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 09:33:15 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

MacPhil:
>But the means test wasn't asserted as the reason the rich would be
>favoured, just simply the existence of vouchers.  Rather than worry about
>a means test or quantity of assistance available, I'm more curious about
>whether the principle of private school vouchers and their merits.  Not
>unlike the story of the philosopher offering the girl money to sleep
>/c him?  If it is not considered reasonable, then the means & amount
>are unnecessary.  If it's considered doable, then let's discuss the details.

OK :)  As you are undoubtedly aware, I have a lot of reservations about the
whole "school choice" thing -- at least as far as the few specifics I've
heard are concerned.  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?  (Actually, I saw some neat
stats from the govt on school funding -- private schools *do* receive
federal funds already, but I don't know the details)

My secondary question is whether switching kids from public to private
schools (absent other reforms) will really do anything to improve their
educations.  As I said earlier, kids in private schools don't seem to do
any better than their socioeconomic counterparts in public schools.  So I
don't really see the point.

Kerry
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 12:03:50 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              11 Sep 1992 12:50:42 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU >

On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:50:42 EDT K=A*T said:
>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>> Oh, yeah.  One more thing.  Children who attend private schools
>> average 100 points higher on the SATs than those who attend public
>> schools.  And they do so at 1/3 the cost on a per-pupil basis.
>
>But part of that (maybe the major part of it) is because
>they start with a better batch of students not that they
>do a better job with them.

So if they start /c better students, does financial standing have
anything to do /c this or is it a familial thing? (knowing that
just because someone has more money doesn't mean they spend more
time /c the kids)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 10 Sep 1992 09:02:00 EDT
From:         Denise <DENISEW@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

ANYONE SEE THE LIVE SATELLITE HOOKUP FROM FLORIDA LAST NIGHT? CLINTON
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR 1 HOUR.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:10:00 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
              10 Sep 1992 19:19:49 GMT from <holzman@FNALNO.FNAL.GOV>

Daniel:

Let us be fair.  Robert does not assert that Christianity is the *only*
moral code.  He contends that it is the only moral code that is
legitimate in the eyes of God.

There are lots of "moral codes," but only one way to heaven.  However,
the truth or falsity of this statement is irrelevant to the current
debate, since we are discussing public morality, which may or may not
be religiously based, and which may or may not point in that direction.
In this country, public morality has largely been shaped with reference
to the tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic.  Thus, it is a fair subject
for discussion with reference to this issue, and the debate is meaningfully
advanced by discussion of the content of that ethic.  However, other moral
codes, particularly those to which American law and tradition make no
positive reference, merely serve to confuse the issue.

--Missy P 2 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:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:46:19 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: getting blood from a turnip

I love these intense topics :)
>Actually, it's not really about selfishness.  It's about not knowing when
>the stupid books are due in the first place.

Yeah.  It's especially fun when they change the policy on you without
telling you!

>BTW, if I think I have a book that anyone else is likely to want access
>to, I try to make a point to get to that one first.  My topic happens to
>be obscure enough that few people check out the books I need (and many of
>them are hidden away in "storage" because no one has checked them out in
>*years*.)

And responsible faculty who assign term papers, etc., make sure to put the
relevant books on reserve so everyone has access to them.  I learned that
lesson the hard way :)

>Plus which, only students are ever "punished" for keeping books out.
>Faculty can keep them forever, without any problem.  (I guess that makes
>this an appropriate topic for "politics." :-)

I was pretty amazed to find out what a problem that is on my own campus.
There's even one faculty member who kept a book (now out of print) until it
got labelled "long overdue" (= stolen) on the computer.  The good parts are
that (1) the library knows darned good and well who has it; and that (2) he
requires that the book be used on his term paper!

Argggh!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:19:43 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>What do you think?  Is there a way to ensure a range of local choices
>within a more-or-less competitive framework?

Does competition really reduce diversity?  It doesn't in nature.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:39:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: response to Brni

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: response to Brni

>>>>Tyrone--who said anything about business controlling your beliefs?
>>>>They can't throw you in jail--all they can do is fire you.  Don't
>>>>you think if I put my hard-earned money into owning a business
>>>>that I should be able to hire and fire whom I wish?
>>>
>>>    So they can't throw you in jail, but they can make sure you
>>>  starve to death for your beliefs.
>>
>>Really?  If I don't get the job at Sun, I'm going to starve?  I can't
>>accept the offers from SGI, HAL, IBM, McDonald's, etc?
>>
>>When is the last time someone starved because an employer didn't like
>>their beliefs?  (I can point to hundreds of thousands of people jailed
>>because "society" decided to lock them up.)
>
>ok.  lets try a hypothetical situation.

The fact that we can imagine a situation doesn't make it a reasonable
basis for public policy.

I can imagine a perpetual motion machine.

        we're all very proud of you, andy.  your next excercise will
        be a golden mountain.  the final project is to successfully
        imagine a square circle.

>is an extreme case, and would never happen in *this* country, but bear
>with me, i'm just making a point).

Brni forgot to tie it into reality.

>who knows.  it could even happen to alleged communists.

As I pointed out, to the extent that it actually happened, it happened
BECAUSE govt encouraged it.  A govt that encourages something obviously
isn't protecting against it.

        a govt tht is neither encoiuraging or discouraging certainly
        isn't protecting against anything.  if racism, sexism, homophobia
        and idealistic nationalism weren't *real* problems in this country
        and were only isolated incidents, there would be no need for
        govt intervention.  however, since these isms tend to be the
        rule rather than the exception, a government that ignores these
        influences on hiring is *in fact* condoning and hence encouraging
        them.

        (the religious rights arguments, for example, that making
        homosexual relations equal in law with het relations is in fact
        condoning such relations are correct.  however, they are wrong
        to think that this is bad.)
-andy
        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:25:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Little answer

On Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:46:22 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
>
> >Of course its okay.  Employers can hire or fire for whatever reasons they
> >please, given the terms of the initial contract.
>
> No, they can't. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 prevents employers
> from hiring or firing on certain bases. Racial prejudice, for
> example.
Private employers too??

> Jason may be confusing what he thinks people OUGHT to be allowed to
> do with what the law actually allows them to do.
>
> Jamie
-Travis
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: homosexuality
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:17:20 GMT

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>The definitions of "morality" that have obtained on this list do not
>define morality, but only individual and corporate selfishness.

Well, I think that you should be a bit more careful with your terms
here!  As an ethical egoist, I believe that morality coincides precisely
with my long-term rational self-interest.  But I do not think that
the definition of the concept 'moral code' should restrict the term
to _just_ the correct moral code (i.e., mine).  There are lots of
different moral codes... some better than others.

Do humans need a moral code, and why?  Unlike other animals, humans
do not have a full code of values.  Since we have free will, we must
CHOOSE many of our values.  A code of values which is chosen is a
moral code.

But now you write something I find VERY interesting, since I see
within it a seed of understanding about how legal rights can define
a moral sphere in which each person is allowed to act:

>I do not like the idea of a morality czar.  People ought to be able to
>control their own base impulses (not to do as they like) and be left
>alone to do so.  When they do not, however, something else must.

I like this, if I understand it.  Kerry's point, I take it, is that
we ought not to have a 'morality czar' in the form of a strict code
of conduct enforced by the government.  Individuals ought to be left
legally free to take certain actions which others find sinful or
immoral.

A good example of this kind of right is freedom of thought.  I find
Kerry's rejection of reason to be unspeakably immoral and disgusting.
She finds my rejection of Christianity to be a sin.  (I suppose.)
Yet, as Kerry so delightfully words it "People ought to be... left
alone..."  In this way, people of wildly different points of view
can live together in peace.

I suppose that when Kerry says that when people do not control
their base instincts something else (other than a morality czar
government) must step in to help them out.  I suppose she is
thinking of things like friends and family and social insitutions
which attempt to reach people through reason and education about
virtue.

So apparently my earlier accusations about Kerry's rejection of
rights was premature.  I begin to see now that I misunderstood
her point.  If I understand her now, Kerry DOES advocate a social
system in which each of us is granted a sphere of action free from
governmental encumberances... and that sphere includes some things
she considers to be 'base impulses'.  

>When you abandon the morality of common sense and
>virtue, you will accept anything.

Kerry is right here.  Common sense tells you that the best way to
maintain your OWN freedom of thought (for example) is to respect
very carefully the freedom of thought of OTHERS.  

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:36:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Pennies From Heaven

I sort of like the idea of teaching the Bible (but not just the Bible) in
a way that emphasizes its role as the ethical and moral basis of much of
our lives and our civilization.  There are many different interpretations,
and each of them must be looked at and discussed.  You wouldn't necessarily
have to be neutral about these approaches, because being open-minded does
NOT mean that you have to have no values or that all values are equal.  It
just means that a mature individual is willing to consider any idea, and
evaluate it according to his own values and the best evidence available.
If your own values or opinions seem to be wrong, you have to be willing to
change them.

Chris Morrison
CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:03:53 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: An easy answer to a little question
              10 Sep 1992 19:23:01 GMT from <holzman@FNALNO.FNAL.GOV>

Daniel:

Could you tell us when and where your goddess said what you quote?

Thanks.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:14:39 EDT
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nattering Nabobs
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET" at Sep 3, 92 8:48 am

A person going by the name of ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET forged:

| Because the media have taken up the accusations of one or two Florida
| officials and blown it up into a page 1 story.  The media could have
| covered the relief program however they chose, and they chose to
| portray it as another case of Bush being out of touch with his
| surroundings while devoting only minimal time to any opposing point of
| view.

	Come on Jason, you don't really believe only two officials
are/were complaining, do you? There all complaining. The easiest
target happens to be Bush who came down after the storm and promised
all this help, and 3 days later help isn't there. Again, I'm not
blaming Bush for the slowness of the delivery of goods. But his speech
made him an easy whipping post. The reason there is no positive spin
on Bush/Florida is because the people who got wiped out are looking at
survival, and looking at Bush and thinking he hasn't delivered the
goods (right or wrong of them). There are very few thinking or saying
Bush is doing a tremendous job. Thus, The press covers this crisis in
a way reflecting how Floridians are looking at the effort, most do not
have a favorable opinion of Bush at this time. To me, this is
responsible journalism.

--
 Cousin It                                    cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
    I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't
         always agree with them    -President George Bush
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:38:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To Robert and Kilburn

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
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:35:49 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Clinton Mailing List

Chris:

The lists for both Clinton and Bush are located at Marist (listserv@marist)
They are called Bush and Clinton.

I wouldn't bother, though.  They won't make you informed.  They will give
you a headache.  The Clinton list is a bunch of rah-rah college students
for Clinton, each trying to outdo all the others in their love for the
Great Man, and the Bush list is a bunch of rah-rah Bush supporters
fighting with Clinton supporters who didn't like the other list and
decided to go somewhere they could argue.

You're better off reading platforms and position papers.

Good luck.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:00:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

But KAT:

The harm involved in doing what is "bad" is not always readily apparent.
How do we decide whether there are unforseen harmful consequences to
any given activity?  It would be nice to have the long-term perspective
that a proper application of Richard's scheme implies, but it is not
realistic to assume that we do.

Suppose I can lie without anyone getting hurt?  Is it then not "bad"
to lie?

        sometimes it is better to lie.  sometimes, telling the truth
        is harmful (therefore bad).

        brni

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:08:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
              10 Sep 1992 07:35:01 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

You are "pro-choice" regarding gay rights?  So people can "choose"
to be gay?

Then it is behavior and not an unchangeable condition.  Why, then,
shall it be priviliged over other forms of behavioral choice?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:28:18 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

>From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

>        Missy, the following argument is a valid argument:
>
>     1) If sex with a child does not harm the child, then it
>                is not wrong.
>     2) Sex with a child always harms the child.
>
>     3) Therefore, sex with a child is always wrong.

BZZZZZZZZT.

That is decidedly NOT a valid argument!

Richard is forgiven his indiscretion, but don't let it happen again.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:53:13 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:34:53 EST Kerry Stephenson said:
>macphil:
>
>If brighter students choose to drop out of school, let them.  If they're
>so smart, maybe they can take care of themselves.  Or maybe they aren't
>*really* so bright after all, hmm?


I thought the general thought produced so far on the list was
some form of equal opportunity education or something like that?

Why should the brighter kids be forced to work @ a snail's pace?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:22:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

>Rights, rights, rights.  What about responsibilities?  Since we have
>a Bill of Rights, what about a Bill of Responsibilites?  We continually
>hear everyone who can get airtime scream about their "rights being
>violated" but we see little about those same people assuring us they
>themselves are "responsible citizens" in return.
>
>So what should be in a Bill of Responsibilities?
>

    A Bill of Responsibilities is an interesting concept.  But, of
  course, that could actually be in diametric opposition to the Bill
  of Rights and the nature of (what I see as) democratic government.
  Not that a law stating "Every citizen has the responsibility to
  vote" would be a bad idea...

          --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:56:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: rest rooms

>Uh, do you mean minimally disfunctional or minimally functional?  Don't forget
>we were all that way once.  Try to act like you wish somebody had acted toward
>you when you were like that.

chris,
minimally disfunctional is a psychological term that loosely means someone who
for whatever reason(s) functions at a slightly less than average level in terms
of cognitive abilities.

anyway, i'm pretty patient with the poor souls, and this list is one of the few
places i get to vent w/out hurting anyone's feelings. the other place is "the
ladies room" that some people seem to think is only for peeing. :)

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:35:28 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1% Tax Cut
              15 Sep 1992 11:49:05 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> He thought abortion was murder but now he thinks its the
>> woman's choice.

> And now we have KAT lying again.  If KAT can't make an anti-Bush
> case without misrepresenting Bush....

My source is Bush himself.  What is yours?

At any rate it seems you are suggesting one of us is a liar
(not that I agree necessarily with that premise).  Now if
you ask me which one is lying....

> -andy

--KAT....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:48:46 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

KAT:

Why is "was she hurt?" a better question than "was it bad?"

Suppose the X was an insult, a proposition, or an unfounded accusation
said out of malice.  If she is an intelligent person with good values
and reasonably secure in her own intelligence, she will not be harmed
by it (you might, because she will think less of you); but that
does not mean that it was not a bad thing to do.

If you tell me I am an [expletive deleted] [explicit noun deleted], I
will not be harmed.  I might even be amused by your stupidity.  But that
doesn't make yournt not bad.
                                --Missy P 2 b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics