Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:53:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Some replies...

Boy, a few days off sure makes a world of difference!  I must have
sent the wrong command to the LISTSERVER, since when I came back there
was a pile of messages...oh well, time to respond to a few of them....

Dr. Pizz leads off:

>To reiterate my feelings about the law, I feel that people have the
>right to do whatever they want to, without hurting anyone else, but
>that doesn't mean a private business has to hire them.  Remember, the
>key word here is PRIVATE. If I own a company, I should be able to
>hire whoever I waant to, and make rules governing conduct, etc, as
>long as everything is stipulated out front.

Does Dr Pizz mean that private companies can make ANY rules of
conduct, as long as they're stated up-front?  So, the boss gets to
have sex with employees during lunch, as long as those employees know
this before signing on?  Employees have to kickback 20% of their
salaries, under the table, to the management - as long as it's
understood from the start?

I tend to think people like this are the reason we have such
comprehensive laws governing private workplace conditions.  Perhaps
Dr Pizz's great-grandfather owned the Triangle Shirtwaist Company?

>                                                        If Jimmy
>the Greek can be fired for making the statements he did, or Marge
>Schott could be suspended from baseball for her staatements, then
>clearly a business can refuse to hire someone because he practices
>homosexual sex, as long as the person is made aware of it in advance.
>Granted, these rules can sometimes be vague, and leave some things to
>the employer's discretion, like Marge Schott and baseball, or Jimmy
>the Greek and CBS.

Is maintaining a consistent Public Relations image the same thing as
sexual-preference discrimination?  No?  Thought not.  If some major
corporation signs a contract with an individual, and that contract
calls for certain public-appearance details to be met, then that's one
thing.  To say "I don't think homosexuality is right; therefore, if
you practice homosexuality in the privacy of your own home, you won't
get a job with me" is quite different.  It's interesting that these
examples are used; what Marge and Jimmy have been accused of is very
similar to what Dr Pizz advocates: discriminatory words and actions
based upon irrelevant criteria.  Hmmmmmm....

>                   If an individual signs a contract with a morals
>clause in it, then he should be bound by it, and be prepared to be
>fired if questionable activity is on his mind...
>
>--Pizz

Huh?  Now Dr Pizz would fire someone who THINKS about questionable
morality?   Forget about what you _do_; now I'll get you for what you
may be THINKING of doing.

**********************************************************************
Next, Jimbo responds to my education initiative:

>>        3.  Discovery:  the world around us - what it feels like;
>>what it sounds like; what it looks like (without the pressure of
>>memorization/production).

>This sounds like science. If you only meant to say that the subject
>matter should be presented in as optimal a fashion as possible, then
>I'm quite sure that no one would disagree. I think that children
>ought to be exposed to the pure joy of the intellect as early and as
>often as possible. I don't see why we should keep children in the
>dark about math, science, history, etc. until the 5th grade!

Where we disagree is that the "pure joy of the intellect" is not the
exclusive domain of 100-year old public school subject criteria.  In
fact, there's hardly anything "pure" about the subjects kids learn in
the primary grades.  It's a waste of time trying to produce kids who
can memorize times tables and who know what "wampum" was - but who can't
write about those things in coherent sentences; who can't solve a
personal problem with a peer; who comprehends little of their daily
world.

>                                                                Kids
>are ready and eager to learn, if and when we give them an appropriate
>environment. I think that logic (or at least informal 'thinking and
>reasoning') should be taught VERY EARLY in school.

I think I advocated a similar approach with problem solving,
communication, community concerns, etc.  Are you saying that through
the current history, science, math, etc. classes, kids are learning
"thinking and reasoning"?  Have you been inside a primary or secondary
classroom as a _non-student_ recently (no insult intended; just
avoiding some poster who's fresh from "JFK High")?

>                                                      'Give a kid a
>fish...'    This sort of thing might help to avert the shocking
>abject intellectual poverty that we so often see exhibited on this
>list.
>--Jimbo

Kind of exactly what I was going for...to use your analogy, what we
currently do is to make kids memorize Seafood Restaurant Menus instead
of teaching them how to catch the prize salmon.  I think we both want
to see education work; what about education's goals?  What should they
be?  Looking forward to replies....
**********************************************************************
A few questions next.....

Someone posted this; I forget who:

>                Income and Expenditure by Quintile
>
>                Income before taxes             Average ann. expend.
>                =============================================
>
>Lowest 20%      $ 5,720                         $12,119
>Second 20%       13,894                          17,616
>Third 20%        23,856                          24,476
>Fourth 20%       37,524                          34,231
>Fifth 20%        75,406                          53,093

Only question I have is: has anyone factored in accumulated personal
debt in all this?  I know I spend a heck of a lot more than I "earn"
in a year; I "borrow" money (credit cards, car loans, etc.).  And, I
have to pay off those loans with interest.  So my output ALWAYS
exceeds my income! Don't know if this matters at all, but thought I'd
ask the experts....
**********************************************************************
>blackmun is gone, the day clinton takes office. the next justice will
>be laurence tribe, who is (i think) at harvard law school. mario will
>not be nominated this time around. the next opening, maybe. if
>rhenquist departs the court, kennedy or o'connor will be the next
>chief justice.
>rtf

Another question for the experts....are Chief Justices always chosen
from the ranks of Associate Justices? I thought that the new appointee
becomes the new Chief if it's the Chief who's retiring....
**********************************************************************
Ah yes, then Robert...always, then Robert...

>                                                             You say
>that a baby, only inches from daylight, can be summarily executed by
>shoving scissors through its head and this is entirely acceptable.  I
>find it both sad and sickening that anyone could say such a thing.

This comes from an earlier example that is either hard to believe or one
that Robert misrepresented; I know that it's part of Anti-Choice Lore
that fetuses are "killed" right up until the tenth month.  I also know
that it's horseshit.  The issue is not one of a "baby, only inches
from daylight"; it is one of an _unviable fetus_.  Abortions are not
performed after fetuses are viable, i.e., capable of being sustained
out of the womb by medical devices.

>              I still contend that if removing an appendage from the
>fetus results in a child without that same appendage, the connection
>is all too obvious.  That is except for those who feel threatened by
>admitting to the wanton destruction of 20+ million children.  I
>suppose in your shoes, I would stick to my argument rather than
>owning up to my culpability.
>---Robert

So now Robert assigns blame; if you are Pro-Choice, you are culpable
for the "wanton destruction of 20+ million children".  Does he accept
blame for all the deaths caused by Christianity?

And another thing:  maybe it's not 20+ million "children"; maybe it's
20+ million "elderly".  I mean, if that's what they would _become_,
eventually, then why not come out and admit it, Robert?  How about 20+
million "caskets full of dust"?  Or, for the Eastern Spiritualists on
the list: 20+ million "flowers"?

>I am also saying that you are only a small step from being described
>as the street vernacular of a rectum.

Uh, Rob, if you meant to be sarcastic about calling him an <asshole>,
then I believe the word you're looking for is ANUS.  Two quotes,
unavoidably, come to mind:

        "It Pays To Enrich Your Word Power",  and "Know thyself".

**********************************************************************
>From:         dcse10630@TOPCAT.BSC.MASS.EDU
>Subject:      Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
>The drugs (protagladins) used in association with RU486 have not been
>approved and it would take 3 years for FDA approval. Long term
>effects of the drug are not know.  The pill will be abuse and used
>after the recommended 7-9 wks of gestation. the effects of this are
>unknown.

Since the pill can only be prescribed by physicians, I am curious to
discover what you mean by "abused".

>Also some cases of excess bleeding has led for the need for
>instrumental intervention and transfussion.  I am personally opposed
>the pill on medical and ethical grounds but regardless from a medical
>and chemical standpoint caution is warranted.

I can understand being opposed on personal grounds, but what are your
medical/ethical grounds surrounding RU486?  And when have you
lately witnessed a medical procedure performed legally wherein caution
was NOT warranted?
**********************************************************************
>WHAT???
>"If a damaged fetus results in a damaged baby, they are the same."
>I would try to state the new Robert's Rule that licenses this
>inference, but I can't imagine what it is. For example, I cannot
>attribute even to Robert the acceptance of this principle:
>
>   If a damaged X results in a damaged Y, they are the same.
>Jamie

OK, I'll bite:
- If a damaged caterpillar results in a damaged butterfly, they are
  the same.
- If a damaged vehicle results in a damaged passenger, they are the
  same.
               How far do you want to take this?

- If a damaged meal results in a damaged romantic encounter, they are
  the same.
- If a damaged reputation results in a damaged list personae, they are
  the same.
**************************************************************************
The one (only?) thing this posts proves, unequivocally, is that there
hasn't been much to which to respond on the list lately.

-T.

1964:
Goldwater campaign slogan:  "You know in your heart he's right."
Johnson campaign response:  "Yes, far right."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU