HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:02:16 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This week's Chronicle . . .

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>I'd be interested in more information in the Hyde bill.  First, does it
>encompass private colleges as well as public (excluding religious ones)?

Yes. That's the point of it, in fact. The public ones seem to be covered
in all the relevant respects (barring surprise exceptions, turnabouts,
etc., by the Supreme Court) by the first amendment.

>Second, what is the "Hyde test" you mentioned (I'm assuming it's some sort
>of list of specific provisions or some such)?

Hm, let's see. I don't have the text. But it would outlaw college
rules that prohibit the use of various kinds of speech, popularly
called "hate speech" nowadays. I believe the wording is more general,
so that the approximate effect is supposed to be to make the first
amendment apply to private universities and colleges, "Private
universities shall make no rules restricting freedom of speech,"
that kind of thing.

>Finally, why do you oppose
>the bill?  Is it this one specifically you don't like?  Or is your
>objection more general?

It's more general.
I think universities should be thought of as laboratories, the private
ones at least. Aside from some lax standards for accreditation, they
should be left to make whatever preposterous rules they want, to
offer whatever silly courses they want, to pursue whatever educational
(or social) goals they judge worthy. Membership in a university is
voluntary. We don't object to codes of silence in monasteries, because
we figure they are associations of people who choose to forgo certain
liberties (like speaking) for the sake of the communal goals adopted
by the association.

Let me put it this way. I think some of Brigham Young's regulations
are really dumb. I think it's a terrible idea for a university to
regulate the hair length and caffeine habits of its students. But I
also think it's a bad idea for the federal government or a state
government to tell Brigham Young it cannot have those regulations.

I feel roughly the same way about speech codes. They aren't a good
idea, but the government should stay out of that business. The
reason has nothing to do with whether the university is religious
or secular. The right freely to associate belongs equally to
the religious and the profane.

Regulations of a voluntary association don't abrogate anyone's
rights. They may be stupid or counterproductive, but if they are,
that's a problem the association has to work out for itself.

Jamie
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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:33:18 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Human Life Amendment

Hi, Missy:
>I don't understand why anyone has problems with the idea of a Human
>Life Amendment.  Part of the design of the amendment process is to
>make it very very difficult to get one actually passed.  In the
>process, the national debate is engaged, the people have an
>opportunity to voice their opinions, and the will of the majority
>eventually becomes the law of the land.
>
>What's wrong with that?

Well, I can think of a couple of objections.  First, we seem already to be
engaged in a national debate on the issue.  It doesn't seem to be getting
us anyplace useful, i.e., we're not having much productive discussion about
things like how to reduce the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, how
to make it easier for folks (single parents or otherwise) to support
families, how to improve the chances for successful adoption, etc.  I don't
see how the amendment process would help.

Second, the "will of the majority" should not necessarily become the law of
the land.  The majority might favor policies that restrict the individual
liberties of various minority groups; our system of government is supposed
to prevent that from happening.

I really do wish the current debate were focusing on the things I mentioned
above -- I think we'd make a lot more progress.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:46:21 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Help! ! !

E.D. Hirsch is coming to speak next week and I will probably comment
either before or after about his speech in my editorial column.

Does anyone have an opinion of him?  He is the guy who came up with
the term "Cultural Literacy" and wrote the books thereon.

Any questions to ask him after his speech?  He will be talking
on education policy.

My column is entitled _The Scandalous Chronicle_.  This means that
essentially there are no holds barred.

Thanks,
j.b.
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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:14:20 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Mind boggling force

Hi, folks:
>Note that Carl has offered the right to use deadly force only
>to homeowners. Kerry K, you now qualify. Jimbo, you don't. Sorry.
>Actually, Kerry might not qualify, since she knows that an intruder
>in her house is not going to rape her spouse.

Kerry K. doesn't have a spouse.  Her d.p. is awfully cute, though :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:42:33 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         "Susan Heathers" <S0HEAT01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Please Help me un-sub!!!!!

      Journal of Urban Affairs and State Data Center
PHONE: 588-6626

Please tell listserv I want to un-sub!  Too much is too much

Susan Heathers
University of Louisville
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:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 13:13:53 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: misc. responses

My esteemed running-mate writes:

>I'm a bit curious about your concern that "the system" doesn't
>provide much support for people who adopt developmentally
>disabled and disabled children.  The people I have met in my
>studies who so adopted did not get any help from the system,
>nor did they expect it.  They most likely would not take it
>if it was offered.  It is their position that their family is
>their responsibility, and they work extremely hard to provide
>for those families.

Well, the article I read focused more on the psychological problems (like
emotional and behavioral disorders) likely to be encountered by adoptive
parents, particularly in cases when the adopted child already has a history
of multiple placements.  According to the authors (and the folks they
interviewed), the cost -- emotional and financial -- of dealing with these
problems can be quite high.  The parents (so they said) were often not
fully informed about the kinds of situations they'd be encountering.  When
problems arise, they have a hard time finding help (and paying for it).  In
fact, even identifying the problem (is it the kids? is it the parents?
whose fault is it?) can be tough. The result of all this is a large number
of "failures" -- kids get turned back to wherever they came from.  If
you're interested, I'll dig out the magazine and post some numbers.

>This is a very key difference between conservatives and liberals
>(as we use the terms today).  Conservatives believe that the job
>of the government is to see to it that there are no unreasonable
>obstacles (perhaps undue burdens?) in the way of effort.  Liberals
>believe that it is the job of the government to provide assistance
>to that effort.

Hmmm.  Interesting idea.  I'll think about it some more.  For now, though,
my point (I think) is that the system needs fixing in order to get at #1 --
so that folks who want to adopt don't face any more obstacles than they
need to (doesn't knowing the nature of the obstacles count in that scheme?)
.  But I might also argue (I haven't really made up my mind yet :)) that
placing kids in healthy, functioning families is a common good, so a bit of
collective cost-sharing might be in order.

Overall, the main point I wanted to raise was that, if we want adoption to
work effectively for the majority of kids who need it, we need to do more
than just make the paperwork more streamlined.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:46:52 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: i am so dismayed
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

kerry:
>linda:
>>anyway, do you know what they make the cards and notepaper and giftwrap out
 of?
>>
>>"post-consumer fibers".
>>
>>somehow i feel dismayed when i hear and read pc-isms from organizations of
 whic
>   h
>>i think highly. every time i hear unnecessary jargon, i feel like i'm being
>>given a load of bull.
>
>Maybe I can help end your dismay.  Really, they're trying to provide you
>with the maximum amount of useful information.  Assuming that what I've
>read about recyclables is accurate, it works kinda like this.  The word
>"recycled" (as in "contains recycled fibers") can refer to fibers (or
>whatever) that are by-products of other manufacturing processes.  In this
>case, the materials are really being "consumed" for the first time.  "Post-
>consumer" means the materials were used for something else *before* they
>got turned into wrapping paper etc.
>
>See?  Now you can order those wolf notecards and enjoy them free from the
>noxious cloud of pc-ism :)
>
>Kerry

By the same token, a significant amount of scrap metal is stuff which
never leaves the steelworks. Now, a certain amount of scrap is needed
in a steel melt (ask a metalurgist why), and as companies like mine
help steel companies reduce the amount of waste in the rolling process
(which is known as "home scrap"), they need to get more scrap from the
market place. Interesting, huh ?

Dunstan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx)
Subject: Re: Russia, Georgia, Poland, Germany, China and ..., (#766)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 15:17:02 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Valentine writes:

>The discussion about Bosnia versus Iraq on POLITICS, wherein there
>has been some decrying (again) about the lack of world interest in
>Bosnia because Bosnias has no oil while Iraq does. I tend to believe
>that this is only partially true, thereby agreeing with my friend on
>that list, Liese, who sees this analysis as too simplistic. 

I don't think there's any lack of world interest in Bosnia. Look at
the headlines... What you probably were trying to say is, why isn't
anybody doing anything to stop the violation of human rights in
Bosnia using the military, where as in the Iraqi case the West was 
responding right away? First, the nature of the conflict is a little
different. Secondly, the situation in Bosnia is complex. It's better
to have a second opinion first, before starting off with something we
might regret later on. And last but not least, the geopolitical
settings are different now.

>All the parties to the conflict have to
>negotiate a peace, and THAT is the challenge to the West over
>attempting to separate the warring parties by military force.

Theoretically, you are right of course. The best solution to the
conflict is to go into the villages and towns of Croatia/Bosnia and talk
with the parties to the conflict, local commanders, until you finally
reach an agreement. 

But to tell you the truth, I don't see this happen without any
apriori Western military involvement.

Constantijn
-- 
"Uta'lom az ege'sz huszadik sza'zadot" La'szlo' Lugosi/Fero' Nagy

Constantijn Wekx
email should be addressed to: mad-2@kub.nl
From: Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (rf35)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: morals
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:07:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

> *** Resending note of 08/28/92 12:12
>
> > Like it or not, homosexuality is perversion.  Homosexuals should never be
> > allowed custody of a child. (are we becoming friends yet?)
> >
> > ---Robert
>
> >>        Before making comments, I would like to express this argument
> >>in logical form.  Please tell me if I am mistaken in expressing the
> >>form of your argument as follows:
> >>
> >>        1) Homosexuality is a perversion.
> >>        2) No person who has a perversion should be allowed custody of
> >>                a child.
> >>        3) Therefore, no homosexual should be allowed custody of a
> >>                child.
>
> ...stuff deleted
> >>                                      Richard A. Fyfe
> >>                                      rf35@umail.umd.edu
>
> Rather than box myself in and take a broadside, we'll play this out on a
> "for instance" basis.  I stand by "homosexuals should not be allowed to
>  adopt".  Pick any justification you like.

> ---Robert

        Actually, you were already "boxed in," Robert.  I suspect that
the inadequacy of this response is apparent to everybody but you.  Im-
agine somebody depriving you of something of the same order of import-
ance as this and, when you ask for a reason, they say, "I stand by
'christians should not be allowed to adopt.'  Pick any justification
you like."

        Indeed, let us play this out.  I believe that christains
should not be allowed to adopt.  Pick any justification you like.

                                                Richard A. Fyfe
                                                rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:21:54 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Human Life Amendment

>Dave:

>No, sorry.  You must have missed it.  I am "Missy P 2 B" because I
>am going to be President when my running mate (Kerry other President
>in Waiting) and I win the virtual election.

That is what happens when your phone service gets cut off and then you
have to drive halfway across the continent: You miss out on the good
things in life. If the Double-Kerry ticket wins, will I get a cabinet
position, or hasn't there been a decision on that yet?

And sorry about any unwarrented wild guesses, Missy.

>--Missy P 2 B

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Maybe we should forget about marriage altogether!
              --Kerry Kilburn

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:34:51 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> From one that sees nothing wrong with reverse discrimination, I have a
> hard time accepting criticism of my answer concerning perversion.  Just
> so you can think you're having fun: Homosexuality(perversion) is wrong
> because it is contradictory to "G"od's word.

Ah, yes.
Reverse discrimination was yet ANOTHER issue about which Robert
made opinionated pronouncements, but was unable to give even
a single reason in support of his claims.

Aha! So now we have Robert in a corner. Or a box.
Homosexuality is wrong because it is contradictory to god's
word. There you go, Richard. The ball's in your court. You
owe me one.

Note that I am forgoing another golden opportunity for fun, because
Richard claimed this topic first. So obviously, *I'm* not an egoist.

> By the way, did you ever figure out that "coining" money was a federal
> and not a state level endeavor?

If Robert thinks I was ever confused about that topic, he should
reproduce or otherwise specify the post he's thinking of.

As I recall, Robert specifically claimed that the current
practice (by the fed) of coining money without a gold standard
is unconstitutional.... Maybe his reason for THAT ridiculous
position has something to do with the bible, too?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:42:48 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: morals

> Since when has taking responsibility for your actions fallen under the
> heading of hoisting morals?

Me taking responsibility for my own actions is one thing, you taking
responsiblity for my actions is another.

>
> >ok, and now, who thinks its selfish to have children you can't
> >take care of?
>
> The list of those awaiting adoptions grows longer every day.  Many now
> make private adoption arrangements.  Why can't this process be streamlined?
>

Do you think that there are actually 300 million people waiting to
adopt? I agree that the adoption process needs work. However,
outlawing abortion isn't going to be the catylist.

Gee, maybe if gay and lesbians could adopt...how do you feel about
that robert?  Or if it was easier for biracial families to adopt?
or white families to adopt non white children, and vice versa?

or do you think that only seemingly heterosexual couples should
be able to adopt all these non aborted little people?


Jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:03:22 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject: Re: morals

 *** Resending note of 08/31/92 11:11

 >        Actually, you were already "boxed in," Robert.  I suspect that
 >the inadequacy of this response is apparent to everybody but you.  Im-

 I doubt it.

 >agine somebody depriving you of something of the same order of import-
 >ance as this and, when you ask for a reason, they say, "I stand by
 >'christians should not be allowed to adopt.'  Pick any justification
 >you like."

 OK. I'm imagining school prayer.  I'm imagining Bible clubs in schools.
 I'm imagining Christmas manger scenes.  I'm imagining a right to life.
 Now what?

 >       Indeed, let us play this out.  I believe that christains
 >should not be allowed to adopt.  Pick any justification you like.
 >                                               Richard A. Fyfe

 I can't think of a justification for this.  What's yours?

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 09:25:30 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: To serve and protect?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 25 Aug 1992 10:01:12 EDT todd pukanecz said:
>for fun and profit.  Been going on for decades.  Police are less and
>less about solving crime and more and more about keeping order.

How are they to solve crimes when the ACLU et al spend all their time
looking for technicalities to get their clients off?  The issue(s)
in court seem not to focus on guilt/innocence, but whether a loophole
can be found to release the scum.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:12:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: it worked!
              27 Aug 1992 11:46:11 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

Please send me the Democrat party platform.  And if you can get
the text of either or both conventions, or the Republican platform,
let me know.

Thanks,

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:26:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

>All you sickos trying to solve the rape problem:
>
>Castration does *not* discourage rape, either physiologically or
>psychologically.  Rape can be performed with a variety of
>objects, and an angry psychotic man who can't have an erection is
>highly likely to be twice as dangerous after castration than
>before. That is not to say that castration prevents erection
>(however, it may cause psychological impotence--another stunningly
>bad idea for men who hate women.)
>
>Rape is not about sex.  It is about power and violence.
>
>I know.

        I posted on this before.  Rape, like all other activites,
has a plurality of causes and explanations.  There is nothing that
can be said which is true of all rapes or all rapists.  Though
there are those who commit rape as an act of violence, there are
others who are motivated to commit rape by a desire for sex.  Most
(but not all) rapists have a sexual orientation such that their
preference is for sex with an unwilling partner--combinging a
desire for sex and a desire for violence into a single urge.  In
these cases, castration--whether surgical or chemical--has an
effect in reducing the desire to have sex.  (Indeed, any pro-
cedure which will interfere with the normal interaction between
testosterone and receptors in the hypothalamus--either by removing
the producer of the testosterone, burning out the relevant parts
of the hypothalamus, or placing something in the receptors which
blocks interaction with testosterone (which is how medroxyprogest-
erone; a.k.a. Depro Provera works) will reduce the desire.

                                Richard A. Fyfe
                                rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:41:39 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: This week's Chronicle . . .

Kerry,
You do seem to have found some contradictions in the GOP platform,
specifically the planks on education. Kudos from the logic czar.

I was especially interested in this bit:

>increase flexibility from federal regulation."  "Too many government and
>union rules have burdened our schools."

I wonder if this is supposed to include colleges.
If so, then Henry Hyde will probably disagree. He is sponsoring a
bill that would prevent colleges from having so-called "speech
codes" as part of their regulations. That is, Hyde's bill imposes
more federal regulations on colleges.

A long aside:

It currently looks like state universities are already prohibited
from having speech codes, on first amendment grounds (plus
incorporation under the 14th amendment). I say it "looks" that way
because that's the way the Supreme Court seems to feel. So far,
private universities have not been judged to fall within the
scope of the first amendment. My GUESS (and I'm wary of guessing
how the current Court will rule) is that they will remain safe
from judicial intervention. So Hyde's bill would accomplish
something (namely, further regulation).

Most private universities believe that their current codes
would pretty much pass Hyde's muster. I suspect that several,
or actually many, religious universities and colleges would
fail the Hyde test, except that they are explicitly excluded
from the the Hyde regulations.

For the record, I strongly oppose the Hyde bill.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)