HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:54:47 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:22:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:
                                                                   The 15th
>> >does that.  So, the states can still prohibit voting for a variety of
>> >reasons.
>>
>> The two most common being homelessness and convicted felons?
>I'd say the most common being convicted felons.
>I guess if you don't live anywhere, it would be hard to give you
>a precinct.
>
>But the state could constitutionally deny to a person born out-of-state
>the right to vote.
>

I don't know about Indiana, but Illinois bars homeless & convicted felons.
According to WMAQ/670, there's a bill pending the Gov's approval
which would give the homeless in Illinois the right to vote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:10:14 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: read my lips: I have family values

Hi, POHENRY.  Good questions.  Here are some more:

>Nonetheless, if one designs the privatization program around dispersing
>the funds to the schools directly, one must decide what parameters are
>required to control the competition.  In other words, what sorts of
>'things' does one wish to see in the proposal?  Who reads the proposal?
>How does one guarantee 'quality' in a competitive environment?  This last
>question is based on the notion that some unscrupulous competitor may place
>the 'profit motive' before all else in the race for funding.

We'd also have to factor in some way to take into account differences among
communities (they may have different kinds of educational needs), but to
also be sure that the communities' ideas of their needs doesn't undermine
quality (as you point out).

>If one were to design the privatization program around the granting of monies
>to the consumer one would have to consider whether the consumer possessed
>'perfect information' in order to make an appropriate decision as to where
>to send their child.  Would a less educated, less literate, less experienced
>person be placed at the mercy of either an unscrupulous provider or the
>better educated, more literate and more experienced consumer?

We'd also have to think about how we decide who gets how much money.  Maybe
we'd give every family the same amount of money-per-kid.  But would that
make opening a school in the inner city as attractive a proposition as
opening a school in the suburbs?  Or would the cost of running a school
vary significantly among locations?  If cost varies significantly, then do
we need to offset that by giving more money-per-kid to families in the more
costly areas?

And will any of this make a difference without efforts to address
correlated problems -- like lack of community support for education, lack
of parental involvement, high crime rates, etc.?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:01:02 EDT
From:         ST201714@BROWNVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Private versus public schools ...

Running through the list, I found a subject which intrigues me: Private vs.
Public Schools.  I read how a students in private schools average 100 points
more than students in public schools...at 1/3 the price per student.  That's a
great sight on paper, but what is missing is the socioeconomic (ooh, big word!)
 status of a private school student vs. the status of a public school student.
 That coupled with the fact that the SAT is a highly questionable test, taking
into account the recent attacks that it does not judge aptitude fairly, makes
that fact just another great number on paper, but a sad story in real life.
Also, if colleges accepted students based on their SAT/ACT scores, I would not
be here (Brown), seeing as how I went to a public school, and probably scored
well below the "average private school student."  Numbers are wonderful to use
in an argument, but when it comes down to the point, real people and their pers
onal counts make the difference.  I had to get my 2.5 cents worth in(grin).

                -Public School Product, and none the better or worse
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:45:47 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

                Jamie misreads my post (and the Court):

>   The Constitution is a document of *ordered* liberty, not license.

Um. Didn't Missy just quote approvingly an opinion scoffing at the
idea of "ordered liberty"???

                 No, I did not.  Read it again:

>                             By the same token, the Court has
>ruled that the 14th Amendment right to "privacy" does not extend to a
>protection of the act of homosexual sodomy.  The Court said "to claim
>that a right to engage in such conduct is 'deeply rooted in this
>nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of
>ordered liberty' is, at best facetious."  (Bowers v. Hardwick
>478 U.S. a86, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140 [1986]  The internal
>quotes refer to Palko v. Connecticut and Moore v. East Cleveland.

                  The Court is scoffing here not at the concept
                  of ordered liberty, but at the notion that
                  ordered liberty can be so stretched as to
                  imply that homosexual sodomy should be viewed
                  as "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
                  Not the same thing.

                  And now, in the history category:

>If the Founders had wished to create a society based on unfettered
>personal freedom in all aspects of behavior, they would have created
>Revolutionary France (which Jefferson, by the way, was wildly favorable
>toward, even after the fact).  They did not.  And the Republic has
>been the better for it.

WHAT??
What are you talking about? Are you saying that the French Constitution
is more libertine than ours? Or that Jefferson was a libertine?

                    NOT the French *Constitution.*  The French
                    *REVOLUTION.*  (I know they sound the same,
                    but they're not.)  The French Revolution was
                    a swamp of anarchy, violence, and death.  Then
                    came Napoleon I, the July Revolution of 1830
                    (which set up the monarchy of Louis Phillippe),
                    the February Revolution of 1848 (which tossed
                    him out), the Second Empire of Napoleon III,
                    the Franco-Prussian War (1870), the Third
                    Republic (1871-1940), the German Occupation and
                    the Vichy government, the Fourth Republic
                    (1946-1958), and the Fifth Republic (1958 on)
                    Not the same thing at all.
                                      --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:17:34 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Says Robert:
  "Makes you wonder how anyone could give any credibility to the phrase
`separation of church and state'.
  I think it is probably best to understand this appalling statement in
the context of the interesting posting about the effects of television
on the electorate. Far from representing "traditional values," Robert
is an amoral monster, perfectly willing to content himself with half-assed
misinformation if it is oversimple enough to dull the pain of modernity.
And he is willing to force-feed this hog slop to his poor innocent daughter,
calling this her "education". Above all, he wants to control how much
truth gets in the way of his ignorance, and he does this the same way
that most head-bangers do, by denying history.
  Like his hero (I don't doubt) Oliver North, he believes that accepting
Christ as his personal saviour gives him the right to use the U.S.
Constitution as his personal Toilet Paper. Or, in Robert's case, to
completely ignore this priceless document.
  The framers of the Constitution were not just prescient where conscience-
free scum like this were concerned, they were observant. There have always
been individuals who would rather have you suffer than inconvenience them-
selves with reality. The framers saw these motherfuckers coming, knew what
they were up to, and included the priceless wisdom in the Constitution
  "Congress shall make no law recognizing an establishment of religion"
This means that our system of law is OBLIGED to ignore religious expression
in every form, rightly leaving it to PRIVATE CONSCIENCE. The principle
couldn't be more clear: your religion is your business, you NEVER have the
right to use the state to inflict it on anyone else..
  But those on the list who know right from wrong already know this, and
are well aware what the Roberts of the world are trying to pull. For twelve
years we have had a government that  systematically makes a mockery of
morality; hydrophobic jerks like Robert are merely a symptom. Let us hope
that November proves it's still not too late for a free society.
Michael Morse
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:55:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Elizabeth Holtzman: Request for info

   I'm doing a report on Elizabeth Holtzman, who is running for the NY
Democratic primary for the US Senate race.  Anyone who knows of where
I could get material on her or knows anything of interest about her
would be doing be a big favor if they post such info.  Thanks for any
info available or regret for not having such info.

      -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:48:37 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>     The actual amount that each individual pays for the NEA each
>>   year makes it kind of a minor point to argue about.
>
>Really?  Then ELIMINATING the NEA is just a minor thing.  If the money
>wasn't important, it wouldn't be protected so vehemently.
>
>        hey, to me (and hence to just about everyone) $.64 ain't
>        a whole lot.

Then why did you people scream about the $2k coffee pots?  The
individual share of those was much less, yet suddenly its the
total spent, not each individual's share.

>        i mean, you might still be able to find some
>        penny candy for that much, but its getting rare.

So?  Why shouldn't that be MY decision?  Moreover, it obviously can't
buy much art either.

>        to a large number of galleries and museums, it means the
>        difference between solvency and bankrupcy.  and for a large
>        number of artists, it is the difference between being able
>        to be an artist or be a gas station attendant who does art
>        as a hobby.

So?

If you think said gas station attendant's art is important, YOU pay
for it.  I'd rather spend my money on art I value; why should I have
to pay for someone else's art instead of my art?

>Or, maybe everyone in the US should give me $1.  After all, it's only
>a buck, and it's only once, and I'll be so much better off afterwards.
>
>        actually (and i made this point almost a year ago) you
>        really only need a penny from each of them.

That's because you have inexpensive plans.

>        and i still think that its a good idea

When can I expect my money?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:38:26 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>>For example, the voucher amount could depend on end-of-previous-year
>>test scores; lower scores get more money.  Bad schools wouldn't get
>>repeat biz because their students would be sucked away.
>
>Lower scores get more money?  Hmmmm. I'll bet there's going to be some
>real competition amongst the schools to figure out a way to get negative
>scores on tests to increase their funding.

Since they wouldn't get that money, why would they compete it this way?
The test score determines how much NEXT year's school will get, not
how much the school that was involved gets.

Joe and Andy both go to school Y.  Joe gets a 6 on the end-year
test while Andy gets a 4 so Andy's voucher is "bigger" than Joes.

If Andy's parents care, they have more money to open the doors of the
better schools in the area.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Bad v. Harmful
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:35:04 GMT

KAT,

I understand less now than I did before you explained!

>Maybe I wasn't clear the first time, so I am gonna give it one
>more try.
>
>Let's examine if the following action is bad or harmful.
>
>              Dropping X in somebody else's Y.

Well obviously, there is no way to tell if this action is bad.
There is also no way to tell if this action is harmful.

For example, dropping a candy wrapper in someone else's garbage can
is not bad.  Neither is it harmful.  I mean, that is one of the reasons
people have garbage cans... so that people who come by for a visit can
drop trash in them!

On the other hand, dropping nuclear waste in someone's flower bed
IS bad, and IS harmful.  So I agree with you that it is impossible
to tell from the example if a given action is harmful or bad.  But
I still don't see the distinction you are trying to make between the
two!

>I am saying there is no way to find out whether something is
>bad without knowing if is harmful.  But it is quite easy to
>determine if something is harmful without knowing whether it
>is bad?

You are asking me?  *grin*  

>That's it.  Maybe I should have emphasized on the recognition
>of bad and harmful rather than on their independent existence.

I still don't see it.  How about if you enumerate the 4 cases and
either give an example for each of them or say that you think that
they are impossible.

(good, not harmful)
(bad , not harmful)
(good,     harmful)
(bad ,     harmful)

I think I understand that you are more concerned with KNOWING whether
an action is (good/bad/harmful/not harmful) than whether or not the
action actually IS.  I don't understand the usefulness of the distinction
anyway.

I think that maybe there is some distinction which could be made.
But I'm not sure your terminology clarifies things much.

--Jimbo



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 08:37:34 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      1% Tax Cut

Just a quick note that Bush's 1% tax cut is much less
progressive (I know some of you are saying, "so?") than
his earlier proposal to give a tax rebate (yes, rebate)
of $300 per child (or was it per person?).

Even for me the older proposal was much better.  But say
it would come even for my family.  That means any family
with a income less than mine will get even less and any
family with an income more than mine would get more.

And I remember I was alone in liking Bush's original
proposal and many of you dismissed it.

I told you so.   :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:02:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: let's rephrase the question

Will the descendants of those people who sniffed coke with their
pinkies grow up with gigantic pinkies?

CM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:53:36 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: let's rephrase the question

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>
>Instead of me explaining why homosexual partnerships should have the same
>legal standing as heterosexual partnerships, why doesn't someone explain to
>me why heterosexual partnerships get those legal benefits in the first
>place.  That is, what compelling state interest is promoted by things like
>special tax filing categories, spousal job benefits, etc.?  What is the
>overall purpose of providing these benefits?

That's a good question. But it's important to see that the other
question, which is a question of equal treatment, is of independent
importance.

Let's suppose that it is a bad idea to have legal recognition of
marriage, that there is, in fact, NO compelling state interest
in so recognizing certain contractual unions (above and beyond
the legal enforcement of the contract as though it were any other).

Bad ideas are not, as a rule, unconstitutional. States are allowed
to pass dumb laws, laws which serve no useful purpose, laws which
actually thwart the purposes they are supposed to promote, etc.
Part of the reason that they are allowed to do that is that there
is substantial and reasonable disagreement about what kinds of
measures will promote what kinds of purposes, and also about what
kinds of purposes are worth promoting. (That said, it's undeniable
that lots of state laws really are dumb, and that legislatures
should have known better.)

For example, it may be that raising state income tax is a bad
idea. But, arguably, it ought to be up to the democratic branch
of a state government to make that decision. The people, so to speak,
are entitled to make bad laws.

BUT, they are not entitled to make laws that violate the rights of
others. A dumb state income tax doesn't in itself violate someone's
rights. But if the tax is levied on yachts and not on trucks, simply
because there is a popular prejudice against yachtsmen, that tax
DOES violate someone's right, namely, the right of equal protection.

So, one might object mildly to the legal recognition of marriage,
while objecting much more strenuously to discriminatory recognition
of some kinds of marriage, a discrimination rooted in prejudice
against certain kinds of lives and preferences.

I once heard Guido Calabresi, dean of Yale Law School, argue that
if a state wanted to require that every citizen donate one kidney
to an organ bank (the hypothetical situation was one in which some
kidney disease was epidemic), it could do so; but that if it wanted
to require that each black male donate a kidney, that would be
unconstitutional. I kind of liked his argument.

>Kerry
>(welcome back, Derrick!!!!!)

Jamie
(welcome back, Derrick.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:03:47 CDT
From:         There is No Answer <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      re: homosexuality

>Dave:

>Is Moeller worse than Dahmer?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

>(This is an open-book, take-home test.)

Is Zodiac worse than Dahner? Is Zodiac worse than John Wayne
Gacy? Is Gacy worse than the Vampire of Dusseldorf, Ed Gein
or Jack the Ripper?

What are you getting at by asking this question?

>--Missy P 2 B Back 2 School

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:03:01 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      vote early, vote often

I think that it is time for us to vote on the list idiot or jerk or
whatever the post was that Robert and Travis were running neck and neck
on. Any volunteers for poll takers?

The various tickets have been strangely quiet in recent days. Should we
take a poll to give the list members a feel for the front runners and
the dark horses in the virtual election?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:28:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  to Missy

>Daniel:
>
>Let us be fair.  Robert does not assert that Christianity is the *only*
>moral code.  He contends that it is the only moral code that is
>legitimate in the eyes of God.

        What makes God's moral code any better than anybody
else's moral code.  (I suspect the answer is probably going to
be that "God's moral code is the only right or correct moral
code--everybody else is mistaken.)

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:34:07 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A correction to Andy on the Environment
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:26:45 CDT The Truth (some assembly required) said:
>>Corn producers don't eat/sell their seed corn when the price goes up;
>>why would elephant producers be any different?  Only starving people
>>kill THEIR golden goose, others protect it, milk it, and breed more.
>
>Actually, the hybrid seeds used by American corn farmers cannot be
>used as seed corn. Think of it as a biological "copy-protection,"
>forcing the farmers to buy more next year. I personally think a
>good conspiracy theory could be hooked in, explaining the death
>of the family farm, but then again, I'm paranoid.

"Help! Help! The paranoids are after me!"


I think it could be better argued the "cell energy" is devoted to
growing a high yield, high quality crop rather than divert itself to
the ability to reproduce.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU