HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:15:39 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

Chris:

Snotty comments about funeral directors aside (some of my best friends...),
why do you assume that Falwell and people whom he represents don't think
much about moral values?

I would submit that they think about them at least enough to be able to
identify them and to recognize the difference between moral values and
licentiousness.  Further, I would remind you that, while the Assemblies
of God and the vast majority of Christians had no problem recognizing the
sins committed by Jimmy Swaggart as sins, the Democratic party seems to
have a great deal of trouble recognizing Clinton's past extramarital
behavior as adultery.

They think about moral values, all right.  They even know what they
are.  Whether those who are moral are still in the majority, however,
appears to be an open question.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:26:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: **STUDENTS FOR CLINTON MAILING LIST**

So can you give me the address for people who can only get bitnet?

Chris Morrison
CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
CompuServe 70712,3102
Prodigy pxpp48a (but who cares?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:19:51 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: marching at p.parenthood

>
>As to the Planned Parenthood protest, PP is the primary provider of
>abortions worldwide, and the picketing is to object to that fact and
>to the use of tax dollars to support that activity.  In addition, the
>new direction of the pro-life movement in the 1990s is into direct
>action, and you can expect to see a good deal more of it in the months
>to come.

Other-Kerry, I am well aware of what Planned Parenthood does, and you didn't
really answer my question, which was: is there any rhyme or reason
to the protests? This PP here in Providence doesn't see all that
much action. Its on the edge of a not so nice area and i don't
think the pro-lifers like to go out thataways. Their cars might
get broken into. I wanna know if there is a schedule all these
people follow, when protesting family planning clinics. I was
unaware that there was any new legistlation that was being debated
that would warrent a protest. Or are these visits by prolifers just
arbitrary? As i said before, this PP has been void of protesters
for a long, long time...(I drive by it on my way to and from work)

I don't want to start another abortion issues discussion. Just
want to know how decides the how/when/why/where's of protesting.

Jenna
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:23:48 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New York Senate Race
              10 Sep 1992 21:20:36 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

Chris:

I don't know who you know, but most people *I* know who work for
a living, WORK.  And they thank the Lord every day that they *have*
a job.

Most people I know who are looking for work are willing to work hard
and expect to do so.

Most people I know who have not yet worked in the real world expect to
have a job handed to them because they have a college education.  They
need an "attitude adjustment."  And they will get one.

--Missy P 2 B
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 18:32:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Homosexual Adoption
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

        There is an argument concerning the legitimacy of homo-
sexuals adopting children which I would like to offer objections
against.  This argument claims that if children who are raised
by homosexual couples suffer any sort of harmful effects as a
result of being raised in this sort of environment, then homo-
sexuals shouls not be allowed to adopt.

        I would like to object that whatever harm comes from
being raised in such an environment must not itself be caused by
society's hostility to homosexual relationships.  Otherwise, the
restriction does nothing more than to enact groundless prejudice
into law.

        To illustrate the point, imagine a society in which the
populations are divided among two races, where members of both
races are strongly opposed to inter-racial relationships, where
nonetheless a certain small percentage of the population enters
into such relationships, and where some of those relationships
involve children.  It is not implausible to find that, in such
a society, children who are raised within such a family will be
less well off emotionally and psychologicially (and, perhaps,
even physically) than children raised in pure-race relationships.
Yet, it would be wrong to imply from this that there is something
wrong and worthy of condemnation in entering into such a rela-
tionship.  The data, instead, supports the conclusion that the
aversion to people entering into such a relationship is itself
an evil which victimizes those who find value in such a rela-
tionship and victimizes the children which they in turn seek to
raise.

        In saying that harm, where that harm itself can be
traced to society's hostility, can not itself form a sound reason
to prohibit adoption by homosexuals does not deny the possibility
that other reasons may exist.  However, I do not know of any
valid reasons.  I would be in favor of denying adoption to parents
who engage in immoral behavior, but since homosexuality is not
immoral this poses no problem for homosexual adoption.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: War Between the Jasons
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:00:38 GMT

Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET> writes:
>Are there not homosexual marriages already?  There are actual homosexual
>unions complete with wedding and reception activities that have been shown
>on videos.  It seemed that these homosexual marriages were performed by
>a minister.
>
>So how can homosexuals say they are being discriminated against when they
>are performing them anyway?

I think the point is that under our current legal system, marriage
is a kind of standardized contract between 2 people.  Entering into
this state conveys certain legal benefits.  Among these are the right
to file a joint tax return (which generally translates into a lower
tax bill) and the right to use a certain procedure for dissolving the
contract (i.e. divorce courts and divorce laws).  I'm not completely
sure about the law, but I think that marriage provides a way for 2
people to act as a 'legal unity' (like, in using credit cards, buying
a house) that can't quite be replicated otherwise.

It is true that homosexuals do sometimes go through a marriage ceremony.
But that ceremony is not recognized by the state, so that homosexuals
who marry do not get the legal benefits associated with marriage.

It is that lack of legal standing which constitutes the harm to
homosexuals from our current marriage laws.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:43:09 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

>> >According to Consumer Reports, by reducing administrative overhead in using
>> >a single payer system, reducing the number of unneeded procedures, and
>> >eliminating fraud, enough money would be saved to give everybody health care
.
>> >The short answer is it won't cost any more than it does now.
>>
>> The short answer assumes too much; it assumes that a single payer
>> system will do what it "can" do, and ignores a significant diseconomy
>> of scale.
>>
>> A single payer system need not reduce adminstrative overhead at all
>> and can easily increase it because it must do everything that a set of
>> smaller payers with the same policy must do, plus it has to manage a
>> larger organization.  It ends up with more levels of managers
>> mananging managers.
>
>A single payer system reduces the administrative load of health care
>providers.

Not necessarily.  It may reduce CERTAIN parts of the adminstrative
load, and doesn't affect others.  Moreover, there's an overhead in
the single payer; large organizations have extra layers.

>It's much simpler to get all of your payments from one
>source than it is to juggle a multitude of insurance companies,
>government programs and individual payments, not to mention the work
>of deciding who gets to be a charity case.  That's why it costs less
>to administer a hospital in Canada than in the US.

See below - the savings don't appear to be significant.

>> There's nothing stopping someone from setting up a low-overhead system
>> and seeing how things work.  In fact, I'd argue that there's a moral
>> obligation to do so for those people who believe it is possible.
>
>No, you've got it backward.  We want fewer payers, not more.

The claim was that the specific forms had high overhea.  That overhead
doesn't depend on the number of payers and can be eliminated in a
multipayer environment so the "it's significant" argument can be
tested.  (Note that some overhead is required no matter what.)

>The miniature experiments we have made so far with simplified systems
>(HMO's) have proved popular with many doctors and patients, and have
>kept costs down as well.

Yet, they haven't had the savings predicted that the "payer overhead
is significant" advocates insist is there.

Let's take Kaiser as an example.  Its collection procedures are at
least as efficient as the IRS.  It has dedicated facilities.  The only
payer overhead is the "is that one of our customers?" question at the
door.  It does have to keep track of usage to plan and allocate
resources, but not on a per-patient basis.  It doesn't even watch
personnel all that closely; they're paid salaries.

Yet, Kaiser and other systems following that model aren't driving
other systems out of biz on a cost basis.

So much for the "overhead is significant" argument.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:02:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Virtue of Rationality

On Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:21:32 GMT jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.ED
U> said:
> Travis, read this.  2 or 3 times.  Carefully.  Think about it.
I would, but in a half-hour is the Florida State game.  And I'm NOT
gonna miss it.

> 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.
I'm sorry if I offended you or your wife by that remark.  As I
understood it though, you made me out to be an uncaring jerk who
has no regard to the feelings of women and would rape anyone he could
get away with raping.  Not to mention your attack on my university.
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?

> --Jimbo
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:48:54 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Bush Speaks

>Subj:  Bush speaks
>
>I think this shows just how out of touch the President is; how far
>he lives from reality.  For innercity poor who are serenaded to
>sleep by the sounds of gunfire and sirens, who have limited education
>and employment opportunities, who are just a paycheck or two from
>being homeless, who are caught in a psychologically demeaning welfare
>trap, who are surrounded by crime, drug abuse, and general despair,
>I don't think that the threat of nuclear war with a country they
>may not even be able to point out on a globe is a serious insomnia
>stimulus.

Right on toddddddddddd

>***stuff deleted***
>Also, the President said he *would* debate Clinton in Michigan.  He
>thinks the format is fair, and although he knows Clinton is a well
>seasoned debater, he believes that his handlers will have him well
>prepared for the confrontation.
>    todddddddddd

I think the President has been made the escape goat on this subject.
For all intensive purposes, he's trying his best in this doggy-dog world.
But low and behold, the under-line meaning regarding his statements on the
statue of limitations will have a lasting social conscious.  I'm uphauled
that he tries to take all the credit for the seize-fire in Iraq.  Since
time in memorial a sledge and reindeer pans out better than a set of old
chester drawers.  But, that's a mute point.  I certainly hope he increases
expidentially his actions, in order not to be charged with having a
one-track mined.  Of course, this is just my too cents worth.

                                                   ---roger
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:09:47 GMT

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.

This is how politics ought to be discussed.

Travis, take note!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:58:40 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: RE:Re:Bosnia Conflict
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I heard on Newshour on the BBC tonight that they're thinking about
>sending in the Ghurkas (check spelling), to guard the aid convoys.  They
>also want to send them to Somalia.  There is a private company operating
>out of Hong Kong that is doing the bookings now that Hong Kong is going
>back to China and the Ghurkas are out of work.

My sister is married to a Gurkha officer (erm, it's only the men that
are Nepalese). Apparently towards the end of the Falklands War the
plan was to send the Gurkhas into Port Stanley to flush out the
remaining Argentinians. When the ceasefire was signed shortly before
they were to go in, it is alleged that many of the men wept from
disappointment. The Nepalese men are, in many ways, the ultimate
mercenaries, often with proud family traditions of service to the
British Army.


Dunstan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      discrimination
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:30:34 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92090415375300@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
"Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:

>  You are refusing to acknowledge the existence of *absolutes*.  There ARE such
>  things as right and wrong.  Our *new* way of thinking has no bearing on
>  things that are unchangeable.  We can all decide to believe the sky is pink,
>  but it doesn't make it true.  Stealing, lying and greed are wrong, even if
>  you employ all three to provide for your loving family.

I do not question the existence of absolutes, I deny your claims about which
things are absolute.
 
>  For us, as a society, to defend and/or accept wrong as right is surely to
>  place our country on a path of self destruction.  Where is it supposed to
>  stop?  If homosexuality is fine, is incest, bestiality or pedophilia?  We

Incest, bestiality, and pedophilia involve an abuse of power resulting in harm
to another.  This cannot be said of homosexuality.  Hence, the question is
meaningless.

-- 
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
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:42:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

NEB?
national endowment for books?

sounds great.  i assume that the funds would be distributed fairly
evenly, purchasing religious texts of various cultures, non-religios
texts from various cultures and disciplines, and anti-religious
books.

i think that we should not discriminate against books on the basis
of content, but should only fund those that are of sufficient quality.
(i propose that we establish a committee of critics, teachers,
librarians and editors to judge the texts, and keep politicians out
of the process.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:55:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      NEA

I don't think there should even BE an NEA.  Government should
keep its nose out of the arts.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 08:50:58 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> KAT:

> What makes you think that private schools start with better students?

(You mightt have just well asked me what makes me think, period.   :-)

Because:

      1. They deny admission to less "desirable students."
      2. A parent who tends to send his/her child to a private
         school also tends to care more for education.
      3. ....

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:59:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>
>>    What I meant was that people spend, in reality, far less on the
>>  NEA than they seem to think, and that it is an infinitessimally
>>  small part of the Federal budget.
>
>So?  I'm pointing out that that point is irrelevant, that it's a
>strawman invented by NEA supporters.  (It's a strawman because they
>don't accept that argument when it is used to justify a program they
>don't agree with.)  I realize that it's convenient to define one's
>opponents' position, but opponents aren't obligated to be convenient.


      What programs is that argument used for?

>>  It is merely being used as a tool
>>  of the Religious Right to make people believe they are spending
>>  hundreds of dollars every year (which they are not) on "pornography"
>
>No, they're being forced to cough up hundreds of MILLIONs every
>year to buy something they don't value.


    They're forced to put up with 1/4 of a cent each year.  If we're
   talking about buying things we don't value, we can talk about how
   many people feel about the Stealth bomber, SDI, etc., which are
   more expensive than the NEA

>>  so that people will be more likely to be fooled into believing that
>>  they represent the mainstream in the US.
>
>If the mainstream believed in NEA art, it wouldn't depend on
>subsidies.  The art that the mainstream believes in gets along just
>fine with the mainstream's voluntary support.

    Most art produced in this country has obtained some NEA funding.
  What art is it that gets along fine with the mainstream's voluntary
  support?  Not galleries, not orchestras, not public TV.  What does?
  The great treasures of our culture were not created with the funding
   of the mainstream; what makes you think the treasures of tomorrow
   can be?

>-andy

     --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:29:21 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      private education

 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.

 During this 2 hours the headmaster and the principals, from elementary,
 middle and high school, gave their reasons for being there and also
 their visions for the future of the school.  We also heard from one of
 the teachers and a senior student.  Without exception, they expressed
 their faith in Jesus Christ and his importance in their lives and in
 their school.  The student, Blane Twilly ( son of Howard Twilly - Miami
 Dolphins, just as a point of interest ) voiced his appreciation for the
 teachers' willingness to pray with the students.

 Although the school has a reputation for producing very well educated
 students, this is secondary to its primary mission.  The school motto
 is " pursuit of excellence through Christ ".  This is where the emphasis
 is placed, directly upon a relationship with Christ.

 Perhaps I'm rambling, but I want to express the undeniable value of parents,
 teachers, administration and staff dedicated to a *Jesus first* approach
 to education.  Teachers are working for less than their public school
 counterparts.  Parents gather once a week on campus to pray for their
 children and the school.  Coaches emphasize sportsmanship rather than
 winning at any cost.  The students are considered *gifts* from "G"od, not
 just a bunch of little bastards to be warehoused from 8 til 3.

 Laugh or make fun if you must, but the joke will ultimately be on you.
 Public education will *never* be able to compete with this.  I am so
 grateful that I have been able to save my daughter from the clutches of
 public education.

 The political point to all of this is keep your vouchers and keep your
 ungodly principles, that will be attached to them, in public schools.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:46:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

>In any case, I am 45 and you are most likely in your early 20's, so my

HURRAY!
somebody older than me - thank you thank you you made my day!
-linda (if i could only remember which day you made :) )
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:45:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

Please disregard my last answer.    Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU