HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:06:00 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?

How is Sun going to keep me from working somewhere else?

How many people really have only one possible employer?

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.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

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

ok.  lets try a hypothetical situation.  suppose that the majority of
companies were owned by white men.  further, suppose that the majority
of these particular white men had a very strong personal belief that
black persons and women in general were inferior (now, i know that this
is an extreme case, and would never happen in *this* country, but bear
with me, i'm just making a point).  because of this, these white fellas
decided that they would not hire any blacks or women.  now, there are, in
this hypothetical situation, a few companies that hire blacks and women.
so all the blacks and women who want to be able to live in a house or
apartment rather than a cardboard box, who want to be able to provide
sustinence for themselves and their families, etc, try to get jobs at
these places.  some do.  for the sake of argument, lets say that these
are really big companies, and a large percentage get jobs, and they pay
well.  these few companies are not going to be able to employ all the
blacks, however.  and without some other method of gaining income, these
people will starve.

who knows.  it could even happen to alleged communists.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:51:44 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: War Between the Jasons

Hello Patrick,

I realize the difference between the legalized and non-sanction marriages,
but all I did was point out that these marriages took place anyway.  Did
I not say that I agree that the homosexual marriage is in the area of being
morally and Biblically wrong?  I just pointed out that they still had 'mar-
riages', that's all.

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:00:02 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      re: pot and the kettle

 >From Daniel B. Holzman
 >Then you disqualify yourself from adopting, as bigotry is wrong and
 >unacceptable.

 Oh Danny Boy,

 If you are claiming that I am somewhat intolerant of attempts to justify
 or excuse homosexuality, I agree.  If you are claiming that I am unwilling
 to listen to faulty reasoning in those attempts, I again agree.

 Does that make me a bigot?  I think not.  Surely, you are not foolish enough
 to consider "reasons" for justification of bank robbery.  I wouldn't say that
 makes you a bigot.  On the contrary, it reflects wisdom.  In a roundabout way,
 you've paid me quite a compliment.

 ---Robert
 "Visit L.A., it's a riot!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:12:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: It's always the money

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      It's always the money


>     The actual amount that each individual pays for the NEA each
>   year makes it kind of a minor point to argue about.

Really?  Then ELIMINATING the NEA is just a minor thing.  If the money
wasn't important, it wouldn't be protected so vehemently.

        hey, to me (and hence to just about everyone) $.64 ain't
        a whole lot.  i mean, you might still be able to find some
        penny candy for that much, but its getting rare.  however,
        to a large number of galleries and museums, it means the
        difference between solvency and bankrupcy.  and for a large
        number of artists, it is the difference between being able
        to be an artist or be a gas station attendant who does art
        as a hobby.

Or, maybe everyone in the US should give me $1.  After all, it's only
a buck, and it's only once, and I'll be so much better off afterwards.

        actually (and i made this point almost a year ago) you
        really only need a penny from each of them.

        and i still think that its a good idea

        brni
-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:43:15 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              10 Sep 1992 13:44:20 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU >

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:44:20 EDT K=A*T said:
>Sometime ago Bush made a comment about the fact that credit
>cards charge exorbitant interest rates.  (Never mind that his
>remark was considered reckless by the financial community
>and caused a jumpe in the interest rates.)
>
>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?  Granted,
he's not been the greatest, but I'm curious as to why he's become
everyone's BoBo doll, even when it is for things he's not directly
responsible for?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:44:00 EDT
From:         DFIELD1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

I believe the amount each taxpayer contributes annually to the NEA is:
   1/4 of 1 cent
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:11:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: getting blood from a turnip: an answer to kerry s.

Chris:

Where is your school?  I know we have the eleventh worst library in
the Big Ten (big joke from when Penn was considering joining up),
but I think we have the impression that we have the worst library in
the *world.*

(Of course, we have a special first editions economics library, though.
And lots of special collections.  And receive a number of journals in
foreign languages that we don't have in English.  And stuff like that.)

--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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:28:53 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

MacPhil:
>>According to the latest stats, students in private schools do no better
>>than students in public schools when family background is taken into
>>account.  And, although my income probably makes me middle-class, a $1K
>>voucher *still* won't help me send my kid to private school.
>
>>So, although that's the reason some give, I don't buy it :)
>
>I don't remember asserting quality of education or performance.  But if
>it allows poorer families the opportunity to attend, should they be
>denied that opportunity?  If so, then could the same be argued for some
>of the social programs?  Does having more material goods, etc. mean
>a higher family quality?

You sure didn't make the assertion -- I read it into your response, in the
context of fred's question (how do vouchers increase our competitiveness).
My apologies.

So that kind of leaves the question of should poorer families have the
opportunity to attend private schools.  Um, sure.  I *still* don't see how
$1K per child (for families earning under $40K -- I think --) is really
going to help "poorer" families.  Unless "poorer" means richer than I am :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:19:42 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the low spark of high-heeled boys

>the big contest here is for supreme court justice.  arne carlson, our
>delightful governor (is *everybody* up here named lundquist or nordstrom
>or carlson or johnson?), illegally reappointed justice yetka to the bench.
>somebody who wanted the job protested, filed suit, and now we all are
>voting.  look for former minnesota viking alan page (don't ask.  it's a
>long story) to win.                       ^^^^^^^^^
>
>                      * * anneliese "hey.  john barleycorn must die. yeah." l.


Is Alan Page really running for Supreme Court Justice?  If the story is
too long, can you give us just the treetops?

...Rick
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 10:56:02 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>

On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:07:00 EDT <GRACZ1@ITHACA> said:

>  only the then-small city-dwelling middle-class to give
>  a hoot about the three R's.  The second problem is that in reviews
>  of educational policy, the government has failed to go to the root,
>  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.

It has nothing to /c how things are taught.  No matter how devoted and
diligent the teachers, the parents are not supporting the education
system.  Until teachers & parents are on the same wavelength, education
in this country is doomed to failure.  The parents who really want their
children to learn have the teachers that can't/won't teach and vice-versa.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      RE: Homosexuality: Isn't this where I left?
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:58:04 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92090910072959@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> writes:
> The folks I know with gay parents have fared as well if not better in some
> instances than those raised by heterosexual parents. Again, sexual orientation
> does not impact on parenting skills.
> 
>         i know one woman who was sexually abused by her mother.  i know
>         lots and lots and lots of women who have been sexually abused by
>         their fathers.  there is a lot of repressed stuff in heterosexual
>         relationships as they exist today that come out in really ugly
>         ways.  to my experience, they are not nearly so prevelent in
>         homosexual relationships.

I know several women and men who were/are abused by their mothers, their 
girlfriends, their fathers, their boyfriends, their husbands, their wives, ad 
infinitum, ad nauseum.  Anyone can be a victim, anyone can be a victimizer. 
Gender and sexual orientation are no more useful indicators than are race,
religion, or socio-economic class.

-- 
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:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:56:23 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: marching at p.parenthood

Missy J:
>Speaking of which, you free speech advocates out there might be interested
>to know that, on September 29, a case will be argued before the Texas Supreme
>Court that stands a good chance of moving up in the system fast.  At
>issue is the "gospel-free zone" declared by a judge in Houston surrounding
>clinics.  The injunction prohibits preaching, prayer, and singing
>(specifically including *silent* *individual* prayer) within the zone.
>Several people have been arrested under the injunction, and the case
>will determine whether such things are constitutionally protected
>activities (on public property, by the way.)  We shall see.

Keep me posted, OK?  I don't rightly see how the activities you've
described could be any less protected than flag-burning or picketing.

Kerry
I can see it now -- someone's standing quietly by, cop comes up and asks,
"hey, you!  are you *praying*?? you can't do that here -- stop it at once."
sheesh
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:02:19 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      who loves you baby?

Andy wants to know why I think that it won't cost jobs and money to
provide employees with time off for their family needs. Someone already
mentioned that it costs more to train a new employee than to keep an
existing one. I have worked in data processing centers (not minimum
wage jobs as andy suggests) where only 1 or 2 people in the whole
operation couldn't be worked around for an extended period of time.
People fill in for each other all the time due to vacations, sick leave,
and so on. I think an employee who is worried about the home life is
less productive than one who can take time off when needed.

I would guess that very few people would require a large block of time
off in one chunk, so the impact on the business would be minimal.

Macphil, why should I pay for your child to attend a private school
when I can't afford the same priviledge for my own child? It is a
very republican attitude to say "Let's just do it and not talk about
who is going to foot the bill". As far as distribution of wealth is
concerned, I am in favor of redistribution of the tax load, not of
income. I think that everyone should be taxed once a year on their
assets with no loopholes.

Why shouldn't the 2 percent of the population that controls 90 per
cent of the assests pay 90 per cent of the tax bill? Why wouldn't
that be fair since everyone would be treated equally according to
how big their piece of the pie is?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:20:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: rest rooms

>  The bathrooms in my house are co-ed.

bathroomS?....plural? how i would love to have more than one. but with 2 boys,
i would make sure they never got to use mine. :)

actually, this whole thing is alot of ado about nothing. most places i've worked
that cater to the public in general have seperate potties.
small business oriented places (w/few or no patrons who use premises) would have
a common bathroom.
its one way to handle a very basic privacy. i would dislike the notion of unisex
facilities in say, the Spectrum or the Vet or in certain bars, etc.

what pisses me off (pun intended) is when you gotta go really bad, and the store
your in says they don't have a restroom. like, the people who work there 8 hrs.
a day never have to go.

get real.

>Good grief :)
>Kerry

-linda
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:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:47:23 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject: dear collegiate, alma mater; our loyal hearts we raise

i went to a private school until the eleventh grade.  we wore uniforms in
order to make sure that our socioeconomic differences were not maximized.
we could work at our own pace.  i entered the first grade at age 4 and went
from there.  latin was required starting in the 3rd grade, and once you had
the dead language down, you could move on to french, german, or italian or
greek.  it was a good thing, but it was
a) an all-girls' school, so we were all dreadfully maladjusted with members
of the opposite sex (which, in my case, continues to the present day :-)
b)  all very sheltered from the realities of what most people's school
experiences are like, so we would all be completely baffled by talk of
armed students and so forth
c) very, very elitist.
i didn't have a *bad* time...i just didn't have a *good* time.  my mom
taught there, so i got to go for free, which was why i got to go at all...
the tuition was (and is) comparable to that for a middle-priced ivy league
college for a year.  whatever.  i got a terrific education at that school,
and a lousy one at the public school i entered in grade 11, which was, as
i have described, largely my own darn fault.  so that's all i have to say
on the subject.  i wouldn't send my own kids to a private school like
louisville collegiate.  i wouldn't send my own kids to a private
christian school like berean in louisville, either.  i think it closes off
too many doors that education is supposed to be opening.  but anyway, that's
my decision, and those folks who choose to send their kids to them are
minding their own business and that is fine with me.  but i am just wary of
the ultra-focused ideology of these schools...whether it is a religious
ideology, or a class-oriented one.  i'm just thankful that my parents
had enough respect for me and respect for the possibilities of education that
they allowed me an active role in my own education, and let me use the
education as a tool for self-knowledge, rather than to cloister me in any
one situation simply because they felt it was "for my own good in the long
run."
                                       * * anneliese "papa, are we out of
                                           prawns again?  drat.  could the
                                           servants go for more pate when they
                                           go pick up the glenfiddich?" l.
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, 11 Sep 1992 16:44:56 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: private education

Robert:
> My daughter's private *Christian* school held a little get together last
> night for the parents and teachers/admin to get to meet each other.  This
> year the enrollment is 715, and covers grades K-3 thru 12.  There were
> 500 parents present!  I wonder if a public school would have gotten more
> than a handful.

My daughter's public school has about 500 students in grades K-5.  The last
PTO meeting I attended had parents lined up in all the hallways because
they couldn't fit into the cafeteria (capacity 300+).  Parent-teacher
conferences, generally scheduled for about 30 minutes each, routinely run
to an hour at at time -- and the teachers sure aren't getting paid for the
overtime.  The campus beautification committee will have its first work day
a week from Saturday to build new playground equipment and a new planter,
and to weed the flower beds.  We plant trees in the spring.

Good things *can* happen in public education.  Teachers *can* be quite
selfless and committed, parents *can* make a difference, and kids *can*
learn.  But it takes a lot of hard work and cooperation.

Kerry
don't shoot me :)
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 09:43:00 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:  To KAT and Jimbo

>MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
>>I totally agree with your "ex post harm" and "ex ante harm."
>>You do not consider "ex ante harm" to be actual harm but
>>consider it bad.  But if I ask you why it is bad you would
>>answer "because it was ex ante harm."  So it is the concept
>>of harm (whether ex post or ex ante) which is first recognized
>>and **THEN** we decide it is bad.  This what I all along was
>>trying to say.
>
>I understand now.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>p.s. How about this?  A discussion that actually came to a fruitful
>conclusion.  I disagreed with KAT, he explained his position and I
>explained now.  We came to understanding.

        I am pleased that you two have reached this understanding.
Perhaps now somebody can answer me this question.  You both seem to
be saying that we have solved the problem of determining whether
something was bad by determining whether it counts as a harm.  But
you still have not explained how to determine whether something is
a harm--and in particular how this can be done independent of making
a judgment of the badness of a state of affairs.  Distinguishing
different types of harm does not count as providing an explanation
of what it is.

        Assume I asked you "what is a star?"  If you answered, well,
there are many types of stars.  There are white dwarfs, pulsars,
neutron stars, red giants, etc..  You have no answered the question.

        So, my challenge continues to be this: Explain to me WHAT
HARM IS independent of any reference to a value judgment or the
judgments of the goodness or badness of something.  If you believe
that this can be done, give me an example.  Just one.  I hold
that a 'bad harm' is redundant--that a value judgment is implied
by and is a part of the meaning of the term 'harm.'  So they can
not be conceptually divided.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU