HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:06:01 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <26651@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
alias rn rn -i=50
    >Phil Ronzone writes:
    >>Then it is typical of most useful logic. Parallel lines shall
    >>never meet. Makes for great Euclidean geometry.
    >>
    >This is an axiom. We could pick some other.
    >
    >>Gravity attracts. Nice physics.
    >This is the name we give to an observed physical property.
    >
    >>Neither one of the above can be "proved".
    >This is "baloney" -- it's an irrelevant objection.
    >
    >I think someone's initial suggestion that you take some
    >courses in logic is pretty well established by your own
    >example.

First, if I need "some courses in logic", why then I must be making some kind
of "logic mistake" -- and I really like the way you showed me what that
mistake was.

Of course, your illustration is conspicous by its absence.

What started all of this was the nonsense concept that since we can't
"prove" anything, then everything is relative.

There are a great number of things we can't prove, but accept as given,
as a premise, because it works.

"Gravity attracts everywhere in the Universe, for all time" is inherently
unprovable -- all we know is that we haven't seen it fail yet.



    >>premises. But we can observe the effects of accepting either
    >>of those
    >>
    >Exactly -- for instance, in another thread, your principles
    >or whatever they are led you to exclude the poor from the
    >educational system, & left you unable to answer questions
    >based on the use of that principle. If we were doing an
    >empirical investigation, we would conclude that your
    >principles or axioms have so far been unhelpful.

You do not seem to comprehend what I post. Please, do not draw conclusions
that aren't mine.

In the style of your argument, since you haven't told me that all the money
you earn, above utter bare minimal survival amounts, is being given to
starving children in Somalia, you therefore are in favor of starving the
children in Somalia to death.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5753 ca.politics:8316 talk.politics.misc:48824
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:32:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <97061@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <st+p4#n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >2. The State forces a belief monopoly on schools (and on private tutoring
> >   as well in many states), thus making hard to impossible for some parents
> >   to have their kids taught as they wish.
> 
> And if measure #9 on the Oregon State ballot is approved this November,
> it will require that all state schools teach that homosexuality is wrong.

But, but Brian, that's the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!  You HAVE to do as
they wish, because they are RIGHT!

You still don't get it, do you?  Fascism, regardless of who is 
running it, is wrong.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5850 ca.politics:8425
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 4 Oct 1992 21:55:35 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Phil Ronzone writes:
>    >Do you mean that it doesn't matter, the children of these
>    >cases are just out of luck, they don't get an education?

>Yes.

Ok -- I think this & what follows, establishes you as an extremist
of some kind.  It makes it that much harder to take your arguments
seriously.

>Show me proof that any $$$ above the utter bare minimum survival amount
>that you make is donated to those children, and I'll take you out of the "we".

Why?  You'll first have to show me what that demand has to do with anything.
Since when has such absolutism & perfection been demanded for anything?  Should
we start demanding you only post perfect postings?  

>No, the children aren't coerced out of anything. There is a difference

Remember the education money was "stolen" from them by parents who didn't
pay the school bills &c.  Apparently you are unable to answer this question.

>Well, one thing I do have to grant the now ex-USSR -- they did essentially

You may think you would have been a lot happier in the ex-USSR,
but, they would probably have made you work a lot more on your
own writing.

>No, it's part of your principles -- because SOME bad may occur, let's
>force EVERYBODY to ...

Is yours, because SOME bad may occur, let's not DO ANYTHING?
This is what you want me to believe?   Sounds like a stupid
principle to me.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5878 ca.politics:8451
From: jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (John Muth)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:25:19 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

In article <1992Oct1.194548.15916@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <athos-130992192731@kip2-47.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>
>>Look, it's very simple.  If I sacrifice my entire life to set aside money
>>for my children, why is it that people like you think it's fine if the
>>government now steals a portion of what I managed to save for my children?
>
>If you are really saving it for your children, give it to them as you go.
>Gifts under a certain amount aren't taxable, so if you give it to them on
>an ongoing basis, it won't be taxed.
>
>This completely avoids inheritance tax.

Not true. I'm not sure of the details but gifts made while you are living
offset your inheritence tax exemption. Gifts beyond a certain level are 
subject to a special "gift tax". It's purpose is to collect the inheritance
tax that you would have paid if you waited until you were dead. The limitation
is something like 10K per year per gift.

Nice try, but I'm afraid congress got there first.

-John Muth
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5905 ca.politics:8493
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:50:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <athos-041092160529@kip2-43.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> In article <26610@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) wrote:
# # #Federal Bilingual        Believes that             Flip-flopped.  As
# # #Education                English should be         county supervisor,
# # #                         our national              Boxer said it should be
# # #                         language and              "a local decision," but
# # 
# # 
# # I'm most attracted to Boxer's 1st position here -- why shouldn't this
# # be a local decision?   I'm annoyed by calls for a national language --
# # the US, especially California, has always been multicultural, there 
# # are advantages (as well as disadvantages) in having a multilingual
# # society, & I don't see that there are any fundamental problems
# # in providing education in different languages.  What business is
# # it of the government's what language I choose to use?  I don't like either
# # candidate's position here.
# 
# It's the business of government that (1) all people should be able to
# understand each other.  I think it is terrible that there are sections of
# San Francisco where I am hard pressed to find anyone who speaks English. 

1. Why is it the government's business to make sure that we all
understand each other?

2. There are sections of San Francisco where I am hard pressed to find
anyone who isn't a homosexual, but that doesn't mean the government
needs to do something about it.  I just stay out of those sections.

# (2) I think it is silly to pay money so that people *can* keep speaking
# their own language in favor of English.  I have no problem with keeping
# your language, just so that you understand that English is the majority
# language and that you'll have to learn it to function here.  
# 
# Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not

Well, I would agree that the government doesn't need to subsidize
it, either.  I think, however, the strongest argument against
bilingualism, at least as some schools use the concept (which is to
say, education in English never quite happens), is that it delays
the inevitable and necessary learning to speak English.  Not being
competent in English in our society (unless you intend to stay in
the barrio or Chinatown your whole life) is likely to keep you
poor.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:06:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >In article <st+p4#n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Since money for the schools is being coerced (taxed) from
    >>people, they rightly feel that they should not pay for ideas
    >>to be to taught to their kids that they disagree with.
    >>
    >I agree with June's school voucher argument: it creates two
    >classes of people: parents and non-parents. Parents would get
    >some tax credit for taxes they paid, but non-parents would
    >not.

This is not an argument that is valid in the way you use it. I.e.,
think of all the State programs that are create various classes
of people. Consider welfare -- it creates a class of people that
pay taxes, and a class of people that get money from the State.

Or people in very rich communities -- they use very very little in
the way of police and fires services, yet because of (immoral) progressive
taxation, they pay the most.


    >I pay taxes but don't have children in school (possibly won't
    >ever have children in school) What's the benefit to me that
    >we have a decent educational system? So that our next
    >generations won't grow up and do even stupider things than we
    >have.
    >
    >The whole purpose of public education is to provide a decent
    >education for everyone and provide people some means to
    >bootstrap. This voucher system is just people throwing up
    >their hands in frustration, and then protecting their own
    >interests (children). It the system isn't working, then it
    >should be fixed, not fled.

Like communism, some things are inherently "unfixable". Considering
that the bulk of our population in this country, for the first 100
years did NOT have a public tax supported school system, and that we
did very well, I don't think it would be a great disaster if we
went to a private system.

Indeed, some people would say a "decline" in our society can be correlated
to the increase in public schools for the last 100 years ... :-)


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:24:46 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12#p4a=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>some big honchos from a Japanese company
>toured a major Silicon Valley workstation manufacturer on the same day
>the local lavender group placed flyers on all the cafeteria seats.

>The Japanese had their own translator, but the SV company had a Caucasian
>who could understand Japanese (unbeknownest of course), and the third hand
>version of the exchange I got was something like this:

>"What's this?"
>
>"[It] talks about a day of support for faggots, sir."
>
>"That's disgusting. You're kidding."

Sort of ironic, huh? Japanese society was much more openly accepting of
homosexuality before it became westernized.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5812 ca.politics:8384 talk.politics.misc:49222
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:56:22 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <97246@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12567@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <97037@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> >>You know what I mean! I don't have to agree with what you do with your
> >>wife in private.
> 
> >Why does agreement have to exist for some private activities (who you
> >have sex with) but not others (who you rent to or hire)?
> 
> >If consent isn't required for a private activity, then why do we
> >allow women to say no to men about sex?
> 
> First of all, conesnt IS required for all private activities.
> 
> But if we consider employment TOTALLY private, then laws which protect
> consumers suddenly become out of place. How can we insist that a company

Why?  Does the consumer consent to be defrauded or poisoned?  If
you sell a package that says, "Beech-nut apple juice" and it contains
colored sugar water, you have made and broken a contract with the buyer 
to supply apple juice.  If you sell a package that says, "Beef stew"
and it is unhealthy to eat (the meat is spoiled), you have violated
a contract with the consumer unless it is labelled, "Not fit for
human consumption."  On the other hand, when you put an ad in the
paper, that doesn't mean you have to hire the very first person that
fills the requirements.  There is NO such requirement, and an employer
may even choose not to fill a position at all, if they aren't happy
with the results of that ad.

> follow environmental, or labeling, or other FDA regulations, if their
> venture is totally private? If it's totally private, they can do anything
> they want, and the public be damned.
> 
> Measurable harm, you say, is the only way to make exceptions?
> 
> If illness and death due to lead paint poisoning is measurable, why is
> NOT the loss of a job due to invasion of privacy?
> 
> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

The damage caused by AIDS is measureable also.  Does that mean that
private sexual activity isn't TOTALLY private?  Can we assume that
you would have no philosophical problem with a law that, based on
concerns about public health, chose to regulate how you may have
sex in private?  Would a law that required you to use a condom whenever
you have sex be acceptable to you?  Would having government regulators
drop in at a moment's notice to verify compliance be acceptable to
you?

Privacy: if you mean it, great.  If you only mean it when it's
convenient, you don't mean it at all.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5822 ca.politics:8394 ca.environment:950
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:04:37 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <st+p4#n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>2. The State forces a belief monopoly on schools (and on private tutoring
>   as well in many states), thus making hard to impossible for some parents
>   to have their kids taught as they wish.

And if measure #9 on the Oregon State ballot is approved this November,
it will require that all state schools teach that homosexuality is wrong.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:07:01 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <26610@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) wrote:

> Could you provide more info on H's views here?  [If you have
> already, I apologize, but I've lost them or missed them &
> I'm fuzzy on them.]  Is he a supporter of voucher plans, for
> example?  

I think he is, although I will do some deeper checking for you.
 
> 
> >Federal Bilingual        Believes that             Flip-flopped.  As
> >Education                English should be         county supervisor,
> >                         our national              Boxer said it should be
> >                         language and              "a local decision," but
> 
> 
> I'm most attracted to Boxer's 1st position here -- why shouldn't this
> be a local decision?   I'm annoyed by calls for a national language --
> the US, especially California, has always been multicultural, there 
> are advantages (as well as disadvantages) in having a multilingual
> society, & I don't see that there are any fundamental problems
> in providing education in different languages.  What business is
> it of the government's what language I choose to use?  I don't like either
> candidate's position here.

It's the business of government that (1) all people should be able to
understand each other.  I think it is terrible that there are sections of
San Francisco where I am hard pressed to find anyone who speaks English. 
(2) I think it is silly to pay money so that people *can* keep speaking
their own language in favor of English.  I have no problem with keeping
your language, just so that you understand that English is the majority
language and that you'll have to learn it to function here.  

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: The Scope of Education (Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal)
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:22:20 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>In article <st+p4#n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>2. The State forces a belief monopoly on schools (and on private tutoring
>>   as well in many states), thus making hard to impossible for some parents
>>   to have their kids taught as they wish.
>

A belief monopoly - all systems of education are just that, what would you have
your childern taught?  A requirement of educational system is to produce a
set of viewpoints and concepts that insure the survival of the system itself.
Teaching people requires that they be able to fit in to the social structure.

Besides- most parents I know are not good examples of the aspirations of an educated
person.  They tend to 'coerce' (favorite word) their offspring into behaving and
thinking as to do.  This is not educational progress, but rather a strict form
of 'status quo'.

I suppose if a majority of parents were involved in the education of their childern
to a large extent, then I would say that parents would need to construct a consortium
to build a curriculum that reflects the views of the group.  You have the right to
expose and teach your childern about your beliefs and concepts, but you do not have
the right to keep beliefs and concepts of others' away from them-  this is a form
of coercive education.

IMHO it would take a great effort by parents in order to bring about this type of
change in our educational system, but it is the parents who gave the state the
power to perform this function.  So parents get involved and make a change in
the process, stop making everything in life a financial choice, that is most parents
and non-parents tend to bring up the tax issue.  If people were that concerned it
would have changed by now.  I think many parents gladly accept and pay these taxes
becuase it takes the burder off of them.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5823 ca.politics:8395
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 3 Oct 1992 17:55:44 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Patricia Jazanoski writes:
>Phil Ronzone writes:
>>Slavery could not have existed without the coercive State.

>How is this?? This sounds like there were laws mandating slavery.

Sure -- our original constitution, for example, guaranteed the
slave states that no federal law prohibiting slavery would be passed
before 1808 (Article 1 sect 9 & Article 5).   Jim Crow laws in the South,
laws about marriage & property (Asians couldn't own property in
California) & so on, were used to keep minorities subservient. 

What this has to do with school vouchers, tho, is beyond me.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:27:12 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:42:24 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <97246@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):

> But if we consider employment TOTALLY private, then laws which protect
> consumers suddenly become out of place. How can we insist that a company
> follow environmental, or labeling, or other FDA regulations, if their
> venture is totally private? If it's totally private, they can do anything
> they want, and the public be damned.

That's a big "if," Brian.  A case in point; the defense
contractor up the road from me did just what they wanted
to.  They dumped harmful wastes into open pits on their
property.  That waste found its way into the water table,
and thus into my well water.  This is depriving me of my
property rights because I did not consent to having them
pollute my water.

Same for the factory that spews lead fumes into the air;
they are depriving you of your rights because you did not
consent to breathing their fumes.  Labing products does
not neccessarily work.  Cigarette packages have had a
very stern warning on them for almost thirty years, yet
the public still willfully and consentually consumes
this slow form of suicide.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics