Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:11:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: AIDS Wars

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: AIDS Wars

>From: linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

>hey jason,

>if these people are "beyond help" and as you say, obviously unable to function
>meaningfully in society anyway, well what the hell, maybe we should round 'em
>all up, strip them of citizenship, and say, put them to work on the farm or
>factory. this way, we would have really cheap labor, maybe FREE labor and our
>companies could stop importing cheap labor from overseas. these guys could pick
>the grapes and cotton and maybe the flow of illegal mexicans would cease (no
>jobs for them)...or, wait a minute, it could get so bad, that these meaningless
>pieces of uneducatable flesh might start crossing over the border into mexico
>(serve 'em right for sending their people over here to take up all our menial
>labor positions).

Golly.  I sure don't remember arguing this....

If I remember correctly, my point was that some people are (apparently, from
what Kerry has told me) so far removed from society that something like sex ed
in public schools won't help them.  After all, if someone goes to school and 1)
still can't read and 2) doesn't realize that public libraries exist, that
individual probably won't learn much in a sex ed class, since he has already
exhibited an extraordinary inability/unwillingness to learn.

        i don't think that kerry is saying that these people are removed
        from society.  you may think that they are, however, lack of
        education is the norm in many parts of the country.

        the point is that public schools are NOT helping them (often
        because too much time is spent in discipline and not in teaching).

        i heard the principal of a camden school speak recently.  she
        said that she gets invited to speak at colleges and other functions,
        and that people debate what she says, so she asks them one question:
        if our schools really aren't that bad, why don't you send your
        kids to it?  not when they are in high school.  that could be
        considered a year abroad.  no.  send us your kids in first grade,
        when they are most vulnerable, when their learning patterns are
        forming.  she says that nobody ever looks her in the face
        again after she makes that suggestion.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

        don't open it so wide.  next thing you know there'll be a foot
        in there. :)

>think about what you're saying. you are basically talking about a very real,
>urban problem. think about the populations that inhabit the inner city, that
>are doomed to attend sub-standard schools.

Even sub-standard schools produce literate people after 10 years.  I concede
that not all schools are top-notch, but what Kerry and I were debating was
whether or not they adequately educate the citizenry to teach their children
about sex/STDs.  I think they are, Kerry disagrees (correct me if I'm wrong,
Kerry).  I don't think either of us question that fact that all schools were
not created equal.

        someone on this list said that anyone with a third-grade reading
        ability was considered literate.  is this what you mean?

> your position is very lily-white.

Thank you for this gratuitous insinuation that I am a racist for wanting to
teach my own children about value-ladden issues in my own home without
government interference.  That's very fair of you.  NOT!

        i don't think that linda was calling you a racist.  seems to
        me that she is pointing out that you have come from a system
        that is very "white bread" (is that stroehmans or wonder?) and
        are making judgements on others based on the idea that their
        world is not significantly different from yours.

        it is.

>you don't condemn the kids because the system failed them. try
>fixing the system to stop the problem from continuing. don't you see the
>benefit of a better educated society? one where there would be fewer people
>on welfare roles, on street corners, in prisons?

I agree entirely that people should have access to a decent education.  In
fact, your nisunderstanding of my view is so grotesque that I get the
impression that you walked into this debate only two or three posts ago,
missing at least a dozen before.

If schools are not teaching people to read, I wholeheartedly support reform
that will allow them to do so.  Again, what Kerry and I are arguing about is
whether or not schools really are failing in that regard, or whether the
schools are okay and the illiterates themselves are to blame.

>or, are you worried the increase in competition for colleges and jobs might
>make your life a teeny bit harder?

I don't know where you go/went to school, but my college is awfully competitive
as it is.  Anyway, I don't think that sex ed would translate into a marketable
job skill (not a legal one, anyway).

        try nevada.

>blaming the victim to justify your position is the easy way out. makes it okay
>to do nothing.

"Blaming the victim" is a nice cliche, but that's not what we're talking about
here.  I am, I believe, holding people responsible for their own actions.
Kerry is trying to convince me that these people failed to receive an education
because of forces outside their control.  If he is right, then these people
really are victims, and deserve some type of remedial education (or at least we
should seriously revamp the public school system).  That is the crux of our
argument.

        kerry is a she.

        they deserve some type of REMEDIAL education?  maybe you think that
        only people who live in fairly decent neighborhoods DESERVE a
        good education, and other people deserve a remedial education.
        i hope that is not what you really think.  but look at what you
        said.

In the future, please try to avoid putting words in my mouth, and please try
not to cloud the issue with meaningless cliches.

        one person's cliche is another's slogan.  should i mention the
        "holding people responsible for their own actions" cliche that
        some people seem to use for anyone that hasn't managed to get
        rich in some "acceptable" manner?  nah.  it would be a cheap
        shot.

>-linda

Jason

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU