HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: school daze
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:35:29 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > > Poor and not-so-poor parents are just as concerned about their children's
> > > education as are the Clintons. They are also just as capable of making
> > > good decisions about education.  Why not give them the same ability to
> > > make a choice, through vouchers, refunds, etc.?
> > Aside from the problems of tax money being paid to religious instititutions,
> > I can think of a very good reason not to have a voucher plan.  Our
> > $400 Billion deficit.  Current estimates hold that to properly fund a
> > real school choice plan would cost in the neighborhood of $40 Billion a
 year.
> > Where do you suppose that money should come from?
> > >
> > > - David
> > >
> > > David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
> > >
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> ******************
>
>   for starters, let's look at these:
>
>   sending social security checks to millionaires
>
>   subsidizing water to give to farmers so they can raise crops which
> they sell to the government at grossly inflated prices
>
>   fighting a ludicrous and unwinnable "war on drugs" instead of making
> the stuff legal and taxing the $#!+ out of it
>
>   selling things like mineral and timber rights at rock-bottom prices
>
>   paying an army of parasitic bureaucrats to screw us over
>
>   etc.
>
>   besides, look at school choice as an investment in our future . . .
>   :)
>
>   rtf
>
That's an interesting list :-).
Now cut out the ones that aren't politically feasable and tell me how
much money you can save.
As an aside, with the exception of the war on drugs costs, I don't
see you saving a lot of money from that list.

Jonathan

P.S.
Don't forget cutting out the subsidizing of tobacco!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:04:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Addiction as Disease

-T. said:
>>Why does Robert place a "?" after the title "Dr." in Jack
>>Kevorkian's name?

Evelyn said:
>Kevorkian's license to practice medicine was revoked.

I wasn't aware of that.

However, it makes no difference.  The "Dr." or "M.D.", if you please, has
nothing at all to do with licensing.  Upon graduation from medical school,
one is given the title "Dr." - having achieved a Medical Doctorate.

Licensing occurs upon completion of post-graduate medical education (ie
residency).

Although I prefer to avoid all titles, he's still Dr. Jack Kevorkian.


-T.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Uncl: re: school daze
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:13:13 GMT

>Since I posted all the entries in my checkbook based on estimates, I
>estimate that my checking account has a $100.00 balance.  Do you think
>the bank uses the same method of estimating my balance?

A confession: I generally don't bother to keep my checking account
balance to the penny, and I NEVER muck around with my statement at 
the end of the month.  See, I know about how much money I have in the
bank, and I keep a running estimate in my head.  

I never bounce checks, either.

Hmm... maybe I just don't know anything about finances...

--Jimbo



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:42:23 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Wed,
              6 Jan 1993 09:21:51 PST from Jonathan Fisher
              <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: the biBle
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

From:
*** Resending note of 01/06/93 12:08

From Jonathan
The bible is a bunch of made-up stories written by old men and it has no
semblance of truth in it.

From Robert
Thank you Jonathan, for that brilliant display of blasphemy.  There will
come a day when every knee shall bend and every tongue will confess the
one true living "G"od.  Even you.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:38:58 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: re: school daze
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>From: Robert   Sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet
>
>...edited for your safety
>
>>Think about it.  When was the last time you actually needed to
>>do a calculation similar to "546.23 x 1.78" ??  I don't recall
>>when I had to do it.
>
>>................. kids -- needs is estimating.  Yes!, estimating.
>>Estimating makes kids THINK.  Doing endless and mindless divisions
>>and multiplications does not.  What he needs is "word problems."
>>KAT
>

How often do schoolkids put down totally unreasonable answers
because they have no intuitive feel for numbers. A surprising number
of children will, while working out some simple trigonometry, solemnly
write that an oak tree is 10,000 metres high.

Estimating *is* a valuable skill - it also teaches appreciation of the
appropriate level of precision. How many adults will look at
measurements to the nearest hundred and, after some calculations, give
an answer to three decimal places.

My favourite estimating question is from my physics A level (taken
when I was 18). A mad scientist chooses to heat his bath by putting a
poker into his fire and then running upstairs with it and plunging it
into his bath. How many trips must he make before he can have a hot
bath ?

Answers on a postcard please.

--
 Dunstan  | Systems Design Division           |dv@gec-epl.co.uk
 Vavasour | CEGELEC Projects                  |From JANET:
          | Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1BU, UK |dv%uk.co.gec-epl@uk.ac.uknet
          | Tel: (+44) 788 563535             |Fax: (+44) 788 560767
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:44:58 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:38:47 PST Jonathan Fisher said:
> >
> >Who's throwing it away?
>
> The people who are killing themselves are throwing away the most precious
> thing they have.  But, that is their choice, I guess.  Just don't expect
> the people around them to be happy about it.
That's right Evelyn.  That is their choice.  They don't believe that
they are throwing it away.  They care about life just as much as you
do, maybe more.  But the fact is that these people were dying with
no chance of survival.  They didn't want to suffer.  I'm sure that
you don't want to take away their chance for peace, do you?
> >
> >Jonathan
>
> Evelyn
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:56:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: China
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

 Good old Caius said recently :

>There NO cirles at all, if you assume support-for-free-market, the most
>important distinction between the right and the left. I always use it as
>a defintion:
>right - as much free market as possible
>left  - as much state intervention as "necessary"

        You can use it all you want to, but it has been shown here quite a
few times that historically, academically, linguistically, in current
political theory and even in common usage, THAT IS NOT THE ACCEPTED MEANING
OF THOSE WORDS. That is only a current coincidence, and not a definitory
relationship.

 -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:14:00 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Evelyn said:
>
> >Jenna, those women weren't dying.  None of them were suffering from a
> >terminal disease.  If they were, I would understand why they wanted to
> >die.
>
> I have to take issue with this; although it's possible that everything I've
> read and seen about Jack Kevorkian is completely false, I believe that
> Evelyn is mistaken.  In fact, I was under the impression that was the key
> requirement for him to become involved: being terminally ill.
>
> Am I mistaken?
>
I don't think so.  My opinion is as your's is.
>
> -T.
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:12:27 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A "right to discriminate?"
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        I wouldn't say there is a *right* to discriminate, but I would say it's
not the place of government to define discrimination.

        It was government, after all, that gave us slavery, separate but equal,
Jim Crow laws, etc.  It was the people--protesting, lobbying, etc.--that fought
for the repeal of government mandated discrimination.

        And it's very ironic that what is largely a phyrric victory (quotas and
such) is being touted as the reason why government should be given (really,
"keep") such powers.

        Now if the people want to legislate what is discriminatory, then fine.
Although you'll run into the same problems as those who try to legislate
morality, it's a damn sight better than the government simply telling us what
we can and can't do.

        What has 30 years achieved?  I'd say that's time enough for the current
"solution" to have worked.  Toss it and try again.  I'd suggest letting the
people decide.  (Gasp!)

        Note that in an electoral process, it's those that get to the gate
first who usually set the ground rules.  Witness Colorado 2 and Oregon 9.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:27:24 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Apples, oranges and quotas

>From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

>> I don't think there is any explicit provision to that effect inserted
>> into the 1964 act. If I'm wrong, please tell me what provision it is.
>
>It's not so much an explicit permission as the conspicuous absence of a
>prohibition.  Section 703(j) starts : "Nothing contained in this title
>shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor
>organization or joint labor-management committee subject to this title
>to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group...."

Right, that's what *I* was thinking of, too. I agree that the
phrasing does imply that preferential treatment is sometimes
permissible.

>     In one of the early cases the Supreme Court ruled, citing the
>legislative history, that if the bill had been intended to outlaw all
>sorts of preferential treatment for minorities they would have written
>"permit" for "require."  So AA programs that do involve preferential
>treatment of otherwise qualified minorities (most don't, in my
>experience) do not violate the law.

I don't know which case Peter is thinking of.
The case that is supposed to be the landmark one is Steelworkers v.
Weber. Weber sued for a place in a training program when he lost
out to a black worker even though he (Weber, who was white) had
more seniority.

Five Justices (Brennan, Marshall, White, Stewart, and Blackmun)
said that section 703j implied that such affirmative action
measures are not prohibited by the Act.

>Yes.  The terminology that the Civil Rights Act uses is "bona fide
>qualification,"

Interesting. I always thought that phrase was invented by the Court.

Jamie
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Uncl: Colorado
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:50:25 GMT

Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:

>For you KAT: I would take exception with the final clause which denies
>             a claim of discrimination, when that claim was to be used
>             against the government.  From the private vantage point, I
>             don't see a problem with the amendment.

I would think this would be enough of a flaw to object to. We are
talking about a constitutional amendment after all.

Don't you also object that it singles out people who are gay? If you
really object to all laws prohibiting private discrimination in
housing and employment, it seems only fair that blacks, whites, Jews,
born-agains, atheists, women, gays, straights, etc. should loose their
government protection at the same time.

Even worse, (I would think) the amendment doesn't even prohibit claims
of discrimination based on sexual orientation, but only on *gay*
sexual orientations. In other words, straight folk are still protected
against discrimination in Aspen, Boulder, and Denver.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
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:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:50:38 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: freedom from discrimination

Hi again :)
rtf wrote:
>  a person's color (or sex, or whatever) should not be the basis of
>discrimination by the law. aa does discriminate on those things, and
>so i am against it. what ever happened to the ideal of a color-blind
>legal system?

I think "color-blindness" is a wonderful ideal.  It'd be great if all
people, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc., had
equal access to opportunity.  If that were the case, a pool of job
applicants would include all who really *wanted* to be members of the
relevant profession.  And choosing the best qualified applicant -- or using
some sort of random method to choose among equally-qualified applicants --
would result in a workforce that was both highly qualified and
representative.

But that's not the case.  Until such time as equality of opportunity (for
education, training, hiring, advancement, etc.) exists, I see nothing wrong
with using race/gender/ethnicity etc. as a way to select among equally-
qualified applicants.  Let me offer an example that I used some time ago.
When I was in grad school, we needed to hire a botanist.  The three
finalists were two white males and one white female.  All were equally
qualified on paper, all gave good interviews, etc.  The only difference was
research specialty -- something that mattered to only a few members of the
department, and didn't affect the ability of the candidates to fulfill the
job requirements.

In that case, some individuals consciously chose to vote for the female
candidate specifically because of her gender.  Although a few of those
individuals offered the rationale that this would save the department from
"being forced to" hire a female in the future (when we might not have such
a great candidate), most felt that hiring a female would benefit the
department in important ways.  Not the least of these was the notion that
having another woman on the faculty would increase the recruitment of women
into the biological sciences.  That is, hiring a well-qualified woman was
perceived as part of the solution to the underlying problem of barriers to
access -- not just a chance to meet some mythical numerical quota.

This is how I think of affirmative action at its best -- partly as a way to
ameliorate the effects of past and present discrimination, and partly as a
way to solve the underlying problem.

Kerry
who never got a job because she was a woman :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:56:07 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Packwood (continued)
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Here is another repost...


----- Begin Included Message -----

[contnuing with some of the Portland coverage of Bob Packwood's
press conference]

        . . .

        Mabsie Walters, an abortion rights activits in Oregon,
recounted last week how Packwood called her Nov. 9, after the
election, to inquire about Mary Heffernan, a member of the
National Abortion Rights Action League, who was one of the 10
women cited by The Post.  Walters said Packwood asked her
personally whether Heffernan had had a nervous breakdown.

        . . .

        Packwood specifically denied an allegation that he had
fondled the buttocks of Springfield resident Tiffany Work when
she was a 13-year-old hostess at a 1973 campaign party.  He
called the charge 'ludicrous.'

        Work offered a response through a family spokesman:
'How can he honestly deny that it happened to me when he can't
remember the other incidents?'

        . . .

        His supporters rallied around the senator, praising him
for his candor and denouncing his critics as politically
motivated.

        'Some of the others who have jumped into this fray, who
were not victims, are coming across increasingly as very partisan
and shrill,' said Craig Berkman, Oregon Republican Party
chairman.

        . . .

        Julie Williamson, a former campaign worker, said she
thought PAckwood's statement was the result of 'strategy, not
deep contemplation.'  Williamson said PAckwood stood on her feet,
pulled her hair and tried to pull her clothes off while she was
working for him soon after he first was elected to the
Senate.  'I think Bob Packwood is still trying to deceive the
people of Oregon,' she said.

        . . .


John
----------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Bonine: jbonine@oregon.uoregon.edu, ejohn@igc.org


----- End Included Message -----
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:19:37 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: school daze

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:37:44 -0500 <SPRG0002@TULSAJC> said:

>The following excerpts are from the article which ran in the Tulsa World
>Jan. 3, 93.
>
>    Math's emphasis will change beginning with fifth grade.  Instead
>    of computing with pencil and paper, students will spend more time
>    learning how to estimate results and use calculators.
>
>    "There is still a need for exact numbers, but those can be
>     figured with hand-held calculators"
>                  - Gwen Humphrey, curriculum manager, Tulsa Pub Schools

I totally agree with this and have been arguing for it for
the last decade or so.

Think about it.  When was the last time you actually needed to
do a calculation similar to "546.23 x 1.78" ??  I don't recall
when I had to do it.

I agree that "time tables" are very important.  I even agree
that students should be thought to do calculation such as the
above, even repeatedly.  But enough is enough!  My son is in
fifth grade.  AGAIN, at the beginning of the class year, and
from time to time during the year, he has been given homeworks
like what is "567 x 35".  I mean who cares about that.  A calculator
could do it more efficiently and more accurately.  What he --
and I guess other kids -- needs is estimating.  Yes!, estimating.
Estimating makes kids THINK.  Doing endless and mindless divisions
and multiplications does not.  What he needs is "word problems."

>
>    "...It doesn't matter how many homework assignments are completed
>     or how neat the student's work looks."
>                  - Jon Sisson, principal

This, I don't know.  I need more details but as a general statement
lacks appeal to me.

No wonder this guy did not get past being a principle.  :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:58:54 -0500
Comments:     Resent-From: SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Addiction as Disease

>From Toddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
>And what message would that be?  I personally found great solace in the

To which Robert replied without answering the question.  What message
does recognizing addiction as a medical problem send?

From Robert
It sends the same message as those gnashingly abrasive tv commercials
that start out with: "It's not your fault...."

Now it isn't my intention to totally dispose of the genetic complication
of some addiction.  At the same time, I take exception to these types of
comments/tactics that avoid the personal responsibility aspect.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:24:46 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio

I read in the Beacon Journal this morning that Dr. Death himself is
coming to Ohio because the state legislature has permitted assisted
suicide.

Comments?

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:55:03 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Economic school test
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Jan 7, 93 8:23 pm

Stephan Melin pisze:
>> We agree that inflation is bad, but that does not mean that the opposite
>> of inflation (=deflation) is good either, in fact deflation can be as harmful
>> as inflation.

There is a simple test of your economic thinking:

If you fear deflation more, you belong to the Keynesian school.

If you fear inflation more, you belong to Monetarist (Chicago shool)
or Austrian school.

-----

I prefer stability to deflation, and deflation to inflation. I support most of
Austrian school thinking and Hayek theories are my ideals.

Caius
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Economic school test
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:20:10 GMT

There is a simple test of your economic thinking, indeed.

>There is a simple test of your economic thinking:
>
>If you fear deflation more, you belong to the Keynesian school.
>
>If you fear inflation more, you belong to Monetarist (Chicago shool)
>or Austrian school.

Caius fails the test.

>I prefer stability to deflation, and deflation to inflation. I support most of
>Austrian school thinking and Hayek theories are my ideals.

Caius, do you actually _know_ anything about these theories?  Or do you
like to toss around names to justify your pet biases?

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU