HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Rats, I guess I'm a Nazi
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:12:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.053310.12448@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
    >Mr. Ronzone writes:
    >>So then, you think schools should exist that teach ideas that
    >>parents DON'T want taught to their kids???
    >>
    >To a certain extent, absolutely. If parents believe the Earth
    >is flat I believe it is immoral to teach their children same.
    >I am not saying that parents should not have avenues of
    >influence over a good deal of the content and approach a
    >school may take. And -- ooops, I am straying from keeping
    >this discussion in terms of black and white absolutes, and I
    >know you are not fond of that.

Why, no. You just stated an absolute -- teaching children the world is
flat is immoral you just wrote.

And that's pretty darned black and white, isn't it?


So maybe you DO believe in absolutes and black and white?

Or do you want to rephrase that?

How about, "teaching children the world is flat is sometimes immoral,
and sometimes O.K."?

There, now THAT is nice and grey!


Well, care to correct yourself?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5880 ca.politics:8453
From: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:50:47 GMT
Reply-To: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.82

Rick Eames writes:
>It's the business of government that (1) all people should be able to
>understand each other.  I think it is terrible that there are sections of

Hombre, we all speak English here in this newsgroup & there's more than
enuf misunderstanding to go round!

>San Francisco where I am hard pressed to find anyone who speaks English. 
>(2) I think it is silly to pay money so that people *can* keep speaking

I think this is a good point, but there are 2 other things
I'd like you to consider

1- Not all the natives of the US are native English speakers.  There
are Hawaiians, Indians, Inuit, Latinos & others, native born, whose
ancestors were in many cases here long before English arrived.  I
don't see that the gov't has a rite to tell them to stop speaking
their language (it's tried that, tho).  If their local group wants to
teach in their local language, I have just as hard a time seeing why this
shouldn't be permitted.  If these schools are public, I have no
objection to _requiring_ them to teach English also.  I think such a
requirement helps satisfy the need for a common means of communicating
without odious cultural chauvinism.

2- It's advantageous to have a population that speaks some of these
languages, because we have to trade goods across the world nowadays.
Sure, Lakotan is not one of those in demand, but Chinese- and
Spanish-speakers make up a lot of the immigrant population, & having
our own speakers of these languages could be an advantage for American
businesses.

>your language, just so that you understand that English is the majority
>language and that you'll have to learn it to function here.  

I think the "marketplace" does just what you say, most immigrants are
eager to learn English for that reason & do so.  But learning a
language is a long process.  While they're learning it, I don't want
to interrupt their education in other things while waiting for
fluency.  There's no need.  Perfectly good science books in Spanish &
Chinese, for example.

Whether we can afford this is another question.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5663 talk.politics.misc:48007
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:29:22 GMT
	    <l00nr9-.phil@netcom.com>
	    <1992Sep26.150949.12977@wam.umd.edu>
Followup-To: ba.politics

>What if the employer looses clients because of an homosexual employee that
>has a very "homosexual" behavior?

That's sexual misconduct.

This strangely parallels the logic that the armed services use to exclude
gay men and lesbians.

If these men make unwanted passes at other soldiers, then throw 'em out
for sexual misconduct.

If these men don't deny being gay upon inquisition by a superior following
up on rumors, then there is no reason to discharge them, provided they
have good conduct.

Makes you wonder---the navy discharges sailors with near-perfect records
for merely making a verbal admission of homosexual orientation, but gives
a little slap on the face and repromand to the fliers involved in the rape
trials (Tailhook scandal).

Now, WHO has screwed up priorities?
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.151941.16891@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
    >>Ronzone) writes:
    >>
    >>>Since money for the schools is being coerced (taxed) from
    >>>people, they rightly feel that they should not pay for ideas
    >>>to be to taught to their kids that they disagree with.
    >>...
    >That doesn't mean, however, that I oppose education choice. I
    >just think it should be done with tax credits rather than
    >vouchers. If someone expects me to help pay for educating
    >their children they better expect that I want a lot to say
    >abouit what kind of education I'm buying. Tax credits which
    >allow me to donate to what I consider a good educational
    >program and then deduct that expense from my taxes gives
    >everyone more control than we have under the current system.

This is a very bothersome argument, *especially* from a Libertarian
political office seeker.

Why am I taxed?

To make sure that, in part, there is money to have schools?

Well, I'd much rather NOT be taxed for this at all. Indeed, although
it is not a moral way, wouldn't it be MUCH better to NOT tax people
for schools, BUT to require by law that they send their kids to
schools?


But apparently some people, perhaps, June among them, do not like
this approach -- "I want a lot to say about what kind of education
I'm buying".


It surprised me -- I'd thought June would be against taxation for
this. And vouchers are merely the return of taxe monies forced
from you in the first place.


But *my* interpretation of this is that June would rather have the
taxation to A). reap the benfits of an educated next generation
and B). to impose HER education slant on the next generation.

I think both A and B are somewhat anti-Libertarian.


However, this is my interpretation and perhaps June can expand on
this.

I AM still VERY suprised to hear a Libertarian candidate support
coerced taxation for schools though .. tell me I'm wrong June ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:46:11 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
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.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>>>Gee, this is fun.

>>I suspect you confuse this serious discussion with playing
>>games for points. This isn't fun ... it's a serious matter
>>involving life, death, freedom and other issues which,
>>fortunately, nobody relies on you to support. If we did, our
>>rights as human beings would soon be gone.

>Hmm, my rights mandate non-coercive interfence with other, your don't.

How does that follow ?

>I think most people wouldn't like your idea of rights.

They don't. My ideas of rights have corresponding responsibilities. This
was not taught to me, I had to figure it out, and a lot are still figuring.

>>The more I read your babble, the more I wonder who's paying
>>you to practice your obfuscatory nonsense. You seem to do
>>nothing but post. You don't post from your place of work. You
>>don't appear to have a life. One has to start to wonder if
>>this _is_ your work.

>Well, Richard, I tell you what I think, and why I think it, and what
>my premises are.

Don't we all ?

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Systems'n'Software
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 01:23:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.151941.16891@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv>,
>jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>>In article <st+p4#n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>>
>>>Since money for the schools is being coerced (taxed) from people, they rightly
>>>feel that they should not pay for ideas to be to taught to their kids that
>>>they disagree with.
>>>
>>
>>I agree with June's school voucher argument: it creates two classes
>>of people: parents and non-parents. Parents would get some tax credit
>>for taxes they paid, but non-parents would not.
>
>That doesn't mean, however, that I oppose education choice.  I just
>think it should be done with tax credits rather than vouchers.  If
>someone expects me to help pay for educating their children they
>better expect that I want a lot to say abouit what kind of education
>I'm buying.  Tax credits which allow me to donate to what I consider
>a good educational program and then deduct that expense from my
>taxes gives everyone more control than we have under the current
>system.
>
>/June


  I  do not understand how having tax credits instead of vouchers
  would give you more say in what goes on in the schools.

  Tax  credits are only good for the people that can afford them.
  after  all in order to get the tax credit you have to have  the
  money  to spend first.  So as far as I am concerned tax credits
  do indeed discriminate against the poor.

  I  favor  the voucher method myself.  That way the parent  gets
  the voucher (that can not be used for any other reason) and can
  take it to the school of their choice.

JSB
___________________________________________________________________________
                                   \ /        \  /
I had a seat in the very first row +-------------+ 
I heard it all on my radio         | 0 -(....) 0 |    uunet!jack!jsb
                                   +-------------+                         
___________________________________________________________________________


Xref: sparky ba.politics:5887 ca.politics:8463
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:48:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct2.205551.18554@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.161333.461@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> <This first line is taken from another of Phil's postings. Sincere 
> <apologizes if I misinterpret the intent>:
> >
> >Slavery could not have existed without the coercive State.
> >
> How is this?? This sounds like there were laws mandating slavery.

The slave states maintained state militias, at considerable expense,
primarily to deal with slave revolts, at a time when many Northern
militias were falling into disuse or becoming primarily social
clubs.  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1792 and 1850 both used federal 
resources to capture and bring back slaves.  It was a capital 
offense in some slave states to distribute abolitionist literature, 
or to mail it to someone.  There is some disturbing evidence that 
the development of gun control laws in America was primarily to 
keep free blacks disarmed (for fear that they would help in a 
slave revolt) and to keep abolitionists unable to defend themselves 
from mobs (who frequently skipped the legal process to kill 
abolitionists).  The first police department in the U.S. was a 
slave patrol, that checked the passes of slaves going to and from 
places of employment in Savannah.   

In addition to the laws that protected the institituion of slavery,
laws were passed to interfere with the supposed property rights of
the slaveowners.  After about 1830, slaveowners were not allowed
to free slaves without an act of the state legislature in many
of the states of the Deep South.  It was illegal for slaveowners
to teach slaves to read or write.  Once the liberal enthusiasm for
state intervention gets going, there are no limits to how far they
have to go to maintain their system.

> Patti Jazanoski


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Who Killed John Kennedy? (Was: School vouchers)
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:51:56 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Oct1.160449.29465@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Look at it this way -- if you lived in a nice Italian (mythical)
>neighborhood with a strong Mafia, do YOU think the way to clean up
>the protection rackets and the murder-for-hire "business" is to
>joing the Mafia and work your way up to Godfather??????

Look at it this way -- the last time proxies of the American gov't
acted like Godfathers was when Bush, Nixon, and their thugs Hunt,
Rodriguez, et al, assassinated President Kennedy. [Just my opinion,
mind you, but I'm still waiting for Bush to answer the question:
for whom was J.E. Hoover's memo to a 'Mr. George Bush of the CIA'
really intended on November 4, 1963? The Houston Chronicle reported
that the administration said it was another George Bush of the CIA,
but he was tracked down and claimed that at the time he was merely
a contractor, and was nowhere near the Cuban nationals whom this
mysterious George Bush was debriefing after the killing.] This
type of behavior is certainly not the norm, so I think your
comparison receives the Phil Ronzone Non Sequitur Award for today.

So Phil, who ya' votin' for come November?
							(-;

								MPA
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:54:43 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <athos-031092151525@kip2-5.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.

And for those of you who can't quite stomach voting for Herschensohn,
consider voting for June Genis, the Libertarian Party candidate,
instead.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:24:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.160646.12644@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>    >I agree with June's school voucher argument: it creates two
>    >classes of people: parents and non-parents. Parents would get
>    >some tax credit for taxes they paid, but non-parents would
>    >not.
>
>This is not an argument that is valid in the way you use it. I.e.,
>think of all the State programs that are create various classes
>of people. Consider welfare -- it creates a class of people that
>pay taxes, and a class of people that get money from the State.
>

What the school voucher system proposes in an "Alternate-Source"
voucher: if the taxpayer uses an alternate source to derive
a good instead of a public source, they will receive a tax credit
for using that Alternate Source. A taxpayer that *does not* use the 
public source nor a similiar private source would not get the tax credit. 

The "AS" Voucher system would provide tax credit for all of these.
 -- I send my child to private elem. school instead of public.
 -- I go to Yale instead of UBC.
 -- I hire a security firm instead of using the police
 -- I buy my own books instead of going to the library
 -- I go the movies instead of the San Jose sponsored Giants game.
 -- I hire militia instead of using the army (hmm, but I'm a pacificist)

It is the act of using an alternate source that provides the taxpayer
with the credit. Of course, this is ridiculous.  Sorry for taking
this to such an extreme.


Patti Jazanoski

Xref: sparky ba.politics:5839 ca.politics:8412
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:43:39 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <athos-031092151525@kip2-5.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>The differences between Herschensohn and Boxer on Education:

>Voluntary School         Supports.                 Opposes.
>Prayer                   Believes that the
>                         federal government
>                         should neither 
>                         prohibit nor
>                         mandate prayer in
>                         school.

Thank you very much - I'll be voting for Boxer.

If any issue qualifies for the "slippery slope" classification this
one does.  The prime example I remember is a few years back "voluntary"
prayer was reinstated in a public school in one of the New England
states.  A followup revealed that this decision had quickly evolved 
into the principal reading the Bible over the school intercom.  How
surprising.

jb

BOXER for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Bruce Herschensohn.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:19:41 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <96860@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

    ** Some good discussion. This a serious reply, so ignore any
    ** accidental "fun flames".

    >In article <l00nr9-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>>>People should not (via initiation) coerce others. Period.
    >>>>
    >>>Except, of course, as you say, when they want to fire a gay
    >>>employee, for something they have done with their own
    >>>property (their body), on their own time in the privacy of
    >>>their home.
    >>>
    >>Uh, which of my two statements above do you disagree with?
    >>
    >I maintain that firing an employee based on his private
    >conduct on his own time is initiation of coercion.
    >
    >>So when Acme Inc. sees a video tape of the entirely legal
    >>political meeting where John Doe calls for a NAZI state in
    >>America
    >>
    >If a person is dumb enough to tape parts of his private life,
    >he had better make sure that he keeps track of those tapes.
    >
    >If someone absconds with them and attempts defamation, John
    >Doe can claim invasion of privacy.

Does this mean that if the tapes were to become public, then Acme could
fire John Doe the private-until-now NAZI? And thus, isn't this really
a call for keeping it in the closet (for whatever "it" is?)?



    >>Think -- IT HAS TO BE MUTUAL. BOTH PARTIES MUST AGREE.
    >>
    >Gee, I didn't know that anyone had to agree on private
    >activities.

Yes. Of course all people in private activities must agree. Actually,
except for the coercive activities of the State, ALL activities are
private. I.e., private .vs. is almost an artificial and meaningless
distinction.

    >What about a compromise? The government gives tax incentives
    >to those corporations which sign non-discriminatory contracts
    >with their employees?

This is the crux of creeping fascism. The end result is total control
(possibly) of all facets of our lives. The State taxes 100% of your
income, BUT, gives 90% of it back in various programs. Of course,
now that you are receiving State funds, here is the list of things
you must agree to ...

Tax incentives are nothing more than a variant of a protection racket.

    "Hey, I'll steal less from you if you agree to do something
    for me that you otherwise wouldn't want to do. And if you
    don't agree, I'll make you do it anyway. I just like it
    better this way because I can claim that it is "voluntary"".



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: HERSCHENSOHN: Boxer's Tax Advisors Exposed
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:15:23 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics,ca.politics

NEW STUDY CASTS DOUBT ON BOXER FLAT TAX CRITICISM, HERSCHENSOHN CAMPAIGN 
SAYS


NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA -- Barbara Boxer's tax policy consultants 
receive 99 percent of their funding from organized labor, according to a 
new report by the Capital Research Center released today statewide by the 
US Senate campaign of Bruce Herschensohn.

Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), a Washington-based study group, has 
authorized letters and newspaper articles on behalf of the Boxer Senate 
campaign that criticize Bruce Herschensohn's plan to eliminate taxes on 
interest and dividend income and make other reforms as part of a shift to 
a flat-rate income tax.

Fully 99 percent of CTJ's $266,000 in revenues for 1992 came from 
organized labor, the Capital Research Center found.

In addition, the Capital Research Center reported that Robert S. 
McIntyre, the president of CTJ and Boxer's consultant on tax issues, was 
director of a Ralph Nader organization before joining CTJ.

The board of directors of CTJ includes pro-tax advocate Lenny Goldberg, 
author of $5.5 billion tax increase initiative on the November 1992 
ballot, Proposition 167.

"We have shown that their numbers are phony," said Herschensohn campaign 
manager Ken Khachigian.  "Now we know why -- this is a liberal, big 
labor-backed group that has set its sights on raising taxes on all 
working Americans." 

The Capital Research Center study reported that CTJ proposes taxing 
capital gains on inherited property -- a proposal Khachigian described as 
a "heat-seeking missile aimed at the elderly, the small business owner 
and the farmer."


--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics