facts.  Having a place to live and a job are not "special
    rights"  

  No, but they aren't "rights" in the sense that free speech is a right.

ag> Who will the CFV target next?  Unmarried straight couples living together?
    Jews?  Blacks?  

  No-one, for the time being, I suspect. Their agenda appears to be based sole-
  ly on homophobia, and I doubt they have the imagination to attack additional
  groups.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Vouchers and school competition
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:56:27 GMT

pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:

>I have heard that it costs about $2500/student to educate [a K-12 student],
>quite adequately, in private schools.  Does this correspond to parochial
>schools where the nuns (teachers) receive minimal salaries or the school
>is additionally funded by a church?

No, it doesn't "correspond" to parochial schools, but it does *include*
parochial schools, i.e. *all* U.S. private schools were included in the 
average.

>Does this low rate have any
>connection to the ability of a private school to avoid teaching
>handicapped students?  What about the ability of a private school
>to summarily dismiss recalcitrant pupils?

Yes to both questions.  I take your argument to be, by implication, that
perhaps the reason public schools provide a shitty product for outrageous
cost and private schools provide an excellent product for minimal cost is
not "lack of competition" as I have argued, but rather the combination of 
factors you mention above.

If we accept this as true (I do not accept it, but nor do I have hard numbers
to refute it), I would say 1) teachers in the public schools are paid too
much; 2) public schools should also be allowed to show troublemakers the 
door; and 3) "mainstreaming" handicapped students has gotten out of hand in 
the public schools (i.e. students which are so severely disabled that they
disrupt the learning progress of other students don't belong there).  
Additionally, it stands to reason (I have made this argument before) that a 
tenure-track, seniority-based job (e.g. the public school system) is going 
to attract the laziest, unmotivated individual while a position which rewards 
excellence with cash and unproductivity with a pink slip is going to attract 
the most highly skilled, innovative employee (e.g. not the public school 
system).

>Certainly, there are private schools which require more than 3 times
>this amount per student (and thus cost more than the current public
>schools).  A detailed comparision would indeed be interesting to see
>just how much administrative overhead and inefficiency exist in
>our public schools.

Indeed.  I did the legwork for the original posting, perhaps you would like
to volunteer to gather some data and provide just such a breakdown.  I have
found the Boulder library to be an adequate resource.


Jim Rosinski
Newsgroups: co.politics