HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: why bother? (MANY GOOD REASONS! - THATS WHY!!!)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 01:25:37 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <re5rlINNk7d@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
    >In article <10293@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP
    >(Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >>But WHY? What makes employment and housing proper areas for
    >>the government to interfere in private relationships, but not
    >>sex? What makes one intrinsically appropriate for government
    >>involvement, but not the other?
    >>
    >If you are going to ask for rigorous proofs of correctness
    >for all aspects of government, you are going to be very
    >disappointed. Business relationships are very different from
    >personal relationships -- anybody can see that. Why should
    >they be treated identically by our society? Do you think that
    >black people benefited from civil rights laws? The consensus
    >seems to be that they have. Have gay people, or anybody for
    >that matter, benefited from anti-sodomy laws? I doubt it.
    >This is strong evidence that government can effectively
    >regulate business, but not personal relationships.

Well, golly, I'm certainly in the category of "anybody", and I sure don't
see how "Business relationships are very different from personal relationships".

Is the personal relation of a Catholic to the Pope any different from my
relationship to the CEO of Heinz corporation? Is the realtionship of
an employee of a small company different from a person in a marriage-for-the
money relationship?

How about, say, a surrogate mother. Does she have a business or personal
relationship?

Overall, the difference between a most business and personal interactions
is is within the range of differences in personal reactions alone.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: ca.politics,misc.legal
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:33:28 GMT

In article <s377pINN848@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>So they convicted Noreiga of smuggling drugs.  I'm not surprised they
>found him guilty, but the major question, which I haven't seen
>discussed at all, is this:  by what authority are we trying a citizen
>of a foreign country for crimes committed on foreign soil?  Has the
>government explained this?  Why isn't it discussed in the news
>articles about the trial?

I don't know about the specific statutes that they used, but the
government does this ALL the time.  The Coast Guard frequently siezes
ships on the high seas and arrests the people on board if they believe
that they are smuggling drugs into the U.S.  Also, what about the
extraditing of Columbians into the U.S. for violation of U.S. drug
smuggling laws?  My understanding is that many of these people never
commited any crimes inside the U.S.  The case of Noriega is a little more
sticky since he was the Head of State of a "Sovereign" nation at the time
of his overthrow - err arrest.

Guido
From: oliver@gayley.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:59:48 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In article <f55i02amccy.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

>I believe in the sanctity of INNOCENT lives.

Perhaps I would agree with this concept, if I were innocent.  But I know
very well that I am not.  I have hurt people, both accidentally and
deliberately, both people I didn't care about and people I loved.  In
most cases this was in ways beyond the reach of the laws of the State of
California, but that doesn't seem ultimately to matter much.

Mr. Preston, have you really never done anything wrong for which you
hope not to have to pay the honest price?

>As for this question of balance, I covered that, but you seem unable to
>grasp the simple concept.  A life for a life (or usually for many lives).
>That's balance.

OK, you've described your notion of "balance."  But you haven't really
said what's *good* about it, why this "balance" is to be desired.

As I said before, I can understand the desire for revenge in sociobiological
terms.  Those who had it were less likely to be attacked, and therefore
were more likely to pass on their genes.  But that does not make it right.
If there were any case about which I would agree with Paul about the
sinful nature of the flesh, this would be it.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Oliver 
UUCP:...!{ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!oliver
ARPA: oliver@math.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:18:04 GMT

In article <23267@goofy.Apple.COM>,
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.233908.6460@morrow.stanford.edu>,
>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>
>> My teaching is limited to the "how to be an instant fortran
>> programmer in 6 easy lessons" variety, but that's not really the
>> point.  Whether I'm choosing the teaching method or choosing the
>> people who will chose the teaching method, I still feel that as the
>> person paying the bill I have a right to do some choosing.
>
>That's why we have school board elections.  You do vote for school board
>candidates, don't you?

of course, but dollars speak louder than votes. I prefer to more
literally put my money where my mouth is.

/June
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:27:04 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:

}> jsp@pls.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

}>I don't believe in the vacuous maxim "human life is precious".  I think
}>you have to look at the context of a particular life before you can
}>decide whether it is "precious" or not.

}Hmmm...does that apply to the victims too?  If the victim
}is a lowlife, should the murderer get off with a slap on
}the wrist?

Of course not, because the murderer is not entitled to make that value
judgement and act on it.  This is why we have laws and a legal system, 
because that is how society as a whole makes that value judgement and
acts on it.

}So the State should play tit-for-tat by the murderer's rules?
}I don't think so.  You don't like my vacuous maxims.  Well I
}don't think much of your moral math.  As the bumper-sticker
}goes, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show people
}that killing people is wrong?"  When we have another effective,
}cheaper, more punitive alternative -- life imprisonment without
}parole.

You're welcome to your opinions of my "moral math".  Your bumper sticker
morality is too simplistic.  A murderer initiates the killing of an
innocent.  The state responds by killing the non-innocent.  I'm sorry
if you see no difference there.  Do you also believe that it is wrong
to respond with force when someone physically attacks you?  It's clearly
wrong for me to just lash out and punch you in the face.  Do you believe
that it is equally wrong for you to punch me back?  Even if I keep on
hitting you and hitting you?  There is a big difference between the one
who initiates and the one who responds.  The same applies to a murderer
and the death penalty.

--James Preston
From: oliver@leconte.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:20:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: math.1992Apr16.012037.19703
Distribution: ca
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In article <2f3902iUcbw.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>oliver@rhea.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver) writes:
>
>}[...]  Because if the purpose is simply to punish, then
>}what is the purpose of punishment?  Is the suffering of those who do
>}evil an end in itself?  Can anyone explain *why* it is an end in
>}itself, or is this simply an axiom?

>For one thing, I believe that a quick death entails a lot less suffering
>than spending the rest of your life in prison with no hope of getting out.
>So I reject that part of your question.

Well, perhaps you are right about which involves more suffering (perhaps
not).  But if so, given that you say (later in the same post) that
the death penalty is actually a less-than-adequate punishment, why
not support the greater punishment of life without parole?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Oliver 
UUCP:...!{ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!oliver
ARPA: oliver@math.ucla.edu
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: CALI-FUR-NIA IS SEX-NEUROTIC
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:14:01 GMT
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas) writes:

> I write:
> ++Can we discuss the politics behind all this? 
> 
> In article <Roy7iB4w164w@batpad.lgb.CA.US> Mike writes:
> >>
> No, Clayton and djk won't let us.  Anyone who discusses such things
> get labelled as child molesters, deviants and whatever else pops into
> their little heads.  Best you drop the subject now.
> 
> But I just know you won't.
> <<
> 
> Of course I won't! ;^) This is a war of attrition! :^) Of course...I just 
> figured it out! In an election year its more important to talk about buggery
> than it is the issues upon which we decide who will politically bugger us nex
> 
> 				;^)
> 


I agree ........   Lets talk about BARNEY FRANK and BEN GOBI!!

-djk ;)


--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: tag@ptnext.claremont.edu (Taylor Gilbert)
Subject: L.A.  jazz hisoty info NEEDED!!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:57:39 GMT


	I am working on a paper on the history of L.A. Jazz scene
and the key musicians that were a part of it.  
	I am looking for texts that talk about the racism of the Los Angleles  
police department, I have heard that during the 50's that they had a 
policy of stopping all African-Americans headed west to Santa Monica or Venice
in an attempt limit their exposure and keep them downtown.  
	Also there are accounts of police standing outside of jazz clubs
and trying to pursuade patrons, white patrons, to not go into the clubs.
	i am reading Charles Mingus' autobiography and am trying to locate
some of the texts in the bibliography of Mike davis' _City of Quartz_ he writes  
briefly on the subject pgs 62-64 and notes 111-116.  
	The texts that I can find as yet on the subject talk abou L.A. jazz  
artists leaving to go to new york, but they dont give much reasons why.  It is  
asumed that the New York jazz scene was just the naturtal place to go,  but  
there are other reasons for why they left.  Ornette Coleman is a prime example

	anyway if anyone can give me any leads on personal accounts or anything  
that could help me get data on the history of the L.A. Jazz scence from 1940's  
to the 1960's  It would be appereciated.

				thanks
					tag
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:01:50 GMT

In article <15APR199213340799@arecibo.aero.org> terwill@arecibo.aero.org writes:

>As a parent, I can only imagine the suffering Mr. Harris has
>inflicted upon two families and I believe that the sun will shine just
>a little brighter when Mr. Harris is with his diety.


As a parent, how would you feel if your son was on death row for a crime
he committed?  How would you feel if your son was on death row for a crime
he says he did not commit.


The problem I have with the death penalty, more than any other, is that
I don't think that revenge is a good enough reason to kill someone.  It
is bad enough that someone has committed murder, it is much worse that the
state feels it should join in on the fun.



FWA
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:11:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.si2lkINNr8q
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <faF702J1cclP00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>} Is "an eye for an eye" fair?  I don't feel that it is.  If you kill a
>} killer, that makes you a killer also.  
>
> I think you're looking at it too simplistically.  Do you honestly see
> NO difference whatsoever between one who freely choses to kill an innocent,
> and the proper laws of society being used to execute one who has so chosen?

There is certainly a difference between committing a crime and
punishing somebody for that crime, but I think you are the one who is
being simplistic by saying "an eye for an eye".

It's reasonable to put a kidnapper in jail, or to make a thief pay
double restitution, so there are some cases where the punishment
should fit the crime.  But sometimes a crime is so terrible that we
can't repay the criminal in kind without hurting ourselves in the
process.  If a rapist tortures his victims terribly and then kills
them, would you suggest raping and torturing him in return, before
killing him?  That would be an eye for an eye, but there is a certain
level to which we cannot sink in pursuit of "justice".  You have to
draw the line somewhere.  I draw it between life in prison and
execution.

>} I don't feel revenge is morally right.  
>
> Why not?  I don't mean this as a rhetorical question; I'm really wondering
> if you've thought this through enough to specify just what it is about
> revenge that you think is morally wrong.

It's not right because (1) it doesn't help the victim, and (2) if
everybody took revenge for every action that was committed against
them, there would be a never-ending cycle of killing with no hope of
breaking it.  This is what we see in places like the Mideast, where
revenge is a way of life.  At some point, somebody has to say, "even
though you have committed a crime against me or society, I will not
take revenge".  Only then can killing stop and healing begin.

	Wayne
From: asylvain (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:48:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: fritz.17175
Reply-To: asylvain (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks                                Send in your pledges now! (Visa/Mastercard accepted)
Return-Path: <darnold>
Apparently-To: felix!postnews

Written in article <s377pINN848@agate.berkeley.edu>
    by faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher):

: So they convicted Noreiga of smuggling drugs.  I'm not surprised they
: found him guilty, but the major question, which I haven't seen
: discussed at all, is this:  by what authority are we trying a citizen
: of a foreign country for crimes committed on foreign soil?  Has the
: government explained this?  Why isn't it discussed in the news
: articles about the trial?
: 
: 	Wayne

Well, as I understand it, this will be brought up by Noriega's
attorney's when they appeal.  I'm clueless as to why they didn't bring
it up earlier.

The reasons why it is rarely discussed in the national media are
manifold, and involves both laziness (it's simply easier to get your
information from govt sources, then just stop there) and who owns what.
-- 
The Chipmunk.
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one
instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every
program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,misc.legal
From: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Charles Jelenc)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Reply-To: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Charles Jelenc)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.003328.6252@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>In article <s377pINN848@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:

>commited any crimes inside the U.S.  The case of Noriega is a little more
>sticky since he was the Head of State of a "Sovereign" nation at the time
>of his overthrow - err arrest.
>
Noriega was not the Head of State of any country. The lawfully elected presi-
dent of Panama was Endara, whom Noriega's goons had beaten up, and who was
prevented from assuming the office he had been elected to. The US invaded with
Endara's assent and on his behalf, and whatever the military action's status,
it was in no way against the legitimate government of Panama.



        Pierre Jelenc                        pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu 
        Columbia University, New York                                    
Newsgroups: ca.politics,misc.legal
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:50:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.014014.9592@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Charles Jelenc) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.003328.6252@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>>commited any crimes inside the U.S.  The case of Noriega is a little more
>>sticky since he was the Head of State of a "Sovereign" nation at the time
>>of his overthrow - err arrest.
>>
>Noriega was not the Head of State of any country. The lawfully elected presi-
>dent of Panama was Endara, whom Noriega's goons had beaten up, and who was
>prevented from assuming the office he had been elected to. The US invaded with
>Endara's assent and on his behalf, and whatever the military action's status,
>it was in no way against the legitimate government of Panama.

I beg to differ.  I agree that Noriega stole the election, but he was still
the de-facto leader and Head of State of Panama at the time of the U.S. 
invasion.  You seem to be saying that only leaders elected by truly democratic
processes are legitimate.  The selection of a leader is fundamentally an
internal matter, to be decided by the people and laws of each country.  Are
you arguing that the U.S. should adopt the role of world policeman and
step in militarily each time we feel that an election wasn't legitimate?  
I should point out that many people feel that JFK stole his election with
the assistance of Mayor Daly in Chicago.  Should a foreign power have
interceded ?  

Guido
From: gnn@mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:25:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rt0f5INNcu6
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr7.161550.18643@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>	NY state had a system called the State Regents Exams that tested
>	every subject (3rd yr Latin, American History, etc.) from Jnr HS
>	through HS.  Any teacher that didn't get his/her kids to do well
>	heard from the parents - fast!  The Catholic schools were eventually
>	exempted from the test because they always did so well, there
>	wasn't any point to testing them.  Catholic schools' class size
>	up to the 8th grade was usually about 65-72.  Their phys. ed.
>	dept. consisted of "get the softball bat from Sister Teresa",
>	and their school lunch program consisted of a shady spot under
>	the tree.  Parents brought sleeping bags to camp out in front
>	of the 1st grade admission building because you could see the
>	difference between 2nd graders in public and parochial schools 
>	even in the same family - and not in favor of the public schools.
>
>	School choice works, and so do state-wide testing systems.  They
>	should go together.  You needn't care about the methods, but you
>	should care about the results.
>
Having gone to k-12 in NY state I have been exposed to the Regents
exams.  IMNSHO  they are a joke.  Any moron can pass them if they feel
like a little memorization work.  I don't think you can hold them up
as a shining example of "good" testing.  They test the ability to
memorize but not to think.  BTW Most of the upper 10% of my HS class
dropped out of college because they had nervous breakdowns.  They
couldn't think, they could only memorize.  What I want to see is a
system that encourages thought.  I am not silly enough, though, to
expect it to happen.

Later,
George


-- 
Why don't they just hire taller ballet dancers instead of making
them dance on their tip toes ??		M. Rochlin
From: jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:15:00 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1536@tymix.Tymnet.COM> jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.161550.18643@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>>
>>	NY state had a system called the State Regents Exams that tested
>>	every subject (3rd yr Latin, American History, etc.) from Jnr HS
>>	through HS.
>
>	[my earlier comment deleted]
>
>>	Any teacher that didn't get his/her kids to do well
>>	heard from the parents - fast!
>
>	[my earlier comment deleted]
>
>>                                       The Catholic schools were eventually
>>	exempted from the test because they always did so well, there
>>	wasn't any point to testing them.
>
>What on earth is the source of this information?
>
I'ld like to repeat the question Michael.  What is the source of this
information.  As the debate on the "Parents Choice" intiative heats up,
facts are likely to be bent somewhat.  Witness Ms. Genis' recent
assertion that there was a voucher program in East Harlem.  I don't know
what mechanism was used.  Perhaps parents were issued a piece of paper
which they could take to the public shool of their choice.  The vouchers
being proposed in CA are a different animal.

I've confirmed that the Regents exams are given in parochial schools, but
they are not required for all diplomas.  It is not unreasonable, though
not necessarily correct, to suppose that they are only given to college
bound kids, since some collages look at them when considering applicants.
If the case is that the exams are only given to kids with college
potential, it is not difficult to see how the parochial schools on
average show much better scores than the public schools, which apply the
tests more widely.

I recently heard about a study that found that, on average, private
schools do no better than public schools.  I will try to find and post
details of this study.
Anger and none can heal it slides through the metal detector
Like a mole in a motel, slide in a slide projector.

Opinions expressed are those of the author.  jdoskow@Tymnet.COM