HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Education, deficits, morals: you can't have it all
Organization: The World
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:05:50 GMT


From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
>Once again, Mr. Shein, you simply bash those strong enough to criticize that
>which is wrong in this country without offering a suitable alternative.
>
>Get a group of people together and ask them what the single, most pressing
>issue in this election is.  They'll bellow in unison; THE ECONOMY!

I'm trying to find where I said otherwise and I can't. Or are you just
lumbering off in a different direction randomly because you couldn't
think of anything to follow that first sentence?

>The comparison is stark between the Republicans and the Democrats.  They both
>agree that everything that is near and dear to your heart including sex
>education in school is a Very Nice Thing.  The difference between their
>positions is that the former would rather have families and individuals do
>more for themselves where the latter are happy to do it for you.
>
>But - that's going to cost MONEY - money nobody has.  The Dems will raise that
>money by raising your taxes.  The Republicans will raise this money by cutting
>spending.

Gee, the Republican administration found spending/money to run us into
a $400B deficit this year.

Since govt spending has increased at a phenomenal rate since Reagan
took office, and has ACCELLERATED since Bush took office, how can you
say any of this with a straight face?

Oh, right, I can fill in the standard retort: You can't blame the
republicans, in 12 years they haven't been able to do *anything*, it's
all congress's fault (whine whine whine.)

Oh swell, yeah, give me four more years of a party that's fallen down
and can't get up...

Put simply:

The Republicans are full of sh*t.

They spend it faster, much faster, than it can be printed.

They just don't spend it on what they see as wasteful: Schools, inner
cities etc. They spend it on all those "good" things, S&L Bailouts,
military adventures, etc.

Hey murph, the game is over, no one in this country is fooled any
longer by these republicans. We've all seen the spending and deficit
curves under the last several administrations.

School's out, the report card is in, the Repub's got an F, even
if they're whining that the Democrats ate their homework...


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: ian@cns.bu.edu (Ian Boardman)
Newsgroups: bu.general,ne.politics
Subject: FYI: Choice and Bean
Keywords: abortion rights, political action
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:22:09 GMT
Followup-To: bu.general
Distribution: ne
Organization: Boston University

This message is sent simply to inform those who might be interested.  If you're not intersted, or don't agree with the concern of the author, you can hit the delete key.

------- Forwarded Message

From: Ellen Eades  <netmail!ellene@microsoft.com>
Subject: FYI: L.L. Bean

Linda Loraine Bean, a candidate for Congress from the First District
in Maine, was allowed to use the premises of L. L. Bean, the boot
stitching factory to be precise, to film a television commercial for
her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well as anti-gay
rights legislation and anti-gun control.  She is using her original surname
rather than her married name in her campaign, to gain an association
with the popular L.L. Bean business.

Linda Bean is a granddaughter of L.L. Bean, a major stockholder in
this privately owned company, and on its Board. Therefore (at least
she felt) she had the right to use the company facilities as a backdrop
for her commercial.  LL Bean, Inc., does not support her or any
candidate, officially.  However, many women and men I know are
calling L.L. Bean to inform them that they will no longer purchase Bean
products, since much of the profit does end up with Linda Bean.

The phone number for L. L. Bean is (800) 341-4341.  The PR
representative for L.L. Bean is Joline McGown, and her telephone
number is (207) 865-4761.

Ellen
ellene@microsoft.com

--
***********Ian Boardman -- ian@cns.bu.edu -- (617) 353-6181**********
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school (WHY JONNY CAN'T READ MUSIC)
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:00:19 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <sukPPB2w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
>> We have no television in our home.  I have never owned one.
>> My older son, who is now ten, is a voracious reader, and reads
>> well above his grade level.  Would he be reading as much, or as
>> well, if we had a TV?  I doubt it.
>
>Heh!  See that?  You're the type of take-charge parent who actively
>participates in his children's education and your efforts are paying off.
>
>Imagine how successful you'd be if Hilary (two for the price of one) Clinton
>was elected president?  Your kid would be encouraged to sue you for depriving
>him of television.  He could claim that you're stunting his social
>development and you'd spend megabucks defending yourself against such absurd
>claims.

Where do you get this idiocy from? Surely no-one human being could have
become so completely misinformed all on his own initiative.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Followup-To: ne.politics
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:25:14 GMT

murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>
>Sex education is in a whole other category, of course, as it is strictly 
>morals and mores.

Stuff and nonsense.  It's facts of life, self-protection, and self- and
mutual-respect.  How many of your children have had sex ed in public
school, Brian?  My three have.

>  This is so far outside the scope of what school is 
>about as to be painfully obvious.  Shall we teach how to tie shoe-laces 
>in school as well?  <sigh>

Yes, if the parents (or substitutes) didn't.

(sorry; I don't have family values because my wife has a (part-time) job,
and we have 0.8 more than the standard number of children).
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Five more months!  Five more months!
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:45:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.182737.14501@odi.com>, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:
> In article <F2yJPB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
> 
>    No, a mother who cannot afford adequate medical care should not be having 
>    babies.
> 
> I really cannot believe that you said this.  So only well-off people
> should have kids.  What a great solution. Well, flaming is easy

That wasn't me, but why not? Having a child is an enormous commitment.
What moral objection is there to asking people to consider whether they
can provide for their children before they decide to have them?

In many ways, having children when you can't afford them (in money, in time,
in emotional resources, ect), is the very quintessence of irresponsibility.
To yourself, to the children, and to the rest of society.

To pre-empt some flames, I am using the above term "well off" to refer to the
ability to afford "adequate medical care". I am presuming that "adequate" is
not so restrictive as to exclude the majority of the U.S. population.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:15:49 GMT

In article <coBVPB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:

>Let's talk about gun control.  It's a bad idea.  A well-armed citizenry
>prevents abuse by the government.  When the Liberals start taking all our
>guns, you can be justified in fearing the government.

The fact is, most gun deaths occur when a member of a gun-owners
family shoots someone, either accidentally, or in "playing."  Many of
those killed are kids.  Many of those who have been killed were killed
by someone who should have known better.

Guns kill people accidentaly.  Thousands die every year in the US.
Far fewer people are killed in countries where owning a gun is illegal
than in the US.  There are as many crimes, but not as many lead to
death.

I don't believe in gun control; I think its unconstitutional.  But I
think if you want to buy a gun, you should have a background check
done, to see if you are a criminal convicted of violent crimes, and to
see if you have a history of mental illness.  I also think there
should be a long waiting period to get a gun.  There should be
pealties for leaving a gun somewhere a kid can get at it.

If you want to bear arms, you have to accept the responsibility that
comes with owning a peice of equipment designed to kill.  If you don't
want to, don't buy a gun.

Adam




Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Distribution: ne
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 22:22:13 GMT

In article <2444@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:

   In article <1992Aug18.224900.23843@odi.com>, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:
   > ... the sotto voce unofficial discrimination
   > against Koreans in Japan. 

   "Sotto voce"? Tell that to the thousands of korean women taken
   as sex-slaves by the japanese government.

The posting used the present tense, i.e. discussed what goes on in
Japan today.
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school (WHY JONNY CAN'T READ MUSIC)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 11:28:51 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:

> We have no television in our home.  I have never owned one.
> My older son, who is now ten, is a voracious reader, and reads
> well above his grade level.  Would he be reading as much, or as
> well, if we had a TV?  I doubt it.

Heh!  See that?  You're the type of take-charge parent who actively
participates in his children's education and your efforts are paying off.

Imagine how successful you'd be if Hilary (two for the price of one) Clinton
was elected president?  Your kid would be encouraged to sue you for depriving
him of television.  He could claim that you're stunting his social
development and you'd spend megabucks defending yourself against such absurd
claims.

                         Your friend in Lawrence, Massachusetts...
                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Organization: The World
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:44:24 GMT


Actually, I think the most under-rated and one of the best reasons for
our reaction to Iraq was Hussein's taking of 400 American hostages
(er, guests.)

That was a direct challenge to *US* sovereignty in a way that
historically has often been dealt with harshly. And well should be.

Of course, this was after our imposition of sanctions. But some things
just have to be off-limits or face the consequences. Established govts
taking random civilian nationals hostage has to cross that line.

If you doubt that, mentally place yourself in the place of one of
those hostages, held prisoner for two or three months, and tell me
what you'd be asking your country to do.

I think Saddam blew it with that one move and threw the door wide
open.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school (WHY JONNY CAN'T READ MUSIC)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:15:16 GMT

In article <sukPPB2w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>> We have no television in our home.  I have never owned one.
>> My older son, who is now ten, is a voracious reader, and reads
>> well above his grade level.  Would he be reading as much, or as
>> well, if we had a TV?  I doubt it.
>
>Heh!  See that?  You're the type of take-charge parent who actively
>participates in his children's education and your efforts are paying off.
>
>Imagine how successful you'd be if Hilary (two for the price of one) Clinton
>was elected president?  Your kid would be encouraged to sue you for depriving
>him of television.  He could claim that you're stunting his social
>development and you'd spend megabucks defending yourself against such absurd
>claims.
>
	This is about as gross a misstatement of Hiary Clinton's views and/or
the organizations she is on the board of that I would hope to see.
	There is a current court case in Fla revolving around a minor in 
legal dispute with his parents concerning custody between natural parents
and foster parents.  It's not as though the facts were hard to find.

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Education, deficits, morals: you can't have it all
Summary: Have your cake and eat it, too?  Can't be done.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 00:48:55 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

You know, it's a funny thing and almost paradoxical for the Liberals.  They'll
scream about deficits, complain about social conditions, lament the bad
education their kids are getting and STILL want to do the very things that
brought about their headaches.

They just don't get it - you can't have it all ways.

You can't, on the one hand, try to fix social conditions by trying to
indoctrinate everyone's kids on The Better Way while complaining about the
deficit and bad education.  To educate better, you need spend more time and
money.

Oh?  "Tax the rich?"  Sure, then they'll start complaining about how there are
no jobs around.

You see, they want their cake and eat it, too.

I'd say to them that there are some things that they should do for themselves.
If they want their kids to learn their set of morals, it'd free up the
education system to teach the kiddies the basics.  This will bring the cost of
education down and test scores - on those basics - up.

By doing some things for themselves, they get to teach the set of morals THEY
want to impart to their kids and not have to worry about someone else's set of
morals being imparted.

By doing some things for themselves, they can do their part to bring the
deficit down and still maintain the standard to which they aspire.

By doing some things for themselves, they won't drive some businesses out of
business and keep their jobs.  By not expecting the government to do
EVERYTHING for them - the cost of government, AND THE TAXES, will stay down.

A conservative administration will slow the upward spiral of government growth
and people's expectations of it.

Government should be set up to protect the life, property, and liberty of its
citizens.  It should also collectively do those things that individuals can't
like maintain the physical infrastructure.

Social experimentation is best left to the local level - preferably within the
confines of a secure and loving family.

                         Your friend in Lawrence, Massachusetts...
                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: marcos@sw.stratus.com (Marcos Szydlo)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Define 'family values'
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:48:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug10.172036.19739@kronos.com>, richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
> This year's political code word is "family values".  I wonder if the
> Republicans could stop their politics of division for long enough to
> ask what the phrase really means, and ask whether perhaps the concept
> is something that could *unite* Americans rather than *divide* them.
> 
> To me, the phrase includes some of the following:
> 
> 	- Taking care of your own
> 	- Responsibility
> 	- Love
> 	- Respect
> 	- Helpfulness
> 	- Commitment
> 	- Keeping in touch with those who are far away
> 	- Faithfulness
> 	- Trust
> 
> If that's what it means to me as a gay person, what might it mean to the
> right wing?  How far apart are we on the subject?  Methinks we have more
> to agree on than to fight over.
> 
> How does the traditional nuclear family, living in a home isolated from
> extended family with 2.2 kids, a dog, a cat, a two-car garage, and a
> divorce accomplish anything to further these values?
> 
> -rich

I agree with your definition. Unfortunately, it is totally devoid of any political
content, and we know that in this election year the term "family values" has
very little to do with anything as rational as what you stated above. "Family
values" is being used to exclude and divide. To set up an atmosphere of "us
against them". To belittle and discriminate. Pat Robertson set an example last
night in the Republican convention when he stated (I'm not quoting verbatim):

	"People in Houston have been asking me what do we mean by family
	 values. My understanding, and that of most republicans, is that 
	 family values start with a firm believe in the almighty..."

Well, I'm a husband, and a father, and my wife and I live and raise our
daughter by what we understand to be a rational code of ethics. We have our
set of values, very valid ones, but they certainly do not include "a firm believe
in the almighty". The term "family values" as defined by the right wing of the
Republican party does not even include a so called "normal" family like mine, much
less the more open interpretation of single parent, extended, interracial,
or gay/lesbian family. As I stated above, their objective is to exclude, divide
and discriminate, because that is how they perceive they can win in November.
And George Bush said it best: he'll do ANYTHING to win.

-- 
Marcos Szydlo
Stratus Computer
marcos@sw.stratus.com
From: mzraly@ra.cs.umb.edu (Michael S. Zraly)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Define 'family values'
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:46:27 GMT
Organization: UMass/Boston Dept. of Math & CS

dlw@odi.com writes:
>I agree with your definition, but I certainly think that when Dan
>Quayle talks about "family values", [...]
>things like "women should stay at home taking care of the kids"
>("unlike Hillary Clinton"), [...]

... and unlike Marilyn Quayle, too...

Actually, apart from political orientation, Hillary and Marilyn are
quite similar in their circumstances.  Makes you kind of wonder what
the fuss is all about...

-- Mike

-- 
Mike Zraly		An effective way to deal with predators
mzraly@cs.umb.edu	is to taste terrible.
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Homos in school, too? What next?
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:28:59 GMT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

> are never all that accruate since it's impossible to sample the entire
> population.  But 2 or 7 or some number in between, it's really awful
> to have the "all homosexuals are child molestors" argument waved
> around by the likes of Murph when what investigation is done shows
> this is not the case.

Please be careful here since homosexuality is a very hot topic.  I want my
position to be very clear.  I do not accuse homos of any crime and, although I
don't like them; what they do in their own bedrooms is of no concern of mine.
HOWEVER, since I _firmly_ believe that their lifestyle is not superior or even
equal to a straight lifestyle, I draw a line when it comes to having a teacher
make a show of it when educating my child.  Yes, this even means effeminate
male teachers, purple-haired teachers, or anything else out of the ordinary.
Plain vanilla for me, please.

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Education, deficits, morals: you can't have it all
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:52:12 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Followup-To: Dave_Wetzel@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <98qoPB3w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org 
(Brian Murphy) writes:

> Oh?  "Tax the rich?"  Sure, then they'll start complaining about how 
there are
> no jobs around.

We don't tax the rich now and see how well that's worked!  Actually the 
biggest single problem in this country is the tax code (I might agree that 
lack of ethics would be the biggest if you include the moral and ethical 
vaccume in the top-most classes of our society: CEO's, the Congress, and 
espeically the Bush Administration).  It encourages corporate debt, 
outrageous CEO compensation, moving factories to foreign countries, and 
filing for bankrupcy.

But guess how makes the money from all of these disasterous policies: the 
richest 5% in the country.

The fact is that the high debt-load of American companies combined with 
the shrinking budget of the middle class is what's killing jobs.  I (and 
most liberals would agree I think) would be for a middle-class tax cut if 
we closed off the loopholes that the rich use to avoid paying taxes.  
Putting money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they can 
go out and buy things is the only way I can see to fix the economic mess.  
People buying things creates demand which will create jobs.  The 
trickle-down supply-side economic policy that the Regan/Bush 
Administrations favor is just nonsense.

A capital gains tax break is only worthwhile if it creates jobs.  That has 
*NOT* been the evidence to-date.  The capital gains tax cuts in the 80's 
only escalated corporate take-overs that destroyed jobs and left shells of 
companies barely able to pay the interest on the debt they're carrying.

And if the rich paid their fair share we could get down to 10-15% tax rate 
for everyone (ala Mr. Brown's imperfect-but-headed-in-the-right-direction 
proposal).  So it's in the best interest of everyone exept the richest.

> A conservative administration will slow the upward spiral of government 
growth
> and people's expectations of it.

Well, the evidence certainly supports this statement -- NOT!  The biggest 
budgets were under the Bush administration.


--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com