HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Subject: Senate race
Organization: Systems'n'Software
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 04:46:05 GMT

In an effort to get other opinions and hopefully change the subjects
around here once in a while, from my local newspaper......

                      From letters to the editor:
                      ===========================
Editor: America has many problems, but the single most frightening one
is the rapidly expanding federal deficit. It is nothing less than a
real threat to our nation's existence!

The National Taxpayer's union Foundation recently identified those
politicians who sponsor the most expensive amount of legislation in
Congress. Guess who headed the list None other than Senate hopeful
Barbara Boxer. she topped all members of Congress last year with a
spending agenda of $405 billion. Interestingly, the two next highest
were Bay area Democrats Ron Dellums and Nancy Pelosi.

This question of reckless spending is a matter of national urgency. Can
California dare to elect two new senators who demonstrate so little
sense of fiscal responsibility???

Lyn C.

___________________________________________________________________________
                                   \ /        \  /
I had a seat in the very first row +-------------+ 
I heard it all on my radio         | 0 -(....) 0 |    uunet!jack!jsb
                                   +-------------+                         
___________________________________________________________________________
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:48:42 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <athos-081092090350@kip2-30.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <39144@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
>wrote:
>
>> Crap. Crap,crap,crap,crap,crap. Herr Brucie, like the rest of the rabble-
>> rousing bible-thumping religious right, er, Republican Party, has not been
>> beating on this issue because people are being banned from silent prayer
>> in school. They want vocalized, led, religious periods, and the Ten
>> Commandments hanging from the walls. You trying to act like this isn't
>> the case when everyone knows it to be so is laughable.
>
>Prove that this is what Bruce Herschensohn wants.  I dare you.

If he was truly neutral on the school prayer issue - no promotion
or restraint of silent prayer by anyone in school - then this
would be a non-existant topic, because this is currently the way 
things are now. Nobody is stopping anyone,anywhere from silently praying
during school.

The fact that "school prayer" is an issue at all says that proponents 
(including Herr Bruce) really want more than what you are claiming. QED.

Next subject?

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:00:32 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Phil Ronzone:
:>> Like communism, some things are inherently "unfixable". 

Patricia Jazanoski:
:> If the public school system is inherently "unfixable", why would
:> a private school system not have the same problems? 

Simply because a private school ain't public.

Randy Burns:
: public schools have the same trouble innovating as do 
: _any_ large, capital intensive institutions.

Public schools will have _more_ trouble, _because_ they're public.

Any organization will tend to create burocracies.  Any burocracy will
tend to be self-perpetuating, creating work for itself so it can thrive
and grow.

Private organizations will die if this process continues un-controlled.
Public organizations will not.

In a free market, somewhere out there, a new organization will start,
with a young, efficient burocracy, not yet schooled in the methods of
self-perpetuation.  This new organization will, in general, compete the
pants off a fossilized burocracy.

In a public "market," new organizations are prohibited by law.

Indeed: Public organizations will hold their charter for ransom to get
more money.  Listen to the public school teachers!  "GIVE US MORE MONEY,
OR YOUR KIDS WILL SUFFER!"  I don't know about you, but it sounds to me
an awful lot like they're holding our kids hostage!

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Crime does not pay...as well as politics.
    -- A. E. Newman
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Subject: Prop 165
Organization: Systems'n'Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:16:03 GMT



  Saw this in the letters to the editor section of my paper. Comments anyone?

                        FROM LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
                        ==========================
                             WELFARE REFORM

Editor:  In response to your article on welfare in the Oct 1 edition.  I
would like to make some comments addressed to Tina Nickerson and the other
single parents on welfare.

Why is it the states responsibility to provide for your financial
well-being when you contribute nothing?  It is understandable o assist
someone who meeds the help to help themselves, as appears to be the case
with Barbara Wideck.  But you have chosen a permanent lifestyle based on
welfare.  Furthermore, not only does the state pay you, it also subsidizes
your mate(s), who are responsible for the children you are raising.

The blame for this sad state of affairs is not yours.  You are only taking
advantage of the situation.  I and other citizens are fully to blame.  We
have been lazy and allowed soft, perk-filled politicians and social
engineers to create this mess.  Therefore I must do something, however
imperfect, and vote for Proposition 165 in hopes that the pain and
suffering it causes will change your ways.

Greg Larson
___________________________________________________________________________
                                   \ /        \  /
I had a seat in the very first row +-------------+ 
I heard it all on my radio         | 0 -(....) 0 |    uunet!jack!jsb
                                   +-------------+                         
___________________________________________________________________________
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:20:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Oct9.161925.3538@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> 
> Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
> orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals?

Not according to the statistics Clayton produced.  You are aware of the
meaning of the term "orders of magnitude", I trust?

> Do you NOT accept that many many people find this disgusting?

No, actually I don't.  For example, I don't find it disgusting and have
trouble understanding why anyone would.  I think it's entirely up to
them whom they want to sleep with and how often they do it.  It's none
of my business.

Yes, I know this wasn't precisely what you were asking, but my answer is
still no, I don't accept that "many many" people find this disgusting.
Can you put some numbers on this for me, please?

> I disagree. If I found out someone I knew molested children,
> I would strongly shun him/her.

Yes, but Clayton is making the argument that "out" homosexuals should be
denied positions as counselors, teachers, etc., when by his own statistics,
it's the closeted homosexuals who are the problem.  This is akin to the
old military argument that homosexuals were security risks.  If you were
a closeted homosexual, you might be, but the argument just doesn't work
for the openly gay person.

[re: discrimination against gays]
> Did he call for this in any way?

Well, yes, actually he did.  Do I really have to go through his postings
to find this?  C'mon, Phil, you read 'em.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8609 ba.politics:6023
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:32:07 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <12723@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <39223@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
> # Evolution, on the other hand, is science, whatever the religious morons
> # who try to equate it to creationism might want to believe, and it does
> # belong in the schools.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  What does that last 
> phrase tell you?

  That education should be privatized. Trying to to make a right or
wrong determination with the problem is futile: it is based on a 
faulty premise. If you had any self respect Clayton, you would limit
your arguments to that point and that point alone.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8523 ba.politics:5932
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Saturday Night Live && Shinehead
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:24:47 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct6.164637.3641@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
> In article <athos-041092161341@kip2-43.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
# #Hi There,
# #
# #I am wondering if anyone would fill me in on exactly why Shinehead found it
# #necessary to insult every Catholic on Earth last night on SLV?  What's her
# #beef?
# 
# I don't know, but I would assume that it probably has something to
# do with the fact that she is Irish.  I can see how you might get a
# little turned off to religion by growing up in an area where lots of
# people are blowing each other up in the name of "God".
# 
# Guido

Actually, people are murdering each other in the name of ethnic
identity.  The identity of "Protestant" and "Catholic" is really
a division of "Scots settled in Northern Ireland in the 16th and
17th centuries" and "Irishmen."

The Provos are flaming Marxists anyway, with a history of help
from the Libyan government and some of the Eastern bloc countries.
Hardly Catholic.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: 16 Oct 1992 20:25:02 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct16.190825.10240@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <23030@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>>A similar question was raised in the case Everson v. Board of Education.
>
>What makes education special?
>
>We give people food stamps.  They can spend them most anywhere.
>
...
>

Food stamps are only given to the poor. Is that what you want for school
vouchers?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:44:29 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <98146@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.161925.3538@netcom.com>
> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >In article <ld98vlINNsv9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> >>In article <1992Oct8.155948.27041@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
> >>(Phil Ronzone) writes:
# ###In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has
# ###clearly hit a nerve.
# 
# ##Clayton hit a nerve, yes. He hit my "bad statistics nerve".
# 
# #Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
# #orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
# #accept that many many people find this disgusting?
# 
# You are using the phrase "two orders of magnitude" deceptively, Phil.
# Most people with scientific backgrounds will understand this to mean
# 10*10, or 100 times the promiscuity.
# 
# What you actually appear to be referring to is the Masters, Johnson,
# and Kolodny studies which showed that straight unmarried men have
# about 10 sex partners per year, and that gay men have about 22 partners
# per year on average. The difference is "two times", NOT "two orders of
# magnitude"!!!
# 
# As for the "digusting" part, then any straight man who beds a different
# woman every month must also be depraved and disgusting, too. The average

I would certainly say so -- especially if most of the partners were
complete strangers, as was the case for gay men.

# gay man is not incredibly different than the average unmarried straight
# man. The behavior that Clayton always highlights---gay men who frequent
# bathhouses and have a dozen partners a night---is clearly on on fringe
# of a distribution of behaviors. Any attempt to portray it as "NORMAL"
# gay behavior is outright fraud.

Yet that's clearly what the study I quoted showed was the norm.
 
# Do you really want to differentiate between bedding a new person every
# two weeks instead of once a month? These aren't married people, you
# know.

Odd.  I know lots of unmarried couples that are monogamous.  How
DO they do it, without a piece of paper from the state?

# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:24:01 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <39264@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
wrote:
> 
> In article <athos-091092150531@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> >Fine, you're a moron.  I do, after all, call them as I see them.  The term
> >"Nazi" is a VERY hostile word.  
> 
> In point of fact Ricky, while I may have referred to Herschensohn
> as a Nazi in the past (I don't recall), in this particular exchange
> YOU were the one who brought up the term. My preferred term is
> "fascist", for which I make no apology when referring to Herschensohn.
> I may also refer to him as "Herr" for the same reasons.

I can state with all honesty that I never used the word Nazi except when
quoting you.

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

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8573 ba.politics:5987
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Opinons on prop 167?
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:40:01 GMT

Are there any?
I am inclined to vote no.  What would make me vote yes?

--
"I drank what?" -- Socrates

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:16:13 GMT

In article <39223@sdcc12.ucsd.edu+ jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
+In article <12673@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
+>It was December.  My daughter was in first grade.  They were singing
+>various Christmas songs (secular variety).  My daughter, foolishly,
+>suggested singing "Silent Night."  The teacher's response was, "We
+>can't do that.  That would be illegal."  Does that make you a little
+>uncomfortable?  Sort of like, "Can we discuss evolution?"  "No, that
+>would be illegal."
+
+Not one little bit Cramer. Songs of the sort of "Silent Night" are blatently
+religious, and belong in other venues.
+
+Evolution, on the other hand, is science, whatever the religious morons
+who try to equate it to creationism might want to believe, and it does
+belong in the schools.

Michael, Michael... haven't you been paying attention here?  What should
be taught as "truth" in the schools is merely what the kid's parents
believe!

;-)
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:12:50 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <athos-071092120015@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>You don't know me.  You don't know *what* I think, as evidenced by your
>remark above.  I would be completely against a teacher leading a prayer,
>just as I would be a teacher telling a student to stop praying.  

I can't imagine either a teacher or Boxer telling someone what they
can and can't think. I can imagine a teacher telling a student to stop
talking during class, which is completely understandable. It isn't
required that everyone else in the room be aware of what you are doing
while praying. If it is, perhaps a private religious school is where
you or your kids belong. Vocal prayer does not belong in the classroom
in _any_ form. I, as an atheist, do not want my kids subjected to
that sort of mumbo-jumbo when they are supposed to be learning.

By the way Rick, what people know about you is what you decide to tell them
What you post says quite a bit.

>Like I said: neither prohibit nor encourage prayer.  That's all, by the
>way, Bruce has been saying too.  Unless you can prove otherwise, which I
>seriously doubt.

Crap. Crap,crap,crap,crap,crap. Herr Brucie, like the rest of the rabble-
rousing bible-thumping religious right, er, Republican Party, has not been
beating on this issue because people are being banned from silent prayer
in school. They want vocalized, led, religious periods, and the Ten
Commandments hanging from the walls. You trying to act like this isn't
the case when everyone knows it to be so is laughable.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Mortgage nightmare
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:31:26 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego


I just went through a refinance, and it was one of the worst experiences
of my life.

That whole industry, from the lenders, the brokers, to the escrow and title
companies, needs a kick in the ass from consumers and the government. I've
never seen an industry before where the object is to shaft the customer
as much as possible, and the customer is supposed to like it. They
are so f**king careful with everyone's money but the customer's, and
his is more or less a don't care.

Anybody have any idea where I can make some noise at the government level?

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Ah Yes, The Gay Community Has Changed Its Behavior! :-)
Date: 15 Oct 92 08:14:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12752@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[cross-posting from soc.motss deleted]

Nice to know that your fascination for gay men hasn't changed.  And thank
you so much for posting that article to these political newsgroups--it was
so appropriate, don't you think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:38:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12699@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> Except that you are assuming that every homosexual child molester
> is ashamed of his sexual orientation.  Roy Radow at NAMBLA sure isn't.

This from a man who piously declares that he doesn't indulge in attacks.
Clayton, do please give us the evidence that Roy is a child molester.
While you're at it, give it to your police department as well, so they
can take the appropriate action.  Of course, if you didn't mean to imply
that Roy molests children, then you might want to publicly apologze to
him.  You might also want to explain to Brian Kane your rationale for
calling him "depraved".

Incidentally, Clayton, you still haven't told me what ad hominem attacks
I made on you when I responded to your "Mother" postings.  And you still
haven't addressed the substance of my response.  Care to respond?

> Not ignored.  But then again, no one is trying to get pedophiles
> (regardless of preference) protected by laws, except for the homosexual
> fascist lobby.

And your evidence for this rather bizarre claim?  Since there's no such
thing as a "homosexual fascist lobby", the point is moot, I suppose.
Still, the only people who are trying to get pedophiles protected by law are
the members of NAMBLA, a small group indeed, with absolutely no chance
of having their agenda approved.  If this is the rationale for continuing
your crusade, then I'd say it's long past time to quit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8712 ba.politics:6134