From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:11:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
=steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
=
=>In article <AWERLING.92Aug31172210@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
=
=> Reread Bill Bennets speech at the convention. Family Values means relying on
=>your family members and surrounding neighbors for support, counsel and guid-
=>ance and not expecting a big government socialist program to cure all the
=>problems you have. It also means establishing a set of traditions or values
=
=However, there is nothing wrong with pooling resources for the benefit of
=the entire society.

No there isn't unless the society does not believe that the resources pooled
will be used for society's benefit.

=>within your family which you think are important. 
=>These values can vary from family to family but must be based on a foundation
=>of ideals. These ideals can be very simple. Don't steal, murder, use racism et
=
=Thats not exactly true.  Stealing is okay if you are the government and you 
=are stealing property that may have been purchased with drug money or may
=have been used to transport drugs - even though you don't have a shred of 
=evidence.

Aw, I thought you were going to give a more appropriate example of taxation.
The government takes what it did not work to receive, and there's plenty of
evidence for that! That's a more appropriate example than the impounding of
people's possessions that were purchased allegedly via drug money.

=And murder is okay if it is done by a member of the Armed Forces, and if
=the victim is someone the government has decided should be murdered.

Supposedly, the US is not in the business of assassinating world leaders.
(Whether you believe that or not is up to you.) On the other hand, murder
is not "okay" if it is done by a member of the Armed Forces, just as a
woman who has a gun commits "murder" if she shoots and kills an assailant.
Just because I'm in the Army (which I'm not) and you aren't doesn't mean
I have a higher priviledge to kill you.

Now, yes, I know what you mean. You mean in the context of combat and war.
Well, a soldier does not attempt to murder any one specific person; the
soldier is trying to defeat "the enemy." This is not murder in the more
"civilized" sense of the word which you are trying to invoke. This is
more like "homicide": killing a person just because he/she is there rather
than killing him/her because of any one specific thing he/she did. (My
definitions. I don't have a dictionary to quote you.)

=Thank goodness, I don't think the government has come up with an excuse for
=racism, but I'm probably wrong about that one.

Well, setting quotas and hiring people just because their presence will
fulfill those quotas is definitely a "legitimate" excuse for racism,
sexism, and any other -ism you could think of. And that's more than just
plain legal... it's being encouraged!

=Anyway, the point is, there really is no foundation of ideals.  But the
=government pretends that there is.

Boy, the government having standards! What a concept! (And I don't mean
"standards" like how long a meter is either!)

=>etc. The family unit can pass its value system along with is fortune down to
=>succeding members.Eventually the family becomes economically secure and might
=
=Yes, that value system is, work hard, do what you're told, keep your nose 
=clean, mind your own business, pray that a beaurocratic screw-up doesn't
=end up screwing up your life, lay low, be homogenous, 
=and hope that your retirement and social security benefits will 
=be there when you get old.
=
=What kind of life is that?

It's a lot better than waiting for things to happen, self-pity, dependence
on a faceless institution that would rather care less, and shouting how
wrong everything is without seeing what's right.

=>even free itself from the bondage of labor. They still will have to pay taxes
=>though. At least for now.
=
=So everyone's goal is to be filthy rich?  I don't think so. 

What do you think people want to have as a goal? Would you like to be
better off tomorrow than you are today?

=Bill Bennet should run a workshop on Family Values for the GOP.  If this is
=the official definition of "Family Values", you and Bennet seem to be the
=only ones who know it.

If a workshop needs to be done, it should be run for the entire country, not
just the GOP.

=Bush/Quayle seem to be making up the definition as they go along.  However, 
=even though you don't seem to see this, one message rings loud and clear:
=the only families that are acceptable are 2 parent, heterosexual, families.
=Every other type of family has been denounced by Bush/Quayle.

I will type Bill Bennett's speech in a later post. I have not heard that
Quayle denounced single parenting with regards to Murphy Brown, but he
attacked that "cultural elite" that is glorifying single motherhood as an
attack against men: "women don't need men for anything" is what I keep seeing
in "Murphy Brown" (which I do watch on a regular basis because it's good
comedy). I don't recall where Bush has attacked single parents either. I
do know they are not in favor of granting homosexual couples a live-in
status that is equivalent to "marriage."

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my life.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections