home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky ca.general:966 ca.politics:6051
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!apple!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucbvax!hplabs!felix!fritz!asylvain
- From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
- Newsgroups: ca.general,ca.politics
- Subject: Re: Help for California Libraries! Dire Need!
- Message-ID: <19091@fritz.filenet.com>
- Date: 27 Jul 92 20:31:55 GMT
- References: <v=#m_bp.minow@netcom.com>
- <1992Jul13.050202.26728@clarinet.com>
- <28484@goofy.Apple.COM>
- Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
- Distribution: ca
- Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks
- Lines: 25
-
- Written in article <28484@goofy.Apple.COM>
- by casseres@apple.com (David Casseres):
-
- : I hate to give you painful news, but a lot of us think there are some
- : details to be argued about when it comes to cutting expenditures.
- : "Cut everything" is not a good enough way to go about it, particularly
- : when there are vast areas that are NOT being cut, such as idiotic drug-
- : law enforcement (just to pick a particularly obvious example).
-
- I'd say that if there are areas that are NOT being cut, then the
- statement "cut everything" does not apply. Ie, the "details to be
- argued about" are indeed being argued, and some fool legislator decided
- that "cut everything" needn't include police.
-
- However, that does not detract from the benefits of discussing a true
- "cut everything," including, the WoR. So, let's talk about that. Shall
- we cut everything? INCLUDING the WoR? Sounds like a wonderful idea to
- me.
-
- : David Casseres
-
- --
- The Chipmunk.
- Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
- Bureaucrat, n.: A politician who has tenure.
-