HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:07:25 GMT

In article judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:

>Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
>is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
>children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
>public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving
>parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
>the public school system.
>
>Any comments, criticisms?

Uh, a comment bordering on criticism.

In real dollars per student, the public schools today receive more than
at any other time in history.  Thus, throwing more money at schools is
not going to solve anything.

What is the cause of this?  Apparently bureaucracy.  For example, in the
California public schools, there are 127 support staff for every 100
teachers.  In the private schools, the ratio is 16 support staff for
every 100 teachers.  Yet, overall, the private schools dramatically
outperform public schools, even if you factor in socio-economic aspects
(for example, private school children tend to come from more stable
families).

I would say the root cause of the public school collapse is too much
government (local, state and federal) interference in the public school
system, particularly with all the bureaucratic requirements, etc.

The voucher system is an idea whose time has come.  Though there are
problems with it, it is the lesser of two evils.  I believe, too, that
a properly setup system can pass Supreme Court scrutiny.  The only
drawback could be if the Government starts meddling too much in the
affairs of the private schools.

I've also noticed another aspect to the public school debate.  Why is
it that people who obviously are very liberal deeply oppose anything
that would elevate private schools?  Is it because the liberals fear
private schooling since they would have less ability to promote their
various agendas?  Just a thought.

Comments, criticisms?

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.

------->   VOTE FOR PEROT IN '92

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" Question about the Bar 
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:11:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.213424.14213@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <4caD023Y25yE01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>Now, if someone gets a JD in May, takes the Bar in June, and is told they 
>>passed in November, at what point is it correct to say that that person is a 
>>lawyer?  When she took the exam (after all, she's done all she can to satisfy 
>>the requirements at that point), or getting the results?
>

Question:

Can a person take the bar exam (or in which states can one do this) without
having a JD ?  (i.e. without having attended law school)

Mark

Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 01:04:54 -0400 
From: Geoffrey Spear <gs32+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
	<1992Sep30.053708.13964@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Oct2.035543.24614@panix.com>
	<1992Oct2.163140.18023@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Oct4.065023.14844@panix.com>
	<GPRIORES.92Oct6151120@fish.oracle.com>

     You aren't "buying" the software you mentioned, you are just
licensing it's use.  If you actually bought it, no one else would be
able to use it without your permission.  What this has to do with MIT's
anti-trust case, however, I don't see.

-----------------------------------
Geoff Spear
Freshman, ECE, Carnegie-Mellon University
-----------------------------------
The following sentence is false.
The preceding sentence is true.
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential UL's
Date: 10 Oct 1992 03:14:53 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said
# > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
# > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
# > officials, what is the line of succession? 
# 
# The order is:
{deleted}

An interesting side effect:
One of the few occassions when #1, #2, The Speaker, and many of the
list are in the same room is the State of the Onion, ooops Union
address.

Beforehand, someone 5 or 6 down is told he/she will NOT attend,
and gets USSS protection elsewhere.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18645 alt.folklore.urban:25656
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
From: David B. Horvath, CDP <MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:24:18 EDT
Organization: Hidden - I don't speak for them...

In article <1992Oct14.051945.12035@PA.dec.com>,
mikkelson%rwtms2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com (snopes) says:
>
>This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
>nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>officials, what is the line of succession?
>
> - snopes

In the case of something like a nuclear war, the FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) takes over.  If the government is destroyed (too many
levels are killed before they make it to the shelters/when the shelters are
destroyed; there is supposed to be a parallel government waiting to take
over.  They're based in the wilds of West Virginia or Maryland (Ft. Ritchie?).

These details may not match reality 100% - I'm trying to remember what I read
in an article long ago...

- David Horvath
  Opinions are mine only.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:45:06 GMT


>> [Clay] attacks people who can't hit back (women, gays, and so forth) to make
>> buck.  Sinead attacks powerful people including Margaret Thatcher and

>Gays seem to hit back just fine these days.  Of course in order to be useful
>tools for you, they must be objectified just as you objectify Blacks and
>women....

Minorities and women are hitting back stronger than before, but it may
be premature to view their punching power as just fine.  More scary is
the fact that their enhanced power is coming at the cost of legislative
separate-but-equal attempts to compensate for oppression.  Example:
Here in New York, a crime victim can seek to have the offense treated
as a bias crime (gaining more police resources in investigating it), if
the victim is a woman, or gay, or black, and one of those can be shown
to have motivated the offense.  If the victim is a man, or straight, or
white, and one of those can be shown to have motiviated the offense, no
change in police response occurs.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:24:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.220311.5378@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>I think you fail to see that an action undertaken for moral reasons
>is done within the psychological framework of it not only 
>being right to do so, but also that there is an overriding 
>right to act rightly.  Right?

I think you fail to see that not every juror who votes to nullify is
in fact a nullificationist (one who claims the right to nullify).
Few, in fact, give much thought to the general issue of nullification.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:29:50 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes in response to 
olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga):

[after his usual red herring claim that if you believe that both
parties share responsibility for a birth, you must also believe
that abortion is wrong-- an argument to which I have responded once,
and which is sufficiently absurd as to not warrant further comment]

>As we all know, procreation is merely a minor
>and unwanted side effect of what is a purely sensual act, biological
>"facts" to the contrary notwithstanding.  

If you don't understand the absurdity of that statement, there's not
a whole lot of point continuing the discussion.

>Obviously the legal liabilities to which men
>are currently heir are remnants of an archaic, patriarchal, paternalistic
>system which saw women as weak creatures needing male support and 
>sustenance.  As we all know, this is certainly not true.  Women need men
>like fish need bicycles.  I suggest you take classes in feminine discourse
>so that you may widen your horizons and free yourself from the submissive
>self-image which the dominant male culture has imposed on you. ONce you
>manage to free yourself from the concept that women must somehow rely on
>men in order to lead their lives, you will clearly see the need to sever
>this last link of paternalism. The idea that males should be held 
>responsible for the life decisions of (minor, illogical, incapable,
>irresponsible, child-like) women via payment for the damages these "minors"
>caused themselves through child-bearing is certainly something no true 
>feminist would support.    

I'm sorry; is this intended as humour?  Or sarcasm?  It is difficult
to see it as a serious argument.

I find it difficult to believe that any serious feminist would support
the notion that women, with statistically smaller incomes, ought to be
saddled with the ENTIRE cost of the raising of children.  That certainly
doesn't involve equality; it certainly doesn't involve liberation.  At
least not for the woman.  I note that it does involve liberation for the
man, who can essentially fuck and run.


>>olga@csiatl.gwinnett
>>YOW!

>Ah, I see. You re-inforce these negative images via the "cat-like" 
>onomopoetic device you used at the end.  Please refrain from denigrating
>the feminine image in such a stereotypical manner.  If this continues,
>you may lose your membership in NOW.

I can only read this as a sarcastic attack of someone who has no 
serious rational argument to present.  We have done you the courtesy of
serious responses no matter how pigheaded your arguments are.  Kindly
show us the same respect.

peter.
From: ensalada@cats.ucsc.edu (Kevin Charles Rubio)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Scooter in MH park
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: keeper@deeptht.armory.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu




This is the most recent post of mine regarding this subject, but you don't
need to have read the initial post to understand what is happening.  If
anyone has any advice or comments, please feel free to post them here or
email me at keeper@deeptht.armory.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The managers here now are preparing to issue a three-day notice to have
the motor scooter removed, otherwise they will terminate my tenancy.  However,
the California Mobile Home code says that termination of tenancy can be done
for a continual breaking of a "reasonable rule" of the park.
 
The managers initially gave no reason.  "It's just the rule," they said.
Now they've had a day to think about it, and have come up with the feeble,
"It's more dangerous than a car. It could catch fire. You might hit someone
with it. It can cause houses to vibrate."  (A dinky, well-muffled 50cc
scooter, vibrating houses? What about the RV next door or the obnoxious-but-
mostly-noxious Pinto across the driveway?)  All those reasons can be canceled
out by my offer to walk the scooter off the grounds before starting it (which
I think actually is more dangerous than riding it out), but they still
maintain when I say that that the scooter is not allowed on the park.  So,
again, no reason.  How can a rule with no reason be a "reasonable rule"?
 
The city attorney says I should not back down.  I don't intend to.
 
The managers also said that "all mobile home parks" have a no-motorcycles
rule.  This is not true -- there's at least one in this county I know of
which does allow them.
 
--
NOTE: I do not own the account from which I am posting this.  My regular site
does not carry this newsgroup, so I am posting from a borrowed account. Email
replies must be sent to keeper@deeptht.armory.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Evil acts
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:07:29 GMT

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>In article <19308@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>How 'bout "failure to pay taxes"?  That's not "evil," 

>	So laws have no correlation with the inherent _evil_ of an
>action.  Is there then some other quality, "wrongness", perhaps, that
>require a distinction of "legal" vs. "illegal" ?  

Criminal laws fall into two categories:  "Malum in Se" and "Mala Prohibitum."
That is, "wrong in themselves," and "wrong because prohibited."  The
familiar saying, "ignorance of the law is no defense," applies more strongly
to the former than to the latter.  For example, one cannot commit murder
and then claim they didn't know it was illegal, because our social concensus
is that murder is wrong and any reasonable person ought to know that.  But,
if a statute requires behavior that a person can't reasonably be expected
to exhibit without knowledge of the law (I dunno, maybe a visitor from out of
town doesn't know he has to pet the mayor's dog, or something) then his
reasonable ignorance is a defense.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18551 alt.politics.correct:5664 soc.college:4276
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
	<1992Oct4.065023.14844@panix.com>
	<GPRIORES.92Oct6151120@fish.oracle.com>
	<1992Oct8.210059.18937@chpc.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:00:23 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct8.210059.18937@chpc.org> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
>What is illegal is for a manufacturer to inform
>a dealer "you will not be permitted to buy any more merchandise from
>us if we catch you selling at less than full list price".
> Firms still engage in anti-competetive behaviour which borders on
>price fixing - for example, prohibiting retailers from advertising prices
>less than full retail (Heckler & Koch does this).
> I recently recieved a $40 payment from an anti trust settlement against
>Mitsibushi consumer electronics - they had been caught telling retailers
>not to discount televisions below certain floor prices.  Not bad, since
>I only paid about $350 for the 20" TV originally.

Hm. I didn't know this. Just out of curiosity, why would a firm want
to do it? It seems to me that competitive pricing could only sell more
product, and since the company's getting its usual wholesale price on
each one, it should hardly object to that...

That is, unless the company has a large enough chunk of the market
that it can affect prices in the market as a whole, preventing
competition from forcing the retailers to put downward pressure
on the wholesale price. Of course, if the company can do this, it
probably qualifies as a monopoly or part of an implicit collusion.

Is this the angle? If not, what is?

                                      Cordially,

                                            -g
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.kids,alt.postmodern,sci.psychology
From: clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu)
Subject: Re: Harassing vs. Bullying
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 13:39:47 GMT

In article <eeeNsB1w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>This morning I watched Sally Jessy Raphael as she tackled the
>question of sexual harassment in the schools -- beginning as early
>as Kindergarten!
>
>question of whether there is any protection under any law if there
>is no _difference_ between the bully and the victim.  If a white,
>Anglo-Saxon male bully pulls down the pants of another boy (who is
>not handicapped and who is also a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant),
>and makes a deprecatory remark about the victim's penis, or
>perhaps about some part of the anatomy boys and girls have in
>common, he is clearly not guilty of sexual harassment because the
>victim is the same sex. Does that mean that the male victim
>doesn't have equal protection?
>

  Who says he is clearly NOT guilty of sexual harrassment.
  Boys/Men can be sexually harrassed.  And the harrasser and
  harrassee can be the same sex.  It is the nature of the
  harrassment, i.e. pulling done pants and making remarks
  about victim's sexuality, that makes it sexual harrassment.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:31:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.011659.1266@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>Yeah, but after the states had experience with term limits, they got
>rid of them, and the framers voted to unanimously to not have them in
>the Constitution.  This sure sounds like opposition to me!

How about going to the horse's mouth and seeing what the Constitution
actually says?  
===========================

                                 ARTICLE I
...
1.  The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every
second year by the people of the several States, and the elector in each
State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most
numerous branch of the State Legislature.  2.  No person shall be a
Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and
been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

============================

Now, I'm not an attorney, but it appears to me that under our Constitution,
any state can enact term limits simply by imposing them on "the most numerous
branch of the State Legislature".  This assumes of course, that their own
State Constitution would allow such limits.  Am I missing something here ?

Guido
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct14.163032.1942@col.hp.com>, dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) 
writes:
> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
> > I'd like to get ideas on ways to annoy a neighbor of mine (he's not
> > directly next to my house, but a street or two away).  I don't want
> 
> File a suit against him.  It's annoying to have to hire a lawyer.

Be aware that if the suit is frivolous, the lawyer and plaintiff are subject 
to monetary sanctions.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:04:08 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
: As quoted from <1992Oct7.054011.2337@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):
: 
: > reflecting that the logic of the modal
: > net "libertarian" position on freedom of speech would PREVENT Sinead from
: > speaking.

I don't want to prevent anyone from saying things.  Libertarians always
say that force should not be initiated.  Sinead's performance used no
force or fraud against anyone else.  No force was used against her.

: >  For the "libertarian" systematically winds up with a strong
: > view of property rights (including rights acquired by force and fraud)

I never support force or fraud.  As a libertarian I am shocked that such
false ideas about libertarianism exist.  No individual has the right to
keep property that they used force or fraud to obtain.  Stealing is
wrong.  Force can legitimately be used to ragain the property.

: > such that the "right" of freedom of speech disappears, to be replaced by
: > the PRIVILEGE, always exercised on what turns out to be some man's
: > property.

If I want to say something, does that give me a right to walk into my
neighbor's house to say it?  To ignore property rights would be very
dangerous and actually hurts free speech.  When everyone owns everything
and I can walk into my neighbor's house to "say" something, then that
means nobody own anything (except the government.)  People become
entirely dependent on the government.  Those that speak against the
government will lose "privileges."  This is not the society that I want
and why I am proud to be a libertarian.
-- 
Paul Schmidt:  706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604
(615)283-0084 -- uunet!tijc02!pjs269
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18678 alt.folklore.urban:25714
From: twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:49:09 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Reply-To: TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.117

sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com (Bruce Tindall) writes:
  +
  +For a fictional account of what could happen in a very limited
  +nuclear war under the current succession system, see "Warday",
  +co-authored by Streiber (the wonderful fellow who brought us 
  +"Communion" and  other "aliens have visited me" books).  One slight
  +"bug" in his book:  the war day was Oct. 28, 1988, yet the whole
                                       ^^^^^^^
Coincidence?  I think not.


Terry "Apocalypse, uh, any day now" Chan
--
Energy and Environment Division   | Internet:  TWChan@lbl.gov
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory      | 
Berkeley, California  USA  94720  | Carpe Per Diem
Newsgroups: misc.legal