HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:38:41 GMT

> = zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#2 could have said "no special privileges to anybody based on sexual 
>orientation".  Instead it said "no special privileges nor even-handed
>non-discrimination for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals".  This was not an
>oversight; the sponsors were heavily anti-gay, not pro-equal treatment,
>despite their shallow pretenses.  This is NOT true of most of the folks who
>voted for it; many genuinely thought it was an equal rights amendment which
>only trimmed off "special rights".  That was a deception.

This is obvious once one has 
1) read the amendment and
2) acquired a cursory understanding of the sponsors

None-the-less, it seems extremely rare that a newspaper article on the subject,
even Denver & Boulder papers, fails to offer the synopsis that A2 
"prevents special privileges to anybody based on sexual orientation".
Seems CFV has successfully packaged the amendment for the general public.

-Brian
Xref: sparky co.general:2446 rec.skiing:9350 rec.travel:17499
From: vicki@steam.atd.ucar.edu (Vicki Holzhauer)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: Atmospheric Technology Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:22:53 GMT


>>Obviously the spirit that guides you is not the Holy Spirit.  No 
>>self-respecting Christian would openly support a life style such
>>as homosexuality. 


Speak for yourself, please.  You're definitely *not* speaking for
*this* Christian ...





--
Vicki Holzhauer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado / / / /  vicki@ncar.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: thomas@evolving.com (Thomas Richardson)
Subject: Acura for Sale
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 23:03:32 GMT
Organization: Evolving Systems, Inc.


For sale:

1990 Acura Integra LS
Burgundy.
Air Conditioning.
Sunroof.
5 speed.
Great condition.
40K Miles.

$10,500 or best offer! Make an offer. Must sell before 1-25-93 or it
will be put in storage until summer!

I work in Greenwood Village. I can show the car there or in Evergreen
where I live.


Thomas Richardson
689-1309 (w)
674-0406 (h)
thomas@evolving.com





-- 
Thomas Richardson         Evolving Systems, Inc.
thomas@evolving.com       (303) 969-3309    FAX (303) 969-3399
FROM GTE TELEMAIL:  (s:internet,"rfc-822":<thomas(a)evolving.com>)
Newsgroups: co.general
From: nexus@ylum.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeff Berry)
Subject: Re: Poor poor CU coaching staff
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:37:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.170119.17389@ncar.ucar.edu> ethan@earl.scd.ucar.edu (Ethan Alpert) writes:
>Maybe you didn't read that McCartney says the dome will be financed by PRIVATE
>funds. No university funds will be diverted to the project. I plan on giving
>money to the project just to spite people like you. You should have nothing
>to say about a bunch of alums getting together and giving money to the football
>program. That is unless you are jealous. Sure there are priority problems but
>there is NOTHING you can do about the priorities of the alumni. And your 
>constant whining is making me less supportive of academics and more supportive
>of athletics.
>Ethan Alpert  internet: ethan@ncar.ucar.edu | Standard Disclaimer:


Let me get this right Ethan, there seems to be some sort of inequity/bias in
favor of atheletic, or at least one poster thinks so, and comments on it
to bring it to peoples attention.  Being made aware of priority problems
(which you admit exist) irritates you, so you decide to perpetuate them?

Just checking.



badger                                      Don Alexandre Lerot d'Avigne
Jeff Berry                                  Seneschal of Caer Galen, Outlands
               nexus@ncar.ucar.edu
NCAR doesn't tell me what to think, and I return the favor.
"You're a notch and I'm a legend"-------Alice Cooper
"I'm a revolution romancer"----Hawkwind
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l
From: kbowles@den.mmc.com (mac bowles)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:37:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.164151.29412@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

>Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
>lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?

I heard a commedian make a joke about this subject which I thought was really
a good serious comment about people who say things like this and support a
stupid and unjustified boycott - "Hell, why don't these people just accept
the fact that Colorado voted on it and passed it in the good old American
democratic way. Then leave Colorado alone. Let them work it out if it is a
problem. If you don't like this fact of life, don't go there and most of all
JUST BUTT OUT AND MIND YOUR OWN F______ BUSINESS."
>
>Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
>--


Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list
From: ljarvie@nyx.cs.du.edu (Lee Jarvie)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 13:36:39 GMT


I vote YES.

Lee

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ljarvie@nyx.cs.du.edu            or     lj359831@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu 
         "This is my costume.  I'm a homicidal maniac, they look just 
-------------------like everyone else."  Wednesday Addams---------------------
From: bdale@col.hp.com (Bdale Garbee)
Newsgroups: co.test
Subject: testing hp-col -> wizzy
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:59:59 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: kzin.col.hp.com

Blather.

Bdale
Newsgroups: co.test
From: era@ncar.ucar.edu (Ed Arnold)
Subject: xx
Reply-To: era@ncar.ucar.edu (Ed Arnold)
Organization: Nat'l Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:33:59 GMT

This is a test.
--
Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-1253(voice)
303-497-{1298,1137}(fax) * internet: era@ncar.ucar.edu * bitnet: era@ncario
compuserve: internet:era@ncar.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report, etc., etc., etc.
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:06:12 GMT

In response to a posting of mine on Amendment 2, Marc Sabatella writes:

>I'd like to belive in this freedom of association [which would result from
>the absense of anti-discrimination laws], but when it leads to clear 
>systemic biases against a group - as it did blacks, especially in the 
>south - then maybe an even-handed anti-discrimination law [i.e. Amendment 2] 
>isn't such a terrible thing.

You are saying, of course, that two wrongs make a right.  Do you really mean
this?

>In any case, whether or not you believe there should be anti-discrination 
>laws, one thing seems clear to me.  If the constitution is to allow such 
>laws, it had better allow them fairly.  An amendment specifically singling 
>out one group of people as the only group of citizens in US history ever to 
>be explicitly denied this sort of "protection"* is unjust.

Good argument.  Far more persuasive, in my view, than the idea (as expressed
in your .sig file for example) that the legalization of discrimination of any
sort is necessarily wrong.


Jim Rosinski
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: In need for clarification on #2 [was: Colorado Ski Report]
Date: 8 Jan 1993 23:39:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hptrane.fc.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

: [
:     I've taken out `rec.skiing', `rec.travel', `nyx.misc',
:     `du.general', `bit.listserv.travel-l' from the Newsgroups: line
:     and added `co.politics.amend2.discuss' where the Followup-To: are
:     also redirected to.
: ]

I added back co.politics.  I still don't get co.politics.amend2.discuss

: 		, or entitle any person or class of persons to
: ...
: 	and thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester) wrote it with `enact'
: 	instead of `entitle' in the above.

"enact" doesn't parse grammatically.  It's gotta be entitle.

: 	Provided the above version is correct, it's written in A#2
: 	``[...] homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct,
: 	practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be
: 	the basis of, or entitle any person [...]''.  So any sexual
: 	orientation still constitutes a basis for a lawsuit, as far as
: 	I understand it.

Whoa!  You ellided out the very important "Neither the State of Colorado ...
shall ... enforce ... any statute ... whereby ..." which entirely negates the
meaning of the above!  The point of the amendment is to remove the right to
file such a lawsuit, not to grant it!

There are currently (for another week, anyhow) laws that simply say one cannot
discriminate based on sexual orientation.  This obviously applies to both
heterosexuals and homosexuals.  What is not clear about the amendment is
whether this entire section of the law is rendered unenforceable, or whether
only homosexuals are prevented from filing suit.  One could argue that
heterosexuals are similarly prevented from filing suit based on their
"negative" homosexuals preference.  This disctinction might even turn out to be
significanty.

: 	Is a judgement in one or more of those categories ``statute,
: 	regulation, ordinance or policy''?

Probably not, but I'm no expert.

: 	If that's the case, then can the words ``homosexual, lesbian,
: 	or bisexual'' be used in a judgement without rendering it
: 	void?

Perhaps (I haven't gained expertise since the above disclaimer), as long as
the judgement wasn't based on any statute, regulation, ordinance, or policy.
The "policy" bit probably hurts here.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:33:20 GMT

sm> Suzanne Morine
gs> Gary Strand

gs> What I would like to know is how "hate crime" and "bias incident" are de-
    fined.

sm> My impression is that the *clear-cut* examples of such things both:
    (1) have no other crime involved, and 
    (2) involve bias insults.  
    For examples, a swastika is sprayed on someone's car, 

  Isn't this just vandalism of private property, the swastika being no more
  relevant than a peace sign?

sm> eggs are pelted on cars parked outside of a meeting place, 

  Again, vandalism. Also, since young teen males like to engage in these sorts
  of things, how do we know that it's a "hate crime"?

sm> people are beaten up by attackers who shout bias insults at them,

  Assault and battery. What is being said during the attack is irrelevant.

sm> a person jaywalking sees a car veer around the corner to just miss them
    and shout a slur out the window.  

  Attempted vehicular assault.

sm> Clearly, the actions were done to terrorize someone, as opposed to being a
    result of another crime.

  I'm sorry (and anyone else who disagrees with me pipe in!) but I don't see
  anything that makes a given crime a "hate crime" instead of just a plain
  old violation of a person and/or their rights. All of your examples are al-
  ready covered by law without adding a "hate crime".

  Then again, a "hate crime" without some already-covered-by-law incident with
  it strikes me as treading very dangerous ground with regards to freedom of
  speech. Where do we draw the line between "You stupid nigger!" and "Hey,hey,
  LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!"?

sm> Do we want people who terrorize people out on the street?  

  Of course not. But, what one person calls "terrorize" may differ from some-
  one else's definition. Apparently there are atheists who are terrorized by
  a miniscule Nativity scene in front of a state building. I'm an atheist too,
  but sometimes these folks go way too far.

  I am very uncomfortable with the idea that someone who says things that I
  don't like can be rightfully charged with a crime. Who's to say when things
  get turned an *I'm* on the end of a "hate crime" law?

--
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: pack@acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Summary: Subjectivity is not so bad
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research - Atmospheric Chemistry Div
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:51:21 GMT

gs=Gary Strand
dp=daniel Packman
gs> Why should prosecution of a crime depend on who or what the victim is? It
    ought to depend solely on the violation of the victim's rights, not if the
    victim is Jewish, black, gay, or whatever.

dp> Perhaps it "ought to", but the combination of a particular act with a
    particular victim can produce profoundly different crimes.

gs> Oh, I see. If you get beat up by a bunch of thugs, it's not as bad a crime
    as a homosexual getting beat up by a bunch of thugs, because one of the 
    thugs yelled "faggot" at him? To me, both are simply cases of assault.

In the case you argue, I tend to agree that calling it assault is sufficient.
In the examples I gave, the context of the victim in combination with the
specific act is crucial.  If random person A burns random trash on random
person B's lawn, then we can measure the size of the burn marks on the lawn
to determine how serious this arson is.  If random person A burns a cross
and random person B is black, then the size of the burn marks on the lawn
are secondary to the symbolism (and implied threat) of the act.

-------------
dp> Why must we limit ourselves to a narrow examination of objective physical
    details of this hypothetical crime? Must we limit ourselves to objective
    criteria to be impartial?

gs>What do you suggest otherwise? That we throw reason out the window and let
   our gut reactions decide how to prosecute the perpetrators? The whole idea
   of the rule of law is to force us to objective when assessing criminal acts,
   and not let emotional considerations or prejudices influence our decisions.
  
gs>Blacks and others have nearly always received much harsher punishment for
   the same crime as whites have committed, because of a lack of objectivity.
   Is a black man raping a white woman really that different, and deserving
   of more severe punishment, than a white man raping a black woman?

The stated use of an objective system is no guarantee of objectivity.
The stated use of a subjective system is no guarantee of capriciousness.

-- 
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report, etc., etc., etc.
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:58:06 GMT

OOPS!!  Big mistake--I mis-paraphrased Marc Sabatella in my last post.  My
apologies.

>>then maybe an even-handed anti-discrimination law [i.e. Amendment 2] 
>>isn't such a terrible thing.

should read:

>>then maybe an even-handed anti-discrimination law [i.e. laws which
>>Amendment 2 bans] isn't such a terrible thing.


Jim Rosinski
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:25:43 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO

In article <1993Jan6.205435.14761@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>But I do think it's overly simplistic to brush off as *irrelevant*
>a criminal's motivating factor (in this case, group-hate): finding that
>motivating factor helps law-enforcement find criminals.

Well, sure, any investigator can tell you about the importance of establishing
a motive in order to get a conviction from a jury. But typically this
isn't used to alter the severity of the charge, just that establishing
a motive helps remove doubt about the defendant's guilt (which is the
goal of the prosecution, after all). But I am very nervous about
allowing motivation to determine punishment. The various categories of
murder do not use motivation to distinguish them, they use the degree to
which this crime was premeditated and planned or was preventable. As
an example, if someone offs their spouse to collect on insurance, the
factor that determines punishment is, was this an impulsive crime or
planned in advance? The latter is first degree murder, the former is not,
even if the motive was the same. The point here is that the analogy 
between degrees of murder and hate crimes is flawed.

Hate crimes are very dangerous because it allows the government to determine
that one kind of thought is acceptable and another is not. There is a big
difference between the majority of us deciding that Nazism is unacceptable
and the GOVERNMENT doing so. It is only a small step from creating a legal
difference between spraying a swastika and spraying a peace sign to creating
a legal difference between, say, advocating Liberal vs. Conservative
solutions to social problems. The laws we have are already adequate to
prosecute so-called "hate crimes". Painting a swastika on private property
is vandalism, pure and simple, and can be prosecuted as such. There is
no need to introduce very dangerous "hate crime" laws to deal with this
sort of thing, and there is every reason to AVOID doing so.

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:29:36 GMT

dp> Daniel Packman
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Why should prosecution of a crime depend on who or what the victim is? It
    ought to depend solely on the violation of the victim's rights, not if the
    victim is Jewish, black, gay, or whatever.

dp> Perhaps it "ought to", but the combination of a particular act with a
    particular victim can produce profoundly different crimes.

  Oh, I see. If you get beat up by a bunch of thugs, it's not as bad a crime
  as a homosexual getting beat up by a bunch of thugs, because one of the 
  thugs yelled "faggot" at him? To me, both are simply cases of assault.

dp> Why must we limit ourselves to a narrow examination of objective physical
    details of this hypothetical crime? Must we limit ourselves to objective
    criteria to be impartial?

  What do you suggest otherwise? That we throw reason out the window and let
  our gut reactions decide how to prosecute the perpetrators? The whole idea
  of the rule of law is to force us to objective when assessing criminal acts,
  and not let emotional considerations or prejudices influence our decisions.
  
  Blacks and others have nearly always received much harsher punishment for
  the same crime as whites have committed, because of a lack of objectivity.
  Is a black man raping a white woman really that different, and deserving
  of more severe punishment, than a white man raping a black woman?

--
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: pack@acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Summary: I knows 'em when I sees 'em
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research - Atmospheric Chemistry Div
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:21:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.202130.2574@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>dp> Daniel Packman
>gs> Gary Strand
>....
>dp> Painting a swastika on a Jewish business recalls the holocaust and is not
>    in the same league as painting random grafitti.
>
>  Who says that the vandal hates Jews? It's still just vandalism.

From my point of view, it is not too important what the vandal feels.
The point is that the effect of the painting on the victim is much
different in the two cases.

>
>dp> Similarly, burning a cross on a black family's front yard recalls lynching
>    and other atrocities and is not in the same league as setting a trash fire.
>
>  It's still just vandalism.

And they are acts that have profoundly different effects on the victim.

>dp> So fine, prosecute the skinhead as a vandal (or visiGoth? :-} ) but cor-
>    rectly identify the magnitude of the crime.
>
>  Why should prosecution of a crime depend on who or what the victim is? It
>  ought to depend solely on the violation of the victim's rights, not if the
>  victim is Jewish, black, gay, or whatever.

Perhaps it "ought to", but the combination of a particular act with a
particular victim can produce profoundly different crimes.

Why must we limit ourselves to a narrow examination of objective physical
details of this hypothetical crime?  Must we limit ourselves to objective
criteria to be impartial?  I don't think human affairs fit such rigid
standards. Allowing subjective criteria in determining the magnitude of
a crime is not necessarily biased.  After all, the ultimate power of the
judicial system is vested in the subjective judgement of a jury or judge.

-- 
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:21:30 GMT

dp> Daniel Packman
gs> Gary Strand

gs> In any case, I'd prefer prosecuting someone who paints a swastika as a van-
    dal, not as Adolf Hitler Jr.

dp> In prosecuting some crimes, the hate context must be taken into account.

  Why? How do we *know* that there's a hate context?

dp> Painting a swastika on a Jewish business recalls the holocaust and is not
    in the same league as painting random grafitti.

  Who says that the vandal hates Jews? It's still just vandalism.

dp> Similarly, burning a cross on a black family's front yard recalls lynching
    and other atrocities and is not in the same league as setting a trash fire.

  It's still just vandalism.

dp> So fine, prosecute the skinhead as a vandal (or visiGoth? :-} ) but cor-
    rectly identify the magnitude of the crime.

  Why should prosecution of a crime depend on who or what the victim is? It
  ought to depend solely on the violation of the victim's rights, not if the
  victim is Jewish, black, gay, or whatever.

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