HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@smooth.cadence.com (Mark Papamarcos)
Subject: Wanted: Prop 13 analysis/revision publications
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:42:49 GMT

The subject line pretty well tells it all.  I am doing some research on
the effects of and proposals to correct the aftermath of proposition 13,
particularly its effects on educational budgets and local budget control.
It should be obvious what my _personal_ stand on the issue is. :-)

If this has been a topic of interest to you, and you know off-hand of some
good writing on the issue (on either side), please send me a reference.

Respond via email only please - I don't read this group.

Thanks,

	Mark Papamarcos
	markp@Cadence.COM
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:59:25 GMT
Organization: Mutants Foundation of America

In article <12168@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <95358@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <12132@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <95203@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
># ## Funny, he didn't mention how it was standard practice for men of Judaic
># ## times to have not only a wife but several concubines, depending on their
># ## wealth. Promiscuity was accepted in Judaic times.
># 
># #No, polygamy was accepted, at least until the Babylonian exile.
># 
># Clayton, polygamy is culturally-blessed promiscuity.
>
>Hmmm.  One man, five wives.  If all remain faithful to each other,
>how do you spread diseases?

Oh yeah?????? So how the hell do you explain that syphillus and
ghonnereah were originally  *sheep diseases*????? get a grip on
yourself....you're falling apart at the seams!

Cramer you are such a jerk. Just how the heck old are you
anyhow??? You talk like a 24 year old. And yu think that 4 out
of those 5 DID NOT play around??? You think that they *did it*
just for kids????? You are to silly to take seriously!!!!
Womens physical proclivity toward unbridled and unmatchable
sexuality is by far superior to men's. I don't believe for one
minute that those males inovlved in polygamy had faithful
wives...IMPOSSIBLE!!!! One woman alone has the capacity to
totally exhaust 3 men. You're out of your mind pal!

So I suppose because it's written in the much touted old
testament that of course it is verbatim truth...let's not take
into acount the councils that did whole sale editting and
excision to the book...oh no...not that....
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
>prohibition won't work.

Len

DISCLAIMER: My opinions not my employer's
ps: Maybe yu really couldn't understand the info I stated in a
prior post....hmmmm....
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:01:49 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12167@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> You are perfectly able to be a homosexual in private.  You don't
> have to announce everywhere you go, and thus make it an issue to
> employers or landlords.

Let's turn this around, Clayton, and see just how practical this is.  You
are allowed to be heterosexual in private, but nowhere else.  This means
that you may not get a one-bedroom apartment with your wife, because then
it would be apparent that you were sleeping with her and thus, heterosexual.
You may not hold hands, hug, kiss, or display affection to her anywhere you
might be seen.  You may not wear your wedding ring.  You may not keep her
picture on your desk or wall.  You may not tell people that you have a wife,
nor speak of her too affectionately for fear people will find out that
you're heterosexual.  You may not have parties where couples are invited
for fear that the neighbors will find out you're heterosexual.

Would you accept these limitations on your current lifestyle?  If so, why?
If not, why should gays?

> The only myths I've swallowed whole were the ones about homosexuals
> being just like ordinary people, except for their sexual preference.

Since that is true and not a myth (as has been established by a number of
psychological studies), this is an irrelevant remark.  If you have any
evidence to the contrary, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Sigh...  I can just see him now:  "Reading soc.motss has convinced me that
it is a myth."

> You mean I should ignore what the homosexual community is clearly
> broadcasting?  I should ignore you when you say that the homosexual
> community is divided about sex with children?

Your total evidence on this and other issues about homosexuality consists of:
1.  Local media coverage of the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco.
2.  Postings to soc.motss.
3.  Two studies on child molestation (which you misinterpreted).

That's it.  By any standards you care to name, this is insufficient evidence
to base an informed opinion on.  Now if you'd care to visit your local
library and do the necessary research, we'd take your opinion a lot more
seriously than we do now.

And just for the record, the homosexual community is not "clearly broad-
casting" anything.  A few people on soc.motss are writing things that you
disapprove of.  There is a tremendous difference between these two state-
ments--a difference you seem unable to grasp.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:7656 ca.environment:888
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIFF!!!!1)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:39:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

>In article <8284.28995@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:

> Cramer you are such a jerk. Just how the heck old are you
> anyhow??? You talk like a 24 year old. And yu think that 4 out
> of those 5 DID NOT play around??? You think that they *did it*
> just for kids????? You are to silly to take seriously!!!!
> Womens physical proclivity toward unbridled and unmatchable
> sexuality is by far superior to men's. I don't believe for one
> minute that those males inovlved in polygamy had faithful
> wives...IMPOSSIBLE!!!! One woman alone has the capacity to
> totally exhaust 3 men. You're out of your mind pal!

LEN YOU"RE SUCH AN IDIOT. HOW OLD R U?  IF U
CNA DRIVE U AUGHT TO GET IN A CAR AN DRIVE
TO COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA OR ANY THE SMALL
TOWNS NEAR THE ARIZONA?UTAH BORDER. YOU":LL,
EASILY FIND PRACTICING POLYGAMISTS.  ONE I READ
ABOUT HAD EIGHT HAPPY> DEDICATED> EDUUUUCATED WIFES. 
(ONE WAS A LAYWER< ANOTHER AN ACCOUNTENT) LOTSA KIDS TOO>!  THE
GOT BIG HOUSES THEIR>:.!

WATCXH OUT - SOMEONE MAYBE AIMING GAMMA MIND
CONTROL RAYS AT YOUR HEAD.  BETTER BY SOME
ALUMINUM FOLE TO WRAQP IT UYP WITH!!!!!2

225zBIIIF!
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: War on Drugs
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:32:37 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


It is interesting to note that with the upcoming 
election, the war on drugs rhetoric seems to be going
strong.  No one has pointed out that the "war" is not
working.

Though a majority of the money is going to policing, the
street price of cocaine has not changed during the course
of the "war".  The number of people in the american prison
system due to drug related charges is astronomical.  And
yet, the drug trade goes on almost entirely unmolested.

There are still long waiting lists to get into detox
programs and most of the people who need them will never get
in.

In addition, there is still the lingering question of whether
or not the war should be fought at all.  Should the government
be allowed to tell people that they cannot get high?  Have they
looked at the reports which seem to indicate that banning of a
drug does not have any effect on the number of people who use
it? 

It seems as if legalization and taxation of controlled substances
could be an economic boon. A 100% tax on marijuana could not be
protested by the marijuana industry or the users, since there is no
price to base this on.

Finally, the level of hysteria is getting ridiculous.  People who use
drugs have been labelled criminals, children have turned in their
parents (sounds like Hitler's Germany...), people are willing to give
up their rights to fight the war on drugs (why should most americans
care?  Only the hysteria makes them care).


So, with all this stated, I saw an article this morning in the LA Times
which had the words "Al Gore" and "War on Drugs" in the headline.  I
thought to myself, "perhaps he will say something useful".  Instead, it
seems he is railing on Bush's choice for drug czar.  So much for
intellegent discourse on the topic...


This leads to the following questions in my mind:

1.  What business is it of the government whether or not people
are getting "high"?  Why should they care what people are doing
in their free time?  In past days, many successful people have 
taken drugs, including alcohol, without it being a detriment to
society.  Why should it matter now?

2.  Is it fiscally responsible for the government to continue
a massive war on drugs which has had dubious successes?

3.  Is it worth it to give up our civil rights to have a "drug
free america"?


Jeff
-FWA
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7516 ba.politics:5103
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Just a Question
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:45:31 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep8.211943.13577@octel.com> dfair@octel.com (Donald Fair) writes:
    >>> (I wrote)
    >>>The Iowa Employment Appeal Board ruled in April that a former
    >>>security guard was qualified for unemployment benefits even
    >>>though he was fired. Kay Stone, 55, was a night guard at a
    >>>convenience store until a fight broke out one night,
    >>>whereupon he ran and hid in a walk-in cooler. Riuled the
    >>>board, "Incompettence in a position is not (a
    >>>disqualification)."
    >>>
    >>>
    >Having missed some of this I would like clarification. I had
    >a job as a sales person many years ago. I was horrible at the
    >job. I worked very hard at it but I just couldn`t cut it. It
    >wasn`t that I was stupid just not a sales person. Well I got
    >the sack. Their reason incompetince. They were correct. I
    >applied for unemployment to keep from starving while I looked
    >for other work. They tried to stop my unemployment and the
    >commision in NC ruled as above. That is I was not to get the
    >job back but I could get unemployment. I believe the
    >disqualification statement means from unemployment benefits
    >not the Job. It just seems that this fine detail is being
    >overlooked. Or do you believe that a person trying and
    >failing in a job should be thrown to the wolfs and given no
    >chance. I have gone back to technical work and have more than
    >compensated society with paid up taxes.

1. Unemployment compensation is intended as insurance for the unexpected.
   Like fire insursance, it doesn't count if you do it deliberately.

2. I tried REAL hard to be big movie star. It didn't work. Now, where is
   my unemployment?

3. No, I don't think you should be thrown to the wolves -- they are an
   endangered species are would likely as not get sick on human flesh.
   I do think you should not have gotten unemployment though.

Clear now?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: meyer@brahma.edsg.hac.com (Mike Meyer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: CA Budget:  How do I get a copy?
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:50:58 GMT
Reply-To: meyer@tcville.HAC.COM (Mike Meyer)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA


Now that the budget process is over (at least until next year's
bloodbath), how does one get a copy of the result?

Either a machine-readable copy or paper copy is acceptable.

Also, what happens to the budget proposals which were rejected
during the budget deliberation process?  Were these published in
any publicly available format?

Can anyone point me to a reference which describes the budgeting
process, particularly how a budget is introduced, which committees
must approve which items, the mechanisms for projecting state 
revenues which are used for budgeting, departmental responsibility
for portions of the budget, the deadlines for passage, etc.?

Mike


Mike Meyer				meyer@tcville.HAC.COM
Image and Signal Processing Lab		
Hughes Aircraft EDSG, El Segundo CA
"Shit happens, but it doesn't *just* happen." -- The Karma Police
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone says he looks for dirty pictures (Was Re: ...harassing calls)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 09:16:03 GMT

In article <mike02512920808220543@batpad.lgb.ca.us> mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor) writes:
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
(I've deleted a lot to cut down the size of the post.)

>> When the yahoo responded with a rude fuck you -- I told my boss (who enjoyed
>> the choicer specimens of abpe). When he saw the latest work posted ( a .dl
>> of two young boys sucking a pony) he turned white -- quite an achievment
>> cosnidering he's asian.
>> 
>> Do YOU think it is O.K. to post such things (i.e., the .dl) from a company's
>> systems? I don't.

>Personally I am not interested in pornography - it's boring.  I have
>absolutely no objection at all to anyone wanting to look at it, or
>whack off to it, and I am certainly not going to tell anyone what is
>good pornography, what is bad pornography, and what is appropriate
>pornography.  It's just a picture.  Your soul is not captured by the
>camera, once the image is made it is made.  Without question the act
>of making the boy/pony picture should be illegal, but the picture itself
>is JUST A THING NOT AN ACT, you anthropological throwback!!

Far be it from me to agree with anything Ronzone writes, but this is
not how child pornography is viewed.  In a Supreme Court ruling
(Ferber 1982), the court found such pornography harmful in part
because it constituted "a permanent record of children's participation
and the the harm to the child is exacerbated by circulation."  So, I
wouldn't be surprised if not only making the boys/pony photo but also
just circulating it is illegal.  (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.)

>You and the boss you rode in on are just like the parent who tells his
>kid "Don't use drugs," as he puts out his cigarette in the beer can
>he just emptied.  You and the boss you rode in on are hypocrites to
>the Nth degree, and the only thing more appalling than the fact that
>you objected to the .dl is the fact that you have no clue about how
>STUPID your objection to it was in the first place.

I think there is a difference between viewing photos of adults
engaging in what we assume to be consensual sexual activities and of
children performing oral sex on a pony.  I wouldn't be at all
surprised if the state of California didn't see a difference too and
has laws that prohibit the circulation of the photo of the boys and
the pony.  (Disclaimer again...)

Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Just a Question
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:46:34 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <n!snx8m.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>2. I tried REAL hard to be big movie star. It didn't work. Now, where is
>   my unemployment?

Yeah, retail sales and movie stardom are exactly the same. Good analogy
Phil. Sorry to hear you didn't make it. Perhaps the studios didn't want
to have to hire someone whose exclusive job would be to towel the drool
from your chin.
								MPA
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7621 talk.politics.misc:44741
From: elliott@optilink.UUCP (Paul Elliott x225)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:22:59 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <12246@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <8284.28995@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
># minute that those males inovlved in polygamy had faithful
># wives...IMPOSSIBLE!!!! One woman alone has the capacity to
># totally exhaust 3 men. You're out of your mind pal!

>I'm happy being monogamous, but I assure you that meeting the
>"unbridled and unmatchable" demands of several wives would be not
>be a problem.

Clayton,

I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine,
and YOU"RE NO JACK KENNEDY!




-- 
--------     Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - Petaluma, CA USA      ----------
     {uunet,pyramid,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott -or- elliott@optilink.com
    "If I had known it was harmless I would have killed it myself." - PKD

Xref: sparky ca.politics:7724 soc.motss:38955
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:07:16 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: -

In article <12273@optilink.UUCP>, walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
> 
> Yes, those are "special rights" because they apply to a specific
> group of people.  Why should there be more government intrusion
> into what people can and cannot do in their lives?  A company
> that is stupid enough to fire competent people just because of
> their sexual orientation is just that much closer to suffering
> economic Darwinism.  You yourself might not hire me because of
> my wild hair (you should see it now :-) ) and that is okay.
> My employer has the right to let me go for any reason if need
> be.  Or do we need laws protecting the employment of people
> with wild hair, straights, bi's, social retards, etc., etc.?

You could always cut and wash your hair.  Don't know what you can do
about that social retard problem though.

> 
> The good news is that the number of gays pushing for this brand
> of governmental discrimination is relatively small.  The bad
> news is that they are good at being vocal (though I will support
> their freedom of speech without reservation) about it, kind of
> like those white supremacist neaderthals.
> 

> I guess my problem is that I don't see gays as disadvantaged.

You seem to have a more general vision problem as well.

> My best man is gay, and he is every bit as competent in the
> workplace as I am, so why does he need to be protected?  

Yes, but have you ever asked him if he ever hides or edits who he is
for fear of being past over for a promotion or job opportunity.  Has
he ever had a fundy or Mormon boss?  And what does the fact that he
is your best man have to do with your arguments?

> This
> kind of legislation results in resentment between the have's
> (the protected) and the have not's, and removes the rights of
> what one can and cannot do with their business.

You sound like your resentment is already there.  If you really
fear this,  what's to keep you from pretending to be a "have".

Jim
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:00:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.200614.21011@PA.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <12222@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Yes, almost daily there are parades put on by straights in which
> >child molestation advocacy groups march. :-)
  
> Oh not at all.  Have you ever read any straight porn?  How about
> going to see Lolita.  Who needs to be in a parade, the whole
> culture is shot through with images of straight child molestation.

Indeed.  The recent spate of photographs of young girls
posted to a.b.p.e is an excellent example.  And since CRETIN
is the very PARAGON of CONSISTENCY, we should expect him to
refuse to have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the MEDIUM which
carries that trash.  Goodbye, Cretin - you won't be missed.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 19:42:17 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> I don't have to make bizarre claims about homosexuals -- they
> make the claims for me.

Bullshit.  You make up conclusions beforehand and then go look for
evidence to support them.

> # Such as handing over what you think is damning evidence
> # to those people who want to legislate us out of existence?
> 
> Oh?  Can you provide some examples?  I have yet to hear any of
> the fundamentalists argue for extermination of homosexuals.

The OCA wants to amend the US constitution to make homsexuality a
crime.  Not homosexual acts, homosexuality.

You didn't hear about that because you only listen for what you want
to hear.

> # # But the homosexual desire to be a victim is so strong, that it
> # # becomes necessary to demonize everyone that doesn't pat homosexuals
> # # on the head and say, "Keep it up."
> # 
> # Clayton, how come you know more about my desires than I do?
> 
> Because I'm not emotionally involved with you, unlike you.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

> # (And how come you know so much about victim complexes?)
> 
> Because victimology is a fundamental part of the nonsense that
> runs this country now.

That's not an answer to the question.  That's more blabbering about
victim complexes.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Flat Rate Tax (Q&A)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:49:37 GMT

In article <0wrnc+h.loren@netcom.com>,
loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
>I would also like to point out that the federal estate tax is only
>charged on estates larger than $600,000 dollars.  Again, this is
>something that would benifit the very rich.

Actually there is a very bad bill in Congress now (sorry I don't
have the number as I heard about it while listening to the radio in
my car and haven't had time to investigate yet) that would
drastically reduce this (to something like 200K or less).  Most
people in California would not be able to leave their house to their
kids tax free under this change.  I believe the change is buried in
some other more innocuous piece of legislation.

/June
From: ez007834@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Who was Longomarsino (sp.?)
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:32:34 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

I am seeking information on the how and why U.S. Congressman Longomarsino (?) 
lost his bid for reelection in past primaries.  Some people out east claim it 
was solely due on account of his supporting statehood for a U.S. territory 
(Puerto Rico), while others state this issue was secondary.  Thanks in advance 
for any information.

Ed Salas
easalas@ucdavis.edu

Xref: sparky ca.politics:7589 talk.politics.misc:44616 ba.politics:5161