HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Abortion: What does God say?
Organization: The World
	<warren.713537536@beloved> <BZS.92Aug11143040@ussr.std.com>
	<2375@mitech.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:42:31 GMT


From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
>> Unless you further claim that He has ordained all people prophets unto
>> nations.
>
>OK. BZS, how can you tell if an unborn person is going to be
>a prophet or not? (Unless you are a prophet yourself) 

Apparently by reading the Bible.

>And does it make sense to risk killing a prophet?

Such behavior seems to have worked out quite well for some religions,
all in all.

>> Your view will get nowhere until you show that you are more concerned
>> with loving and caring for the children and women who bear them than
>> you are concerned with controlling them.
>
>What does somebody have to do in order to "show that they are
>concerned with loving and caring for the children"?

Perhaps not by expending their finite energy lecturing the rest of us?

Perhaps by showing some broader concern and interest for fixing this
world than merely putting padlocks on the abortion clinics?

>Tell us BSZ, how much time and money have you spent in the last 5
>years "loving and caring for the children and women who bear them"?

I'm sorry, I don't remember putting myself up as the ideal to be
followed or the one with all the answers.

I admit to being human and claim no special insight into God's will.

--
        -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: 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 22:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.200340.24617@nic.umass.edu> s9935328@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Deborah L. Zandell) writes:

   There are plenty of hypocrites out there who say that vocational
   training is okay, and that the kids don't really need to learn to read 
   and do arithmetic.  After all, the kids are just going to be janitors 
   anyway.

Are there really many people who advocate vocational training and
define vocational training as something so low level that the child is
not taught basic reading and arithmetic?  Maybe there are, but I've
never come across them.  In everything I've read, everyone agrees with
you and me that every child needs at a minimum to know how to read,
write, and do arithmetic.

The discussions of vocational training I've read about generally seem
to be talking about having multiple educational paths that split much
later in the course of development than that.

I think some of this arises because there are different views of what
a "college education" is supposed to provide for a student.  Some
people expect it to provide what used to be called a "liberal
education" (that has nothing to do with the Republican-party L-word
sense of "liberal"!), much of which is not directly relevant to job
skills, but which has other value.  Other people think primarily in
terms of providing job skills, skills for the more highly-paid sorts
of jobs, what Robert Reich calls "symbol manipulation".

So it has been suggested that these different goals could be met at
different sorts of institutions.  The hope is that the more
"vocational" level would cost less, be more widely available, and be
more effective at promoting certain kinds of job skills.

Here I've talked as if everything is the same in the K-12 years, and
the divergence is after that.  Actually some people talk about
divergence earlier, but I think it's usually not much earlier, e.g.
10th grade or so.

Note: I'm not saying I'm in favor or not in favor of this kind of
scheme.  It depends exactly how it works, and all of these schemes
have some serious problems that worry me.  But it might be worth
thinking about.
From: borden@cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion: What does God say?
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:26:55 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: ne
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <warren.713615483@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
>>	Article I.  Congress shall make no law respecting an
>>	establishment of religion . . .
>>
>>You're god is not my god and has no place in our government.

>That's not right.

Yes it is.

>The same situation happened to someone else.  God told her
>she would die if she carried the baby to term.  She felt
>that she still had work to do on this earth.  She told the
>Lord that, and the Lord took the baby away.  The doctors said
>the baby was gone, and there was no evidence of a miscarriage.
>No evidence that she was never pregnant at all.

You shouldn't believe everything you hear.

    - Dave Boirden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: exile@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Heresiarch)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: I'm in a gay mood!
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:57:48 GMT
Reply-To: exile@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Organization: The Torch of Chaos and Doubt

actually, some of the most productive and creative cultures in world
history not only allowed gay people more rights, but assumed same-sex
relationships were a normal and desired part of life.  i include in
the list ancient athens and rome (remember, rome conquered most of its
known world and ruled it for centuries).  richard the lionheart was
gay.  so was frederick the great of prussia, who helped form the
political foundations for modern germany.

our culture is undoubtably poorer and weaker for restricting openly
gay people to the very fringes of artistic and commercial life.
--
<SIG>___________________________________________________________________
It's an old wall, Avon.  It waits.  I just hope you reach it
before you die.                                                    </SIG>
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:40:44

This is one of the reasons why I don't think it is proper to have
publicly funded schools.  What could be worse for education than its
politization?  Parents should have the opportunity to send their kids
to their favorite liberal/conservative/other school and not worry
about parents fighting over whether or not sex education is a proper
function of an educational system.  It is even worse that professional
politicians have gotten their hands into the mess.  Does anyone else
see the weirdness in pooling the funds of diametrically opposed groups
into the same system?  It is a recipe for disaster.

I happen to agree with Brian Murphy on the usefulness of shop,
"home-ec", art, "business", etc programs in public schools.  At one
time or another in my high school career I managed to take at least
one course in all of those categories and I can say without a doubt
that I learned absolutely *nothing*.  Those were the "blow-off"
periods.  We harassed the instructors, did little work, and half the
time skipped the classes altogether.  This was at a well respected
suburban HS.  I would be surprised if it were any better in the
cities.  I think if/when I have kids that I would like to
"home-school" them.  However, I won't get any credit from the
government for home-schooling so I will be forced to pay for the poor
education that other people's kids are receiving.  This does not seem
fair to me.

I sympathize with Gordon Linoff when he says that he does not want to
fund a school that teaches the moral that homosexuality is evil.  I
sympathize with Brian Murphy when he says he doesn't want to fund a
school that teaches sex education.  Why should these two people be
forced to fund and cooperate in the same system?  I think society
would be better served if these two were able to fund the specific
schools that they want to fund.  In this case, trying to build a
consensus between these two men would appear to be fruitless.  Their
children will suffer for it.

By the way, I had a completely different experience at a publicly
funded university (UMass-Boston).  It was a wonderful place were many
foreign and non-traditional (i.e. much older) students gathered to do
some serious learning.  Note: someone recently claimed that most
foreign students are wealthy---not at UMB---everyone is poor there.
Anyway, I wouldn't attribute UMB's success to public funding.  I
attribute it to many different factors too numerous to list.  I
believe that it has suffered greatly due to the fickleness of public
funding and has sunk a great deal since its high in 1986 when it was
named by Time magazine as a top-ten up-and-coming university.
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: In politics, why ask why?
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:56:07 GMT
	<1992Aug17.161042.21616@kronos.com>
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: richb@kronos.com's message of 17 Aug 92 16:10:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.161042.21616@kronos.com> richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:


> dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:
> >> While, in retrospect, it looks now as if they really never would have
> >> been effective, that was not clear at the time.

>  Natch.  Even I as a semi-liberal Democrat knew the sanctions were a silly
> waste of time; I never could figure out why anyone would believe in such
> foolishness.

	Nonsense!  Sanctions were only unsuccessful IF you expected
them to engender total capitulation.  Otherwise there was every
indication, including an offer made as early as August 9, for the
negotiated withdrawal of Iraqi troops and a settling of the
territorial dispute by peaceful means.
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Which shall it be: education or socializing?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 00:37:46 EDT
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:

> >> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:

> >Schools have plenty of time to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic,
> >even if you cut that time in HALF. 

> >The amount of repetition is over the years in the current
> >system amazing. No wonder kids get sick of it.
> >No wonder kids just don't see the point and drop out.

> 	This *is* true, and stems from the fact that we still have
> this stupid system of "grade = age" for a set of kids who are not all
> at the same educational level at the same time in the same areas.
> So, kids who need more help generally do not get it while kids who picked
> it up the first time around have to have it 2 or 3 or more times.

While agreeing with your entire message, I'd like to address this paragraph as
I think you have it backwards.  It's not so much age=grade as it is the
subject has to be taught several times over since we simply promote students
to the next grade regardless of whether they've mastered the course of study
or not.

In a way, I guess you're right; age does equal grade but more out of that
touchy/feely Liberal dogma that we're going to hurt the social development of
children actually having to repeat a grade while their peer group proceeds to
the next level.

SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION HAS NO PLACE IN SCHOOL!  Teach the little darlings what
they must learn to the extent we can while we have them in elementary school.
Just the facts, man, just the facts.  All these other niceties can wait until
they graduate or after the six hours the school system has them each day
Monday through Friday.

> Until we get our priorities straight, things are going to continue to slip.

Ya got THAT right, d00d!

                         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: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings, THE REAL PRICE OF OIL
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:10:23 GMT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:

> And $50 a barrel would have a negative impact on the U.S. and
> world economy. Millions of jobs would be lost.

Hi, Mr. Carrette!  You seem to be rather up-to-speed on oil economy.  Mind if
I engage you in a conversation?  I'm afraid I can't debate since I'm weak on
the subject.

It seems to me that there is something weird with the price of oil in this
country as other countries have higher prices.  Either these other countries
are taxing petroleum higher or this government is subsidizing it.  It's
probably a little of both.  Still, don't you think there is a certain
intrinsic value to this particular commodity over and above the cost of
refining and marketing the stuff?

I don't know for sure but I suspect our government is subsidizing the price of
oil somehow.  If so, do you agree that it would be a good idea to stop it,
allowing the cost to rise and making alternative energy sources more
competitive?

I'm not afraid of nuclear energy.  I think it should be pursued more than it
is but the cost is not competitive with oil and so it remains on the back
burner somewhat.  The same could be said with any other alternative energy
source, of course.  If the cost of oil shot up to somewhere around what it
costs in other countries, these other sources would start to look pretty
attractive.

There are many benefits including self-reliance, less pollution, and all that
rot that I'm sure I don't have to go into; you get the pix.  Beyond that, you
mentioned that higher prices would throw lots of people out of a job.  Don't
you agree that these other opportunities would compensate?  Perhaps even over
compensate?

I don't think higher oil prices is necessarily an evil thing.  If others
thought like this, we could have stayed out of the Gulf War, too.  Just one
more benefit.  <g>

                         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: 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 15:59:03 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug18.033915.4301@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
>Johnny can't read because he spends all his time watching TV.
>Take away the TV's and you'd see a marked improvement in
>school performance.
>
>It is no accident that the decline in SAT scores correlates
>almost exactly with the enormous increase in TV watching (lagging
>by the ten to fifteen years between the early stages of video
>hypnosis, before school age, and the time students take the SATs.)

Of course the Reagan era deregulation of children's TV has not helped:
30 minute "advert/programs", vast increase in commercial time, no limits
on hard sell or what kind of products can be sold, .... 
TV programs children to be voracious consumers and to know absolutely
nothing except that violence is the only solution to any problems. 

>I firmly believe that the single thing we could do that would
>improve academic performance more than any other single thing
>is to abolish television.
>-- 
>Larry Campbell             The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
>campbell@redsox.bsw.com    Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: In politics, why ask why?
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:19:01 GMT
	<1992Aug17.161042.21616@kronos.com>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <1992Aug17.161042.21616@kronos.com> richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:

   But we seem not to have learned our lesson.  Haiti and Bosnia-
   Hersegovinia (does anyone *really* know how to spell or say that
   name?) are living examples of the failure of economic sanctions.  Bush
   is still obsessed with tired old Saddam, and not doing anything about
   these other problems.  So much for his 'expertise' at foreign policy.

If you were the Pres right now, what would be your objective in
Bosnia?  How would you use your resources to successfully complete the
objective?  To your best guess, what would be the diplomatic
side-effects of such an action?  You have 2 1/2 months to answer these
questions but in the meantime nearly every human on the face of the
earth will be second-guessing your every move and remember---American
lives are at stake.
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:45:05 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Followup-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

Re all the comments about my earlier post on the "rape of kuwait":

First, clearly some awful things were done by Iraqi against Kuwait.  But 
the issue I was trying to adress is why the US got involved.  So for this 
argument we need to determine if the attrocities were done before or after 
we started bombing in January.  A number of the issues mentioned (setting 
oil fields ablaze and tourtuing US POW's for example) I recall as 
happening *AFTER* we began bombing Iraq, so, terrible as they might be, 
they clearly can not be used as justification for going in.

Second, I want to make it clear that I'm talking about why we did get 
involved, not why we should (or should not) have got involved.

Now, I recall news coverage at the time of "witnesses" to Iraqi 
attrocities speaking before the UN.  I clearly remember the nurse (that we 
later discovered to be the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter) describing in 
detail how Iraqi soldiers came into hospitals and bayonetted helpless 
babies.  All of this evidence was taken on faith at the time and hyped up. 
 I clearly remember a news story this year that stated that much of what 
as entered as evidence in front of the UN was false (someone had found out 
that the "nurse" was Kuwaiti royalty and not even in Kuwait at the time of 
the attrocities she described).

Finally, all of the preceeding is beside the point.  My statement is that 
the US was concerened about Kuwait solely for economic reasons and not to 
save the poor kuwaiti people from being "raped" by the Iraqi.  To me the 
conclusive evidence of this is our lack of action in other parts of the 
world when human rights are violated.  It is clear to me that the current 
administration is more interested in the status quo (for economic 
stability, you see) than human rights violations.  We didn't react to Iraq 
gassing the Kurds several years ago (gassing their own people).  If Husain 
= Hitler then why are we only concerned about Kuwaiti victims?  Could it 
be because the Kurds control on oil fields?

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:27:57 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <omLePB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>That, of course, is extreme.  As a voter in a majority, I'd not cast a 
>vote in favor of funding sex education in school, universal medical care, 
>foster care subsidies, or any other program that wouldn't be in the (I 
>know you were waiting for this) "Ozzie and Harriet" mold of "family 
>values."
>

Ozzie and Hariet were imaginary, perhaps all of your politics derives from
a simple confusion between TV and real-life --- these are not the same.

>Man, whose bright idea was it that the schools should be doing all this?  
>Whatever happened to your mother insisting you take piano lessons?  What 
>happened to apprenticeships to learn a trade?  Can't your mother teach 

If you want to find industrial apprenticeships, you have to look at places
like Germany, where apprenticeship programs have been organized as a 
collaboration between industry, labor unions, and government. 
What happened to apprenticeships is that industrial skills became more
complex, and our government's insane "free market" ideology encouraged
business to move to nations where the public sector helped organize
the training of skilled workers.

Any other questions?

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Organization: The World
	<GORDON.92Aug14135640@lugh.think.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:42:13 GMT


It really all seems to come down to whether one believes that a person
deserves rights only before birth, or only after birth.


--
        -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: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:49:53 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <2388@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
>In article <BZS.92Aug13021630@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>> But courts and lawyers (some of the slimiest bastards also) and judges
>> trying to solve family problems?
>
>How do you like the idea of a lawyer actually TAKING A CHILD away
>from a parent and adopting the child himself?
>
>That is the underlying situation in the current case
>in Florida of a child who has been resently "given standing in
>court to sue his parents for divorce."

Is this not the case where the child was abandoned/abused by the parents
who now claim to have "reformed"? My recollection is that the child
is not willing to be taken from his current family, who have a
track record of caring for him, to be sent back to his biological
family, who have a poorer track record. I see nothing wrong with a 
13 year old making that choice.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu