HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Help for California Libraries! Dire Need!
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:53:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <4496@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
> The Chipmunk <asylvain@fritz.filenet.com> writes:
> 
> 	If you attend school, you pay tuition.
> 
> Like the only person who benefits from someone attending school is
> the pupil?

No, but they are the person who most directly benefits, and is
therefore most able to decide if this education makes economic
sense or not.

Everyone benefits, at least indirectly, from the postal system.
Does that mean that postage should be free?

> Sure, you'd save money at the state level.  You'd also guarantee
> that nearly everyone you interact with will be an idiot.
> 
> /jordan

You mean, no one would be willing to borrow against future earnings
to pay for an education right now?  It is certainly true that SOME
types of education aren't of any great economic value: a B.A. in
Psychology or Art is nearly useless, except for teaching.  A B.A.
in Computer Science is doubtless economically justified.  If the
student must decide what is economically sensible, based on future
return, it might solve the great oversupply we have of bachelor's
degrees in Psychology and Art.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:49:06 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <6zlm4fn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>No, this is not what I said, although close, it is quite different.
>To rephrase, I want control over who and what my daughter associates with.

What are you going to do when 8 years from now, your daughter tells you
that she is a lesbian?



FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:48:12 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <nr1ehag@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >In article <6zlm4fn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>No, this is not what I said, although close, it is quite
    >>different. To rephrase, I want control over who and what my
    >>daughter associates with.
    >>
    >What are you going to do when 8 years from now, your daughter
    >tells you that she is a lesbian?

As it is unlikely that an 11 year old female can "determine" such a case,
I could only say that my reaction would be the ssame, Jeff, if your
(hypothetical) son told you, 8 years from now, that he is a skinhead
ethnic-stomping neo-NAZI: Like, "oh shit ...", and then seek counseling for
'em.

I eagerly await your predictable response. :-)


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:55:42 GMT

In article <ns6ev0s@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:


Gee, I am out there this morning....


>Two things:

That should be "three things"....


>1.  I was a homosexual, and was having homosexual feelings long before I
>ever knew that there was such a thing as a homosexual.
>
>2.  Even if I had never seen a homosexual before, I would still be a
>homosexual.
>
>3.  My parents desire for a heterosexual child had nothing to do with my
>sexuality.



FWA
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:30:31 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

}In article <athos-170792113154@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

}> Fine, but abortion is not, contrary to whatever the Supreme Court says, a
}> fundamental right set out in the constitution.  I have a copy right here in
}> front of me, and it is simply not in there.  Period.

}You misunderstand the Constitution then.  The right
}in question is not NOT in there, that means the Feds 
}cannot infringe upon that right.  The Constitution
}doesn't spell out what you, as a citizen can and can't
}do, it spells out what the government can't do to you.
}The government can't interfere with your conduct unless
}the Constitution says it can, not the other way around.

I think you're the one who doesn't quite understand the Constitution.  It
is not accurate to say that "it spells out what the government can't do to
you".  Some of the Amendments do specifically put limits on governmental
power over the citizens, but the body of the Constitution is more concerned
with spelling out the powers of the FEDERAL government with the intent that
what power was not explicitly given to the Feds was reserved to the states.
It was clearly the intent of the Framers that the individual states would 
have powers "not delegated to the United States", as indicated in the tenth 
Amendment.

I have to agree with Mr. Eames that there is no right to abortion nor a
right to privacy explicitly stated in the Constitution.  There is also
nothing in the document that I can construe as to giving Federal government 
the power to prohibit the states from making abortion illegal.  Therefore, 
much as I am strongly pro-choice, I find myself forced to say that I believe 
that the original Roe vs. Wade decision was CONSTITUTIONALLY incorrect.

--James Preston
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Molesters vs Molestation (WAS Re: Against Our Will)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:10:19 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <nv3meb4@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >You would think that someone as obsessed with child
    >molestation as you would read on the topic. Popular
    >psychiatric theory finds no connection between gender of the
    >child which is molested and sexuality of the molester.

Eh, I'm not obessed. Keep your private fantasies out of this. Sure, Popular
Psych may very well state that. It also "decided" by a fucking VOTE in
the 1970's that homosexualaility was not an illness anymore. Wow -- science
by a vote. How thrilling.

    >>However, it is a legitimate argument to like at the
    >>molestation of the child as a primary sexual classification,
    >>with the sex of a child as a secondary issue. But in ANY
    >>case, but the current accepted definitions (molest a same-sex
    >>child, you are homosexual) homosexuals molest children far
    >>above the general per capita rate.
    >>
    >The only person who has that definition is you.

No, not at all. This is per the hard evidence of police victim reports.
Kinda' edited that part out, eh?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: California libraries/dire need
Keywords: Franklin etc.
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:51:12 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul28.212249.20403@leland.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
# When I wrote, "Ben Franklin was full of it when he started this 
# public library thing." , I was being a little sarcastic.  Clayton
# is right about Franklin's subscription library.  It was called
# the Library Company of Philadelphia.  It still exists to this day.
# These privately funded circulation libraries flourished from
# pre-revolutionary times until the early 19th century.  "The
# depressions of 1819, 1837, and 1857 all resulted in withdrawal of
# support for voluntary libraries.  A library which cannot keep up
# with its collections quickly ceases to be of much value.  Of the 
# thousands of community libraries which had sprung up by 1875, only
# 188 were fully tax supported." (FOR THE PEOPLE ISBN 0-385-14359-1)
# Anyway, it was one of the 1% who really got the public library 
# movement off the ground.  His name was Andrew Carnegie.  By the time
# he died in 1919, he had provided the seed money for 2,500 public
# libraries.
# My point in bringing up the fact that 1% of the U.S. population has
# more wealth (stocks, bonds, property, cash etc.) than 90% of the 
# population was to show precisely who has the wherewithal to fund socially
# necessary operations, like public libraries.  I do not want to tax
# Cramer or the people in the 90% catagory; they're the people producing
# the wealth of the United States.  The fact that they collectively own

Notice that Carnegie did it voluntarily -- without being taxed.
There were no income taxes in those days.  Does this suggest something
to you?

# less than the top one percent shows that they are not getting the
# wealth they're creating back.

Probably.  But short of redistribution of wealth (which for some
odd reason, mostly redistributes wealth UPWARD), there's no way
to change that, except by becoming wealthy enough myself to engage
in capitalism.

# As for volutarily funding police, prisons, fire etc within a modern
# capitalist system--good luck.  As much as I dislike the state, I
# don't think you can run a system based on private property without
# one.

To the extent that these agencies can't raise money voluntarily,
and are reduced in effectiveness, they will tend to reduce the
amount of wealth that accumulates.  Do you think that a millionaire
would be secure without the large governmental security system
(that we all pay for) protecting his wealth?  He could hire his
own security guards -- but who watches his guards?  This can get
rapidly out of control, such that it may not make sense to be
VERY rich without the government's assistance.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:45:58 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <athos-280792095036@athos.apple.com>, Rick Eames writes:
>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

>That's a pretty WIDE statement, and kinda silly to use as an umbrella to
>hide abortion under.  The true question here is whether or not the fetus is
>life.  If it is, we are obligated to protects its life (like we do when we
>arrest people for doing drugs while pregnant).

Of course it's a wide statement. It's *supposed* to be a wide statement, a catch-all
that says to the government, "Hey look, just because we didn't explicitly write it 
down here, that doesn't mean you have free rein to deny or control. The people
will decide what rights they want to have, which follows out of the idea that you
govern by the consent of the governed, dude." 

Although Madison wouldn't have phrased it as I do. 

Whether or not it's silly to "hide" abortion under the 9th amendment is another
thing entirely. If you believe, as I do, that the Constitution exists to tell the Feds
what they *can* do, and not to tell you and me what they can't stop us from doing, 
the 9th amendment is the most important, as it follows the idea that we make 
the rules, and can retain new rights when we need to. 

In all honesty, I think this issue is currently under Constitutional debate by the
people and the "Real Question" has to do with whether or not the baby is a human
life *and* whether or not we have a right to reproductive freedom. Personally, I 
say yes to both. I think abortion snuffs out a human life and I believe that women
should have the right to snuff out the life they are carrying in their body because
we should not force people into reproducing against their will. For the last 20 years,
we have retained the right for a woman to have a legal abortion. You may want to 
limit or deny that right, and that's why we have this national debate. 

JZ
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:17:28 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <ns6ev0s@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >In article <qgmmfq#.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Really? You really, really can't understand that I do not my
    >>children to be homosexual? You really can't understand that?
    >>
    >I can understand that.
    >
    >Can you understand that you do not have a choice in the
    >matter?
    >
    >
    >Two things:
    >
    >1. I was a homosexual, and was having homosexual feelings
    >long before I ever knew that there was such a thing as a
    >homosexual.
    >
    >2. Even if I had never seen a homosexual before, I would
    >still be a homosexual.
    >
    >3. My parents desire for a heterosexual child had nothing to
    >do with my sexuality.
    >
    >
    >>Of course, you are still unable to face the fact that some
    >>people (if polls are to be believed, about 60% of "some"
    >>people) do not like homosexuals and homsexuality.
    >>
    >I think your "polls" are full of shit. I look around on the
    >net, and I see you and claytoon ranting against homosexuals.
    >I periodically see a neo-nazi like ronniejr ranting against
    >homosexuals. Everyone else seems to be willing to live and
    >let live. You, claytoon and the other fools out there do not
    >even come close to 60%....
    >
    >
    >>But most of those are perfectly willing to live and let live,
    >>something that if the net is to be believed (to be a
    >>represenative sample of all homosexuals, which I doubt)
    >>homosexuals are not prepared to do.
    >>
    >>
    >Not prepared to do? We are not the ones denying your right to
    >exist...

Perhaps if you were to stop being a Faggot With Attitude and become a
Faggot that reads and rationally debates, we might make progress.

1. I do not agree that all homosexuals are born and not "made".

2. Both Clayton and myself (I don't know about the others) state
   repeatedly that we believe in live and let live, and that you have
   every right to your sexual preference. We ask for the same in
   return.

3. Sure, polls can be full of shit. I recall one that shows most
   people, when shown the Bill of Rights, refuse to sign it
   believing it to be a subversive document.

   But, are you going to have your cake or are you going to eat it?
   If you talk about oppression, then what is your problem if I
   mention a poll show that a majority of people dislike/disapprove
   of homosexuality? If the poll is full of shit, then you ain't
   oppressed, right?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion Rights
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:01:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.032303.9092@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.235615.26198@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>>
>>>From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes
>>>Men do not have the control you want to have.
>>
>>Is this what it comes down to, after all? 
>>
>>    A man can choose what happens to his body.
>>    A woman cannot choose what happens to her body.
>
>May I add,
>     The Unborn can NEVER choose what happens to his/her body.
>     (at this rate).  

Every sperm is sacred.  That's why masturbation is a sin.
The thousands of street urchins of Latin America who die every
day do not choose what happens to their bodies either.  I know
some are; but I wish more people who were concerned about the 
potential humans on this planet, were as concerned about the 
ones already alive.
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Molesters vs Molestation (WAS Re: Against Our Will)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:54:52 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <33pmk-h.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Some interesting stuff. However, I don't think you can rely on
>"self-identification". If someones mostly or exclusively molests
>same-sex victims, then that person is homosexual by definition, no
>matter what kind of denial they use.

You would think that someone as obsessed with child molestation as you
would read on the topic.  Popular psychiatric theory finds no connection
between gender of the child which is molested and sexuality of the molester.

If a man is married and has kids, and the only people of the same gender
he has sex with are young boys, he is not considered a homosexual.


>However, it is a legitimate argument to like at the molestation of
>the child as a primary sexual classification, with the sex of a child as
>a secondary issue. But in ANY case, but the current accepted definitions
>(molest a same-sex child, you are homosexual) homosexuals molest
>children far above the general per capita rate.

The only person who has that definition is you.



FWA
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:35:46 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul27.213657.6532@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
> In article <1992Jul25.051714.19087@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> >In article <4918@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
> >>It's not a baby. If you pull it out before 6 months it doesn't live on
> >>its own. IT'S NOT A BABY.
> 
> >And people on iron lung machines are not human either.
> 
> Can you show that an embryo is self-aware ?  Most people in iron-lungs
> would fall into that catagory.  
> 
> Guido

Most?  What about a person unconscious after a traffic accident?
It can't live on its own without surgery.  Does that justify killing
them?

I'm not taking the pro-life position, but this line of reasoning
that Michael Anderson started is utterly bogus, unless you take
the National Socialist line, and started euthanizing the "defective"
sorts.

By the way, what Western country in this century first allowed
abortion on demand?  The Soviet Union, in 1920.  No wonder Anderson
is so supportive of it.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life:
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:03:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.080109.17499@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> So on the record, when do the pro-abortion people think human life begins?

Well . . .  I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion".  I happen to be
pro-choice.

I believe that life begins at birth.  Given that birth is not always
at the end of about 40 weeks of gestation, that is (in some respects)
a meaningless answer.  To be more specific, I think that life can be
reasonably protected when the fetus is old enough to live on it's own
with a reasonable chance of surviving without major medical
intervention.  I think there should be a threshhold below which a
fetus can be considered to be non-viable--that is: the chance of
survival even *with* massive intervention is extremely low.  There is
a second threshhold beyond which, a birth can be considered premature,
but otherwise normal.  I don't think the Sate should be allowed to
restrcit abortion at a time earlier than the Sate is willing to pay
the full cost of the medical intervention needed to ensure a
reasonable chance of survival.  I don't think abortions should be
performed after the fetus could be born and live without more
intervention than you'd find in a routine hospital setting.  In
between is a grey area.

On the whole, the Supreme Courts orginal division into three time
frames is reasonable.  The problem is in defining those time
periods--especially in light of advancing medical knowledge and
technology.

I think some ground rules can be constructed permitting those
boundaries to be set on a rational basis.

1.  The state should not be permitted to interfere with an abortion
decision of a non-viable fetus.

2.  The state should not be allowed to interfere with an abortion for
an otherwise viable fetus if teh state is unwilling to pay all
relevant medical bills.

3.  The state is obligated to permit (and pay for) abortions for the
indigent if those able to pay for the procedure are permitted to have
it done within the same jurisdiction.

The threshhold at which the state may palce restrictions should fall
at a level at which a politically selected percentage of live births
at that developmental age survive with the degree of medical
intervention that the state is willing to pay for for medically
indigent patients.

I have not yet formulated a working phrasing of the second threshhold,
beyond which the state should be allowed to cut off abortions
altogether.  It is probably something like a lesser level of
intervention, but still definitely prior to full term.  Possibly it
should be set at the assisted level that corresponds to 100% minus the
percentage picked for the first threshhold.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles Mok)
Subject: Clinton in Cupertino?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 27 JUL 92 09:29:06 PST


I heard that Bill Clinton will be appearing in Cupertino today at 1:30.  Anyone
knows where? 

Please email.  Thanks!

Charles

Newsgroups: ba.politics