HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: Call Toll Free Oregon Tourism Office - Voice Measure 9 Opinion
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:21:56 GMT
Organization: (getting there)



I would just as soon write a letter to the Oregon Department of
Tourism telling them how much I enjoyed my stay there this summer
and that I would not have made the trip had a law like Measure 9
been in effect at that time.

In addition to the phone numbers--
  800--547-7842 is the general number
  503-373-1270 is the number to register an opinion on this
    [query:  is it _just_ on Measure 9?]

does anyone have an address?

-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,soc.bi
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Genes, Categorical Hypostatization, and You
Date: 26 Sep 1992 17:33:11 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Sep26.174456.23668@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> 
gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <92267.204350HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:

[Foucault worship and debunking deleted]

> >I think it has been clearly understood for quite a long time now that
> >what we think of within our culture as "love" -- that is, "romantic
> >love" -- is a fairly recent cultural expression, maybe four or five
> >hundred years old.

Snort.

> It's been maintained.  I suspect any day now some smart young thing
> will discover the obvious, namely that people back in Greco-Roman times
> used to complain about the Madness of Love all the time, and write a
> book with just the opposite thesis, which will then become the popular
> wisdom for a generation.  It's been a long time since C. S. Lewis wrote
> 'The Allegory of Love', and we're about due.

Well, it wouldn't even take all that smart or young a thing
to do this.  For instance, I've just picked up my recently
purchased copy of Guy Lee's recent and pretty good translation 
of the Poems of Catullus (Oxford U.P.).  I opened the book and
this is the opening of the first poem I saw:

   Septimius, his beloved Acme
   In his lap, said 'Acme darling,
   If I'm not desperately in love
   And set to go on loving you
   Forever in utter desperation,
   Then lone in Libya or scorched India
   I'll face a lion with green eyes.' [...]

I flip some pages and come to this:

   Honeyed Juventius, while you were playing I stole from you
     A sweeter kiss than sweet ambrosia.
   Yes, but I didn't get it scot-free, for I remember
     Being stuck for more than an hour on a cross
   While I made my excuses to you but could not move
     Your cruelty one bit with all my tears.
   For hardly was it done before you drenched your lips
     With water-drops and wiped them with soft knuckles,
   Lest anything infectious from my mouth remain,
     As though it were some pissed-on whore's foul spittle.
   Besides you were not slow to hand wretched me over
     To angry Love and crucify me every way,
   So that for me that kiss was now turned from ambrosia
     To something sourer than sour hellebore.
   Since you propose this penalty for a wretched lover,
     Henceforth I'll never steal a kiss again.

That's 2000 years old, and Catullus was only building on
the work of Sappho, who wrote several centuries before
him.  So what's this crap about love being only 400 years
old?  (Oh yes, Juventius was a cockteasing, fickle teenaged 
boy that Catullus had the hots for.)  Now if someone not
all that smart and certainly not all that young can find
counter-examples to Herschel's nonsense, just imagine what
someone who is both smart and young and who has a little
more free time than I do could come up with.

Arne

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:45:30 GMT


In article <4ekF_Rm00iUzA8ndMB@andrew.cmu.edu> ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Erik Karl Witte) writes:
>
> M.I.T. and a number of other prestigious schools already lost an
> anti-trust case this year, and this situation is getting better.

"better"?  The entire point of the so-called "trust" was to help get
financial aid to more students, rather than hiving "price wars" with
the other schools.  Do you think giving fewer students aid (and thus
being able to admit fewer people who have/whose parents have low
income) is "better"?

I can't think of a single MIT student I know (though there probably are
some *somewhere*) who disagrees with MIT's old policy.  I think that
speaks volumes.

Anyway, this isn't really appropriate for a.p.h.

-- 
 \  /   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\ \   PGP public key available on request.
Scheme  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: What being gay is
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.062641.10243@muddcs.claremont.edu> mhaines@jarthur.claremont.edu (Matthew Haines) writes:

- I certainly won't attempt to define being gay here, but I would like to make
- one point:  being gay is not a desire (for a man) to have anal sex or
- (for a woman) the desire to have sex with another woman.  If that were all
- homosexuality were about, homosexuality would be a fetish on par with
- shoe fetishes, etc.  

I agree...and for detractors: don't you remember having a
pre-pubescent crush?  I do, though I didn't recognize it as such,
'cause I was taught that you only had crushes on girls....what a trip
to figure something like that out ten years after it happens.

- We homosexuals should absolutely refuse to even discuss homosexuality on
- terms which define it as having sex with people of the same gender.  There
- is much more to it than that, and all these references to Leviticus merely
- distort the issue.  Once we force the discussion of the issue onto the right
- grounds, we will have won half the battle.

So how would you suggest arguing with a Christian who asserts it's
okay to *be* gay as long as you don't "act on it" (i.e., have sex
outside of a heterosexual marriage)?  I mean, I *have* fought those
battles before (though it's a bitch to argue about ANYTHING who will
only fall back on a book that, for no reason whatsoever, they claim to
be absolute truth).

-   --Matthew Haines, gay, proud, and happy

Amen!

--
Andrew Werling on Planet Yip    awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Get out your cross and dance!"  --Gruntruck, "Crucifunkin'"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: News from Oregon: Re: Worse than I thought :( OCA sucks
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:49:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.063838.19700@netcom.com> rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
>In article <BvGCtF.I4E@agora.rain.com> rickc@agora.rain.com (Rick
>Coates) writes:
>>
>>A basement apartment was fire-bombed; two people were killed, one black
>>and one gay.  [...]
>
>Why "one black and one gay"?  If race and sexual orientation matter, I
>can understand "one black and one white", or "one straight and one gay",
>or "one black and straight and one gay and white".  But the phrasing
>above makes it sound like "both differing from the standard, one by
>being black and the other by being gay".
>
>--Rich, also differing from the standard


One was a white gay man and the other was a black gay woman.  The confusion
is whether the crime was because the people were in appearance a mixed race
couple or if it occured because they were gay.  

Oh, the FBI is looking into the case.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination,soc.motss
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: Gay Intolerance OR Politcal Correctness in the Age of AIDS
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:25:33 GMT

In article <ooFyRB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com> will@mindvox.phantom.com (Will Kinnona) writes:
>
>	As many of you have no doubt read in various gossip columns (Suzy,
>Liz Smith, etc) there was a large AIDS benefit in NYC last night. 
>Attending were Donna Karan, Ralph Lauren, Donald Trump, etc.  I was a
>waiter at this event.   It was a very simple dinner to serve, the guests
>were polite and most of them left before desert.  What I found to be
>unacceptable however is that the hostess _insisted_ that all of the waiters
>wear red ribbons to show AIDS awareness.  I at first refused to wear the
>ribbon and only agreed at the risk of losing my job.

They were out of line, no question. Wearing a red ribbon is a
political statement. Requiring people to make *any* political
statement as a condition of work is unconscionable.

>	Oy, it's 4am and I've done enough raving for one night...  Just
>remember just because you're gay doesn't mean you aren't a bigot.

What can I say? 10% of bigoted assholes are gay.
-- 
Andrew M. Solovay       "Work is the curse of the drinking class."
solovay@netcom.com			--Wilde

#include <disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Wilson signed anti-discrim law?!
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:16:20 GMT

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:

>I heard on CNN that California Gov Pete Wilson signed the law that
>would prohibit job discrimination (and housing too, I think) based
>on sexual orientation. This is the same (or similiar) bill he vetoed
>last year. 
I wish they wouldn't use the word SIMILAR to refer to AB2601 [which he 
SIGNED this year] and AB101 which he vetoed last year. AB-101 started off as
a generic gay rights bill, amending the California 'civil rights code' to
include sexual orientation as a protected class, without affirmative action.
After getting through the legislature, it was just an employment nondiscriminati
on bill. AB-2601 is, and always was, just an employment nondiscrimination bill
and took Wilson's own veto message that said that his Labor Commissioner should
accept sexual orientation complaints and codified it into law. Wilson signed
it. So, it's still a good thing, but it is NOT a full civil rights law for
homosexuals.

There WAS a Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1992 that WAS a full civil rights
bill for Queers [as well as disabled, women, race, religion, etc] and Wilson
vetoed it today...

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. `D.C. in 93!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
According to the Village Voice, the Bush Family is immediately responsible for
losses to the U.S. taxpayer amounting to 2.2 BILLION DOLLARS.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination,soc.motss
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:45:28 GMT

So many threads argue that the economy can be controlled, then proceed to
argue about which direction to aim it.

The idea that we can make improvements in a natural system such as the economy
is ludicrous.

Let me begin with the weather as an analogy:

	1) Weather is a complex, natural system.
	2) We know enough of the theory to know fundamental limitations of our
		predictions.
	3) the computers used to predict are not part of the weather system.
	4) The system is completely connected: a change in any part of the world
		produces changes everywhere. This is the "butterfly effect"
	5) If we had the technology to make more rain in SF/CA, it would have
		unpredictable effects everywhere in the world. You can assume
		these would not all be good.

Given all of this, nobody would allow serious efforts to change the weather.
At best, it would be a zero-sum game.

The economy is also a natural, self-organizing system. It is incomparably
more complex than the weather. It is reflexive : the computers which predict
both the weather and the economy are part of the economy.

The only reason we can go on in this foolishness is that the cause-and-effect
relationships are so fuzzy and the feedback delayed so long that nobody
seems to blame the economists and politicians for the screwups. Also, many
of the screwup side-effects (systems don't have side-effects -- this is old-style
19th century physics thinking) are diffused through the economy, and small.

Also, most of the ecomists and politicans are working in a political environment,
not an economic one. The rules of the game are different.

Note how few working, i.e. responsible for P&L , economists advocate control.
The exceptions are if their business is failing, then they resort to a political
solution, backed up by voodoo.

By the way, voodoo probably works a lot better than economic theory, because it is
rooted in some empiricism. Economics has NO foundation adequate to deal with
a reflexive system. Go look at the sterile arguments going by in the economics
forum.

Lew
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Nils Bohr (or somebody like that).
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Vouchers for Schools
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:30:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <56333@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> skis@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Kevin Hough) writes:

KH:From what I've heard, many people oppose the voucher system because it might
KH:allow gov. funding to religious schools, or schools that mandate some religious
KH:education.  

KH:If a parent is alloted funds to sent their child to a, say, catholic school,
KH:AND, that money would have gone, as tax money, to a public school otherwise,
KH:than that would be taking government money away from that public school to
KH:finance the catholic school.

If the at the same time money is being taken away, the public school also 
has one fewer student to worry about.  How is the public school worse off.

KH:This would violate the "seperation between church
KH:and state".

No it doesn't.  Any law that has in large a secular purpose, that also 
incidently benefits a religious organization is permissable.  The
supreme court has ruled on this a number of times.
This is why you can deduct your contributions to a church.  The church
is considered to be a charitable organization in the eyes of the law.

In my opinion, any voucher plan the excludes churches would be in
violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dmandl@shearson.com (David Mandl)
Subject: Libertarian speaker sought
Reply-To: dmandl@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:47:22 GMT

I'm posting this request for friends of mine who don't have net access:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Book Club*, as part of its ongoing monthly forum series,
would like to host a debate between an anarcho-capitalist (Libertarian
or whatever) and an anti-capitalist anarchist.  We are looking for an
anarcho-capitalist who would like to argue that side (finding an anti-
capitalist should be no problem for us, but if anyone out there is
interested or wants to suggest someone, we'd like to hear from you too).
The LBC is based in NYC; the forums are held in midtown Manhattan.

The forum in question is our November forum, to be held on Thursday 11/19.
It will be well-advertised, and the turnout should be pretty good,
especially since this promises to be a hot debate on a very controversial
issue.  We'd prefer someone who is somewhat well known, such as an LP member,
professor, writer, etc.  Is anyone out there interested?  Do you know anyone
who might be?

* The Libertarian Book Club, founded in the '40s, is the oldest anarchist
group in the U.S.  The group is anarchist, not Libertarian (the word
"libertarian" used to mean "anarchist," and has only relatively recently
been claimed by anarcho-capitalists).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I know there are thousands of very active Libertarians on the net.
Can anyone help?  Send email c/o me.  Thanks.

   --Dave.

---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Dave Mandl            |    Opinions expressed here
       New York City           | are not those of my employer,
   (dmandl@shearson.com)       |          believe me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Forum: Fun or making a Difference?
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:29:05 GMT

rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
>So, how many lawyers do you think are going to become committed
>Libertarians? I claim few, because their short-term interests are
>very much tied up in the current legal subsystem of the social/economic
>system. Ditto bureaucrats, farmers, large businesses (many CEOs
>support Clinton !!), social security recipients, medicare/medicaid
>recipients, ...

>Now, out of the 10% of us left, I claim it will be hard to get a majority.

We hope that farmers will eventually realize that to get their subsidies
in the current system, they're supporting a system that also pays for
Art they consider blasphemous, a space program, welfare, hurricane relief,
S&L bailouts, etc. ad nausium.  Same for all the other groups you
mentioned.  In short, the whole system works better if people govern
themselves instead of trying to govern others.  You see, there is
incentive even for the other 90% to support Libertarianism.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Comment on Private School vouchers
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:38:06 GMT

From article <1992Sep25.164932.25801@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert):
> I'm generally in favor of the above, but I remember doing a term paper on
> the fraud and abuse that `trade schools' perpetuated in the late 70's and
> early 80's when finanical aid for higher education was still in (relative)
> abundance.  Bob's Institute for Heating and Refrigeration Repair would
> teach a student practically nothing, while bilking the taxpayers out of a
> few grand.  
> 
> Now admittedly, if the student really wants the quality education
> this type of abuse will be self-correcting.  But what constitutes an 
> acceptable form of accreditation for processing tax dollars via school
> vouchers?  Can the following scenario happen much too easily?
> 
> 1) Some joker puts a sign on his garage and says `I'm a school! Bring
> 	in your vouchers!'
> 
> 2) Disgruntled high schoolers with little parental supervision (or perhaps,
> 	desparately needy parents themselves) bring in their $2500 voucher.
> 
> 3) Aforementioned joker cashes check, kicks back $2000 to the parent and
> 	student, and bags $500 for himself.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Matt Bohnert

Tax credits are better than vouchers.

That way you can only spend the money YOU put in.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sturnbul@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen J Turnbull)
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:26:19 GMT

In case somebody has already posted this point, sorry; I just haven't
time to read the next 237 postings to make sure, and I suspect there
aren't many people who would say it anyway....

In article <9159@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>If you want the government to set up virtual monopolies, (not that they
>haven't in the past), force everyone to work 50 - 60 hours a week and to
>live in rabbit warrens, the products of our factories would be dominating
>the world as well.

The government in Japan does *not* *force* the people of Japan into
these situations.  It doesn't help them escape, either.

>MITI has had some successes, (even a broken clock is right twice a day)
>it has also had some notable, and very expensive failures.
>
>The reason Japan is doing so well is because the people there are willing
>to work very hard for very little pay.
>The government had very little to do with it.

This is partly true.  However, I think that more important is the fact
that the Japanese political system is primarily organized on fairly
libertarian principles.  Personal contracts among individuals are
expected to be honored, and the government generally does not coerce
them (unless they "attack"---by the government's definition---the
government; but that's a decent definition since the interested
parties are the definers, as far as I can tell, in a consistent
libertarian view).  What happened in Japan, IMHO (very humiliated, in
fact; I'm a professional economist and refuse to believe the data and
conclusions I'm reporting to you :-), is what you'd expect in any
system consistently run by libertarian principles:  the big and able
got bigger, plus due to the Japanese form of selection of "heirs", the
big and able stayed fairly able.

Japan today is basically a system of the (large incumbent) business,
by the business, for the business.  It's hard to fail under those
circumstances.

>--Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
>
--
Stephen J. Turnbull  /  Department of Economics  /  THE Ohio State University
"Why 'THE'?  IMHO, good thing there's only one!!"  My opinions are *mine*.
-- 
Stephen J. Turnbull  /  Department of Economics  /  THE Ohio State University
"Why 'THE'?  IMHO, good thing there's only one!!"  My opinions are *mine*.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:50:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9409@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes...
>In article <9389@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
>In <1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
> 
>GA:kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
>GA:you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
>GA:sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  
> 
>MW:Or you could choose to sign on with another company.
> 
>GA:Unless all companies used the same standard contract.  Remember, there
>GA:would be no anti-trust laws to prevent companies from joining together
>GA:to preserve their common interest.  Try to get a credit card now...
> 

	Cartels are unstable in a free market.  Besides, why don't
governments today simply band together into a super-government and
take over?  Why hasn't this happened already?  Perhaps because it
is a very difficult thing to pull off?

>I don't know of any libertarians who support the elimination of anti-trust
>laws.  Except maybe the extreme anarchist wing.


	You have got to be kidding!  The LP has always been against
anti-trust laws because they are responsible for CREATING monopolies.
(Contrary to popular opinion.)  This is the standard libertarian
position.

Mark Sulkowski