HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Observations on schools & money
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:08:02 GMT
Reply-To: stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:

>Throwing money.at schools doesn't help?????

>Then how come Weston, Brookline, Wellesley & Lexington schools
>regularly are ranked among the best in MA.  Could it be because
>they are well funded as well as strongly supported....

In a Boston Globe article several months ago it was pointed out
that the U.S. spends more money for education (per kid) than a
lot of other industrialized countries, e.g., Japan and Germany.
It may have been more than _any_ other industrialized country,
but I don't remember exactly.  The kicker is that only something
like 72% of the money is spent directly on classroom instruction
in the U.S., compared with 88% in Germany and 92% in Japan.  This
is a problem.

Jonathon Kozol spoke at UMass a couple of months ago about our
school systems.  (He writes very moving, convincing books, by the
way.)  In his talk he said that when he talks to people in government
about problems in the schools, they'll give him a half-pitying look
and say, "But do you really think you can solve these problems by
throwing money at them?" to which his reply is "Well. . .sure.  
Why is it that if there's a technological or military problem to be
solved it's called something like allocating budgetary resources
to the problem, but when it comes to social or educational problems
it's throwing money at the problem?"

I think in the short run, at least, spending more would be really
helpful.

Rob St. Amant
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Militia rights (was: Bearing arms)
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:30:21 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <2797783590@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, 
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Notice the commas. [...] "The right of the people to bear arms *FOR
> THE PURPOSE OF FORMING MILITIA* shall not be infringed."

The extra words added in capitals are the ones I don't see in the text.
Neither did the people who wrote it - which is made abundantly clear if
you read their writings, including the debates on this very ammendment.

The U.S. Senate commissioned a study several years ago on what exactly was
intended by the 2nd ammendment. The results were embarassing. Since then,
the current thrust for gun control is not what the ammendment actually says,
or what it was intended to mean, but that we are now in a different society
than the founding fathers envisioned. Or Senator Chafee's pending bill to
repeal the 2nd ammendment.

> [...] but that's how the thing reads.

You must have learned to read in a school that teaches you how to find
bits where none exist. I had my system do a text search and it didn't find
those words either. When I was taught about reading between the lines, I
was told that this was an exercise in finding out what was implied, which
usually involved research in other writings by the author (see above).

Incidentally, my copy of the bill of rights is different than yours:

   2nd Amendment
   A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
   free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
   not be infringed.

If you're going to quibble about commas, we can argue about whose online
copy is incorrect. The answer to that is to read the actual handwritten
version sitting at the national archives. Only to find out that each
copy made (and there were a bunch of them) was probably transcribed
differently.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:49:05 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:

> I actually could be moved to compromise on the rate of fire anyway; it's 
> really the concealability of a weapon that I object to.  No-one with a 
> legitimate purpose needs to conceal a firearm (exception: undercover 
> police).

How come you object to concealed weapons?  What's the diff?  Guns is guns.

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: ed@kronos.com (Ed Baker)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Why Kids are Violent
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:31:25 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

In article <4e1uPB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>mzraly@ra.cs.umb.edu (Michael S. Zraly) writes:
>
>> tries to read to her boy -- he's about 3 or 4 -- and he won't stand for
>> it.  He will scream.  He will pick up the book and throw it.
>
>No discipline.  We should be able to live in a world where this mother could
>spank her child and not get raised eyebrows and second guessing for it.
>
>You give that kid a good couple of whallops and he'll sit still for story
>hour!
>
>                                      - - - Murph

How many kids do you have, Murph?  I have three, and if there's one thing
I know for sure, it's that kids learn from what their parents do.  If you
hit your kids, you are teaching them to hit.  They mimic you in every way.

We made the mistake of yelling at our 4-year old when he misbehaves.  He
now yells at our 2 year old in the exact same fashion when she does
something he doesn't like.

My cousin has five kids, and they visited us for a few days.  Not once did
the parents raise their voice at the kids.  It was remarkable how their
kids did not yell.

There are plenty of ways of teaching children right from wrong without
yelling are hitting.  These ways are quite effective.  You are the adult;
they are the children.  You can understand things that they can't.

If you're really interested, which I doubt you are, I can reccomend some
good books on the subject which you could read.

-Ed
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Corporate Tax Ballot Question
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:03:18 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

In article <1992Sep01.190404.41900@kronos.com>, richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
|> a 25-cent additional cigarette tax modeled after a
|> California law which provides money for anti-smoking campaigns (the
|> problem here is there is no legally-binding way to earmark money
|> collected in the state's general fund, and a cigarrette tax is inherently
|> regressive).

It may be regressive, but in this case so what?  It's a tax on something
that can be variously regarded as a luxury, a health risk, or 
discretionary behavior.    In any event, if people don't want to pay
the cigarette tax, they can stop smoking and spend the money on
something better.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 23:45:21 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <2797509893@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> (ne.politics), usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
>Okay, let's see if I can get flamed for being a bleeding-heart liberal 
>(which of course I am; and damn proud of it too!)...
>
>1) According to the constitiution the right to bear arms is gaurenteed to 
>members of a MILITIA.  Not necessarily to individuals.  Now if any of you 
>folks want to join the National Gaurd (the only militia we've got in the 
>USA) or form a militia in your own town or village...

Actually, the militia was a civilian organization that included just
about the entire voting population.  E.g. all of the full citizens.

And the text of the 2nd amendment states (following the justification):
"Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to keep and bear
arms"  (or something very similar -- I don't have it in front of me
at the moment).  It does not say "Congress shall make no law infringing
on the military's or police's etc. rights to keep and bear arms".

Either way, congress flat out does not have the authority to make
ANY law restricting the ownership of any weapon.  Waiting periods,
hand gun bans, assault weapon bans, automatic weapon bans, thermonuclear
MIRVs, etc.

+C


-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:	wi.5036@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

"F' cryin' out loud, it's *your* life; shouldn't you at least examine 
your lifestyle values to see if they are really what *you* want."
										--Keith Lim
From: rhorlick@mtholyoke.edu (Rick Horlick)
Subject: Bill Clinton on the Highway
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:44:51 GMT
From: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Judging the law as well as the facts (was Re: Bearing arms: ...)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:31:28 GMT
Reply-To: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Organization: Bull HN Info Sys, Billerica MA

OK, I misunderstood what was meant by "judging the law."  A jury can
aquit someone for whatever reason, but they do not pass a judgement on
the law, in the sense that, for example, the Supreme Court can
overturn a law.

--Mike Gelman 
-- 
Michael Gelman -- M.Gelman@ma30.bull.com 
Bull HN Info Systems -- Advanced Engineering Program 
(Any similarity between my opinions and those of Bull, living or dead, are
entirely coincidental.)
From: composer@world.std.com (Jeff Kellem)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Adoption (was Re: Abortion- Kill/Save)
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:06:50 GMT
Reply-To: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Organization: Beyond Dreams

murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
 > Man, truer words were never spoken - I heavily fault my own Roman Catholic
 > Church for their miserable failure in many social matters.  Adoption is just
 > one of them.

Adoption's a miserable failure?  I would strongly disagree with that.

		-jeff

Jeff Kellem
Internet: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2226 alt.politics.clinton:3829 alt.politics.bush:3862 talk.politics.misc:43331
From: kml@cellar.org (John Galt)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:26:04 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

> This country needs to pay more attention to efficiency.  Things could cost
> a lot less if they could be made more efficient.  (I know this is obvious,
> but I think it's worth discussing anyway.)  Here's one example:
> 
> Last October, before I found this job, I worked for 2 1/2 weeks at a horrible
> temp job in a hospital billing office.  My sole task, which was also the
> task of other temps working there at the same time, was to read radiology
> billing information off a computer printout and type it into a computer.
>[rest of saga deleted]

Okay, so we make everyone more efficient.  then we need fewer workers.
Then we have more unemployment, more entitlement costs.  Then we higher
taxes, so corporations either layoff or become more efficient.  Eventually
we will drive ourselves into the ground, if we haven't already.

That's it!  It's the Industrial Revolution's fault!



       As a matter of fact, no, I don't have a life.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Subject: Re: Smaller government means MORE money for the poor
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 14:23:38 GMT

cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:

>Ahh, the old "Soak the Rich".  It will not work.  The wealthy just
>do not have enough money to cover the current level of congressional
>spending.

>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
>cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory



Do not get fooled by party propaganda. It is part of Bush's strategy
to blame Congress, but he always submits LARGER budgets than they
give him. Congress is actually trimming executive spending!!

As for the rest....  There are many necessary things that government
does , that charity would not handle. 

Reduce the size of government yes!! Start with removing the largest
growth in government employees under in our history, they came on
during Bush's term.

If you are a conservative, BE A CONSERVATIVE. Reagan and Bush sing
pretty songs , but the reality is:

Reagan and Bush each have had larger deficits than ALL other presidents
in history. Together they have crippled our ability to deal with the
future.

          1981 - 1989  
Auto Imports  19%	30%
Computer Imports  7%	36%
machine tools	 27%	44%
Consumer Elect.	 57%	75%  

These guys have not been good for business either!!  Speaking as someone
who has been involved in startups and venture capital and who has their
own business now, Bush (and Reagan before him) have not been on the side
of business except for big business. The trickle down theories really
are "voodoo economics" that do not improve either savings rates or
capital accumulation.

Bush pretends to ba a conservative (Reagan was just asleep at the wheel)
but he outspends every president in history, he increases government
employment more than any president in history. He is not a conservative.

He combines the worst historically Democratic characteristics like
spending and government growth with the worst Republican characteristics
and none of the best from either.

Unless Perot reenters the race , most true conservatives (unless blinded
by campaign propaganda) will have the dubious (for them) choice of 
voting for Clinton or abstaining.

Charlie

P.S. Sorry to run off like that , I was just triggered by misuse of the
word "congressional" in the quoted section above.


-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@chiechan.mro4.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:45:00 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BZS.92Aug24194712@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> Personally (and I don't claim this to be a general experience), the
> only times I have been in danger due to a gun was a gun in the hands
> of a police officer who mistook me for someone else or was acting
> rogue. The only time I was "mugged" it was at the point of a knife,
> not a gun.

re your experiences. Did you read the Boston Globe today?
A policewoman shot and killed her son, while presumably trying to
kill or scare her husband.

As only the Boston Globe can say it, (twice in the article)
the "gun went off" and that is what caused the problem.

The article almost looks like it is trying to say that the
gun went off due to some accident. That there was no intention
upon the part of the policewoman to shoot at anything.

The article didn't say "and so she shot at him" or 
"she fired one shot towards."

Instead, it is the good-old standby "the gun went off."

Isn't it nice to live in the globe-world of cartoon logic.
Where people don't shoot at people, the guns "just go off."

------------

Anyway, this policewoman has been reinstated to active duty on the
Boston police force.

I'm sure we all feel safer...

------------

As far as accidently shootings go. Let's try to be a little more
suspicious here. Remember Karl Rowan, the very pro-gun-control 
columnist who "accidently" shot an intruder with a gun that
was not legally registered to him? The gun "just went off" in that
case too, I suppose.

-gjc
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:18:48 GMT
	<BZS.92Aug18194424@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21203351@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21235020@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug22123754@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> <BZS.
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: bzs@ussr.std.com's message of 30 Aug 92 00:42:40 GMT

In article <BZS.92Aug29194240@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> London seems to me to be in much better economic
> shape than Boston, tho standards are different of course and it's hard
> to tell. But it's hardly desparate in any apparent way, they're still
> among the richest countries in the world.

	London may be.  How are things in the north?  Yes, they're
still among the richest in the world but how ARE they in relation to
how they were?

> To distract people? I thought that's what TV is for.

	How clever!
From: wre0498@rigel.tamu.edu (ERHART, WESLEY RONALD)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:14:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep2.201402.9663@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes...
> 
>	Greater efficiency means fewer workers for a specific task.
>It also means less $$$ wasted which can be channeled into new
>initiatives utilizing the workers no longer needed for the 
>initial task.  This in turn provides more productivity (since
>we're getting all these other things accomplished that we
>didn't have before when we had hired you) and an overall 
>increase in the status of life.
> 
> 
>BBC

I read in an editorial by an economist in the Houston Chronical that right
now the World is over producing.  The final conclusion being that 
until incomes are normalized throughout the producing countries 
Americans can expect an overall decrease "in the status of life".

wes.
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:12:27 GMT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:

> From the outlandish gibberish that has been posted, there are a few
> possibilities....
> 
> 3. Bush is the most diabolic, cleverest man in the world.
> 
> Case 3. Vote for Bush --- a. to keep him on our side. b. Cause he'll
> 	get you if you don't

<chuckle>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: FYI: Choice and Bean
Keywords: abortion rights, political action
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:16:34 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>Pardon me for not being impressed with your moral stance.

OK, so double-up on your next order of LL Bean products, to make up for
the deficits caused by pro-choice activists.  It's a free country.

-rich
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Militia rights (was: Bearing arms)
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:06:30 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

Here's the text of the second ammendment:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Notice the commas.  It does *NOT* necessarily say "The right of the people 
to bear arms shall not be infringed".  It clearly says the right of the 
Militia to bear arms shall not be infringed.  And to my eye, the closest 
interpretion is: "The right of the people to bear arms *FOR THE PURPOSE OF 
FORMING MILITIA* shall not be infringed."  It doesn't speak to any other 
use of arms.

That doesn't mean that firearms *HAVE* to be regulated for other purposes, 
but that's how the thing reads.  Take away the comma after the word "Arms" 
and then the interpretation that the NRA believes in is correct.


--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:52:05 GMT

bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>Re: Taxing the rich.
>
>Although I have no particular objection it is a kind of lunkheaded
>approach to the bigger problem.
>
>Tax incentives for the rich to invest in jobs, inner-city development
>etc (or secondary incentives for institutions like banks for these
>projects which can then float bonds etc which would attract investment
>from wealthier clients, tax free municipal bonds have always been very
>attractive as an example) is probably more productive than putting
>more money in the hands of politicians who have, by and large, proven
>their irresponsibility and will go buy statues of themselves for these
>depressed areas or whatever.

	I'm not so convinced of this:  which is more efficient?
Trickle-down or trickle-up?

	Give a rich person $1000 and they'll keep $500 and re-invest
$500.  Give a poor person $1000 and they'll spend it.  The people
receiving the poor person's $1000 benefit.  

	OK - a gross oversimplification, right?  Well, yes and no.
In the last 12 years, the growth of millionaires from the trickle-down
economics has been much greater than the growth of the tires of society
that need the $$$ the most (in fact the lower middle class has slipped
significantly).  Where's the efficiency in that?  Why is there a middle-
man?  I suppose some would argue that because they are rich they know
how to manage $$$ (yeah, they keep it).

	Seems to me the best place to inject $$$ is the small business.
They have the ability to employ and produce with the intent that all
the $$$ put in goes back in the system and not into a yacht.

	I agree that $$$ given to politicos is usually $$$ misspent.

	It will be interesting to see how much further we stretch
things before the elastic band snaps...


Newsgroups: ne.politics