HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: WAND_M@gold.colorado.edu
Subject: L.A. considers Colorado boycott
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:57:53 GMT

By Louis Aguilar/Gazette Telegraph, Colorado Springs
December 15, 1992

City may try to lure mayors away from Springs

The Los Angeles City Council may decide Wednesday to join two other major U.S. 
cities in boycotting Colorado.

The council also will discuss whether to try to lure the prestigious 1993 
meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors away from Colorado Springs.

The proposals mark yet another city that may shun Colorado becuase of the Nov. 
3 passage of Amendment 2.  The amendment bans laws protecting gays from 
discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Atlanta and Philadelphia city councils already have barred officials and 
staff from using public funds to travel to Colorado, and city council members 
in Chicago and New York have said they are looking into introducing similar 
measures.

Los Angeles City councilman Michael Woo introduced the Colorado ban Dec. 4, and 
the 15-member City Council is likely to "have no problem" approving it, said 
Woo spokeswoman Julie Laskol.

"A majority of the council strongly supports gay rights and hasm been vocal 
about that before.  I don't see why this would be an exception," she said.

Friday, Councilman Joel Wachs introduced a measure asking the leadership of the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors to move its June 1993 meeting to Los Angeles.  The 
high -profile gathering would bring as many as 1,500 mayors and their staff 
members for six days.  "Our convention center is ready to go," Wachs added.

The councilman was responding to earlier announcements by New York Mayor David 
Dinkins and Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson that they would boycott the 
conference, said Wachs spokesman Greg Nelson.  Both of those mayors have also 
urged that the meeting in The Springs be canceled.

"If the mayors of New York, Atlanta and now likely Los Angeles won't attend, it 
seems that it's weakened and it would be best to move it," Nelson said.

The conference of mayors' 18-member executive committee will discuss a possible 
boycott when it meets in Washington, D.C., in January.  Colorado Springs Mayor 
Robert Isaac, president of the group in 1990-91 and the man credited with 
luring the convention to the city, declined comment Monday.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
From: WAND_M@gold.colorado.edu
Subject: Streisand to honor boycott
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:55:39 GMT

>From Gazette Telegraph, Colorado Springs
December 13, 1992

Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Barbra Streisand says she has decided that she will boycott 
Colorado because of passage of the anti-gay rights Amendment 2.

"Let me state clearly: I will personally honor it and find some other state to 
vacation in," Streisand said Friday night at a banquet where she received the 
1992 Bill of Rights Award from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of 
Southern California.

Streisand first raised the issue of a celebrity boycott of Colorado at a 
benefit last month for AIDS Project Los Angeles.

"There are plenty of us who love the mountains and rivers of that truly 
beautiful state, but we must now say clearly that the moral climate there is no 
longer acceptable, and if we're asked to, we must refuse to play where they 
discriminate," she said.

But on Nov. 24, Streisand issued a statement from Aspen, read at a news 
conference by tennis star Chris Evert, that appeared to have her backing away 
from the boycott call. She said she would boycott the state only "if we are 
asked to."

In her speech Friday night, Streisand said she wanted to clarify her statement 
made at the AIDS benefit.

"What I said in that speech was 'if we are asked to, we must not play where 
they discrininate,': she said.  "I did not back off, back down or back away 
from my original statement."

Straeisand agreed to have her name added to a list of celebrities endorsing a 
boycott, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in Los Angeles said in a 
statement released Saturday.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
From: WAND_M@gold.colorado.edu
Subject: Nuns to meet in Colo. after all
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:57:18 GMT

The Denver Post
December 14, 1992

Order will educate instead of boycott

by Virginia Culver, Denver Post Religion Writer

The Sisters of Loretto, who had threatened to move their 1993 convention out of 
Colorado because of Amendment 2, have decided to meet here after all.

But because of the controversial amendment, they will begin a long-term process 
of educating their members and others about homophobia, bigotry and prejudice.  
The measure, passed by voters last month, overturned ordinances protecting 
gays from discrimination and banned any similar state or local laws in the 
future.


The gathering is expected to bring about 500 people to Keystone July 1-6, 1992.

The Catholic order's seven-member executive committee decided yesterday at a 
meeting in Loretto, Ky., to go ahead with their annual assembly in Keystone.  
Members had discussed the issue for two days.

But Sister Maureen McCormack, president, said the committee secured a statement 
from Keystone officials tht the resort "has never and never will" discriminate 
against anyone on the basis of gender, age, race, religion, ethnic origin or 
sexual orientation.  She said the commitment came from Ernst Wolfinger,director 
of conference sales and marketing.

The 520-member order, which has national headquarters in Denver, will work to 
repeal Amendment 2 by having programs on discrimination before, during and 
after its convention.

The Rev. Jane Vennarad, adjunct faculty member at Iliff School of Theology, 
will address the Loretto Keystone meeting about homophobia.  Vennard, a 
national member of Parents and Friends of Gays and Lesbians, has led workshops 
on the topic.

Members decided that staying in Colorado and "dealing" with bigotry was "more 
of a commitment" than boycotting the state, McCormack said yesterday.

The order moves its annual assembly among four spots each year, meeting in 
Colorado every four years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
From: WAND_M@gold.colorado.edu
Subject: In other Amendment 2 news
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:58:11 GMT

>From Gazette Telegraph, Colorado Springs
December 15, 1992

The Sisters of Loretto, a Denver-based order of Catholic nuns, decided Sunday 
to keep its 1993 convention in Keystone.  Members decided that staying in 
Colorado and "dealing" with bigotry was "more of a commitment" than boycotting 
the state, said Sister Maureen McCormack.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California on Monday endorsed a 
statewide boycott of Colorado.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Bear hunt, was Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Followup-To: co.politics
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:51:21 GMT

In article <1h80ckINNj7l@hp-col.col.hp.com>, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
> 
> On the flip side, even I think some initiated measures are really bad ideas.
> Placing wildlife management into the constitution is the silliest law I've
> seen passed.  What next?  Creel limits?  Designation of catch and release
> streams?  I guess the Wildlife Division could have headed that one off by
> changing bear hunting seasons/rules themselves.  Has the spring bear hunt
> been opposed for a long time or did it just come up?  I hadn't heard anything
> about bear hunting until the amendment was proposed.

I realize your main article was about amendment 1, but I wanted to comment
on this.  I agree that the bear hunting law should have been proposed as
a law, not a constitutional amendment (they aren't the same thing, are they?)
but disagree with you about the necessity of such a measure.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife has long opposed the spring bear hunt,
because lactating sows tend to leave their cubs behind to forage for them,
and thus it's hard for hunters to tell if a bear is a mama bear or not.
(Shooting a lactating bear is illegal.)  Because of this, many cubs die
when their mothers are shot in the spring.

However, the CDOW can only make recommendations to the (I believe state-
appointed and hunter-controlled) Colorado Wildlife Commission, which 
is the group which makes the game rules.  The CWC has ignored the CDOW
recommendations on the bear hunt (and on other issues) for many years.  
Amendment 10 was an instance of upset citizens taking the government back 
from a small group of officials who were acting counter to not only the 
public's wishes, but also the opinions of experts on the issue.

[I know about this stuff because my father-in-law is a retired game warden
(i.e. employee of the CDOW).  Followups, if any, to co.politics.]

-- 
/\    "I'm only a human girl person.  I ain't always perfect."--Rambling Rose
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: What is a "hate crime"?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:14:45 GMT

  I've read several reports in the Rocky Mountain News, as well as on the
  radio and TV, that "hate crimes" against gays have greatly escalated since
  Nov. 3. An article in today's RMN referred to "bias incidents" as well.

  What I would like to know is how "hate crime" and "bias incident" are de-
  fined. Someone who is in favor of certain acts being defined in these terms
  is a person I'd like to hear from.

  PS -- Two of the "bias incidents" reported by the News were car burglaries,
  the "bias incident" being added because the two cars happened to have "No
  on 2" stickers as well as being owned by lesbians. I suggest that these
  reports of increasing "hate crimes" are similarly affected by these kinds
  of guesswork.
--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:30:51 GMT

This isn't exactly in line with the other posts regarding Amendment 1, but
here goes:

My main gripe with Amendment 1 is that it assumed that current government 
budgets were adequate. Sorry, but it just ain't so.

I, for one, am getting very concerned about the educational fallout of 
Amendment 1. For the record, I voted against Amendment 1, and think it should 
be repealed.

When I see that Jeffco has to cut $30 million from their school budget next
year, I am worried. The first thing on the chopping block was apparently 2/3
of Jeffco's admin staff. Wow, a whopping $3 million in savings (I wonder how
much we will pay out in unemployment from all this?). Where do you think the 
rest is coming from?

According to the news last week, Denver schools have to cut almost $40 million.
Where will it all come from?

I think you can sum it up by saying goodbye to all extra curricular activities.
No more football, baseball, band, whatever, without paying for it up front.

So much for the new computer labs, too, or anything else needed to improve
education. In fact, I would say so much for the quality of education in 
Colorado as a whole.

My wife and I are expecting our first child in July. Right now, I'm betting
that child will go to private school or we will move out of the state, because
Colorado public education is going down the drain thanks to Amendment 1.

More fun, the paper today said that shorter prison terms and early releases
are in the works due to lack of funds to keep criminals in prison. Maybe when
an ex-con who got out early kills someone, we will start to think about the
consequences of all this.


Just my opinion. Please show me that I am wrong, I would really like it to
be so.


Scott
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Farrow-Student SysAdmin/Programmer, University of Colorado at Boulder
Computing & Network Services, Boulder, Colorado, USA, phone: (303) 492-4428
Internet: farrow@spot.colorado.edu, farrow@cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: zacek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Daniel M. Zacek)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:29:29 GMT

thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:

>There seems to be a lot of threats flying from the "public sector" regarding 
>the punishment that will be dealt to taxpayers because of the sucess of 
>Amendment 1.  Apparently, because we had the gall to ask for control of our 
>money, they are ready to punish us the same way Californians were punished 
>for Prop 13.  There is a solution.  

>The problem is that none of these government agencies are directly 
>reportable to anyone outside of those empires. 

Only one criticism from me.  Certain governmental entities ARE directly 
responsible to their taxpayers.  In particular, fire protection districts are
controlled by a board of directors elected by the residents of the district.
The BODs have direct control over all spending, setting mil levies, incurring
debt, etc.  Ammendment 1 now makes these boards redundant, since each of those
decisions has been returned to the taxpayers.  Without an exclusion for these
districts you can expect (and much of this has already happened, btw)
1. cancellations of ALL orders for leased fire/ems vehicles.  FPDs may no
   longer lease vehicles without voter approval.
2. cancellations of all building projects using savings; all money left at
   the end of the fiscal year must be returned to the tax district.
3. if the FPD runs out of money before the fiscal year.  bummer, dude... hope
   it's not your house on fire.  The lawyers for our district have yet to find
   ANY legal way to borrow money until the next property tax check.  We will 
   have to go door to door for donations, or close the doors.

I'm not opposed to tax limitation in general, mind you.  But the effects of
Ammendment 1 are going to hurt the rural FPDs, and it could have been avoided
if we had been listened to, instead of accused of scare tactics...

/s/Dan

p.s. I have a residential sprinkler system, a 10,000 gal water cistern and a
     portable pump.  Are YOU ready to put out your own house fire???  :)
 
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dan Zacek                | Astrophysics & Philosophy:  The study of  
zacek@ucsu.colorado.edu  | why we think we know that starlight bends. 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:04:04 GMT

I wrote:

>>Cutting popular programs is in fact one of the favorite scare tactics 
>>employed by advocates of big government. 

aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) responds:

>The flip side of this is, when asked to cut, I'm sure they first look for the
>cuts that affect the voters the most.  Then they can say, "See, we had to cut
>this XXX you liked so much".  I tend to believe that bureaucrats will cut
>the meat before they cut the fat.

Why do you say "flip side"?  This is exactly the point I was making.  Given
your opposition to amendment 1, you can only be saying that in order to get
bureaucrats not to cut the "meat" from programs already laced with fat, it
is necessary and desirable that we pay the "ransom" of overturning amendment
1.  I always thought *I* was a pessimist.


Jim Rosinski


Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Amendment 1: Less for your dollar
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:08:01 GMT

dougy@xvt.com (Doug Young) writes:

>  "The passage of Amendment 1 will result in taxpayers getting less for
>   their tax dollar."

If this were true, which it is not, it would not be sufficient evidence 
from which to conclude that amendment 1 is a "bad thing".


Jim Rosinski


Newsgroups: co.politics
From: dougy@xvt.com (Doug Young)
Subject: Amendment 1: Less for your dollar
Organization: Sunshine Fire Protection District
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:19:03 GMT
X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message are those of an
	individual at XVT Software Inc., and do not necessarily
	reflect those of the company.

As an uninformed and misguided voter (both my own fault), I voted for
Amendment 1. Now, as a better informed taxpayer, as well as a volunteer
firefighter and regular attendee at fire protection district board
meetings, I am moved to make the following statement:

  "The passage of Amendment 1 will result in taxpayers getting less for
   their tax dollar."

A corollary to that statement might read, "There are a lot of lawyers in
Colorado who will get rich as a result of Amendment 1".

-dougy
-- 
Doug Young         XVT Software Inc., P.O. Box 18750, Boulder, CO 80308
dougy@xvt.com      303.443.4223 / 303.443.0969 (fax)
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: laszlo@partial.cs.colorado.edu (Laszlo Nemeth)
Subject: Re: Amendment 1: Less for your dollar
Organization: University of Colorado Boulder, Pizza Disposal Group
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:32:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.181903.26803@xvt.com> dougy@xvt.com (Doug Young) writes:
>As an uninformed and misguided voter (both my own fault), I voted for
>Amendment 1. Now, as a better informed taxpayer, as well as a volunteer
>firefighter and regular attendee at fire protection district board
>meetings, I am moved to make the following statement:
>
>  "The passage of Amendment 1 will result in taxpayers getting less for
>   their tax dollar."

how? are you saying that because there is no way to raise tax dollars
that the current tax dollar will be worth less? that $1 of tax money
is only worth $.80? if thats what your saying then thats oneof the
reasons why i voted for 1.

$1 for me this year will be $1 for me next year. after 2 or more years
that same $1 will be noticeably less. but every year my taxes have gone
up more then my $1 has getten less. the other reason i voted for 1 was
HOW MUCH MONEY DO THE SCHOOLS NEED? there was more then one amendment for
MORE money for the schools (this is also a big reason that 1 won IMHO
was because people sat there and said look at all these other amendments
asking for money for schools).

>A corollary to that statement might read, "There are a lot of lawyers in
>Colorado who will get rich as a result of Amendment 1".

now how do you figure this?


laz
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Bear hunt, was Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:43:09 GMT

ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:

>In article <1h80ckINNj7l@hp-col.col.hp.com>, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>> 
>> On the flip side, even I think some initiated measures are really bad ideas.
>> Placing wildlife management into the constitution is the silliest law I've
>> seen passed.  What next?  Creel limits?  Designation of catch and release
>> streams?  I guess the Wildlife Division could have headed that one off by
>> changing bear hunting seasons/rules themselves.  Has the spring bear hunt
>> been opposed for a long time or did it just come up?  I hadn't heard anything
>> about bear hunting until the amendment was proposed.

>I realize your main article was about amendment 1, but I wanted to comment
>on this.  I agree that the bear hunting law should have been proposed as
>a law, not a constitutional amendment (they aren't the same thing, are they?)
>but disagree with you about the necessity of such a measure.

>The Colorado Division of Wildlife has long opposed the spring bear hunt,
>because lactating sows tend to leave their cubs behind to forage for them,
>and thus it's hard for hunters to tell if a bear is a mama bear or not.
>(Shooting a lactating bear is illegal.)  Because of this, many cubs die
>when their mothers are shot in the spring.

>However, the CDOW can only make recommendations to the (I believe state-
>appointed and hunter-controlled) Colorado Wildlife Commission, which 
>is the group which makes the game rules.  The CWC has ignored the CDOW
>recommendations on the bear hunt (and on other issues) for many years.  
>Amendment 10 was an instance of upset citizens taking the government back 
>from a small group of officials who were acting counter to not only the 
>public's wishes, but also the opinions of experts on the issue.

My memory is that last year the plan adopteas a transition or whatever
resulted in a doubled mama bear (and thus cub) kill. This is one of
the reasons for the proposition - faced with a public outcry against
the mama bear hunt reacted by doubling it.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Xref: sparky co.politics:2504 co.general:2308