HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:32:29 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

> the right to strike without fear of loosing one's job.  Labor unions have
> evolved from useful tools for protecting workers into greed machines.  With
> unemployment of skilled workers at current levels, it is ridiculous that one
> could go on strike without being concerned that a *grateful* person would
> soon replace him.
>
>        an economic environment like today's is perfect for businesses
>        to cut employee's benefits, pay, and work conditions severely
>        (thus increasing profit), and if the employee dosn't like it,
>        s/he can easily be replaced.  job security is very low, and
>        the result is that the american worker gets screwed.

Jobs can't survive unless they produce more than they cost.  Strike
rules can't change that.  The choice isn't between a pay-cut and
paradise, it is between a pay-cut and a layoff.

>        it would be an interesting excercise to replace the word "guns"
>        with the word "drugs" in the above sentence.

That exercise shows that the Demos are at least as clueless as the
Repubs.

> public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.  This is without
> any restriction!  Just what we need, more taxpayer funds being spent to
> purchase bullwhips to shove up the rears of Mapplethorpes (sp) models.  As
> has been stated to many times to remember, REAL ART doesn't need artificial
> support!  Taxes  Taxes  Taxes
>
>        when was the last time you bought art supplies?

The supplies for my art are much more expensive than those for traditional
fine arts.  Does that mean I'm owed a subsidy?

>        yup.  still, i don't see how this will help the schools that need
>        help the most.  instead, it will give further support for schools
>        that are already doing ok, and do it by stripping that funding to
>        the schools that are already underfunded and in really bad shape.

It also strips students from them.  If they're really that bad, why is
replacing them such a horrible thing?

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:22:09 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Pennies From Heaven

Chris:

The NEA may fund a great many enjoyable things.  The fact remains that
they are not necessary, and we can no longer afford them.

Let those who want the art fund the art.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:50:05 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates

Merely informative.

Rick is, I think, essentially right about the word "gender." What he
left out was that the term has been co-opted to mean something LIKE
"sex" but not quite. It is a mystery to me what it is supposed to mean.
The co-optation may have been partly because folks wanted a word
for sex that didn't also refer to sexual activity.

As a matter of prescriptive diction, I suggest that the word "gender"
shouldn't be used to mean "sex." But the masses rarely follow my
suggestions.

>>What I like to know is how come the Federal Reserve Board's
>>discount rate is at an all time low of 3%, but the IRS keeps
>>charging high interest rates (in the vicinity of 9-12%?)
>
>>So Bush wants to charge the Banks 3% but the little guys
>>10%.  Another example of the Republicans/Bush being the
>>friend of the rich and powerful.     :-)
>
>Before pointing fingers, I'm curious who is really responsible for setting
>the rates?  Is it tied to some financial index, does it require
>Congressional intervention, etc.?  Why so quick to blame Bush?

The discount rate is set by the federal reserve board, whose chief
was appointed by Bush. Congress has nothing to do with it.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:43:08 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Jamie:

You state that "revealed truth isn't available to the public at large."
I cannot imagine where you could have gotten this idea (except perhaps
in college).

If, by "revealed truth" you are cutely referring to the Bible, I cannot
think of anything more available to the public at large.  Moreover,
the "public at large" tends to have a far greater respect for and
understanding of this "revealed truth" than you may think.

The only way to miss revealed truth is to close your eyes and hope it
goes away.  It won't.

--Missy P 2 B ("I once was lost, but now am found.  Was blind, but now
                I see.")
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Documenting your claims (was Re: Is homosexuality immoral?)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:38:31 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <01GONHFRLDOG000IAG@WABASH.BITNET>,         
ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET writes:
>>        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.)
> 
> Yeah, He only created the universe and everything in it.  

1) This assumes that this "God" person actually exists in the first place.
2) This assumes one "Creator".
3) This assumes that the Bible even vaguely resembles what this "God" person
thinks about anything.
4) This assumes that the entire Bible is what this "God" person thinks about
anything, rather than a mix of truth and fiction.

> Aside from that,
> He's no smarter than you or me (Yes, I'm being sarcastic).
> 
> Can you say "hubris?"

Aside from that, you've got a real good basis for morality there. (Yes, I'm
being sarcastic.)

If you want everyone to drop their morality and adopt your's on the ground that
"God" agrees with you, prove your above assumptions.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:53:56 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Hi, JasonZ, and thanks for the response:

>The 1st amendment prevents the state from establishing a church and it prevents
>the state from interfering with your religious practices.  It doesn't say that
>we can't use religion as a moral code when we have to appeal to such a code.
>
>For instance, I can think of no good non-religious reason why we should condemn
>prostitution.  Obviously, the only reason why prostitutes can't adopt is that
>policymakers appealed to religion as a moral code.  Would you support
>overturning such a policy on 1st amendment grounds, since it drags religious
>values into politics?
>
>I'm not posing this as an argument; I just want to see how you interpret the
>first amendment. :)

Interesting question.  I've given it a few minutes' thought, and here's
what I came up with :)  *If* prostitution has a detrimental effect (one
counter to the interest of the state -- like maybe prostitution leads to
increases in STDs that the state winds up paying for, or something), then
we do not need religious reasons to ban it.  Right?  If, on the other hand,
it has *no* detrimental effect (other than to appear immoral to some), and
*if* the only reason to oppose it is a religious doctrine, then . . . yep,
I'd say we have a first amendment-type reason to *not* to outlaw it.

Following that same reasoning, if prostitution can be shown to lead to harm
for the child (like maybe more violence, or whatever), then we don't need
religious reasons to prevent prostitutes from adopting.  If, on the other
hand, we have no evidence that prostitutes will be less able to rear and
provide for a child than a non-prostitute parent with similar background,
etc., then prostitutes should be allowed to adopt.  And I'd say it was a
violation of first amendment protection to establish a law preventing such
adoptions if that law was based on religious grounds.

Hope that makes at least a little sense.  I'd be happy to discuss it
further, as long as you remember I'm not a lawyer :)

Kerry
p.s.: just to be clear:  I, at least, am not arguing that the Bible can't
be used to establish your moral code.  I *am* arguing that our constitution
prevents us from making laws whose sole basis is the Bible.  Such laws
would be an establishment of religion, and might just prevent my free
practice thereof.
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:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:05:52 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

>robert>> Tell ya' what.  Pick an AIDS case, oh just any one of
>robert>> 'em. Trace the chain ALLLLLLLLLLLL the way back to its
>robert>> origin.  Just what did you find?
>
>kilburn> An African monkey with a perfectly harmless virus. . .
>
>        Careful Kilburn.  I said this in a Moral Philosophy class
>to an anti-homosexual student who asked the same question.  His
>response, "That just shows you how sick homosexuals are---having
>sex with monkeys."
>
>                                        Richard A. Fyfe
>                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
>
Anyone heard of the hypothesis that AIDS made its way into the
human population because of uncareful research for polio vaccines?
I read this in _Rolling Stone_ a few months ago, but I had heard
that it had been covered in _Time_ or something.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:36:26 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Pennies From Heaven

 *** Resending note of 09/09/92 12:44

 > >To Robert:  (from Roger)
 > >In all seriousness, if we DID give 1/4 of a cent to put the Bible in the
 > >classroom, who's doctrine would we follow?
 > >
 > >    Would we allow discussion of the Virgin Mary?
 > >    Would the Mormon view of taking more than 1 bride be taught?
 > >    Would we allow healings?
 > >    Could we have a tele-conference with Jim Bakker?
 > >
 > >Please help.  I just don't understand!

 > It's odd that you would be concerned about *whose* doctrine we would follow.
 > Do/did you have those same concerns about the alleged pieces of art?  Why are
 > you placing a restriction on the Bible usage that does not apply to the
 > trash labeled as art?  Isn't it funny how liberals twist the rules when they
 > start to lose?
 >
 > ---Robert

 > >Isn't it funny how Robert never answers the question?
 > >                                                           ---roger

 I notice you had no response to my correlation.  As to your 4 questions, I
 say *why not*.  Being one of the great defenders of pornography, i mean
 NEA, I would have thought you would have taken the opportunity to point out
 the errors in my scenario.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:52:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Well, we never know who we're talking to (or what) on a computer.  The same
is also true about the name Chris.  I did get quite a touching note from
some people in the Lithuanian (or was it Estonian) Green Party asking me
for an autographed picture, and asking whether thie Chris stood for
Christine.  I had to point out that it stands for Christopher.  There were
two reasons I asked.  One is that there is a Kerry who lives accross the
street from me who is very female.  I have also known some male Kerry's.
In any case, I am 45 and you are most likely in your early 20's, so my
asking is purely a matter of curiosity.  By the way, I am also outside of
the cultural elite, and I have had enough contact with the cultural elite
to venture that most of the cultural elite is also outside of the cultural
elite and, if they have not been listening to their press agents too much,
know it.

                                  Chris Morrison
                                  CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:25:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: War between the Jasons

uh, hi.

once again, we see an argument saying that gays shouldn't adopt.
what about those homosexual persons who HAVE kids.  it's probably
not as rare as you think, jason, especially since a lot of gays
go a long while trying desperately to deny that they are gay.

a fair number of people i know are children of gays.  my last
girl-friend was raised by her mother and her mother's lover.
should she have been taken away from her mother because of her
mother's sexual orientation and made a ward of the state? it would
make sense, if the govt has the right to ensure the well being of
its wards, and a homosexual family is innately unhealthy.  if not,
then i don't see why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

brni
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:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:24:09 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

KAT:

Could you explain your response to this?  I am confused by what
you wrote.  I am not nit-picking or even wanting to continue any
discussion, but merely to understand what you said/wrote.

j.b.

>        Maybe Falwell represents the majority of the moral.

And the rest of us are not immoral/liberal/unpatriotic/sexually
permissive people, we are only "moral minority."

>       j.b.

--KAT :-)
From: SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET (i'm voting for harry truman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the moral is there is no moral
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:44:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:52:38 GMT
From: jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
Subject: RE: the moral is there is no moral

>Gads, I've written a tome.

Has the tome written back yet? :)

>I think that doing unsafe things with no good reason is immoral, yes.

Hmmmm.  Okay, I can understand this.  We probably have varying ideas on
what constitutes a "good reason" (as would any other two people), but
the principle is basically sound.

>And, well, hang on about the psychological problems part.  I need to
>think... (thinking...)

(jeopardy theme in background)

>O.k.  Obviously, HAVING a psychological problem is not immoral.  It is
>a medical condition.  But, given that one has a psychological problem,
>it is wise (moral) to do something about it... IF YOU CAN.

[...]

>Now... in THIS case, it seems to me that it would be immoral (psychologically
>self-destructive) to try to 'fake' a heterosexual lifestyle.  This would
>require an enormous evasion of one's own inner states.  If our example
>person was trying to live a lifestyle just because it would be more
>accepted by others, then he is choosing (unwisely) to derive his own
>self-esteem from the value-judgements of others... always a dangerous
>thing to do.

Wait...I think I've got it.  You seem to be elucidating a more general moral
principle that one's visible actions and stated opinions should mirror one's
internal views, and that allowing oneself to maintain such an inconsistency
is immoral, since it creates or exacerbates feelings of worthlessness or
self-loathing, thus diminishing one's potential.

(Well, I hope that comes close, at least, since it certainly makes sense to
me.  I even agree with it.)

>My point is that I *do* think that a large number of homosexuals
>feel guilty and have a large amount of self-doubt and self-hate.
>This is psychologically damaging.  To the extent that they can
>do something about it, it is moral for them to do so.

Ok, *now* this makes sense.  Two agreements in a week, Jimbo - is that a
record for this list or something?

>My political point was that it is perfectly possible to say that
>many homosexuals are being immoral, while at the same time holding
>that NOTHING follows from this in the political realm.

I already figured this was your view - never doubted it for a second.

--Jimbo

Gary W. Olson                "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
51 days and counting down...
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 11:08:15 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      little miss tv guide

roger,
that show in question is "dateline nbc", with jane pauley and the dashing
stonewall jackson phillips.  love that name.  although it may be a family thing
that i am partial to using civil war generals as names.
i'd like to take this opportunity to tell you all that my cousin robert e. lee
garrett had a lovely wedding this weekend.  he and samantha june are going to
gatlinburg for their honeymoon, and he said to thank all of you all who
sent gifts.
roger, i don't know when exactly that show is on, but it is the newsmagazine
on your local nbc affiliate.

                                         * * *anneliese "i coulda been named
                                              shiloh" l.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: The Virtue of Rationality
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:21:32 GMT

Travis, read this.  2 or 3 times.  Carefully.  Think about it.

Something has been bothering me.  I was just planning to let it pass,
but I can't.

The primary virtue, which makes all other virtues possible, is the
virtue of rationality.  Unless and until a person THINKS seriously
about self and world, only randomly disconnected actions are likely,
and no serious attempt at sustained virtue is possible.

To be a virtuous person, you must seek to understand (and justify) your
own actions, ideas and emotions.

I suggest that this initial approach to virtue has a specific application
to the discussions on this list.  It is possible to make some inference
about the level of rational thought given by posters to their postings,
and thus to (at least partly) discover whether are not they are exhibiting
the virtue of rationality.

Travis recently wrote that he doesn't think that rape is a violation
of the woman.  It turns out, I think, that he didn't seriously MEAN
that... he was only trying to make a point (of sorts).  I replied to
his comment (that rape is not a violation) by saying that if I had
known his position, I would have been more protective of my wife during
a recent visit to Clemson.  The point of my remark should have been
clear: I didn't think that Travis REALLY believed that rape was not
a violation, and I expected him to take back the comment when he realized
what it would actually mean for his own behavior.

What was Travis's response?  He wrote that my wife is 'probably not
worth it.'

I submit that this statement by Travis was completely out-of-line,
and demonstrates quite clearly that Travis is NOT exhibiting the
virtue of rationality.  Travis posts without thinking of either
himself or others or the world around him.  His cognitive approach
appears to be a mean-spirited and aggressive ignorance.

I think that Travis owes me a public apology.  But I think that he
owes himself something much more.  I think that Travis owes it to
himself to sit down and think very seriously about his own life, and
to decide if he wants to live a life of virtue, or a life of continued
wrong.

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: The Virtue of Rationality
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:55:16 GMT

Travis Kidd writes:

>I'm sorry if I offended you or your wife by that remark.

I accept Travis's apology.

>Perhaps you owe me a public apology too, but that's a moral judgement,
>and we all know how evil morality is, don't we?

From the above remark, Travis still owes himself something.  Travis
still owes it to himself to sit down and think really hard about himself
and his life.  Everyone (else) reading this list ought to know by now
that I consider morality to be extremely important and that I would
never call morality evil.  I'm realy disappointed that Travis isn't taking
himself seriously.

As for me apologizing to him: I will do so whenever morality demands it.

I'm going to write Travis a private letter now.  Maybe some good can
come of this.  Maybe.

--Jimbo



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Rights, and other comments ...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:56:36 GMT

In article <01GOF9GUX9R48WWB7B@ITHACA.BITNET> GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET writes:
>  Not that a law stating "Every citizen has the responsibility to
>  vote" would be a bad idea...

I disagree.  The way I see it, the people who don't bother to vote
are precisely the people who have no business voting in the first 
place!

The problem we have with 'political apathy' among our people wouldn't
be solved by forcing people to go through the motion of voting.

Wouldn't it be a better solution to change the voting process so
that people would actually WANT to vote?  So that people would
actually WANT to get involved?

--Jimbo
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: A reply to Val's reply to me
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:02:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

I just wanted to point out that Americans aren't the only ones who have
thrown accusations such as the ones against Claude Pepper's daughter
around.  I heard somebody once told Margaret Thatcher that British
football teams all had strikers and left-wingers on them.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU