HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:45:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1993Jan6.154830.6031@dp7up.com> xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) writes:
>In article <C0CBx4.20ov@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
>>      Here's another reason to write your State Senator, Representative
>>      and Governor and tell them you want the Alcohol laws in Texas 
>>      changed.
>>      We TEXANS are at a "*rare*" moment when we can change the laws
>>      here if we want to. They Legislature will be considering a change
>>      in the TABC rules that will allow BrewPubs in Texas, Please
>>      call "*your*" Representative and let them know you support this
>>      change. Need more info? Contact me at dewey@ctci.com
>
>Thanks, I'll be glad to drop some postcards to these folks and let them 
>know how irresponsible it would be to weaken an already lethargic liquour
>laws.  Didn't we see enough deaths last week from DUI's.  The people in
>Whitewright would sure be upset at this change.
>

I think one of the arguments for repealing prohibition was the same as that
given for the legalizing of drugs, namely that forbidding something
causes people to want and use it all the more.  By this logic, allowing the
free sale and consumption of alcohol would make the problem of alcohol
abuse go away, or at least shrink to manageable proportions. Sort of like
the Dictatorship of the Proletariat that would fade away if only there were
true communism.  As we can see, this wisdom has proven itself in our 
enlightened times, when alcohol is no longer a serious problem in our 
society, and the real threat we face is  fundamentalists and other 
dangerous types who want to spread their subversive religious ideas and
pervert our youth. Sorry, the grin key on my terminal doesn't work.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:01:49 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1993Jan2.142741.1552@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>Russell's argument, while fun to read and think that it proves something,
>only demostrates that the heart of the anti-Social Security argument, as
>it is currently being presented, is based on class envy.

	No, I was just pointing out that determining benefits based on
	*income* is not the same as determining benefits based on *need*,
	and that just because you don't have a high income doesn't mean
	that you aren't wealthy.

	You had said, 

>Again, no true.  Do the math.  If you are "truly" rich, you will lose
>all of your benefits.

	and I was just refuting that statement.

>Russell's argument is that I shouldn't be able to do those things with
>any "help" from Social Security because my house and car are paid off.

	No, I am saying that you might have fewer expenses (and/or be more
	"wealthy") than someone with the same income and therefore have
	less *need* for social security if you feel that the benefits
	should be needs based.  I'm not saying that SS is needs-based
	or should be needs-based, I'm just saying that income is not good
	measure of need.

>                                         Unlike you, I believe money
>should be given to people based on whether or not they earned the
>money.

	In which case, I don't understand your position.  Why are defending
	SS when SS doesn't work this way?  People who are retired right now
	are recieving money from *me* that they did not earn.  Understand?


-- 
Russell Spence                                               Austin, Texas

"Foot-impelled bi-directional verticle transport asset"
				- staircase, as defined by the U.S. Army
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:21:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <8380@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> While I agree that Texas' alcohol laws are some of the dumbest around, let's
|> not be too harsh on MADD: their aim is laudable.

It's their methods that I don't like.  They go after the alcohol. 
They should just admit that they are the resurrection of the
Temperance movement of the early 1900s.  They (like most
prohibitionists) think that their "end" justifies any means.  What are
the "means" I object to?

- Their push for "open container" laws

- Their push to suspend drivers licenses without due process.

- Their push to ban "happy hours" at bars.

- Their support of making party hosts responsible for damage caused by
  their guests.

- Their support of roadblocks to screen for drunk drivers without
  probable cause.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tagged with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:19:03 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan9.073712.26834@dp7up.com> xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) writes:

>There was a bill a while back
>that I thought might have made sense, but was canned by the Liqour lobby
>was the one where tavern or establisment may be held responsible if the
>patrons they sold alcoholic goods to caused an accident or worse.  The
>whole idea of the laws is to encourage responsiblity, isn't it?

If you think a law allowing someone who drinks too much to blame it on
someone else because they LET him is "responsibility", all I can say
is that you must have a most peculiar definition of that word.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:10:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.154830.6031@dp7up.com> xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) writes:
>Thanks, I'll be glad to drop some postcards to these folks and let them 
>know how irresponsible it would be to weaken an already lethargic liquour
>laws.  Didn't we see enough deaths last week from DUI's.  The people in
>Whitewright would sure be upset at this change.

ALCOHOL does not cause DUI deaths.  DRIVING causes DUI deaths.  This is
like the "Guns don't kill, people kill" argument.  The easiest way to fix
DUI problems is educating people to use a designated driver.

And besides, people have been known to drink at home ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:26:39 GMT

In article <bBMes*Wv1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> Fred, you need help.  You just can't comprehend the fact that your beloved
> Democrat controlled Congress wanted to spend MUCH MORE than Bush proposed on
> nearly everything.  Now you say that he didn't compromise enough.  Of course
> you won't be able to understand the inherent contradiction in your positions.
 
Fred has a valid point.  For all his talk about balanced budgets Bush
never even submitted anything close to one.  Yes, it's true that it
would't have made it through Congress.  But that's not really the point.
If you want to take the high moral ground first you have to be willing to
live with the consequences.  Wasn't it a little silly for Bush to submit
deficit budgets and then rail about how Congress couldn't balance the
budget?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:22:44 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <1993Jan6.154830.6031@dp7up.com>, xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) writes:
|> Thanks, I'll be glad to drop some postcards to these folks and let them 
|> know how irresponsible it would be to weaken an already lethargic liquour
|> laws.  Didn't we see enough deaths last week from DUI's.

And besides that, it might reduce the sales of carbonated soft drinks,
eh Bill?

Texas has some of the stupidest and convoluted alcohol laws I've ever
come across, and the MADD gang and Judith Zaffrini and trying to give
us a few more.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tagged with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:26:03 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <2934986077.1.p00197@psilink.com> "Scott Bates Guthery" <p00197@psilink.com> writes:

>Here's a modest suggestion.  How about all the people that make the
>rules for and adminster Social Security have to be covered by it?  No
>small part of the Social Security mess is due to the fact that the
>folks who design it (your elected representatives) and the folks that
>adminster it (the Federal bureaucracy) are covered by their own independent
>retirement plan and don't really care if Social Security works at all.

I believe you're just a bit late with that suggestion.  I think the
last Social Security overhaul required that all new Congressmen had to
be in the system.  I believe it also required that the folks in
Federal service go into it.  Of course, this was (as usual) all
grandfathered so that people who were already in positions didn't have
to do it.

You raise a good point, though.  It does have to make you kind of
wonder when all these laws get written 'for the good of the people'
and then the folks writing the laws exempt themselves.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:19:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.140705.9673@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <C0GG7w.By2@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>b)"don't you think I knew I'd take a beating come election time?".
>>He did not compromise- he chose to increase taxes. Period.
>
>Agreeing to a compromise is not the same thing as not compromising.

	He thought we did need a tax increase. He compromised, perhaps,
on where and how much, but he thought we needed one.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Sum taxes? (was Re: Social Security)
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:12:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <C0qECG.KCL@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1993Jan9.170201.16302@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>
>>Yes.  I calculate every year the amount of money I've paid in total
>>taxes.  I've been doing it for several years.

>	I'd be curious to find out ...
>1. Did you include sales tax, gas tax, etc.
>2. What % of your gross income did this represent?
> 
and

3. Can we believe these numbers, since you've already said that you
will tell whatever lies are convenient, particularly about things that
have to do with income?

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:18:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.061043.20273@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>The WHAT?  If you can categorize the recovery as "the Bush economic
>recovery" (even though he did absolutely ZERO to change what the
>economy was doing), then it seems like you have to blame him (and him
>alone) for the recession, as well.  I've noticed that conservatives
>are typically pretty loathe to do that.

Yes, Fred.  The Bush recovery.  Clinton isn't in office.  He hasn't
passed a budget, balanced or not.  He hasn't had a jobs program,
raised or lowered middle class taxes, instituted public health care.
Hell, he hasn't even taken the oath of office.

George Bush, for all that you can say bad about him, said that if
we just left it alone, the economy would turn around.  And sure
enough, he managed to actually veto several choice bills, fend off
requests to have the Fed lower interest rates, and so on.  And lo
and behold - the economy is growing quite fine, thank you.

Why don't we have to blame "him and him alone" for the recession?
Simple.  He didn't raise taxes.  What he =did= do was support a
balanced budget amendment, support Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and
support a line item veto.  We had that nice little recession because
of the 1990 budget deal.  That was the one that was going to lower
the deficit by raising taxes.  Something which Reagan proved doesn't
work ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:05:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <C0ptFJ.1MGC@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>In article <C0pMEz.4yu@austin.ibm.com>, dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
>|> 	You may be right, the intention is good, but that doesn't make it
>|> 	right. I'm all for keeping "drunks" off the road. What else would
>|> 	do this, instead of this law? 

>"Intoxicated" doesn't mean you had a couple of drinks.  "Intoxicated" connotes 
>impairment.  The problem is that people react in different ways to different 
>levels of alcohol.  One person might be dangerously impaired with a 0.05% 
>"blood" alcohol level, while another person might show no impairment with a 
>0.12% level.  It would be one thing if somebody did a study and determined 
>that 0.10% causes impairment in 50% of the population or something, but I'm 
>aware of no such studies.  Given that 0.10% is arbitrary, the only effect of 
>lowering the legal definition to 0.08%, is that you'll convict more people 
>regardless of whether or not they're intoxicated.

Such studies were done over 20 years ago (and no, I don't remember
citations after 20 years).  The average driver is measurably impaired
at a B.A. of .005.  This does not, of course, mean that they can't
drive at that level; it means that if something unforeseen happens
that requires a quick response, the typical driver will blow it with a
B.A. of .005.

The funniest one of these studies that I remember was one that tested
a 'control', a driver who was 'drunk', and a driver who was 'stoned'
on pot.  The results of the study showed that, as expected, the driver
who was drunk was something like 700% more likely to have an accident.
HOwever, they also showed that the driver who was stoned on pot was
SAFER than an absolutely straight driver.  There were all sorts of
disclaimers over that one.  :-)

>Let's be optimistic and assume that the police will only stop you with 
>probable cause that you are impaired (eg. you are weaving all over the road).
>They should issue a "field impairment test" (rather than a field *sobriety*
>test -- it matters little that your impairment is caused by alcohol if you 
>are driving recklessly).  Testing breath or blood doesn't seem to buy you
>anything if the purpose is to remove a danger.

A perfect statement of the problem with all too many of our laws and
policies.  We come up with a measure of a dangerous condition, and the
measure winds up becoming the goal (and the real goal gets 'lost',
with the new goal being to meet the measure rather than deal with the
problem).  We see this sort of thinking a lot in software
development, too, where the metric becomes the goal.

-- 
"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: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:21:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan9.232242.19287@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>In article <1761@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:
>>In article <C0IBK0.1Iqs@austin.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>
>>You forgot to mention their successful drive to raise the drinking age
>>to 21 in all states. 

>I think they should raise it to 75.  Or, here's a thought: raise it to
>the speed limit.

Prohibition doesn't work, no matter how badly some people want to
impose their morality on others.  The last time we tried it, all it
accomplished is that alcohol consumption INCREASED, along with violent
crime connected with the bootlegging business.  Alcohol use DROPPED
after the end of Prohibition.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:50:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.073712.26834@dp7up.com> xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) writes:
>It wouldn't affect it much at the current rate of growth.  It's amazing to
>me how much Carbonated soft drinks we are consuming, I mean, soft drinks passed
>up water some three or four years ago and at the current rate it will be
>2:1 over water in a few years.  That's a lot of acid.  I just wished we 
>would buy some little company that makes ice tea or something.

Why?  So you can sell more drinks with acid in them?  Perhaps you've
never heard of tanic acid ...

>I won't disagree with you there.  The alcohol laws that are in place are
>a joke at discouraging DUI.  Then add to the fact that they are not very
>well enforced and have no bite when applied.  There was a bill a while back
>that I thought might have made sense, but was canned by the Liqour lobby
>was the one where tavern or establisment may be held responsible if the
>patrons they sold alcoholic goods to caused an accident or worse.  The
>whole idea of the laws is to encourage responsiblity, isn't it?

There are already sufficient legal precedences for a tavern to be held
responsible if a patron is involved in an accident.  What I suspect you
want to see is holding the seller responsible when it isn't obvious that
the buyer is or will become intoxicated.  Laws such as these are really
just a ploy by the temperance fanatics to have alcohol made illegal
without passing laws directly on that subject.  Make it so hard to buy
liquor that everyone just gives up drinking.

Alcohol does not cause accidents.  DRIVING causes accidents.  If our
children were raised with a healthier attitude about alcohol, instead of
being given the boogie-man stories about how evil it is, perhaps our
kids might not have to drink beer in alleyways with their buddies to prove
how "cool" they are.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics