HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 09:58:07 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <By1FGB.Fyu@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|> In article <SrG=JF=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> |In article <BxzvtA.E50@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|> || 
|> ||Once again, we have the problem of a migrating proposition.  I joined this
|> ||discussion to oppose the claim that plant safety concerns could be handled
|> ||merely by allowing the free market to determine where workers would choose
|> ||to work.  We talked about regional isolation and government intervention,
|> ||and then someone suggested that it could be handled by union organization.
|> ||My point is that it can't.
|> |
|> |Why not?  Unions have had good success in getting high wages for their
|> |employees, why should safety be any different?  A contract can specify
|> |many things.  Anything that is currently part of a government regulation
|> |could easily be included in a contract.  Safety inspections could be
|> |mandated by the contract.  Lack of inspections would be grounds for a
|> |lawsuit.  It is much easier to sue and win against a private company
|> |than against the U.S. Government.
|> 
|> Oh God, we're starting the cycle of arguments once again.  Well, I refuse to
|> play.  See my arguments of about a week ago, and have fun.

The problem is that you never adequately addressed the arguments.  The
simple fact is that unions *can* and currently *do* negotiate contracts
for a very large number of people.  The contracts they negotiate have
salary and benefits that are better than equivalent non-union contracts
in most cases.  Even with the prospect of 'scab' labor, unions still
wield considerable clout when negotiating and could easily include
health and safety requirements in their contracts.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:50:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: slipknot.Bxuu0A.7uz
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.

In article <R+F=f7-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|
|'Scabbing' simply means that there are enough workers who feel that the
|benefit of belonging to the union is outweighed by other factors.

Yes.

|It tells me that the union isn't doing a good job of justifying itself.
|Unions should be like any other service, they survive only if they
|are meeting the needs of their customers.

No.  It takes more than justification.  If the available labor force greatly
exceeds the available jobs, and the union has insufficient resources to keep
that labor force at even a minimum level of food, shelter and clothing,
ideology goes out the window.  The combination of a small pool of available
labor and solidarity in the union is what makes a union strong.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

I have no doubt I could freeze
My mother-in-law with the greatest ease.
The only thing that gives me pause
Is, what would happen when she thaws?
--Harold T. Meryman (cryobiologist)
________________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:10:20 GMT

In article <g3F=2F-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|
|My position is that deposit insurance should not be required, and where
|it exists it should be provided by private firms.  If there is a market
|for 'safe' investments, a bank will purchase the appropriate level of
|insurance to meet their customers demands.  The insurance company will
|certainly demand that the bank meet certain criteria or else the insurer
|will raise prices or cancel coverage.  From your posts I had assumed that
|you felt that government deposit insurance should be continued and that
|raising the limit in the 70's was a good idea.

I have no problem with that.  But that's a far cry from where this discussion
started when someone (and I don't know if it was you) claimed that deposit
insurance is STUPID.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

In love, one always begins by deceiving oneself, and one always ends by
deceiving others; that is what the world calls a romance.
--Oscar Wilde
________________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:55:51 GMT
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO

In article <BxutA9.7t3@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed) writes:
>Similar lacks in altruistic sentiment can be found wherever charitable needs
>outpace the support they get: support for the homeless, welfare of the farm
>workers

These are all things we are already supposedly paying taxes for the government
to take care of. You can't blame people for not being willing to contribute
to this when they are already doing so via payment of taxes.

>I notice that you pose this rhetorically, but all I need to do is look back
>about a dozen generations or so to see the work houses and debtors prisons and
>realize that the problems of the poor existed before the level of government
>intervention we now provide was available.  Private charities didn't meet the
>need then and they still don't.

Neither does the forced government charity we currently have. And before we
attribute apparent gains in the standard of living of the very poor to
the New Deal and other government programs, we must also point out that
technological developments and economic growth in this country have raised
the standard of living for EVERYONE. This also means more money above
the subsistence level would be available for private charities, that is
if the government weren't taking so much of it away from us to fund its
own poorly-managed programs (and I'm including a lot more than aid to
the poor in that).

--Greg
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mikep@sequent.com (Michael A. Prescott)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Followup-To: or.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh
Summary: Still not getting it!
Keywords: marriage, homosexuals, rights.
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: or
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:42:43 GMT

In article <1114@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.014838.2809@sequent.com> mikep@sequent.com
>(Michael A. Prescott) writes:
>>I guess I still have to disagree with you, and maybe throw a little
>>different slant on this.  My understanding of the `real' LEGAL purpose
>>of marriage has more to do with women as chattel, than it had to do
>>with procreation.  We (hopefully) have come a long way since then,
>
>That was never the purpose of our laws.
>

I see.  A viewpoint that disagrees must, of course, be incorrect, 
eh, Steve?

>>but I think ym> will find on some deeper investigation that the majority
>>of the `for the sake of the children' laws are based on religious views.
>
>Even if this were true, so what?  It isn't my view (I'm not a Christian or
>religious), and it is a fact that the marriage laws benefit children, and
>thus society.  Isn't that a worth while purpose?
>

Folks have cited examples where the laws don't necessarily benefit the
children.  Although the purpose may indeed be worthwhile (benefiting
children), the laws do not always accomplish that.  

Certainly simply declaring that they do definitely doesn't accomplish 
anything worthwhile at all, unless it is to just stir up arguments.

>>This is not to say that I believe women are chattel; in fact, my wife
>>could probably make the case that I'm a lot closer to chattel in value...
>
>So why bring it up?
>

Why bring it up?  Which part?  The first phrase was to keep folks from
misinterpreting my point of view on marriage, the second phrase was to
inject a little lightness into an arrogant discussion.

As for the idea about the legal purpose of marriage, if you missed the
point, it was supposed to be a counter to your "the legal purpose of
marriage" line of thought regarding the idea of "it's good for the
kids".

>>The point I was trying to make in my first follow up is that there
>>are more reasons and more rights that mixed-gender (?) couples seem
>>to enjoy than same-gender couples.  This, as stated many times, is
>>discrimination.
>
>So what?  As I have stated, I see nothing wrong with discriminating between
>traditional marriages and other arrangements.  In fact, it is demonstrably

The fact that you see nothing wrong is the problem.  Too bad.  

>good for children.  The question is whether it is legitimate and legal for
>states to do that.  I say yes (and so do the courts, state legislatures,
>and I'm sure, the majority of the people).  So far, no one has made a
>convincing case that it isn't.

Nor will they, or I.  You don't want it that way, so it won't be.
Oh well.  

Mike
-- 
Mike Prescott                                           mikep@sequent.com
Distributed Computing Services                             (503) 578-3059
From: robd@bonehead.screwup.com
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: Mobile home IGNORE PLEASE
Keywords: OOOPS!
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:17:19 GMT
Reply-To: robd@orca.wv.tek.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Network Displays Reliability Engineering


Totally inappropriate post...


PLEASE FORGIVE ME OH NET DENIZENS FOR I HAVE SINNED. I PROMISE TO EDIT THE 
NEWSGROUPS LINE RELIGIOUSLY IN THE FUTURE....
Xref: sparky or.politics:668 alt.politics.clinton:17347 alt.politics.democrats.d:608 alt.politics.elections:24028 ba.politics:7191 co.politics:2140 ne.politics:3029 nj.politics:755 ny.politics:275 talk.politics.misc:60567
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:34:04 GMT
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan

In article <Bxuu0A.7uz@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|> In article <R+F=f7-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> 
|> |It tells me that the union isn't doing a good job of justifying itself.
|> |Unions should be like any other service, they survive only if they
|> |are meeting the needs of their customers.
|> 
|> No.  It takes more than justification.  If the available labor force greatly
|> exceeds the available jobs, and the union has insufficient resources to keep
|> that labor force at even a minimum level of food, shelter and clothing,
|> ideology goes out the window.  The combination of a small pool of available
|> labor and solidarity in the union is what makes a union strong.
|>

I disagree.  A union is in a position to offer a wide variety of services
to potential members.  All too often, it offers limited services (contract
negotiation) and relies on government granted monopoly powers to maintain
its existence.  Unions should work to offer a wider variety of services
to its members.  For example, they could offer free or inexpensive 
training seminars, low cost insurance, job placement assistance, legal
assistance, etc.  As it stands right now, it seems to me that most
unions market themselves as a bargaining organization and as 'protection'
from evil management.  If people don't believe that the bargaining
service would be useful, or that they don't necessarily need 'protection'
from evil management, they won't see why they should belong to a union.
Ironically, a small labor pool makes it easier to live without a union
simply because employees wield more power.  It's when there is a large
workforce relative to available jobs that unions offer their biggest
benefits.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky or.politics:644 alt.politics.clinton:17250 alt.politics.democrats.d:571 alt.politics.elections:23909 ba.politics:7152 co.politics:2066 ne.politics:3001 nj.politics:735 ny.politics:255 talk.politics.misc:60368
From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:19:22 GMT

In article <SrG=JF=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|In article <BxzvtA.E50@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
||In article <fLG=_R#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|||In article <Bxy32o.Bvw@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|||| 
||||Excuse me, but all of that is pure bu####it if a union can't get you a job and
||||make sure you survive to perform it.
|||
|||If a union can't get me a job, why would I want to belong?  Of course,
|||if the union offered other services and used its potentially massive
|||resources to offer other services I might still join.  I'm not quite
|||clear on what it is you are complaining about.  All I'm saying is that
|||people would be much more likely to join a union if they thought it
|||was truely worthwhile.  A union, being a large group of people, could
|||use its potential purchasing power to provide services in addition to
|||contract negotiation.
|| 
||Once again, we have the problem of a migrating proposition.  I joined this
||discussion to oppose the claim that plant safety concerns could be handled
||merely by allowing the free market to determine where workers would choose
||to work.  We talked about regional isolation and government intervention,
||and then someone suggested that it could be handled by union organization.
||My point is that it can't.
|
|Why not?  Unions have had good success in getting high wages for their
|employees, why should safety be any different?  A contract can specify
|many things.  Anything that is currently part of a government regulation
|could easily be included in a contract.  Safety inspections could be
|mandated by the contract.  Lack of inspections would be grounds for a
|lawsuit.  It is much easier to sue and win against a private company
|than against the U.S. Government.

Oh God, we're starting the cycle of arguments once again.  Well, I refuse to
play.  See my arguments of about a week ago, and have fun.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

You all look like happy campers.  Happy campers you are, happy campers you
have been, and happy campers you will always be.
--Dan Quayle, speaking to 2000 children in American Samoa, May 1989
________________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky or.politics:683 talk.politics.misc:60805 alt.politics.libertarian:1948
From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:59:11 GMT

In article <0bF=Zq_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|In article <Bxuu0A.7uz@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
||No.  It takes more than justification.  If the available labor force greatly
||exceeds the available jobs, and the union has insufficient resources to keep
||that labor force at even a minimum level of food, shelter and clothing,
||ideology goes out the window.  The combination of a small pool of available
||labor and solidarity in the union is what makes a union strong.
|
|I disagree.  A union is in a position to offer a wide variety of services
|to potential members.  All too often, it offers limited services (contract
|negotiation) and relies on government granted monopoly powers to maintain
|its existence.  Unions should work to offer a wider variety of services
|to its members.  For example, they could offer free or inexpensive 
|training seminars, low cost insurance, job placement assistance, legal
|assistance, etc.

Excuse me, but all of that is pure bu####it if a union can't get you a job and
make sure you survive to perform it.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

Isn't it strange, if you commit sodomy in Georgia, they're going to put you
in a cell with a man who's going to sodomize you?
--Robin Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 09:23:51 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <Bxy32o.Bvw@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|>In article <0bF=Zq_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|>|In article <Bxuu0A.7uz@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|>||No.  It takes more than justification.  If the available labor force greatly
|>||exceeds the available jobs, and the union has insufficient resources to keep
|>||that labor force at even a minimum level of food, shelter and clothing,
|>||ideology goes out the window.  The combination of a small pool of available
|>||labor and solidarity in the union is what makes a union strong.
|>|
|>|I disagree.  A union is in a position to offer a wide variety of services
|>|to potential members.  All too often, it offers limited services (contract
|>|negotiation) and relies on government granted monopoly powers to maintain
|>|its existence.  Unions should work to offer a wider variety of services
|>|to its members.  For example, they could offer free or inexpensive 
|>|training seminars, low cost insurance, job placement assistance, legal
|>|assistance, etc.
|> 
|>Excuse me, but all of that is pure bu####it if a union can't get you a job and
|>make sure you survive to perform it.

If a union can't get me a job, why would I want to belong?  Of course,
if the union offered other services and used its potentially massive
resources to offer other services I might still join.  I'm not quite
clear on what it is you are complaining about.  All I'm saying is that
people would be much more likely to join a union if they thought it
was truely worthwhile.  A union, being a large group of people, could
use its potential purchasing power to provide services in addition to
contract negotiation.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky or.politics:706 alt.rush-limbaugh:10272
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gay marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Keywords: marriage relationships gay rights
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:38:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Nov23.143853.702
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: usa
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>In article <Bx6MsH.936@news.orst.edu> chamberk@ucs.orst.edu
>(Kevin Chambers) writes:

><A lesbian friend of mine has children, and if she could get in her
><lesbian partnership the privileges that straights get in theirs, that
><would make her job as a parent go much easier.  Or do you think that
><Gay and Lesbian families don't need the help that straight ones do?

>I have no quarrel with your friend, but this isn't the issue.

Sorry, but that is *exactly* the issue that people have been *attempting*
to discuss with you. You insist on playing word and logic games rather
than addressing the issue. 

As an example, your oft repeated line about "but they *can* marry, they
just can't get a state marriage license". When you continue to repeat
that after repeated attempts to point out that it is *legal* marraige,
not the religous ceremony, that people are talking about, one must
conclude that you are avoding the issue. 

Since you are so fond of quoting state laws, please tell me where "marriage"
is *legally* defined as anything other than having a valid marriage license.

Another of your attempts to stretch things out of shape was the comment
that gays *could* get the benefits of marriage by marrying someone of
the opposite sex. Soryy, that won't wash either. Many of the rights that
are involved are specific to the people who are married. So if a gay
couple wants *those* rights, they can't have them.

Your arguments about using some sort of private contract are equally
specious. Why should a gay couple have to go to so much more time and
trouble (to say nothing of expense) to get *some* of the rights of a
married couple, without even being able to *know* if the contract
will be found valid until it is too late? This is the old "seperate
but equal" argument in new clothes. And as with the case of the blacks
the "seperate" situations are *not* equal. 


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Xref: sparky or.politics:676 alt.rush-limbaugh:9930