HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:07:16 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Apr2.164654.24138@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <10295@optilink.UUCP>,
>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>The Voucher Initiative now being circulated has a provision that
>>prohibits the use of the vouchers in any school that promotes
>>hatred based on race, national origin, religion, or ethnicity.
>
>I only chose such extreme examples because I expected that most
>people could relate to them, but what if the issue is whether or not
>to teach new math, or use team-teaching, or student tutor groups?
>These all revolve around what will produce the most real educating
>for the buck.  If I'm being asked to pay that buck shouldn't I have
>some way of saying which teaching methoids I want them to pay for
>with it?
>

June, June, June.

What you seem to be ignoring is that each child is unique, and
each child/parent relationship is unique, and so it is impossible
to establish through any kind of top down central planning which 
teaching or methods are appropriate for each child/parent.

Although it may be morally correct for the taxpayers to say how
their money is spent, it simply doesnt work, as the sad story of
public education bureaucrats trying to impose "effective education" from above
has demonstrated.  60% of my local principal's time is spent filling
out state forms to ensure that the taxpayers are getting their money's
worth.  

Education decisions need to be made by the education consumers
interacting with education entrepreneurs, not by central planners.
Vouchers provide a bridge to get away from the central planning,
and to get the entrepreneurialism, through stimulus of demand.

Until and unless the PUEBS are reined in, entrepreneurialism in the
public schools will be limited and haphazard, instead of the rule.   
If the public schools can become entrepreneurial, then fine.  If they
cant, we need expand the private school system.


--Al Date
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:13:48 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ca
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <4281@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
|> But that will all change the day we lose one of our big cities to a
|> martyr's backpack a-bomb. Only then will we as a society re-evaluate
|> revenge as an institution.

No they won't, you have much more faith in humanitys' ability to learn than I do.
The killing on this planet will never stop, not until every human is dead.

Later,
George

-- 
Excuse me, could you scream just a little louder ??  I can't seem to hear
you.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:17:29 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <22617@goofy.Apple.COM>, casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
> This democratic system, because it is also constitutional, denies people the
> right to use public funds to teach creationism, racism and antisemitism.  That
> is right and proper; if someone wants to have his children taught this sort of
> ignorance, let him pay for it out of his own pocket -- it isn't a public good.
> David Casseres

But it doesn't deny the right of artists to use public funds to
promote ridicule of various religions, and encourage seeing
kids as sexual partners for adults.

Hypocrite.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace
of God." -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: terwill@arecibo.aero.org (Bill who?)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: terwill@arecibo.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:34:00 GMT

In article <4280@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes...
> 
>I'll add to the fray...of one. 
> 
>I am totally opposed to the death penalty. However, I am also aware that
>Mr. Harris's chances of being saved from the GasCan are zippity-doo. So,
>I would like to hear from the "let's kill 'im" crowd why we should not
>put the murder on TV; I'm sure "A Current Affair" would love to have the
>excloo.
> 
>Also, if we're gonna kill, let's do the whole pile on Death Row all at
>once. Dig a big pit, spray 'em with lead, then fill the hole. Why waste
>time?
>								   MPA

"You were right Emperor, Micheal has been turned to the dark side of the
Force!"


Seriously, Mr. Harris has already been "through the system." He has exhausted
the expensive and necessary appeals process that must co-exist with capital
punishment. 80% of the voters in California (does that represent 80% of the
people, no, just 80% of those who take an active role in government when the 
opportunity presents itself) have favored the death penalty so pleading
the case of Harris now is like watering a dead plant.

Those people who think humans are, as their church (pick one)
has taught them, superior, thinking, reasoning, forgiving creatures
created in the image of their diety should concentrate on those just
entering the process. Perhaps then they could achieve success in the
future and, quite unintentionally, save the rest of us from funding the 
appeals process. Then I would agree, but only due to the expense saved.

As a parent, I can only imagine the suffering Mr. Harris has
inflicted upon two families and I believe that the sun will shine just
a little brighter when Mr. Harris is with his diety.

Bill

"My opinions are my own and consistantly judged to be in error by others"
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.172738.1298@rossinc.com> steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>In article <s377pINN848@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>>So they convicted Noreiga of smuggling drugs.  I'm not surprised they
>>found him guilty, but the major question, which I haven't seen
>>discussed at all, is this:  by what authority are we trying a citizen
>>of a foreign country for crimes committed on foreign soil?  Has the
>>government explained this?  Why isn't it discussed in the news
>>articles about the trial?
>>
>>	Wayne
>
>
>The only reason justifying military force would be a signifcant threat to our
>national security.  Noriega posed no such threat--as far as I'm concerned.
>Unfortuately, in the rhetoric of the "War On Drugs", he might have been
>considered such a threat.
>
	The war on drugs was just the retoric to justify getting Noriega.
The real reason for the Panama operation was to get the Panama Canal out
of his hands before the next phase of the treaty took effect.
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:01:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sd7d1INN8og
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr13.231826.22842@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com (Rod Williams) writes:
> I re-subscribed to ca.politics today expecting to find
> it jammed with articles pro- and con- the upcoming (next
> Tuesday, failing a miracle or Gov. Wilson's intervention
> (miracle is more likely)) execution of Robert Alton
> Harris at San Quentin.

Fine, I'll bite.  I think even in a clearcut case of first degree
homocide, the death penalty is morally wrong.  What is the purpose of
the criminal justice system?

	(1) Deterrence.  Other people will see what has happened to a
	    criminal, and will be scared of committing the same crime.
	(2) Rehabilitation.  Teach the criminal to be a good citizen
	    and he won't do it again, or if he's mentally ill, try and
	    cure him.
	(3) Protection.  Keep the criminal off the street for a while.
	(4) Revenge.

Which of these does capital punishment serve?

	(1) I doubt it.  Somebody who doesn't put a significant value
	    on somebody else's life probably doesn't put much on his
	    own either.  Are drug dealers deterred by the death
	    penalty, when they are much more likely to get killed by
	    rivals, or die from a drug overdose?
	(2) No chance.
	(3) A life term in prison with no possibility of parole would
	    serve just as well, except for the rare possibility of
	    escape.  Life in solitary confinement wouldn't be
	    unreasonable as an "ultimate" punishment.
	(4) Yes.

Revenge seems to be the only real purpose of the death penalty.  It's
fine to watch revenge movies in the theater, but do we, as a society,
want to encourage and make a part of our judicial system an emotion
that is as damaging to the society getting the revenge as the
individual who is killed?  I don't think this is a good thing.

What are the other main arguments, pro and con?  In favor of the death
penalty, it could be cheaper than life in prison if the current appeal
process were shortened.  Against it, it would lead to a certain number
of innocent men and women being killed each year, who might otherwise
eventually be exonerated.  Do we want to trade a few innocent lives
for saving a bit of money?  In this case, I don't.

In the long run, I would suggest that the death penalty really
increases violent crime.  If you fight violence with more violence,
what message are you sending people?  You are telling them that the
state doesn't care if they live or die, and obviously this will make
them care less about their fellow man.  The best thing to do with
violent criminals is to put them away somewhere, cut off from society,
rather than parading them around and making a big deal about how we're
going to kill them.

	Wayne
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:59:03 GMT

In article <rnm1mINNqj2@agate.berkeley.edu>,
gnn@mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.170616.18487@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>In article <rm7dlINNokd@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>
>>No one said that running a free society was effortless.  Those
>>who don't want to exercise this level of personal judge would still
>>be free to leave there money in the public school system as we know
>>it or make their contributions to something like "the United Way
>>Education Fund" and let others do the judging for them.  No one can
>>be forced to make choices but that certainly isn't justification for
>>not letting anyone do so.
>>
>I'm not so much talking about the effort involved as coming up with a
>system to test the system.  How do you judge success ??  Or are we
>going to just let people decide completely at random what a "good
>education" is ??

Are we going to just let people decide at random what a "good suit"
is?

I find your attitude incredibly elitist.  Freedom means being free
to make mistakes as well as to be successful.  There are no
guarantees of making the right choices in a free society.  I'd still
rather take my chances with freedom.

/June
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: oliver@deimos.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 23:08:18 GMT

In article <a2wr02GGcex300@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> James Preston writes:
>oliver@gayley.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver) writes:
>
>}In article <f55i02amccy.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

>}Mr. Preston, have you really never done anything wrong for which you
>}hope not to have to pay the honest price?

>[slightly creative editing on oliver's part...]  I accept
>that responsiblity, and whatever consequences befall me.

Are you sure?  Think carefully; you may have no idea just how high
the honest price is.

> Of course I have
>committed many wrongdoings in my life.  Does that somehow mean that it is ok 
>for someone like Harris to just kill me?

No, of course not, and I don't think I said anything remotely approaching
that.

>Does it mean that he should somehow
>be held less accountable for his actions just because he is not the only
>person in the world who has ever done wrong?  Your point here totally 
>escapes me.

My point is that those of us who hope not to be held fully accountable
for our own wrongdoing (me, for example) would do well to show mercy
to others.

>}OK, you've described your notion of "balance."  But you haven't really
>}said what's *good* about it, why this "balance" is to be desired.

>Because it is fair.  Do you not understand the concept of fairness, or
>why fairness is inherently better than unfairness?  Hey, if you don't
>care what's fair, then just give me all your money.

If I gave you all my money, it would not be unfair, it would just be
my choice.  I choose not to.

If you came and took my money it would be wrong, but not because it
was unfair.  It would be wrong because you would be harming me.

(BTW, how about if I give you my net financial worth instead? :-)

I guess I don't really understand "fairness" as you use the word.  It
seems to me that harm is harm, even to those who do harm.

>Well, you still haven't said anything about what is WRONG with revenge.
>Why is it sinful?  What's bad about it?  What harm does it do?

Well, obviously it harms the person on whom revenge is being taken.
So it seems to me that the presumption has to be against it, unless
you can show what *good* it does.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Oliver 
UUCP:...!{ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!oliver
ARPA: oliver@math.ucla.edu
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:09:11 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco

In article <1992Apr15.185626.9093@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@sgi.com
(Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
     (stuff deleted to save space)
>for murder. I might be tempted to murder someone who I felt was
>beyond sufferance. Say for example, Laurence Singleton, the man 
>who raped a 15 year old girl and cut her arms off with an axe
>and left her to die in a ditch. Punishment for that crime is
     (and still more stuff deleted)
>
>Before you flame me, be sure you have read my previous post where
>I outline my criteria for what constitutes a good death penalty 
>case. In short, I think that it should never be used against someone who 
>maintains their own innocence of the crimes, I think it should
>be televised, along with a dramatization of the crime(s), and I
>think that citizens should be called upon (but be free to decline)
>to "pull the lever". 

The Death Penalty is something that I haven't completely made up my
mind about; at this point, I have to say that I am mildly against
it.  My misgivings have more to do with the legal system than with
the ethics of capital punishment.

What worries me, you see, is that it could start out being used
only in the circumstances you describe but then extended to a
broader category of criminals in the future.  I guess in the days
before capital punishment was discontinued, it was often applied
to other violent rimes, such as rape or armed robbery,
which (IMHO) deserve extreme penalties but do not deserve the
death penalty.

Another problem is one that Jeff Dauber brought up, that the death
penalty has been applied in a racist fashion...that Black men have
been executed for crimes and White men merely imprisoned for life
for commiting the same crimes.

Now in spite of everything I just said, there ARE cases where I
would not mind seeing the criminal executed.  I remember a few
years ago, when Laurence Singleton was released from prison,
thinking that he was DEFINTELY someone who should be killed.  For
someone like him or RAH, I would not decline to pull the switch.

    don
Newsgroups: ca.politics,misc.legal
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:35:42 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Apr13.014014.9592@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Charles Jelenc) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.003328.6252@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>>In article <s377pINN848@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>
>>commited any crimes inside the U.S.  The case of Noriega is a little more
>>sticky since he was the Head of State of a "Sovereign" nation at the time
>>of his overthrow - err arrest.
>>
>Noriega was not the Head of State of any country. The lawfully elected presi-
>dent of Panama was Endara, whom Noriega's goons had beaten up, and who was
>prevented from assuming the office he had been elected to. The US invaded with
>Endara's assent and on his behalf, and whatever the military action's status,
>it was in no way against the legitimate government of Panama.
>

In that case, the correct action for the US would have been to return
Noriega for trial in Panama for stealing the election.  Trying him
here essentially means that the US claims jurisdiction over the entire
world.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Noreiga
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:23:57 GMT

In article <s377pINN848@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>So they convicted Noreiga of smuggling drugs.  I'm not surprised they
>found him guilty, but the major question, which I haven't seen
>discussed at all, is this:  by what authority are we trying a citizen
>of a foreign country for crimes committed on foreign soil?  Has the
>government explained this?  Why isn't it discussed in the news
>articles about the trial?

The same authority that says they can muck with the constitution,
pass laws against our wishes.

They've gotten away with it (so far( evil smile))...

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Bush for  President in '92!
                                 ^
                                 Ex-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3547 ba.general:1763
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.general
Subject: Re: Bay Area Ross Perot Mailing List
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:27:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.skv07INN8o0
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <181094@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>   I don't suppose you've created a counter-group...which seeks to
>   prevent H.R. from becoming president?

Well, one can only do so much...  If you create this mailing list then
I would be happy to gateway it to mine, and vice-versa...  :-\

	Wayne
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:38:06 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:

}> jsp@pls.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
}>
}>                                      ...If you commit a crime, it is
}>just plain FAIR that you pay the price for it.  And if that price be your
}>death, then so be it.  Nothing can bring back the victims of those who
}>WILLINGLY chose to kill, but killing said criminals in turn goes a small
}>way towards restoring the balance.

}I disagree.  What balance?  Instead of one dead person,
}you now have two dead people.  If human life is so
}precious, why does the state have any more right to kill
}people than an individual?  As another poster already
}said, the death penalty devalues life, turns murder into
}a game of tit-for-tat.  You kill someone, we kill you.
}If we really valued life, we'd force a murderer to spend
}the rest of his/her life considering the enormity of that
}crime.  Instead, we're about to prove the murderer's
}point -- that life is indeed cheap.

I don't believe in the vacuous maxim "human life is precious".  I think
you have to look at the context of a particular life before you can
decide whether it is "precious" or not.

I believe in the sanctity of INNOCENT lives.  When a person commits
murder or rape or some other brutal act, he has shown that HE believes
that life is cheap, and has thereby cheapened HIS OWN life.  The person
himself has set the value of his own life, and has set that value at
nothing.  So when such a person is put to death, that's exactly what
has been lost: nothing.

As for this question of balance, I covered that, but you seem unable to
grasp the simple concept.  A life for a life (or usually for many lives).
That's balance.  Well, again as I said, it's not really balance, since
it's usually a worthless life for many worthwhile lives.  But it's the
best we can do.

--James Preston
From: mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:12:51 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <sd7d1INN8og@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:

>In the long run, I would suggest that the death penalty really
>increases violent crime.  If you fight violence with more violence,
>what message are you sending people?  You are telling them that the
>state doesn't care if they live or die, and obviously this will make
>them care less about their fellow man.  The best thing to do with
>violent criminals is to put them away somewhere, cut off from society,
>rather than parading them around and making a big deal about how we're
>going to kill them.

Oh dear. Wayne, the Blood 'N Guts Crowd is gonna tear you up on this one.
America embraces its violent culture like the babe suckles a teat. Saddam's
a bad guy? Fine, destroy Baghdad. Noriega under your skin? Play him some
Leonard Skinnard, then kill a bunch of peasants. 

Americans love to kill Wayne, it's just part of who we are. See, we don't
care if killing people creates more killers. Not yet anyway.

But that will all change the day we lose one of our big cities to a
martyr's backpack a-bomb. Only then will we as a society re-evaluate
revenge as an institution.
								    MPA
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3435 ba.politics:2643 talk.politics.misc:17944