HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:02:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <197619@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, by pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew):

> What many people claim is that the right to equal opportunity/access in such
> fundamental human endeavors as jobs, housing, and such outweighs the right
> to freedom of association.  What others claim is that the right to not be
> forced to associate with people you don't want to associate with outweighs
> their right to equal opportunity/access.

Thank you for giving this some rational thought.  Yes, it does
appear to boil down to something like which you stated above.

> So which should be paramount?  Damned if I know.  I do know, however, that
> this debate up to now has been singularly unproductive because neither side
> is willing to budge.  I've posted before on this and, at the same time,
> suggested some compromises that could foster useful debate.  I got some
> responses from the people who favor equal opportunity, but got dead silence
> from those who favor freedom of association.

Well, I'm not well bred for this, but I'll give it a try.

Let us take the issue of "right of housing" to "right of
business decisions."  The typical example where Joe Bigot
does not want to rent to a black person.  The selfish part
of me says that's great, because as a landlord, I benefit
from the stupidity of other landlords.  But that is sort
of skirting the issue.

How about this tach:  If you force the landlord to rent
to the black guy, you have completely removed the decision
making capability from the landlord, and he thus becomes
an agent of the state.  However, if you allow the landlord
to act out his bigotry, the prospective tenant will find
housing down the road from someone who is not a bigot.

But what if 100% of all landlords become bigots?  Well, if
we allow the free market system to work, enterprising
individuals will quickly realise that a vast sum of money
stands to be made from renting to these so-called
undesireables, and they fill the need.

Comments?
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: klahn@well.sf.ca.us (Robert A. Klahn)
Subject: Re: Wilson recall campaign info
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:03:40 GMT

In <By6vIG.LHs@taligent.com> Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly) writes:

>Its goal is to recall Wilson and otherwise disempower Willie Brown
>and David Roberti (since they cannot be recalled).  Obviously it is
>a non-partisan effort, as it is attacking one Democrat and two
>Republicans.

1) Both Willie Brown and David Roberti are recallable. Not on a statewide
basis, but in the districts they represent.

2) Willie and David are both Democrats. Where do you get "... one Democrat
and two Republicans."?

3) I see the latest budget crisis being almost exclusivly in the hands on
Gov. Wilson. It seems to me that he was holding us all hostage beause he did
not agree with what our elected representitivs in the Assembly and State
senate wanted to do.

So in short, I support your current goal, but maybe because I am a
"reactionary asshole[] against Wilson"?!?!?!?!?!

Bob
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: rallen@netcom.com (Robert W. Allen)
Subject: Re: Who's Gunning for Dianne Feinstein's Senate Seat?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:10:59 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	The election is just over, and already they're trying to
>decide who's up for the next elections.

>	Dianne Feinstein's term will end in 1994, and already, there
>is talk about who will run then. DF herself is expected to run for
>re-election, while on the Republican side, there is discussion on who
>will challenge her. Already, there are two names mentioned: Bob Dornan
>and John Dannemeyer, both Southern California right-wingers and
     ^^^^
That's William Dannemeyer.

>fervent homophobes. I'm sure that both are itching to associate DF
>with San Francisco (she was actually mayor) and the sexual preference
>of many of that city's inhabitants.

>	This makes me wonder about Richard Seymour, Tom Campbell and
                                   ^^^^^^^
That's John Seymour.

>Bruce Herschensohn, losers in this year's race.

The LA Times has already run some articles on this subject. Seymour is
generally assumed to be retiring from politics, or at least not trying
for the Senate again. Herschensohn is not mentioned much either. Dornan,
Dannemeyer and Campbell are definitely in the hunt, along with a few
others whose names I can't remember now (maybe Ed Zschau).

On the third-party front, Libertarian candidate Richard Boddie has not
yet decided whether to challenge Feinstein again or run for Governor.
--
Rob Allen
rallen@netcom.com
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dhosek@cbrown.claremont.edu
Subject: Enough already
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:05:42 PDT

Look, 49 out of 50 articles in ca.politics were part of the
umpteen-million threads on homosexuality. Quite simply, this is
not the forum for the discussion. Yes, it's an important issue,
but ca.politics is a forum for discussion of California politics.
This topic has as much relevence here as it does in, say
misc.kids (which is to say, that it is not completely irrelevent,
but their are more appropriate forums). Please move the
discussion to alt.politics.motss or talk.politics.misc or perhaps
most appropriately alt.flame and leave it out of here. If another
gay rights bill comes up in Sacramento it would be appropriate,
but until then, move it someplace where it will be a discussion
and not the endless flame war that's driving the other traffic
out.

-dh
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:46:10 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <19921119133236ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
(Jack B. Nimble) writes:
|> Nope. Liberals are more into inventing laws trying to limit what things
|> you should be allowed to eat or what vitamins and food supplements you
|> should be allowed to take.

Nope.  Liberals are more into inventing laws trying to limit false claims about
the safety and efficacy of vitamins and food supplements.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:14:43 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13162@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <BxKwDJ.J4o@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> # Amazing.  You hint at a homosexual conspiracy to "recruit" new
> # homosexuals, suggest that encouraging sexual molestation of young boys
> # as a method of "recruiting" is not beyond the conspirators, and suggest
> # that David Chase is one of the conspirators.
> 
> Two of three recent scholarly works on child sexual abuse agreed
> that adult homosexuality is often a result of child sexual abuse,
> as I have posted in the past.

Often a result of child sexual abuse?  No, you posted no such information.
Your sources did not indicate any numbers at all on how many children who
were molested become gay.  Your sources did not provide any information on
what other factors may have been at work with those that became gay.  And
your sources provided no information on how many homosexuals were molested
as children.  I'm sorry, but you do not have the evidence to back up this
claim.

> And yes, I find it not at all
> surprising that NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades, and has
> support from a surprisingly large number of homosexuals.

Here we go again.  It's "parade", Mr. Cramer...singular.  If you know of
others, besides the SF parade, please provide the source.  And your second
claim is equally bogus.  You have not yet provided evidence that NAMBLA
has any support from a "large number of homosexuals".  The two dozen or so
that you have been able to find are not a large number of homosexuals against
the millions of homosexuals in the US.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Moral concept, what does it involve?
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:45:05 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

The following is the tenant of MORAl as presented in a previous
posting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. MORAL
   Any act is moral if it involves any mutual, voluntary, exchange of
   property on a non-coercive basis between two or more consenting adults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Moral.  A very difficult term, based mainly upon the desires of the
individual(s) involved and what it is in the short or long term that
they desire to accomplish.  Coercion by its very definition will exist
and will always exist, well at least until the human psyche reaches
a point in evolution that it gives up most of the above conditions
as absolutes and therefore requiring them to be applied.

What this tenant implies is an idealistic condition.  Of course it rest
upon the defintion of property.

Let's take an example- I own a said area of land, it contains a species
of plant that many people want.  I give it to them at a price, but do
I actually own the plant.  Within the context of the defintions of
our present society, I would suppose this is true. But what about the
plant.  It is a living organism, and whether we are speaking of its'
ability to establish its own desires, doesn't matter. It is the concept
of property that is the ultimate problem.

This tenant also poses a philosophical problem.  If a people do exchange
property in a 'noncoercive' manner, does it make it right?  I and a group
of people agree that I will exchange powerful weaponry for some product
they have.  And then this group takes the weapons I have exchanged and
use it against a group of people they do not like. But it turns out that
these people are related to me, that they represent my cultural hertiage.
Now what do I do?  I made a bargain based upon 'moral' exchange of
property between us.
From: Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly)
Subject: Re: CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Organization: Taligent, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:43:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.194247.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>,
dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
> 
> In article <BxL1yA.E2@taligent.com>, Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick
Donnelly) writes:
> > In article <e04H03x6b94U00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James
> > Preston) writes:
>  
> >> If some of us have our way, he [Wilson] literally won't have a chance for
> >> re-election because we'll have a recall election and throw him out
> >> before that.  Does anyone know that status of the recall petition,
> >> like how many more signatures they need?

As of last Thursday, approximately 30,000 petition forms had been returned,
and they averaged 3-4 signatures per form.  This is a total of about 100K
signatures, up from 10K or so the previous week.  That's quite a fast
ramp-up rate!  923,927 validated signatures are needed by Mar. 18, 1993.

> It's not unheard of for recalled politicians to be reelected the
> next election. Especially in California.

If memory serves me correctly, at the organizational meeting of the
Bite 'em Back campaign, we were told that no state politician had ever been
recalled, and only one recall election (for a legislator) has ever been
held, despite dozens of attempts.  Local politicians get recalled more
frequently.  (For example, the Santa Clara school board was recalled in the
last election.)

Quite frankly, I have no idea what will happen in the '94 gubernatorial
election if Wilson is recalled.  No politician of the scale of governor
of the largest state in the U.S. has ever been recalled before.

> > The recall petition needs a little less than a million signatures.
> > Secondhand information has it that only about 10,000 signatures have
> > been collected so far.  The problem so far has not been a lack of people
> > who are willing to sign the petitions, but rather that there are not
> > nearly enough volunteers yet to collect the signatures.

Volunteers are still needed.  Call (408) 279-5432.

> Isn't there a time limit on the petitions for a recall? Or is
> that on some other initiative?

There is a time limit of 160 days from the day that the Secretary of
State certifies the petition.

> In any event, now that the halfway point has been reached, I
> suspect that it will become even harder to get the energy needed
> for a Wilson recall. Barring some dramatic scandal, of course.

Like, for instance, the state budget crisis of 2 months ago, which is
what sparked this in the first place.  Wilson's failed Prop 165 power-
grab-disguised-as-welfare-reform isn't likely to win him much admiration
either.  And next year's budget process looks like it's going to be as
least as nasty as this year's was.

> But good luck, I s'pose.

Thanks, but it takes more than luck to make something like this succeed.


Rick Donnelly                             My opinions, not Taligent's.
Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:24:36 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13243@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> You still haven't answered the question: why were the Gay
> Perotistas not permitted, but NAMBLA was in 1992?

Because of poor judgment on the part of the dozen or so people on the com-
mittee reponsible for making that decision?

Yup, that's sure an indictment of all homosexuals....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert D West)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Enough already
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:47:32 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: mingong-ws-2.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Nov19.120542.1@cbrown.claremont.edu> dhosek@cbrown.claremont.edu writes:
>Look, 49 out of 50 articles in ca.politics were part of the
>umpteen-million threads on homosexuality. Quite simply, this is
>not the forum for the discussion. Yes, it's an important issue,
>but ca.politics is a forum for discussion of California politics.
>This topic has as much relevence here as it does in, say
>misc.kids (which is to say, that it is not completely irrelevent,
>but their are more appropriate forums). Please move the
>discussion to alt.politics.motss or talk.politics.misc or perhaps
>most appropriately alt.flame and leave it out of here. If another
>gay rights bill comes up in Sacramento it would be appropriate,
>but until then, move it someplace where it will be a discussion
>and not the endless flame war that's driving the other traffic
>out.
>
>-dh

I am aware that "me too" messages are frowned upon, but this message
is too important to let it go unseconded.

Look, guys, you've been discussing this for months now. Everybody
else has become increasingly bored with it. You aren't going to convince
each other of anything, all you are doing is decreasing the level
of civility and discussion, and annoying everyone else who reads this
group.

I know it seems strange, but there are many of us out there who
think that ca.politics is a place where we should discuss things
like whether or not Jerry Brown is going to run for mayor of LA,
or the Pete Wilson recall drive, and is not a place for the
continuous rehashing of a peripheral debate which has lost all
ability to interest anyone except those extending it.

Take it somewhere else, please, and lets talk about something
relavent to ca.politics!
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: A Strand of Bigotry
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:32:54 PST

In article <BxxBB3.HKt@fig.citib.com>, on 18 Nov 1992 17:59:26 GMT,
glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

>The laws I see getting passed these days that concern me
>are the ones that define me as a second class citizen without
>the same rights or protections as my heterosexual brother.
>I guess sodomy laws are the invention of liberals?
>
Nope. Liberals are more into inventing laws trying to limit what things
you should be allowed to eat or what vitamins and food supplements you
should be allowed to take.

        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:49:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13248@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Quit misrepresenting me, you lying fool.  You and Paul 
> Bartholomew are among the best examples of how screwed-up
> and emotionally disturbed homosexuals are.

One last thing--this is from the man who claimed that I attacked him in
my postings, but was unable to provide a single example of such attacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew        |  Clayton Cramer:  "[Brian Kane] and Paul Bartholomew
                        |  are among the best examples of how screwed-up and
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov |  emotionally disturbed homosexuals are."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9676 talk.politics.misc:60817 ba.politics:7248
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:12:07 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <102358@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <13210@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes
> to Steve Kellmeyer:
# #Do we take this to mean that you believe that homosexuality
# #should be illegal, or that child molestation shouldn't be?
# #Even the most pathetic homophobes know that homosexuality
# #"activity" is victimless.  Wake up, get a life, get informed!
# 	       ^^^^^^^^^^
# 
# Try telling Clayton Cramer that homosexuality is victimless. 

Homosexuality is victimless.  Child molestation (which homosexuals
do in very disproportionate numbers) is not.

Quit misrepresenting me, you lying fool.  You and Paul 
Bartholomew are among the best examples of how screwed-up
and emotionally disturbed homosexuals are.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Fixated homophobes
Date: 23 Nov 92 11:36:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

Phil Ronzone writes:
>In article <102607@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>    >By saying homosexuality has no victims, you are then
>    >contradicting your own theory that homosexuals are the
>    >victims of child molestation. And once again (is this EVER
>    >going to sink in?) it is FIXATED MOLESTERS, not homosexuals,
>    >who molest in disproportionate numbers.
>
>Close, but no cigar. Inventing two new sexual orientations may be
>fine for your "stretching" attempt to claim that men that molest
>young boys aren't homosexuals, but I see NO evidence that this
>position is acceptable to anyone else.

Sheesh, what a maroon.  I assume that Mr. Kane is quite prepared to answer
this himself, but I'll just interject a few comments on my own.

First of all, Mr. Kane has indeed posted scholarly works that support his
position, to this newsgroup, among others.  The fact that you did not read
them is not his fault.  He did not "invent two new sexual orientations,"
as you claim.  There are any number of mental health experts who accept and
support the proposition that fixated child molesters molest children of their
own sex exclusively and do not ever develop an adult sexual orientation.
Among other things, this immediately rules out one of your "new sexual
orientations" ("men that molest small girls, which aren't heterosexuals").

Nor is this a "stretching" attempt.  The only "stretching" that is being done
here is yours and Mr. Cramer's refusal to accept evidence that doesn't match
your black-and-white world and your pre-established prejudices.

>Sorry -- sexual orientation is defined by WHAT you are attracted to,
>not the AGE of what you are attracted to! Otherwise, some men aren't
>hetereosexuals, they are men-fixated-on-nubile-18-year-old-large-
>breasted-dumb-bimbos and so on.

Sorry, but you are simply incorrect.  You have neither the training nor the
experience nor the education to have an expert opinion on this matter.  For
that reason, I'll stick to the opinions of the experts in the field who do
not agree with your rather simple-minded reasoning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew        |  Clayton Cramer:  "[Brian Kane] and Paul Bartholomew
                        |  are among the best examples of how screwed-up and
                        |  emotionally disturbed homosexuals are."
                        |  Of course, Brian is bi and I'm straight, but when
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov |  have facts ever bothered Mr. Cramer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Regaining ca.politics
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:11:55 PST

Let me encourage all ca.poltics readers to do the following: send
a reply to every posting in the homosexuality flame wars asking
the poster to keep the discussion out of ca.politics. As a lone
renegade, I won't have much voice, but if others want to regain
the newsgroup, I encourage you to join me.

-dh
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9651 ba.politics:7229