HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 14:00:39 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

-andy, and also Missy J :)
>>               My primary question about private school vouchers is
>>really one of principle:  we don't (as far as I know) provide federal funds
>>for private roads, private security forces, private parks . . . so why
>>should we provide them for private schools?
>
>But, we do provide federal funds for people to buy food from private
>food producers, shoes from private shoe producers, and so on.  (BTW -
>We do use public funds to pay private security forces.  On a different
>note, we usually use public forces when we provide security for
>individuals, but not always.)  We pay private firms to build public
>roads, parks and so on.  So much for the principle.

Um, kind of.  Let me try to clarify.  For some types of goods and services,
the feds provide (all of? most of?) the funding using taxpayer dollars.  I
guess the idea is that everyone should have access to the goods and
services, and this is the best way to provide them.  In the case of schools
, the feds and states provide the funds to build the buildings (using
private contractors? I don't know), provide the materials, and pay the
teachers.  And everyone has access to those schools.  This is *not* the
same as providing assistance for folks to buy food and housing (as I
pointed out once before).

In the case of roads, I guess the feds/states provide the funds and let
private companies build them.  But, having provided the funds to build an
interstate, they're not going to give a group of citizens *extra* funds to
build a private interstate, right?

Now, it seems to me that giving vouchers for private school would be OK *if
* we changed the education system such that either (1) the funds were given
to individuals, and private providers were allowed to compete for those
dollars or (2) funds were provided via competitive bidding among private
providers.  And in both cases, those would be the only education dollars
spent.  This would provide for the kinds of competition folks talk about,
and would get around the problem of double-funding.

The question, then, is would "privatizing" education in either of the ways
above really help.  Would increased competition lead to lots of good
schools, such that everyone had access to a good one?  Or would it lead to
a few good ones and lots of not-so-great ones?  Also, to what extent would
"private" schools (still being funded primarily through tax dollars) be
required to guarantee constitutional protections?

I'd really like to hear what folks think about this.

Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Holtzman: Request for info
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:26:17 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <01GOJ7MTDT6A001P4I@vassar.edu> Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET> writes:


>Liz Holtman was campaigning at Wigstock yesterday--a drag queen festival
>held in Tompkins Square Park.  All of the candidates are really pouring
>it on for the September 15 primary.

There was also a piece in Newsday yesterday on Holtzman's challenging Ferraro's
commitment to the pro-choice camp. Seems Ferraro once prosecuted someone for
performing an abortion at home. This seems a bit specious to me. Being against
performing open heart surgery with a putty knife in the rec room doesn't mean
an opposition to medical care.

Last week I was rushing for the Broadway local at 96th to get to work and 
nearly knocked over a camera person filming Holtzman greeting the peepul. I
mean, campaigning is all very well and good, but you don't have the crew stand
in front of the turnstile during the morning rush. She may well have lost my 
vote right there. My SO ( and wife as of this Saturday, BTW ) replied to her
chirpy "Hi, I'm Liz Holtzman!" with "How nice for you. Get out of my way."

>...Rick

--John Mignault
  jbm@panix.com
 "Dan Quayle: Airhead Apparent" is now available at a fine bookstore near you.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:52:18 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Jason:
>Having read many posts at once(over 400) I am now going to
>respond to a few.
>
>On this issue of overpopulation:
>
>We are still overpopulating even though we have the
>physical/geographic space.  We are using up more resources
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>than are being replinished.  If this isn't overpopulation,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't know what is.
>
>j.b.

Duh, isn't this overconsumption ?

D.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:46:55 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

 *** Resending note of 09/15/92 10:44

 >   As a Christian, and as niether a homosesexual nor a bigot towards them, let
 >me state the following, and then drop this topic:
 >
 >  If we are to disscuss morality in this forum, we must assume that it has
 >a place in politics.  I'd argue that *any* infusion of religious morality into
 >our political system is against the nature of our government.  If our society
 >continues to  paint gays as scape-goats for our problems, then it is doomed to
 >a lack of cooperation and compromise within government and society in general.
 >Morality should not be legislated by the government, but decided by indivuals.
 >That is what is so repealing and scary about the "Family Values" thing that
 >     Bush is using now.
 >
 >Martin Fox

 Martin,

 Also, as a Christian and neither a homosexual nor a bigot towards them,
 let me state the following, and *THEN* we'll see if it gets dropped.

 Morality *DOES* have a place in politics!  How can it not?  Do you vote
 without knowing why?  Do you never consider the character of the candidate?
 I know that it matters for me, and hopefully most others, what a candidate
 thinks about crime, family, abortion and any of hundreds of other topics.
 I feel better knowing that the one I want to vote for is not a convicted
 criminal.  I also feel better if their values are near to my own.

 Whether you consider yourself to be using religion in making your decisions
 doesn't matter because like it or not *you are*.  Your religion may be
 Christianity, Islam or Atheism.  It doesn't really matter.  Your reasoning,
 your beliefs, your values and your votes are determined by your *morality*
 which is determined by your *religion*!  Politics and morality (religious
 values) are inseparable.

 I haven't seen or heard anyone painting gays as some form of scape-goats.  I
 have witnessed and taken part in relating the truth about homosexuality.  It
 is wrong.  Admittedly, my morality evidently tells me something different than
 yours does you.  Still, our respective moralities have caused us to see
 homosexuality, and many other areas, in a different light.  We will most
 likely vote differently based upon these different morality concepts.  I
 would have a hard time supporting one favoring gay rights, while you would
 most likely have the opposite problem.

 Morality is here to stay.  Yours, mine and theirs may all be different, but
 we all have it and we all use it.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:40:55 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Chris:

I will be glad to reveal my gender.  But first, I'm curious.  What
makes you wonder?  Is it just the name, or does it have something to
do with my positions?  (writing style, perhaps?  Evident lack of
other important things to do?)

Actually, I am rather pleased that you ask.  It makes me think
perhaps I am not as typable (sp?  Is this even a word?) as I think
I might be.

--Kerry the Unknown (at least to Chris; perhaps I should change my
   name to "Pat?"  -- SNL joke (for those outside the cultural elite)
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 15:06:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

> Ok, I get it.
> Here is what I was thinking. Given Jimbo's theory of what is
> a harm, we can determine which things are harmful without making
> any further evaluative judgments.  However, it is probably true
> that what Jimbo said about harm is itself an evaluative theory.
> So, using *it* instead of some other is in a sense making an
> evaluative judgment.

        I'll buy that.


> I should have appreciated the distinction in Richard's post-
> ings, because it is one that pops up unnoticed in the theory
> of judicial review, which I've been thinking about recently.

        Tell me if this might be what you've been thinking about.
There are those who argue that the judge should never make moral
judgments in deciding a case, that instead he should apply the
law as written in making a judgment.  This is to be distinguished
from "judicial activism," where the judge appeals to moral prin-
ciples in deciding a case.

        However, one can question from where comes this "obli-
gation" to apply the law as written.  It is not a legal obliga-
tion; it is highly unlikely that the judge who does not apply
the law as written in hard cases is going to suffer criminal
charges as a result (except in extreme cases).  It seems to make
more sense to say that the obligation to apply the law as written
is a moral obligation.  But then this involves an appeal to a
moral principle in deciding the case.

        What we have is not a dispute between whether to make
moral appeals in deciding a case, but a dispute between which
moral obligations are valid with respect to deciding a case.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu

        P.S.  If not, I would still be interested in your
opinion, and your evaluation of the above thought.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:49:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

How about if each taxpayer got to *keep* that 1/4 of a cent (and a lot
more besides) and buy and sell whatever art, architecture, literature,
drama, and entertainment he or she prefers?

--Missy P 2 B

*****************

good idea.  i think that with my $.0025 i'll build a new skyscraper
here in philly.  oh? costs too much?  how about commissioning a statue
for rittenhouse square?  no?  uh.  i'll buy an original mapplethorpe!
oh.  to much too. damn.  i guess i'll just catch a movie, i guess.

there still are $.0025 movies, aren't there?

see, i think that it is a matter of concentrating the money into a single
place for distribution.

bnir
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:48:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates

The thing about the interest rates being low is that they're really high
in Germany and this is what caused the dollar to drop against the mark, and
in fact the dollar has been doing quite badly, although I have not read
enough to comment intelligently.  But as long as it does not directly
threaten his reelection, Bush will not do anything to keep the dollar
from falling.  People in Europe (at least those that are on the shortwave)
are wondering how the fall of the dollar can be the object of such little
interest in America.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:46:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Teenage rave.

>>hey, what is "rave" music??


>Rave music is ultra-dance music. Deee-lite is probably the closest

oh no sounds like revenge of disco.
i have to go home and find my kids and drill them on the evils of this thing.
uh...does this have anything to do with umbros? my littler boy wants them,
but i don't know what they are. could he already be lost to me?

15 min. til beer

have a nice wkend guys!

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:43:13 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re:War Between the Jasons

Hello all,

Finally a sane day, maybe the vast majority of students also took Tuesday
off.  We will see.

Concerning the 'marriage' between homosexuals...

Are there not homosexual marriages already?  There are actual homosexual
unions complete with wedding and reception activities that have been shown
on videos.  It seemed that these homosexual marriages were performed by
a minister.

While I also agree that a homosexual marriage is wrong morally and Biblically,
they are performed, and are not restricted.  I have even heard the term
'partnership' instead of the word 'marriage' applied to homosexual unions.
This term I just heard the past week.

Still, there are these 'partnerships' that do exist between members of the
same gender and they are still performed, the state and court are not
stopping them.  Though I agree with the law that a homosexual union is no
a legitimate marriage, yet they are still happening.
Though I agree with the law that this is not a legitimate marriage, yet they
So how can homosexuals say they are being discriminated against when they
are performing them anyway?

Sue Clark
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, 7 Sep 1992 19:31:34 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

Hi, Dunstan and Missy J:

>When you speak of "Active Citizenship," it sounds a lot like what we
>call "civic responsibility"--another thing that used to be standard
>teaching in schools that has fallen by the wayside.

It's still being taught, at least in my daughter's school.

>Your examples indicate people who do not care enough to become involved
>in governing themselves and therefore require governing.

Well, let's be a bit fair.  Consider the female student who took the time
to attend a meeting (I think it was the All College Council, but our pres.
has so many committees I get confused) at which safety issues would be
discussed.  The specific issue was lighting for the new parking lots 'way
down at the south end of campus (most night classes are held at the north
end, naturally).  Now, I admit this woman spoke for longer than necessary.
But what response did she get?  The vice president in charge told her she
was wrong to feel concerned over her safety, that she was perfectly safe,
and that if she felt unsafe, that was her problem.

Wonder what she'll do next time someone advertizes a meeting at which her
"input" is desired?

>Conclusion?  Students as a whole do not care whether there are more
>lights on campus or not, and have *no* interest in telling the police
>how to do their jobs.  Therefore, those who are charged with making
>those decisions are free to do so without consulting the students.

I agree that this is probably often the case.  But my own experience of
practicing civic responsibility on three college campuses in three states
suggests that, when those in charge of making decisions do so *in spite* of
what the students (citizens) want, they are contributing to the problem.

>I am not saying that people have to vote.  But if they refuse to even
>inform those who are governing them of their opinion, they have an
>obligation to take whatever they get and shut up about it.

I keep trying to explain to my students (and my fellow faculty) that you're
only allowed to really scream about what's going on *after* you've tried to
work with the system to change things.  That goes over just about as well
as my scintillating discussions of respiration and photosynthesis :)

Kerry
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:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:35:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

>But anyway, many of our great composers (Tsikofsky, included, and
>yes, I know the spelling is WAY OFF, but this keyboard has no cyrillic
>figures B) lived on patronage, which means a lord or lady paid him
>to create the art, and the art went on to become national treasures,
>which added to the lady's reputation. Considering that only about
>64 of my last tax bill went to the National Endowment, I don't
>really mind all that much.


     The actual amount that each individual pays for the NEA each
   year makes it kind of a minor point to argue about.  Add that to the
   fact that people like Mapplethorpe have a much smaller audience
   before the religious right goes after them than after, and it seems
   to me that all this screaming about where tax dollars are going is
   better directed at things like, oh, say, the stealth bomber.


         --G. Racz
     Is that a bomber on the radar?
     No, it's just a guy flying through the air in a seated position.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:04:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject: Re: getting blood from a turnip: an answer to kerry s.

SUNY New Paltz?  Go ahead, laugh!  I'm told that SUNY Binghampton and
SUNY Albany are a little better.  I'd like to try Columbia or Cornell
some day.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:58:44 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

   As a Christian, and as niether a homosesexual nor a bigot towards them, let
me state the following, and then drop this topic:

  If we are to disscuss morality in this forum, we must assume that it has
a place in politics.  I'd argue that *any* infusion of religious morality into
our political system is against the nature of our government.  If our society
continues to  paint gays as scape-goats for our problems, then it is doomed to
a lack of cooperation and compromise within government and society in general.
Morality should not be legislated by the government, but decided by indivuals.
That is what is so repealing and scary about the "Family Values" thing that Bush
    is using now.

Martin Fox
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:33:58 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Ah, yes, our religious friends; the fact that the argument is specious
doesn't deter them from piling on more "convincing" "detail"; perhaps
in the cargo-cult hope that going through the motions of an argument
vigorously enough will somehow magically make one, and generate truth?
  Alas, t'ain't so. You can pile up all the Christ-fellating quotes you
want from Franklin, without changing the nature of the problem. However
often the good founders may have delivered themselves of such theo-piffle,
even at the Continental Congress itself, what they did  *NOT* do was make
it a part of the American system of justice, and in fact went just the
opposite direction. The First Amendment is designed to keep lunatics from
inflicting their lunacy on others through the use of public institutions.
You are free to hound me at my doorstep with your drivel, and I am likewise
free to slam it in your face. You are NOT free to force my son and daughter
to learn it, nor even to subject them to peer-pressure embarassment while
other children indulge their favourite incantation silently.
  What I don't get is why you're so insistent on forcing your Jeezo-tripe
on other kids through the *schools*. Isn't the immensely powerful TV
buffoonery good enough for you? Look at all the millions Falwell, Swaggart,
and the Bakkers rack up for your boy every week, ain't that good enough?
And aren't you satisfied with a government that shares your 100% conscience-
free brand of amorality in Washington? Is your contempt for civilized order
so thorough-going that even the last vestiges of legal decency have to
give way to your fetishistic love of brutalizing others? How bad is it
with you?
Cordially,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:47:25 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      page runs the writ...takes a loss of 6 yards on the pretrial
              motion

well, page ended up opening a law practice, and has decided he'd like to
be a judge.  i guess it beats selling insurance or real estate.  there is
more to the story, but this is the 20-second version.

                                * * *anneliese "are you ready for some
                                     football?" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:11:57 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>  which is the way people learn.  Right now, we're stuck with a system
>  which doesn't work, because it does not concern itself with how
>  a child learns, but only with how to teach as many children as
>  possible.  Hence we are left with factory-style "education".
>  Until we rethink our entire approach to education, we'll continue to
>  have problems without solutions in sight.
>
Mhm.  Read an article last week, in US News as I recall, about education.
The author's contention was that there is a large hurdle around the 4th
grade when children stop learning to read and start reading to learn.
The estimate was that only half of the students make this quantum leap,
the rest struggle throughout their remaining academic careers.  This
should be one focus of revamped education.

I also like the idea of more teacher autonomy; more bottom-up hierarchy
rather than top-down.  Students aren't a homogenous bunch across the
country, across a geographic region, across a school districts, or even
from class period to class period.
    toddddddddddd
>
>G. Racz

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "If you can't learn it in
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   two hours, it isn't worth
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    knowing."  - LARE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU