-I- Match your political views
Chris
>I just took a small quiz here...
>
>http://www.speakout.com/SelectSmart/
>
>According to my results, I most closely match Ralph Nader with 80%. After him
>it's David McReynolds at 71% and Al Gore at 65%.
>
>Since I'm Canadian and can't vote, would someone vote for me? Thanks :)
I end up as always:
Check to compare Score Candidates
89 Alan Keyes
83 George W. Bush
79 Harry Browne
78 Howard Phillips
70 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
63 John Hagelin
21 David McReynolds
20 Ralph Nader
17 Albert Gore Jr.
CW
Chris
wrote:
>On 13 Aug 2000 00:43:06 GMT, mcha...@aol.com (Caliban20) wrote:
>
>>I just took a small quiz here...
>>
>>http://www.speakout.com/SelectSmart/
>>
>>According to my results, I most closely match Ralph Nader with 80%. After him
>>it's David McReynolds at 71% and Al Gore at 65%.
>>
>>Since I'm Canadian and can't vote, would someone vote for me? Thanks :)
>
>I end up as always:
>
Check to compare Score Candidates
89 Alan Keyes
84 George W. Bush
81 Howard Phillips
73 Harry Browne
64 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
59 John Hagelin
20 Albert Gore Jr.
18 David McReynolds
18 Ralph Nader
I'll add my answer list:
1. somewhat pro
2. somewhat against
3. somewhat reform
4. strongly get tough
5. somewhat increase
6. somewhat increased
7. N/P
8. strongly favor school choice
9. somewhat consider market concerns
10. N/P
11. somewhat non-interventionist
12. strongly oppose
13. somewhat responsibility of individual
14. N/P
15. strongly reform
16. strongly reform/abolish
17. somewhat free trade.
CW
Evan
>I just took a small quiz here...
>
>http://www.speakout.com/SelectSmart/
>
79 Albert Gore Jr.
62 Ralph Nader
52 David McReynolds
50 John Hagelin
45 George W. Bush
33 Harry Browne
30 Howard Phillips
26 Alan Keyes
10 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
Evan
"You don't know how it feels to be me" ~ Tom Petty
Chris
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:20:03 -0700, as Koko sat in my lap begging for
>attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>
>>Check to compare Score Candidates
>> 89 Alan Keyes
>> 84 George W. Bush
>> 81 Howard Phillips
>> 73 Harry Browne
>> 64 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
>> 59 John Hagelin
>> 20 Albert Gore Jr.
>> 18 David McReynolds
>> 18 Ralph Nader
>
> 78 David McReynolds
> 64 John Hagelin
> 64 Ralph Nader
> 55 Harry Browne
> 52 Albert Gore Jr.
> 37 Howard Phillips
> 36 George W. Bush
> 31 Alan Keyes
> 29 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
>
>Heh. You and I are nearly opposite, Chris. :)
But not totally. :) Differences are what make our country strong :)
If we weren't all different, and a bit opposite of others views of how
to handle things, how boring life would be!
>>I'll add my answer list:
>>1. somewhat pro
>strongly pro
I almost went with strongly pro. But most of these I realize their
odds of getting done in the real world are zero..
>>2. somewhat against
>somewhat pro
>
>>3. somewhat reform
>strong reform
>
>>4. strongly get tough
>no preference -- I want both :)
Admittedly, my view on this is tainted right now until someone
actually gets caught.
>>5. somewhat increase
>no preference -- I'm not educated enough on this topic
>
>>6. somewhat increased
>strongly support decriminalization
>
>>7. N/P
>support legislative equality
>
>>8. strongly favor school choice
>somewhat favor -- school choice is fine by me as long as no tax money is
>given to a religious school with required religious courses
>
>>9. somewhat consider market concerns
>strongly support protecting the environment
>
>>10. N/P
>evolution only, baybee
Yeah, I can agree with that view point. But I do have to agree with
some that I think it is woefully taught in many high schools as a
basic belief system or truism rather then a theory. And there are
reasonable (non-quirky) great arguments that people could make about
outcome, genetic manipulation, etc. that would be great. I just
don't like how most high schools are teaching it (and no, I'm not a
looney, I personally believe in evolution, disagreeing with how it's
taught is a different matter that resorts from mainly seeing this
taught by HS Basketball coaches "coach, I've got a question, how quick
did this spread globally" "shut up! Just memorize!" :)
>>11. somewhat non-interventionist
>I agree with Chris! *faint*
*laugh* :) Nad, look at how often I "somewhat" or "strongly" and you
also lean that direction :)
>>12. strongly oppose
>somewhat oppose
>
>>13. somewhat responsibility of individual
>somewhat responsibility of the gubmint
Yeah, we're both lukewarm on this. Want it a little bit of both. (I
personally think that a set of clinics in Minnesota had the ideal
theory, but no shot of it ever going anywhere)
>>14. N/P
>strongly oppose legislation of "traditional values" -- prayer in school
>is not to be tolerated
Hmm. I guess I didn't interpret this question to be prayer in schools
at all. "traditional values" in school to me didn't sing
fundamentalism, I thought we meant return to posting the golden rule
"Do unto others.." (hell, you can rephrase it and leave off any credit
to where it came from the general idea is good) and a few other
things. If it were prayer in schools I'd be against (have your older
sister dunked into a dunk tank and baptized so she can get rid of all
the evil of being catholic against her will... well, that'll put that
in your mind..)
>>15. strongly reform
>we agree again
>
>>16. strongly reform/abolish
>and again
>
>>17. somewhat free trade.
>no preference -- again, need more education
I think my opinion goes like this: Pro-NAFTA I, Pro-participate in
US-EU agreement, APEC, don't do NAFTA II, SiDEN, etc. so a mix. But
it's complex. Dependant on what happens later this year when we
actually talk to the canadians about NAFTA II, I may change my mind.
>Who the hell is John Hagelin? Natural Law Party. Errr, this quote
>makes me think these guys are doing -way- too much weed: "We believe
>that a smaller, more flexible force coupled with greater economic and
>security cooperation will serve the nation's security interests and
>provide the basis for a more stable world. Through this peace-promoting
>technology, which is based upon groups of experts collectively
>practicing the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program, the
>Natural Law Party can help to ensure a peaceful world." Trancendental
>Meditation? :o I do have to say that I entirely agree with the NLP's
>position on health care, though.
John Haeglin is the guy who's fighting Buchanon in court for the
Reform party monies.
>Gore's position makes me snicker a few times. A child is most likely to
>take up smoking between the hours of 2pm and 6pm, so we obviously have
>to fill those hours as much as possible.
>
>Still votin' for Harry. :/
:)
CW
Richard Lanham
> On 13 Aug 2000 00:43:06 GMT, mcha...@aol.com (Caliban20) wrote:
>
> >I just took a small quiz here...
> >
> >http://www.speakout.com/SelectSmart/
> >
> >After him
> >it's David McReynolds at 71% and Al Gore at 65%.
> >
> >Since I'm Canadian and can't vote, would someone vote for me? Thanks :)
Mine is:
84 Harry Browne
61 Alan Keyes
55 George W. Bush
50 John Hagelin
49 Howard Phillips
43 David McReynolds
40 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
37 Ralph Nader
31 Albert Gore Jr.
Good thing, since I've been a registered Libertarian for years.
Rick
Nadyne Mielke
attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>Check to compare Score Candidates
> 89 Alan Keyes
> 84 George W. Bush
> 81 Howard Phillips
> 73 Harry Browne
> 64 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
> 59 John Hagelin
> 20 Albert Gore Jr.
> 18 David McReynolds
> 18 Ralph Nader
78 David McReynolds
64 John Hagelin
64 Ralph Nader
55 Harry Browne
52 Albert Gore Jr.
37 Howard Phillips
36 George W. Bush
31 Alan Keyes
29 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
Heh. You and I are nearly opposite, Chris. :)
>I'll add my answer list:
>1. somewhat pro
strongly pro
>2. somewhat against
somewhat pro
>3. somewhat reform
strong reform
>4. strongly get tough
no preference -- I want both :)
>5. somewhat increase
no preference -- I'm not educated enough on this topic
>6. somewhat increased
strongly support decriminalization
>7. N/P
support legislative equality
>8. strongly favor school choice
somewhat favor -- school choice is fine by me as long as no tax money is
given to a religious school with required religious courses
>9. somewhat consider market concerns
strongly support protecting the environment
>10. N/P
evolution only, baybee
>11. somewhat non-interventionist
I agree with Chris! *faint*
>12. strongly oppose
somewhat oppose
>13. somewhat responsibility of individual
somewhat responsibility of the gubmint
>14. N/P
strongly oppose legislation of "traditional values" -- prayer in school
is not to be tolerated
>15. strongly reform
we agree again
>16. strongly reform/abolish
and again
>17. somewhat free trade.
no preference -- again, need more education
Hrmph. Can't vote for McReynolds, he hits the same hot buttons that
Ralph Nader does about maximum wages and all that.
Who the hell is John Hagelin? Natural Law Party. Errr, this quote
makes me think these guys are doing -way- too much weed: "We believe
that a smaller, more flexible force coupled with greater economic and
security cooperation will serve the nation's security interests and
provide the basis for a more stable world. Through this peace-promoting
technology, which is based upon groups of experts collectively
practicing the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program, the
Natural Law Party can help to ensure a peaceful world." Trancendental
Meditation? :o I do have to say that I entirely agree with the NLP's
position on health care, though.
Gore's position makes me snicker a few times. A child is most likely to
take up smoking between the hours of 2pm and 6pm, so we obviously have
to fill those hours as much as possible.
Still votin' for Harry. :/
/nad
Not a Pretty Girl
:>evolution only, baybee
: Yeah, I can agree with that view point. But I do have to agree with
: some that I think it is woefully taught in many high schools as a
: basic belief system or truism rather then a theory.
Then again, the scientific definition of a theory is different
from the layman's idea of a theory. Gravity is a scientific theory,
but I don't see anybody claiming that we should stop teaching gravity
as basically being a fact. I'm sure that the physicists on the group
could explain better than I why gravity has its flaws, but on a macro
level, gravity is the answer that works best for us.
Similarly, evolution is the basis for modern biology. It
basically has to be a given if you're going to accept everything from
immunology to zoology. Evolution is a fundamental basis for biology
just as much as arithmetic is for mathematics or the alphabet is for
English. The realistic arguments against evolution involve concepts
that would be very difficult to handle on the high school level, even
in an AP or IB class.
: I just don't like how most high schools are teaching it (and no, I'm not a
: looney, I personally believe in evolution, disagreeing with how it's
: taught is a different matter that resorts from mainly seeing this
: taught by HS Basketball coaches "coach, I've got a question, how quick
: did this spread globally" "shut up! Just memorize!" :)
I suppose so, but in an introductory class, you're just trying
to get basic facts out. Nobody goes through number theory when they
learn to count. People don't start learning to read by going through
Shakespeare. Before you get to that level, you have to go through
basics. As long as we have our current standard of high school
teachers, I would rather see them deliver a limited amount of correct
information rather than trust them to know how to deliver creationism
as anything resembling science. I'm sure that Perfesser Waggoner can
attest to how hard this really is.
We should have qualified high school teachers in every
subject, but we're so far from being there. I remember being a
student teacher during my freshman year of college. I was teaching
high school juniors MacBeth in an inner city high school and had a
better understanding of the material than the coach/teacher who was
delivering the material.
Evolutionarily,
Hyoun
--
\_____________ "...if you allow yourself to feel \_a___________
\_____________ the way you really feel, maybe you \___m__s______
\_____________ won't be afraid of that feeling \_____a_______
\_____________ anymore." \____i__t_____
\www.mosey.com tori amos \_________e___
\_____________ \_____________
hyoun park '00E hjpark @ amherst.edu http://www.amherst.edu/~hjpark
Coi...@mindspring.com
|| 6. DRUG POLICY: Some presidential candidates support an increase in drug
|| crime prosecution and penalties while some favor a decriminalization or
|| complete legalization of what are currently drug crimes. What stance
|| would you like your candidate to adopt?
||
|| Support increased prosecution and penalties / Neither / Support decriminalization
[Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:20:03 -0700] Chris:
>6. somewhat increased
Can you explain this? I know you're apparently in the majority, but I have
tried and tried to wrap my mind around this, and I just don't get it.
How does someone who (if I understand your positions correctly) feels the
government should minimize or eliminate its involvement in determining how
children are educated, in mediating the power and profit of economically
successful individuals and corporations, in making savings are available
for retirement, in countering the consequences of disability and illness
on individuals, etc., etc., come to believe that government, and not the
individual, appropriately decides what one may put into one's own body?
Why does government get the stamp of authority on this (which seems to me
like a damned basic human right --- sovereignty over one's own body!),
when far less private matters are thought outside the state's purview?
How is it none of the government's business if I want to walk down the
street carrying a pistol, but I should be thrown in jail if I'm caught
walking down the street carrying a joint?
I just don't get it. I've tried, and tried. I don't understand. Really. I
would honestly appreciate it if you could make this make sense to me.
If the drug laws were in practice enforceable with any consistency, I and
just about everyone I've ever cared about would never see each other, or
the light of day, again. Why are we hated so much?
--
Peace,
Randy aka Coi...@MindSpring.com
Why does Coises have a web site? Why do peanuts come with directions?
Pages at http://www.mindspring.com/~coises/ were updated 8 June 2000.
Chris
<hjp...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>: I just don't like how most high schools are teaching it (and no, I'm not a
>: looney, I personally believe in evolution, disagreeing with how it's
>: taught is a different matter that resorts from mainly seeing this
>: taught by HS Basketball coaches "coach, I've got a question, how quick
>: did this spread globally" "shut up! Just memorize!" :)
>
> I suppose so, but in an introductory class, you're just trying
>to get basic facts out. Nobody goes through number theory when they
>learn to count. People don't start learning to read by going through
>Shakespeare. Before you get to that level, you have to go through
>basics. As long as we have our current standard of high school
>teachers, I would rather see them deliver a limited amount of correct
>information rather than trust them to know how to deliver creationism
>as anything resembling science. I'm sure that Perfesser Waggoner can
>attest to how hard this really is.
I don't know. When I was in second grade we talked about why for a
long time there wasn't a "zero" and why it was important that there
could be a "zero". And, I agree with you on delivering a limited
amount of correct information, so we ought to remove the famous monkey
to man five step chart, which has been universally disproven, even by
those who are hardcore :)
> We should have qualified high school teachers in every
>subject, but we're so far from being there. I remember being a
>student teacher during my freshman year of college. I was teaching
>high school juniors MacBeth in an inner city high school and had a
>better understanding of the material than the coach/teacher who was
>delivering the material.
I have no doubt of this statement. :)
CW
Chris
>Question 6 was:
>
>|| 6. DRUG POLICY: Some presidential candidates support an increase in drug
>|| crime prosecution and penalties while some favor a decriminalization or
>|| complete legalization of what are currently drug crimes. What stance
>|| would you like your candidate to adopt?
>||
>|| Support increased prosecution and penalties / Neither / Support decriminalization
>
>[Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:20:03 -0700] Chris:
>>6. somewhat increased
>
>Can you explain this? I know you're apparently in the majority, but I have
>tried and tried to wrap my mind around this, and I just don't get it.
>
>How does someone who (if I understand your positions correctly) feels the
>government should minimize or eliminate its involvement in determining how
>children are educated, in mediating the power and profit of economically
>successful individuals and corporations, in making savings are available
>for retirement, in countering the consequences of disability and illness
>on individuals, etc., etc., come to believe that government, and not the
>individual, appropriately decides what one may put into one's own body?
This is a tricky one, and it's why I said somewhat.
There are some drugs which I feel should be legalized; marijuana, for
example, wasn't illegal until prohibition, doesn't make much sense to
keep it that way. Other drugs (Cocaine, Meth, Crack, etc.) should
stay illegal.
For this reason:
Let's say I legalize crack/heroine/cocaine/meth. Great, you can buy
it over the counter at $50 a pop. Still, thus part of crime goes
down. But a whole other set goes up. Eventually, the person addicted
to those drugs will lose their job. They are at a much higher risk
rate of abusing children, spouses, significant others. They are more
likely to commit violent felonies. Eventually, they will just rob
stores to get the stuff, even if it's legal because their earning
power is nil.
But, more then that, I think this question is a bit tricky. There are
thousands of laws on the books - state & federal - about handling
prosecution of drug offenses. I do not favor the three strikes, and
believe the federal government should stay out of prosecuting in state
drug offenses, the fewer federal prosecutions the better.
At the same time, since 1994, a whole set of laws has been absolutely
ignored, peddled to get better convictions where under the carter
administratio and reagan (not so much bush, which also started the
decline) we haven't pushed it at all. Those are the statutes that say
it's a federal offense to traffic in illegal monies earned from the
drug trade. Flat out, there are a lot of banks, savings and loans,
credit unions, etc. who are absolutely profitting off of laundering
drug money. But since they know that we haven't prosecuted a single
one of them in six years, it's not much of a risk - even though the
sentence for the banker is still 10-15. I'd favor a huge increase in
these kind of crimes, because the only body that can prosecute them is
federal because the fed is the only one who can prosecute crimes that
require offshore or multistate commerce transactions.
I don't favor prosecuting the user, but that has also been in decline,
and I don't see a huge problem with that. Another set of laws that
we've been shabby about enforcing is another serious one: and that's
the transportation of drugs into prison facilities. Inmates caught
smuggling in drugs are going virtually scott free, which is why guards
at (I can't think of the fed. pen in illinois, is it Marrion?) got
busted a few years ago.
That's why I'm "somewhat" increase. Some laws need to be actually
enforced..
CW
colinfindlay
>I end up as always:
>
> 89 Alan Keyes
> 83 George W. Bush
> 79 Harry Browne
> 78 Howard Phillips
> 70 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
> 63 John Hagelin
> 21 David McReynolds
> 20 Ralph Nader
> 17 Albert Gore Jr.
and surprise surprise
87 David McReynolds
83 Ralph Nader
77 Albert Gore Jr.
51 John Hagelin
26 Harry Browne
16 Howard Phillips
16 Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan
13 George W. Bush
7 Alan Keyes
ta-da
colinfindlay
Chris
You know, though, that test is woefully simplistic. On lots of
issues, it's not as simple as "yes/no" by any sense of the means..
*shrug* but it's a fun "game" :)
CW
Nadyne Mielke
attention, Not a Pretty Girl <hjp...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>It's not whether you win or lose, it's how Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> plays the game
[snip]
>: I just don't like how most high schools are teaching it (and no, I'm not a
>: looney, I personally believe in evolution, disagreeing with how it's
>: taught is a different matter that resorts from mainly seeing this
>: taught by HS Basketball coaches "coach, I've got a question, how quick
>: did this spread globally" "shut up! Just memorize!" :)
> I suppose so, but in an introductory class, you're just trying
>to get basic facts out. Nobody goes through number theory when they
>learn to count. People don't start learning to read by going through
>Shakespeare. Before you get to that level, you have to go through
>basics. As long as we have our current standard of high school
>teachers, I would rather see them deliver a limited amount of correct
>information rather than trust them to know how to deliver creationism
>as anything resembling science.
I'm currently reading _The Science of Discworld_ (go order it from
amazon.co.uk!) by Pterry et al, and I rather like how they present this:
it's a lie-to-children. We have to do it in order to get the kids'
minds wrapped around the concept, and then later we teach them why it's
not entirely true.
We don't start out with quantum physics, do we? No, we start with
Newton, even though Newton didn't have it quite right. That's a
lie-to-children -- it's true enough, but not entirely true. That's how
our educational system is built.
BTW, Chris, this segues neatly into a question I had for you: the Kansas
BoE was recently up for re-election, wasn't it? How'd that go? My
memory is telling me that the old chair got ousted.
/nad
Nadyne Mielke
attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:16:25 GMT, qua...@rmta.org (Nadyne Mielke)
>wrote:
[snip]
>>>14. N/P
>>strongly oppose legislation of "traditional values" -- prayer in school
>>is not to be tolerated
>Hmm. I guess I didn't interpret this question to be prayer in schools
>at all. "traditional values" in school to me didn't sing
>fundamentalism, I thought we meant return to posting the golden rule
>"Do unto others.." (hell, you can rephrase it and leave off any credit
>to where it came from the general idea is good) and a few other
>things. If it were prayer in schools I'd be against (have your older
>sister dunked into a dunk tank and baptized so she can get rid of all
>the evil of being catholic against her will... well, that'll put that
>in your mind..)
As far as I can tell, "traditional values" == "Christianity", at least
when it's tossed around in political circles. I've not yet heard it as
having any meaning outside Christianity. Every time I've heard it
called such, it's being used as a call for bringing back prayer in
schools or posting the Ten Commandments. As such, I can't possibly
support it.
Are you aware of anyone who's using "traditional values" to mean
anything less than "force kids to learn Christianity"?
/nad
Chris
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 05:08:53 GMT, as Koko sat in my lap begging for
Yes. I will not say how I stood, but I helped develop the website for
the person who ran against her (http://www.suegamble.com/) , who
unfortunately, is also a complete flake (and since she hosted with the
company I fled from, that probably tells you a great deal). She does
oppose the board on that decision, but that's pretty much it.
The thing is, the media made it out like we in Kansas banned
evolution, or something like that. Nothing like that ever happened.
What happened was that the teaching of evolution was dropped from the
requirements for acredidation, which mainly serviced home schoolers &
private schools, but no funding was removed from schools for teaching
it, it was still required at almost all schools, etc.
It was a debate over symantics that the one side could never explain
well enough to do anything.
I admit, I have mixed feelings about that, because they were stupid to
do the decision, but they were branded for it for lots of the wrong
reasons because most people though we banned teaching evolution or
something.
I'm a bit sad to see some of them go, because the new people we're
going to get, IMHO, are worse on some issues then the old; the sitting
board who handled the "infamous" decision also were the first to make
it easier on kansas students to graduate early, which was in large
part due to people like my sister who sued the state & school when
they tried to stop her.
Now we're going to get a board that may think the science standards
decision was poor, but who also oppose early graduation, increased
gifted education spending, and monies for academic oriented after
school clubs.. things the previous board gave us.
But it became a vote about a single issue, plain and simple. Which is
sad, because some of the people who got voted for are really
single-minded.
I fear it's not going to be any better for kids at all.
CW
Chris
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:39:18 -0700, as Koko sat in my lap begging for
>attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:16:25 GMT, qua...@rmta.org (Nadyne Mielke)
>>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>14. N/P
>>>strongly oppose legislation of "traditional values" -- prayer in school
>>>is not to be tolerated
>>Hmm. I guess I didn't interpret this question to be prayer in schools
>>at all. "traditional values" in school to me didn't sing
>>fundamentalism, I thought we meant return to posting the golden rule
>>"Do unto others.." (hell, you can rephrase it and leave off any credit
>>to where it came from the general idea is good) and a few other
>>things. If it were prayer in schools I'd be against (have your older
>>sister dunked into a dunk tank and baptized so she can get rid of all
>>the evil of being catholic against her will... well, that'll put that
>>in your mind..)
>
>As far as I can tell, "traditional values" == "Christianity", at least
>when it's tossed around in political circles. I've not yet heard it as
>having any meaning outside Christianity. Every time I've heard it
>called such, it's being used as a call for bringing back prayer in
>schools or posting the Ten Commandments. As such, I can't possibly
>support it.
>
>Are you aware of anyone who's using "traditional values" to mean
>anything less than "force kids to learn Christianity"?
I've never really assumed it that way. We have someone running in the
KC area who's nation of islam running on traditional values; which
I've always thought, and it's been campaigned on: treat others as you
wish to be treated, honesty, integrity, a hard working ethic, and
commitment.
I've been with - and have worked for - candidates of differing
religious point of views who always tried to capture the "traditional
values" so to speak, but I never associated them with 'hard core
religious values' because around here, when someone wants to run on
that, you see them run ads that basically say "It's time we treat each
other more christianly" or "I'm for a return to the judeo-christian
ethic" there are candidates who run with those ads; Sam Brownback
does. But I've always seen people in both parties run by the
"traditional values" which I've always taken as a return to the core
of ethics, and when they campaign on it, they say that we are adrift
in washington with people who don't represent that, on both sides.
I've never taken it to mean "prayer in schools" I know many of the
candidates who've run on traditional values who oppose it; but they
speak about it, and they are honest about what they intend to do; and
that's what constitutes "traditional values", however, I guess a good
part of that is what kind of candidates you've seen over the last few
years and how they use it.
Here, if someone wants to run on prayer in school, ten commandments
posted, etc. they'll flat out say it, because a lot of folks in
kansas, would back them on it, and it would get you into the state
senate for sure.
CW
Elusis
> 7.
Which is a question on whether you support legislative equality for
"homosexuals."
> N/P
Thanks. Really. Your queer friends here on rmta thank you from the
bottom of our little hearts. Please feel free to roll in all the
special rights that your heterosexual orientation and relationship gives
you and don't mind us begging over here in the corner for a little crust
of bread.
Elusis
--
When is Ocean Spray going to come out with its new Cran-Shut Up juice
blend? -DWC ~*~ Memory is a crazy old woman who hoards colored rags
and throws away food -Anon ~*~ GOTH/INDUSTRIAL NIGHT coming soon to
Syracuse NY on Thursdays - email ve...@notthispart.rmta.org for info
Chris
wrote:
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 7.
>
>Which is a question on whether you support legislative equality for
>"homosexuals."
>
>> N/P
>
>Thanks. Really. Your queer friends here on rmta thank you from the
>bottom of our little hearts. Please feel free to roll in all the
>special rights that your heterosexual orientation and relationship gives
>you and don't mind us begging over here in the corner for a little crust
>of bread.
I don't believe it's an issue the federal government should have
anything to do with, either pro or con. Just as I don't believe in
affirmative action, hate crimes, or other similar legislation. Those
powers were not expressly given to the federal government, they belong
to the state. And the state should be the only one who handles that
legislation. That's why we actually have state elections more often
then federal, to show the power of the people in action :)
I also don't believe that my heterosexual status, or marriage, should
provide me any tax benefits or health care benefits legislated by the
federal government either, but that question wasn't asked. The
federal government has no business at all, period (IMHO) providing any
incentive on any social issue that is not directly out of their
confines. By making it possible for health insurance companies, tax
agencies, or federal policies to provide special benefits to married
couples also, IMHO, strikes against what I believe in.
Then again, I don't believe businesses should be forced to provide you
insurance, I think that if we opened up the market and made it where
everyone had to buy their own insurance, the market would be more
competitive and better for everyone.
CW
Chris
wrote:
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 7.
>
>Which is a question on whether you support legislative equality for
>"homosexuals."
>
>> N/P
>
>Thanks. Really. Your queer friends here on rmta thank you from the
>bottom of our little hearts. Please feel free to roll in all the
>special rights that your heterosexual orientation and relationship gives
>you and don't mind us begging over here in the corner for a little crust
>of bread.
Natasha & I went out to borders, and I was thinking about it and the
more I thought about it the more it really pissed me off.
I believe in handling things differently, but this is completely
painting the situation wrong.
I believe in working to solve problems on an individual basis, and I
think you've seen how much I believe in it. Last year I kicked in
more then $2,500 to RAINN. More then $1500 to AIDS awareness
charities. More then $500 to individuals who needed direct care. I
donated a large chunk of my personal income to causes I believe in,
and I spent time and effort working to counsel and help people who I
couldn't help with money.
When we came to Kansas City, broke as we were, since my business due
to a market change filed chapter 11 last year, I still spent immense
time working with causes I cared about. And I don't reply ever asking
or demanding anything about it. I worked with local organizations to
help them organize school unity groups that helped schools handle
issues of race, religion, and sex. I donated almost 3 hours a week,
free, when we had -nothing- to causes I believed in strongly enough
that I poured my own sweat, blood & money into.
Were the 80s good for us? No, the early part sure wasn't. After Tom
was born, my parents lost absolutely everything, we went years without
Christmas, and we had winters were all we ate were rice. We went on
welfare for two years, and were forced to sell our house that my
parents and moved to another state because the local school district
wouldn't allow tom to go to school because his disease made him a
child of the devil. And the Arkansas State Board of Education (and
let's not forget who was in office) wasn't all that interested in
doing jack or shit about that either.
We moved to Kansas, and broke out of our mind we moved into a house we
bought for $1. ONE DOLLAR. With a roof falling in, and a living room
that had been used to skin dead animals, the house smelled and was a
pit. But the community helped and built the house back up, and
everyone worked their ass off until we made it. And I will tell you,
a lot of that influenced how I believe in things today.
I'm going to quote a very biased source, which I normally wouldn't
because I think the general thing is true of other places as well...
the Catholic Advance pointed out that patrons say their charitable
givings are down over 80% in the last four years. And I've seen the
same thing when I deal with charities I care about. What's happening
to charities? No one gives a shit because they think the government
will solve the problem for them because the economy is good, so they
don't fucking give.
I dealt with a group of bio-ethicists here in KC who have been working
with the HIV cocktail at large local pharmaceutical companies, and
were working (still) with these companies about complications of the
cocktail we are worried about (stronger strains, etc.) that hasn't
even been touched in the media. When they sought help through
donations, who was there to help them? Who was there to help them get
research money for testing new drugs? No one. I donated my time for
free. Two of them are now gone to Australia to work on treatments
there, and thanks to the way legislation has been shaped, companies
working on wonder drugs, who used to be able to receive private
for-profit or not-for-profit donations really can't; so unless the
research is directly funded by the gov, it can't get my money, can't
get your money any more. Do you realize how sad that is? That the
people at large can't offer direct funds to help try and find out
other drugs, or trace lines of what may be wrong with the drugs we are
using? Too much fear of the "big donation demanding profits" well,
that's fine, then regulate it, or make it a fund, but banning it
doesn't help.
The problem that we've got is this: the more we push on the government
to solve our problems the less we do ourselves. While you and I may
completely disagree on the way in which it should be done, I'm
offended at the continuous point that the fact that I'm republican
instantly makes me anti-gay, anti-this, anti-that. I have spent a big
part of my life donating money, time effort.
I know there are people in this group who've received benefits of
everything from free webhosting, money I've lent - even when I was
poor, and sometimes just someone to talk to. I care about these
causes, and I care about them enough that I personally do something
about it instead of hoping that a politician will do it for me.
There is zero to be gained by doing that. Have you visited a nursing
home lately? I put in for a position at one in KC, and would like
that job most because I spent a morning talking to people who hadn't
seen their family in quite a while because it was too convenient to
stick them there and walk off. I spent a morning interviewing, and
two hours talking to residents about how they were doing, how they
felt. Because that means a lot to me. If you can spend 20 minutes a
day thinking about, or doing something for someone directly, you've
done more then what the government can do with a million dollars. No
amount of money makes someone feel loved.
At ToriCon in Denver, I provided matching funds for the Toricon
auction because it was a cause I personally believed in, and I made it
clear that I did not want anyone to know. And I haven't mentioned it,
and neither has anyone else. And that's good. There are lots of
things that I'm not mentioning here either because of agreements I
have with people.
All I can do every day is try to help people. I've seen what
"government' help does to people. I've watched as kids handicapped
like Tom are shuttled off to government run facilities because the
family can't take care of them, and it's the better path, as compared
to when people like myself or my parents or fund members donate time,
effort, love & concern to help them raise the child.
I don't believe in special rights for anyone, because those special
rights aren't special, they are a big first step in destroying people,
and that's what I personally believe. That's what my experience has
taught me. And I also know how important it is, no matter how little
I have, to donate everything I have, in every day, to try and do
something positive for people.
So yes, fine, criticize me. Think I'm homophobic. But last year, I
paid for a lot of medication for people who needed it. I made sure a
few people had a place to stay when they had nothing. I donated time
to help people who felt as though they didn't have a friend. I worked
with groups of students in KC to make sure that they didn't feel like
outcasts. I spent time with causes that concern me, and I dedicated
everything in my being to notify others that they should also try to
give.
While our approach may be different, there is value in my approach,
and I sleep well because I know that my dollars - my hard earned
dollars, so to speak, went directly to causes I personally believe in,
that they helped people I can see.
And I'm sure that there are lots of people profiting big on their
IRA's while natasha & I cash ours in to cover a bit of rent and make
sure we can provide for our children. And I'm sure a lot of those
people feel as though they are doing wondrous things for the
homosexual community, the black community, the homeless, and those in
need by just voting democratic and paying taxes. But when it comes
time to donate charitable money, privately, with no reward, to donate
time & effort to those that need them, all I hear is chirps. If those
same people would show up to visit their parents in the nursing home,
if those same people would talk to kids who need re-assurance, if
those same people would donate their being to actually helping people
hands on, we'd be better off.
So it's fine to criticize my politics. I know that, I recognize that.
And it's fine to criticize how we get to where we are going. But when
I go to bed at night, I don't think anyone in this house thinks that
we are some sort of horrible oppressors. Because everyone here knows
the people, has seen the faces, given the hugs, talked to the folks
that need it most and been there with them.
And I that's what compassionate conservatism should be. A drive to
get back to actually giving yourself directly to the people to the
government. And for those on the other side who profess how strongly
they are doing something for their cause, then damnit, do it. Don't
just pay your taxes and donate some money and walk off. Solving
problems isn't passing legislation, it's working and helping people,
and we are losing that. And every time we vote for another quicky
solution to pour money at a problem that can only be helped by holding
hands, talking to people, and showing our own personal commitment, the
less we do.
Except, I guess, we feel better about ourselves making more money.
CW
Chris
wrote:
>And I that's what compassionate conservatism should be. A drive to
>get back to actually giving yourself directly to the people to the
>government. And for those on the other side who profess how strongly
>they are doing something for their cause, then damnit, do it. Don't
>just pay your taxes and donate some money and walk off. Solving
>problems isn't passing legislation, it's working and helping people,
>and we are losing that. And every time we vote for another quicky
>solution to pour money at a problem that can only be helped by holding
>hands, talking to people, and showing our own personal commitment, the
>less we do.
>
>Except, I guess, we feel better about ourselves making more money.
Let me point out: I am aware, and take great hope, in the amount of
personal time & effort many in this group, and I'm not wanting to say
that anyone here isn't donating their time (because I know that they
are) but I do believe it is a prevalent factor in our culture that
fewer and fewer people are donating any time or charitable money for
any causes.
CW
ai...@rmta.org
>>anything less than "force kids to learn Christianity"?
> I've never really assumed it that way.
you're so naive sometimes. it clearly means legislating one group's
social values.
> We have someone running in the
> KC area who's nation of islam running on traditional values; which
> I've always thought, and it's been campaigned on: treat others as you
> wish to be treated, honesty, integrity, a hard working ethic, and
> commitment.
"traditional values" boils down to "*my* religious values force don
everyone", whether it's xianity or not.
[snips]
> when someone wants to run on
> that, you see them run ads that basically say "It's time we treat each
> other more christianly" or "I'm for a return to the judeo-christian
> ethic"
that's what they mean when they say traditional values, too. it's just
that sometimes they say it more clearly. either way, it's pretty gross,
and it falsely implies that xians are better people. and i'm damn sick of
people appropriating the golden rule when that's a rule in almost every
fucking ethical or religious system.
Aimee the Magdalene
# new around here? get the newbie pack #
# before i have to tell you to fuck off #
# send mail to new...@rmta.org #
# all will be revealed #
Chris
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>> qua...@rmta.org (Nadyne Mielke) wrote:
>[snip]
>>>Are you aware of anyone who's using "traditional values" to mean
>>>anything less than "force kids to learn Christianity"?
>> I've never really assumed it that way.
>
>you're so naive sometimes. it clearly means legislating one group's
>social values.
No, I think I have always lived where bible thumpers ran as clearly
marked bible thumpers, and they don't mix words.
>"traditional values" boils down to "*my* religious values force don
>everyone", whether it's xianity or not.
Ok, I could see that. I guess I haven't seen it run that way in local
elections in either of the states I've lived in.
>that's what they mean when they say traditional values, too. it's just
>that sometimes they say it more clearly. either way, it's pretty gross,
>and it falsely implies that xians are better people. and i'm damn sick of
>people appropriating the golden rule when that's a rule in almost every
>fucking ethical or religious system.
Now you're back to saying it's Xians. We've got someone running from
the nation of islam here in KC running on a return to traditional
values as a democrat.
CW
Chris
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>> qua...@rmta.org (Nadyne Mielke) wrote:
>[snip]
>>>Are you aware of anyone who's using "traditional values" to mean
>>>anything less than "force kids to learn Christianity"?
>> I've never really assumed it that way.
>
>you're so naive sometimes. it clearly means legislating one group's
>social values.
I should add: I've worked on many campaigns, with politicians both
democrats and republicans, whom many of them said a "return to
traditional values" and whenever they delivered it on the stump, when
they talked to students and crowds, they explained it exactly as I
did.
Now, when I've dealt with people who ran on religious values, they
come out and say it. And, by and large, in our state, they win. If
you come out in Kansas and you say "we should put god back in the
schools" you'll get a huge number of people who will vote for you,
100%, regardless of where you stand on any other issue.
It's foolish to mix words here, and in a lot of areas I've ever been
in, because the real thing sells.
this is not in any way endorsing many of these kookballs who run on
that platform, after all, we are one of the states where we have
parties based solely on religion (not democrat or republican) that win
state seats.
CW
Nadyne Mielke
attention, elusis@*delight*.rmta.org (Elusis) wrote:
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>> 7.
>Which is a question on whether you support legislative equality for
>"homosexuals."
>> N/P
>Thanks. Really. Your queer friends here on rmta thank you from the
>bottom of our little hearts. Please feel free to roll in all the
>special rights that your heterosexual orientation and relationship gives
>you and don't mind us begging over here in the corner for a little crust
>of bread.
Given it was a rather simplistic question, why get all angry over a
middle-of-the-road answer? The question is left wide-open to
interpretation -- what does "legislative equality" mean, anyway?
/nad
Angela Reid
<ai...@rmta.org> wrote in message news:8n9uu1$29tt$7...@news.rmta.org...
<snip>
> "traditional values" boils down to "*my* religious values force don
> everyone", whether it's xianity or not.
<Angela makes a sceptical face>
Depends on how broadly you define religious values, I suppose.
My mother is a "traditional values" kind of gal, and she's an
atheist/agnostic. (I don't distinguish because I'm not sure where she is
today. She goes back and forth between "Hogwash," and "Maybe, but I don't
care.")
Traditional values, I think, can have nostalgic as well as religious appeal.
I imagine lots of older people confused by the current state of the world
would find it an appealing thought, a return to something they can more
easily grasp, back there to that patch of ground that the rose-colored
glasses make look so appealing.
Let's take The James Madison Institute for example. They're a public policy
research organization interested in limited government, individual liberty
(w/ individual responsibility) and "traditional values" (their words). They
define "traditional values" thusly:
"History validates the beneficial influence of American morality and
culture; hence JMI's support for such traditional values as individual
responsibility, civility and courtesy, voluntary charity and philanthropy,
respect for the property of others and strong families. We look frequently
to the writings of the Founding Fathers --and those who inspired them such
as John Locke and Adam Smith -- for well-reasoned support of the moral
foundations of democracy and free enterprise."
(http://jamesmadison.org/mission.html)
That's not to say that none of the members of The James Madison Institute
are Christiasn. I believe Jeb Bush is Catholic, and he's heavily involved.
But it would seem to demonstrate that "traditional values" can hearken to
something other than the Bible for inspiration.
Angela
Elusis
> elusis@*delight*.rmta.org (Elusis) wrote:
> >Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 7.
> >
> >Which is a question on whether you support legislative equality for
> >"homosexuals."
> >
> >> N/P
> >
> >Thanks. Really. Your queer friends here on rmta thank you from the
> >bottom of our little hearts. Please feel free to roll in all the
> >special rights that your heterosexual orientation and relationship gives
> >you and don't mind us begging over here in the corner for a little crust
> >of bread.
>
> Natasha & I went out to borders, and I was thinking about it and the
> more I thought about it the more it really pissed me off.
<shrugs> Oh well. Charitable works or no, that has no bearing on the
fact that you support a party which has homophobia codified throughout
its history and its platform, and which treats GLBT people as
second-class citizens, if that.
If your conscience stings you because you support people and an
organization that treats your friends and acquaintances with contempt,
and because you refuse to support laws that would give us all sorts of
things that you take for granted by the fact of your heterosexuality,
then that's not my problem, it's yours.
You doing good works in other areas does nothing to alleviate the wrongs
that your beliefs and your party help to perpetuate.
Lots of people support both very good things and very evil things at the
same time. Mother Teresa did amazingly good works with the poorest of
the poor, while refusing to support giving them access to means to limit
their reproduction which might help eventually lift them or their
children out of poverty. Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation
Proclamation while owning slaves. Bill Gates donated a bunch of money
to AIDS research while still trying to stay on top of the world by any
means necessary, ethical or unethical.
If I still had my "logical fallacies" program running on my Mac, I'd go
look up which fallacy it is where you attempt to prove something by
pointing to evidence of something else. "Red Herring" I think, but I
wouldn't swear to it.
I hope it makes you plenty mad to be associated with people who would
treat your friends the way Republicans want us treated.
Shall we start on what Bush thinks of the pagans here?
http://www.tpao.org/Archives/990625.html is a good start... more
prickles for you on behalf of Korenstopher, and Darrien, and bramble,
and...
Elusis
(Ooh, here's a good bit from the Texas Republican Platform - anyone know
any Texas Republicans? "Homosexuality- The Party believes that the
practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the
breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous,
communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the
fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God,
recognized by our countryís founders, and shared by the majority of
Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable
ìalternativeî lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should
ìfamilyî be redefined to include homosexual ìcouples.î We are opposed
to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or
privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of
the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner
insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil
penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith,
conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes- The party opposes the decriminalization of
sodomy.")
Chris
wrote:
><shrugs> Oh well. Charitable works or no, that has no bearing on the
>fact that you support a party which has homophobia codified throughout
>its history and its platform, and which treats GLBT people as
>second-class citizens, if that.
No, I support a party that I know will not enact any policy. Do you
think republicans will risk any political capital on the issue at all
in office?
>If your conscience stings you because you support people and an
>organization that treats your friends and acquaintances with contempt,
>and because you refuse to support laws that would give us all sorts of
>things that you take for granted by the fact of your heterosexuality,
>then that's not my problem, it's yours.
Whoa. I also don't support laws that grant favoritism to
heterosexuals, african americans, native americans, etc. I am
clearly, and have always been, anti-affirmative action, anti-tax
statute favoritism, pro-flat tax type policies. Coding any sort of
"break" for anyone based on anything like gender, sex, race, color, or
creed seems to break against the fact that we are all equal
individuals, and that's what I believe.
>You doing good works in other areas does nothing to alleviate the wrongs
>that your beliefs and your party help to perpetuate.
Wow. Thanks for the chiming vote of support. I'm doing good work
because I believe that my good work is what's needed, not good work
from an uncaring, unsupportive government that, when asked, has done a
piss poor job of support plans, and supporting laws.
LBJ's ghetto's sure worked out well, didn't they? Favoritism is no
favoritism, it's a trap. And if you want to agree to that, and say
that there is something wrong with favoritism given to heterosexuals,
I will totally agree with you, but instead of turning around and
giving the same favoritism to other groups, it's easier - and to me,
more sensical - to remove that favoritism from the heterosexual
community and straighten out a god awful tax code. The same result is
achieved.
>Lots of people support both very good things and very evil things at the
>same time. Mother Teresa did amazingly good works with the poorest of
>the poor, while refusing to support giving them access to means to limit
>their reproduction which might help eventually lift them or their
>children out of poverty. Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation
>Proclamation while owning slaves. Bill Gates donated a bunch of money
>to AIDS research while still trying to stay on top of the world by any
>means necessary, ethical or unethical.
Oh, and so all of those people are evil? Because you don't believe in
Birth Control, which is a tennet of her religion, because you take a
bold step when you're quagmired in wrong yourself, when you try to do
something good while *gasp* you're still making money in last time I
looked, a capitalist country, you're evil. And yet, if you pass don't
act, don't tell, refuse to extend gay rights in the military, have sex
with interns while prosecuting the fewest number of federal sex crimes
of any administration since carter, you're suddenly a hero. Hmm. I
gotta figure out how that works.
>I hope it makes you plenty mad to be associated with people who would
>treat your friends the way Republicans want us treated.
Because we don't believe in hate crimes? I hate to bring it up, but
lots of gay community members also don't believe in hate crimes.
Because we don't want codified marital status, at the same time four
republicans have lobbied repeatedly to remove benefits and negatives
from all status? Because we're not in favor of creating laws that
promote favoritism to anyone?
The idea isn't to lift people up by putting them in a corner, petting
them on the head, and saying we did good things. The good is done by
creating a culture that recognizes that everyone is 100% even, and
that there is no reason to think that anyone is where they are because
of special circumstances.
>Shall we start on what Bush thinks of the pagans here?
>http://www.tpao.org/Archives/990625.html is a good start... more
>prickles for you on behalf of Korenstopher, and Darrien, and bramble,
>and...
Do you want to go into what Tipper Gore thinks of pagans? What Joe
Lieberman thinks of Pagans? Do you know that Lieberman also opposed
the status of wiccan in the military? Do you want me to codify and
print Tipper's speeches on cults in the US? I'm sure you'd find a lot
of your friends listed there.
Do you know that outside the convention, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins,
and several others are protesting to give Nader a position at the
debates because as Robbin's pointed out, your party is selling them
out?
If you think Tipper or Joe Lieberman is any more pro-wiccan then Bush,
you are 100% kidding yourself. You're talking about the same man who
asked Bill Bennett to come to the Democratic National Convention, the
same man who he co-chairs a committee for the public on, the same
committee that has printed two books about cults.. last I checked,
Lieberman hadn't resigned his post, and I believe Bill Bennett - who
wasn't even invited the RNC by the candidates, received a direct
invite to the DNC. So where does that sit?
>Elusis
>(Ooh, here's a good bit from the Texas Republican Platform - anyone know
>any Texas Republicans?
Yeah, and what happened when they took their hats off and prayed while
a gay republican senator spoke? The Bush campaign chastised them and
issued a statement that they disagreed. Tonight, an openly gay person
running for a democrat seat was heckled by delegates from Texas &
Mississippi at the Democrat national convention, and I haven't heard a
peep out of the Gore campaign, when CNN was demanding an explanation
out of the Bush campaign two weeks ago.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to feel shamed about how I vote and what I
think. I'm glad for you that you feel all high & mighty about what
you are doing, and what you think is going to happen. But the
democrat record hasn't been all that solid, and I think even with the
rosiest of colored eye glasses, saying democrats support wiccans is so
farcical that it's mindblowing. I'm sure the PMRC - who received TWO
DIRECT MENTIONS last night fit into that. I'm sure the speech to
bring a "faith based open primetime family hour" back sure includes
wiccans, when you're talking about organizations that asked for
boycotts of SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH.
Oh yeah, great, great. Even I thought Bennett and other's accusations
against shows like Sabrina and Charmed were silly. But who's on the
same panel with him.... hmm. Could it be your VP nom? And who
invited Bill Bennet and got him passes to your convention? Could it
be your VP nom?
I'm sorry, but don't get all high and mighty about all the great
things that they will do for your causes. Because the record of where
they stand and who they are doesn't speak all that well for it.
I want change on these issues. I've seen how change can occur. And I
know what problems I see in the US, and I know what I hope can solve
them. And we have two different approaches. But accusing someone,
bald face, of somehow being homophobic still completely pisses me off.
Do I see anyone in the government who asked any one of the major
pharmaceutical companies "hey, are their any backfires with the
cocktail" before ordering tons of it for their programs, and now
trapping people to something that in some people is speeding death and
causing mutated strains? Did I see anyone in the government provide
HIV awareness funding? No, in fact, from 1986-1994 we spent 4 times
more (Congressional Budget Office) on HIV awareness programs then we
did in the last six years.
While Streisand and friends donated over 20 million to the democrats
to get nominated, what were their charitable donations to support
groups & funds that provide medication? If you answer less then
1million, you're dead on.
I've seen no commitment to shit for any of your issues in the last
eight years. None. And the contention that somehow this will be
better for wiccans?
Did I see anything in the Bush quote that you link that says he was
out to get wiccans? Don't think so. Did I see anything in Tipper's
statements about the need to protect children from those horrible
people.. hmm, yes, I think I did.
Pick up a copy of
A Children's Book of Virtues:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068481353X/o/qid=966396532/sr=8-8/ref=aps_sr_b_3_2/002-3375420-7712867
Or
The Book of Virtues: Moral Stories:
Written by Bill Bennet, with preamble by Joe Lieberman in one, and
books Lieberman personally has recommended and has been in book
signings with his co-committee chair in NY, and then you look at
anyone here honestly, and you tell them exactly how pro-wiccan you
think things are going to be.
Let's not concoct shit about how anti-this and anti-that things are,
when you're ticket doesn't have some giant, spotless pro-all your
causes point of view.
And any consideration that they are pro-wiccan? Good lord. Oh yes,
they sure are out to burn witches. Hmm, but I don't remember them
asking for SENATE HEARINGS ON CLEANING UP TELEVISION about it.
Oh yeah, that's YOUR TICKET.
CW
Nadyne Mielke
attention, elusis@*delight*.rmta.org (Elusis) wrote:
[snip]
>I hope it makes you plenty mad to be associated with people who would
>treat your friends the way Republicans want us treated.
>Shall we start on what Bush thinks of the pagans here?
>http://www.tpao.org/Archives/990625.html is a good start... more
>prickles for you on behalf of Korenstopher, and Darrien, and bramble,
>and...
I don't understand who appointed you spokesman for Korenstopher,
bramble, or anyone else besides Elusis. I also don't see where Chris
was appointed official spokesman for the Republican Party. Voting
Republican doesn't necessarily mean that you support -all- of their
practises, their complete platform, etc etc etc.
I also don't see why you're adopting such an "us versus them" mentality.
Such blindness is rather disheartening to me -- instead of trying to
find a common ground and working towards agreement on those issues where
there are differing opinions.
I'm not disagreeing that the Republican Party has historically not
supported the causes you so vocally hold near and dear. Rather, I don't
see that anyone else (and -certainly- not any major party) has
particularly embraced them. You may have noticed that President
Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Defense of Marriage Act. He enacted
Don't Ask, Don't Tell (under which more gay military folks have been
removed due to their sexuality than before the policy). The Dems
certainly ain't putting their best foot forward as the Defenders of All
That is Good and Right (and Approved by Elusis).
An openly gay Republican Congressman gave a speech during the recent
Republican National Convention in Philly. {To be fair, I have to note
that the Texas Republicans, who were right up next to the platform
'cause their nose is firmly planted up Dubya's ass, all took their
cowboy hats off and prayed during his speech. That's just disgusting.
Thankfully, no-one else joined them in that shameful display.} The Log
Cabin Republicans, instead of throwing out the party wholesale, are
working towards acceptance and equality by working their way through the
party structure.
Chris has stated his opinions on the topics that you've mentioned, and
doesn't appear to be in huge disagreement with you over most of them. I
don't see why you insist on continually attacking and attempting to
shame him over the policies of the party as a whole.
You complain about logical fallacies, but you're engaging in a slew of
nasty tactics that don't even remotely approach debate. I'd rather see
Chris using a logical fallacy (well, IYO, at least) than your disgusting
attempts to shame him.
/nad
Talamasca
took a moment from seeing Star Wars again and again and again to write
>>If your conscience stings you because you support people and an
>>organization that treats your friends and acquaintances with contempt,
>>and because you refuse to support laws that would give us all sorts of
>>things that you take for granted by the fact of your heterosexuality,
>>then that's not my problem, it's yours.
>Whoa. I also don't support laws that grant favoritism to
>heterosexuals, african americans, native americans, etc. I am
>clearly, and have always been, anti-affirmative action, anti-tax
>statute favoritism, pro-flat tax type policies. Coding any sort of
>"break" for anyone based on anything like gender, sex, race, color, or
>creed seems to break against the fact that we are all equal
>individuals, and that's what I believe.
I don't remember seeing anything in Elusis' post where she was
advocating special perks for being homosexual. Indeed, what she's
(perhaps stridently) fighting for here are those equal rights you
profess to support. When did such things as the ability to marry the
one you love, keeping custody of (or adopting) your children, or
putting your partner on your insurance become entitlements to be given
to specific types of people? These are things that heterosexual
couples of all flavors have been able to do for years. Elusis is not
arguing that homosexuals should receive something more, something
better; she's arguing that homosexual couples should be treated the
_same_ as heterosexuals in these areas.
If you don't, as you say, support laws against granting
favoritism, such as to heterosexuals, then you should support laws
that will place them (homosexuals) on an equal footing. That, or you
must declare that no one has the right to marry or keep their kids.
And this should be done at the level of the federal
government, because in many ways it is a basic rights issue. (Basic
rights cannot be left to the hands of the jackasses working at the
level of state governments. I would be willing to bet anything that
if it had been left up to the individual states, slavery would still
be legal in many parts of this country.)
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
We watch
And we are always here
-- (from Anne Rice's The Witching Hour)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Talamasca
Chris
Isn't it great that the people who are so supportive of "tolerance and
acceptance of everyone's belief" decides it's really cool to bag on
catholics because they believe in abstaining? Which, IMHO there is
nothing wrong with? It's it great that for such a tolerant society,
it's great to brand those people as some sort of evil demons? Wow!
That's some great progress!
You know, I don't do any of that, I work every day to try and do
something positive. And if a whole lot of people did that instead of
sit and bitch, then maybe things would be different.
So you know, I'm going to point out what I think about a few things.
Do I feel that I'm donating my time and effort because I'm ashamed and
because if I didn't I'd have a guilty mind because I vote republican?
No, I feel ashamed because while I'm out giving everything I have, my
yuppie friends are driving beamers and talking about their portfolios,
and I've never seen a single one of them do jack or shit, and then
when something horrible happens, it's "oh my god, shouldn't the
government have done something?"
Years ago, when I was a die hard catholic, I worked as a counselor for
troubled kids, and I met lots of kids who were having rough spots in
their life. You know how many people offered to help? Not a whole
lot. But every time anyone committed a crime, or did something
horrible, it was either "what should the government do?" By both
parties, both people. Well, the fucking answer wasn't "what can the
government do" the answer was "what can I do" because if those people
had stepped in for a few minutes, and talked to those kids, lent them
their home, their ears, their time, maybe those things wouldn't have
happened. Do I think the government could have stopped Columbine.
Maybe for a while, but the kids would have lashed out with whatever,
hell, I got bashed with a bat. Violence happens. But a single
person, a single right person could have intervened and helped those
kids, talked to them, got involved and actually done something to
change their lives.
And that's not myth or shame, that's what I view as the only way
things will change, and as long as people believe that some sort of
government action is going to solve their problems, no one is ever
going to do any of that, period.
You know, in 1960, Kennedy called for our country to become a
citizenry that helped each other, that worked as a team. In the past
10 years we haven't worked as a team, hell, in the last twenty years
we haven't worked as a team. We've become all go-go-go get
mine-mine-mine. When I heard the call a few weeks ago that said: the
public, the rich, must become involved and no longer sit idle, I got
motivated. Because the lacksidazical rich, the people who sit back
and worship their new lexus while their kids are spending money on
drugs, or fighting depression is ultra impressive to me. Sure, it's
great. We've had six school shootings in the last 5 years.
Comparative to none in the 1980s. In fact, the last school shooting
of size even comparable was in the 1920s in Minnesota, in which a
farmer blew up a school building.
So what are we doing? We're propelling books like:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446677450/002-3375420-7712867
How to Teach Your Kids to Be Reach to the top 10. We're promoting
wealth as a goal in and of itself, which is as much a problem in my
party as yours. We're not encouraging anyone to donate or give
anything back. The concept of tything is so removed from our culture
that the term has almost no meaning, and civil activity is gone.
Parents hope for rich children, not children who give a shit about
others. It's fuck the other guy and get ahead, yeah, that's real
great.
The small family farm has been gutted in the last eight years, and
unfortunately, a Kansan has that to blame, as Dan Glickman surely did
nothing to help the small farmer. While the big farmer became part of
the single dumbest trade situation ever devised, in which we not only
stockpiled wheat but we began to burn it instead of selling it, even
at a governmental loss to countries in need, farmers were encouraged
to, instead of rotate crops, grow the same thing over and over and
over again, knowing it was the only way to get the largest government
stipend. Small dairy farms, thanks to regulations that made
distributing self pasteurized and hand pumped milk virtually
impossible have been driven under. Which may sound like a great idea,
but what you end up with is more factory dairy farms instead of small
community based ones that are far more likely to use BGH and treat
their animals poorly. And the original regulation, that the
pasteurization process be verified by governmental checks was
acceptable, but to force you to buy equipment which was in the
multi-million range killed small dairy. Bye bye, and hello gripes
about BGH, factory farms, etc.
Oh, and let's talk about the beauty that I often here: "oh, we spend
to much on prisons" well, let me say, as someone who's still got a bit
of a look over my shoulder for someone who -escaped- the thing is, we
are spending less on prisons. Which doesn't mean we aren't building
new ones (we are) but it means that older ones are getting in worse
shape, which isn't just bad for people like me, who are victims of
people escaping, but it's also bad for the prisoners inside, who are
inhabiting many prisons that are in condition that is absolutely god
awful and resembles gulags.. I've visited one in Arkansas.
Am I against hate crimes? You bet I am. Hate Crimes are justice
delayed. Based on the time of the Crime, if Matthew Shephard's
killers had been tried under hate crime legislation in Denver, they'd
just now be reaching the first panelling of jurors. And there
wouldn't be an option for a quick deal, it doesn't work that way. His
family wouldn't get an off-track deal that forced them to stay shut up
for the rest of their lives. Justice delayed is Justice denied, and
forces the people to suffer. The people in Oklahoma are still going
through the federal courts over the bombing. Do we want every case to
take this long, and to force families to go through this? And more
then that, the other great thing that hate crimes do is add to a great
growing national database of people that opposition groups know are
out their.. I now know, after having worked on campaigns, that there
are people out their who will sell you databases on anything.. for a
couple thousand, I can buy a database of a couple hundred thousand
names, addresses, reported income levels, and general voting
preferences for outed gay & lesbians. For nine thousand, I can buy a
database of those who have recognized themselves as anti-abortion. I
worked at a place that kept a database for a large pet company, who,
if you ever sent in any information on their large, scientifically
formulated diet *hint hint* then they had a database of a couple
hundred thousand names, the names of their pets, the food that their
pet normally ate, and recent vet reports of their pets. And that list
sold for a little over $15k. If you try someone under hate crimes,
guess what, you have to prove that it was a hate crime. To prove
that, you have to prove that the individual knew they were gay and
hated them for it. Defenses will be calling up and outing witnesses
right and left. And the databases that are already in existence, and
being sold will get brand new names. Names that they will sell to
absolutely anyone with a credit card that punches up enough money.
You doubt me? I can send you a zip disc tomorrow of everyone in
upstate new york who is classified as "outed" their home addresses,
and phone numbers, as last known to the party that they donated to or
the causes they supported.
So that's it, let's setup a system that makes it easy to persecute
people. Sounds great to me. Let's make it great to delay justice.
Boy, that sure works. Let's practice favoritism of the law that's
difficult to prove and in effect, diminishes violent crimes that occur
to *gasp* people like me.
Now let's talk about equality under the law. Equality should be
equality. It should be no favors to anyone, period. Their shouldn't
be a tax break for being married, just as their shouldn't be a penalty
- something even gore & lieberman agree with. Their shouldn't be
benefits in being hetero or homosexual. Their shouldn't be benefits
between anything dictated at the federal level. Because competition
can make that happen.... do you know why the largest companies here in
town offer benefits to homosexual partners? Or why both Cheney &
Bush's private companies did? Or Coors? Or IBM? They did so because
it made great business sense. They attracted the best and the
brightest. But the moment you force the policy on people, you
basically allow insurance companies to absolutely gut companies
because they know, for a fact, that they are obligated to offer it.
If you've got someone by the short and curlies, do you decrease cost?
Hell no. Oh, but let's regulate insurance companies, and go single
payer, right? Wrong. Of the top ten hospitals & treatment centers in
the country, all of them are private, and many are religious, which
means that we wouldn't be able to force them to get involved. What
happens then? The best treatment clinics and centers go offline for
everyone but the very rich, and all of the rest of us are denied.
Do I think Insurance companies should be reformed? Yes, and I've got
my own strategy for that, it's called share holding. Allowing public
investment and policy management of insurance companies and managing
them as deregulated utilities; reporting and responsible to the
public, but able to seek profit.
And let's unshackle the doctors. You know what's killing the
industry, making insurance and doctors fees high? Two things: (1)
lawsuits that are out of control. While the democrats oppose a
patients bill of rights that include limitations on how much a patient
can win in malpractice, it's the only practical solution. The
consequence can be regulated as such: bad doctors, after losing enough
cases, are simply stripped of their license, period. But rewarding
multi-million dollar damages because a doctor did a C-Section too
quickly instead of waiting while someone was 27 hours into labor is
driving malpractice insurance way up, which drives your bills way up.
The second is the medicaid handling of prescription drug requirements.
I might go into that later, but I think the best report on that is 60
minutes, and I won't go much farther then that.
Now to religious "rights" I'm glad you stand up for Wiccans. I have
no trouble for Wiccans. And I believe they are protected under the
law. I believe that Christian Scientists who refuse treatment for
their children are protected. I believe that Omish, who also refuse
birth control and many aids are protected. I believe that catholics
who practice their faith "by the book" are protected. And I think
that name calling and referring to other faiths as foolish & evil
through examples like Mother Theresa sure as hell shows a lot of
tolerance toward faith. Faith is a personal decision, and people act
within their faith. I will not speak out against Wiccans, I will not
speak out against Muslims. And in those positions, they may disagree
with other churches on ethical boundaries, and they can argue that,
but lambasting a large group of people's faith and then saying "oh,
and look how cruel they are to my belief" is the pot calling the
kettle black.
The problem in India was much more severe then population growth; the
spread of disease and incest were high. Fathers having sex with their
daughters, as a controversial now protested WHO report said this year
is so common that it's almost 50%. Was advocating abstinence some
cruel thing? Well, if you voice your argument to hand out birth
control, that's fine. But it wasn't her faith. And just as she
didn't spend her time turning away hindus and people who didn't
practice catholicism from receiving food, water and shelter, it's hard
to diminish her role by saying it was all evil and horrible because
she didn't follow your faith standard, and then say "we should all
respect the difference of faiths" no, that's not saying "we should all
respect the difference of faiths" what it's really saying is "fuck
your faith, it's moronic and backwards, we should all only respect the
faiths that I deem worthy" and what that is boils down to
demonization, and bigotry against others religious views.
And it's so beautiful to scare people with "look at what they want to
do to wiccans, and you support that!" hey, I don't support anything
like that, and what someone believes personally doesn't always impact
their decision, does it? Both Gore & Lieberman say they are
"personally" pro-life but Lieberman didn't vote that way in congress
(ok, gore did)
And it's great to say how good the party will be toward issues like
wiccans, when you're running a ticket that has written pre-ambles and
sits on committees with people who were ran from the republicans that
point out the evils of shows like Sabrina, the Teenage Witch.
Oh, I most certainly feel shamed. Every kid I've ever talked to,
everyone I ever donated funds or time to, I only did it to cleanse my
soul for voting republican. That was it all along. Oh yes, well, I
might as well fuck all that then and just worry about getting rich
because all these grand ideas will give the kids someone to talk to.
Will persuade people not to kill themselves. Oh yes, all that money
thrown at their cause and tied up in red tape is the perfect sign
their parents love them. Bringing back a faith based family hour sure
will help them, we can do that instead of talking to them all
together.
Oh, it's great to get up on a podium and demand that hollywood clean
up while you're their and advocate new rating systems and a new
V-Chip. Oh, yes, that's it, let's not parent. Let's not get
involved. Let's not hug people who need it. Let's chastise people
who do that because of their religious views. Let's spend our time
yelling and screaming at people who work to help by seeking out their
ulterior motive.
Let's just legislate the fuck out of hate crimes and send people
packing to prisons we've decided to cut funding to again so that it'll
be really easy for them to escape. That's the plan. Let's build
schools based on a model that after we've dumped hundreds of millions
extra into we've only seen a nationwide 4% gain in 12 years in. Let's
devote ourselves to a system that removes responsibility from the
person.
Yep, I guess I'm guilty. I'm voting republican because I hate all of
those people, then. I guess I should go to them, tell them the times
that I offered support, that I let them call me at all hours, when
they slept on my couch in college, when I donated funds.. well, I
guess I should just ask for my money back and tell them what I think.
I don't think so. I think the approach is to get back to people
helping people, period, instead of everyone expecting the government
to help them.
And thanks for classifying me in the evil group. Sure was nice and
very tolerant and accepting.
CW
Chris
Ok, but this boils down to this: the democrats are also electing a
ticket that passed the Defense of Marriage Act, so what's to be gained
by voting in that way? The attack was that the republicans were in
the wrong, but last I checked with the ACLU, that's how the dems
sided.
Now, in regards to adoption policies, as well as policies regarding
children, I completely agree. The should be treated the same.
In regards to insruance policies, I don't believe in the current
insurance policy advocating that companies have to provide persons and
their spouses insurance. That obligation by law is foolish, promotes
favoritisms, and connives to market controls that allow larger
businessses to collude to control prices of insurance. In other
words: the action isn't to grant the same status to those that seek
it, the correct action is to acknowledge the fact that the original
action was wrong, and that heterosexual couples are receiving a
benefit that should never have been theirs, and those controls on the
insurance world should be dropped.
Now, when we say "marriage" I agree that in churches that support
marrying gay/lesbian couples that marriage should be honored by the
state; the regulation of marriages has always been a state issue.
It's why states can set the age at which you can marry. It's why
states can require you to get a blood test, whereas other states do
not. It's why we've got states that can make you sit through a
marriage counselling class before you get married if you want to get a
liscence from them. To intrude on this, which is a right that is
specifically granted to the state, is wrong.
Now, we can differ here, and I do believe this will, and should
change. And no legislation federal (such as the defense of marriage
act) IMHO can ever be considered constitutional. Acts such as those
that try to regulate marriage on a federal level, making it harder for
homosexuals or easier for heterosexuals, on face value are
unconstitutional.
When it comes to promoting adoption, I agree with you, the standard of
policy should be implemented to make it easier for homosexual parents.
I, however, also view this as a states right. Now, we can argue that
this is a "basic" right but adoption is not a basic right; you cannot
as an infertile couple demand you be provided with an adoptive child.
You can be refused an adoptive child based on thousands of criteria.
For example, in Georgia, if I want to adopt a child, and I am white
(which I am) I have almost no chance of adopting an african american
child because their law contends that interracial adoption is harmfulf
or the child, and it's a last resort. Which is why children of color
sit in adoption facilities, passed over.
I criticize this, I call it wrong. I know that it is wrong, these
children are going without a loving home. But I also don't want the
federal government getting involved. I do want organizations to shame
them into doing the right thing, to motivate the people beyond apathy
to act at their state and local level.
The argument was voiced over "benefits" which I took to mean insurance
benefits, tax code regulations (which was mentioned specifically) etc.
Which I pointed out I oppose those same things for heterosexuals as
well.
And how about welfare services, removing children from gay/homosexual
homes for those purposes? Now this is something that I agree
absolutely is wrong. And the reason it's wrong is because it is a
horrid waste of funds that is federal monies. We spend time on witch
hunts, removing children from homes, not just gay & lesbian, but also
religious groups (of all flavors dependant on where you are, from
wiccan to orthodox, atheist to mormon), interracial, even vegitarians.
And they do it because the feds have provided money that is tagged not
to help reported abused children, but that is tagged under the
ultra-generic header of "general social welfare and monitoring of
social/family integration" which is, on face value, moronic. This is
a change the government can, and should make. To recodify the law
where it prioritizes investigations to reported abuse cases - of which
many go to the bottom of the pile. That's legislation from the top,
in that saves children from real evil, abusive homes. Now, there is
no way to prevent a county, city, etc. from having rogue individuals
who persecute any specific type of people. And that's shitty. But
that's something that the feds also can't do much about. We can't
micromanage down to every last person.
And there would be millions of children who could get homes, which
should alwyas be the goal of child services, and truly bad homes would
be weeded out. But that's done through a directive &
reprioritization, not through codifying granted rights that numerous
states would instantly protest in federal court.. and win.
And no, if left to the states, slavery wouldn't still be around.
CW
Chris
<jchi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I don't remember seeing anything in Elusis' post where she was
>advocating special perks for being homosexual. Indeed, what she's
>(perhaps stridently) fighting for here are those equal rights you
>profess to support. When did such things as the ability to marry the
>one you love, keeping custody of (or adopting) your children, or
>putting your partner on your insurance become entitlements to be given
>to specific types of people? These are things that heterosexual
>couples of all flavors have been able to do for years. Elusis is not
>arguing that homosexuals should receive something more, something
>better; she's arguing that homosexual couples should be treated the
>_same_ as heterosexuals in these areas.
> If you don't, as you say, support laws against granting
>favoritism, such as to heterosexuals, then you should support laws
>that will place them (homosexuals) on an equal footing. That, or you
>must declare that no one has the right to marry or keep their kids.
> And this should be done at the level of the federal
>government, because in many ways it is a basic rights issue. (Basic
>rights cannot be left to the hands of the jackasses working at the
>level of state governments. I would be willing to bet anything that
>if it had been left up to the individual states, slavery would still
>be legal in many parts of this country.)
And John, one question: Do you think the democrat ticket will push or
do any of this? Do they have a track record that says that they will?
Does voting for republican, in light of that, make me any more
supposedly "guilty" and "evil" by that token?
CW
Andrew Onifer
>You doing good works in other areas does nothing to alleviate the wrongs
>that your beliefs and your party help to perpetuate.
>I hope it makes you plenty mad to be associated with people who would
>treat your friends the way Republicans want us treated.
So what do you think of Angela and Michelle, who belong to religions whose
official position is that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong?
jay
--
You a newbie? Get the pack
Email new...@rmta.org
& I tried to tell my life story to the rain, &
& but it just ran into the sewer... &
& Andrew J. Onifer III aon...@bigfoot.com &
& http://www.bigfoot.com/~aonifer/ PGP Key at WWW Page &
Chris
wrote:
>I also don't see why you're adopting such an "us versus them" mentality.
>Such blindness is rather disheartening to me -- instead of trying to
>find a common ground and working towards agreement on those issues where
>there are differing opinions.
If more people would work together, even in their different ways, and
find common goals, which I think we share many, then you're better off
them not doing anything by fighting each other. Time fought fighting
solves little.
>An openly gay Republican Congressman gave a speech during the recent
>Republican National Convention in Philly. {To be fair, I have to note
>that the Texas Republicans, who were right up next to the platform
>'cause their nose is firmly planted up Dubya's ass, all took their
>cowboy hats off and prayed during his speech. That's just disgusting.
>Thankfully, no-one else joined them in that shameful display.} The Log
>Cabin Republicans, instead of throwing out the party wholesale, are
>working towards acceptance and equality by working their way through the
>party structure.
We should note that they were publically rebuked by Bush's campaign
that night on CNN. Mississippi & Texas started shouting at a openly
gay senate candidate tonight. Where's the response about how
innapropriate that was from the gore/lieberman ticket.. it's 1:20AM
CST.. chirp, chirp.
Look, neither party is perfect. Both parties have some very huge
problems. And they are more similar then dissimilar. But the more
the public relies on themselves to inform people, to make the steps
that accomplish something, things change.
CW
(who swears off debating politics here after this post, though I'll
take on anyone on the Arizona Diamondbacks, Baseball finances
thread...)
Talamasca
took a moment from seeing Star Wars again and again and again to write
><jchi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I don't remember seeing anything in Elusis' post where she was
>>advocating special perks for being homosexual. Indeed, what she's
>>(perhaps stridently) fighting for here are those equal rights you
>>profess to support.
<snip rest>
>And John, one question: Do you think the democrat ticket will push or
>do any of this? Do they have a track record that says that they will?
>
>Does voting for republican, in light of that, make me any more
>supposedly "guilty" and "evil" by that token?
I didn't respond to any part of the "Republicans might be
doing this, but Democrats are doing this too" part of the thread,
because that was not my aim, is irrelevant IMO. You said some stuff
in your response to Elusis that seemed way off the mark to me,
implying the usual conservative stance that to give homosexuals some
basic rights (or at least, rights already taken advantage and for
granted by heterosexuals but denied to homosexuals) would indeed be
giving them special rights, which is utter bullshit. A comparison
would be, say, around the turn of the century declaring that the
women's suffrage movement was asking for some special entitlement
(when indeed, they were entitled to vote, but there was nothing
special about it in what was supposed to have been a democracy).
But to answer your questions: the Dems are far more likely to
push to extend and protect these rights to homosexuals, but that
doesn't mean they will. Unlike Repub politicians, they usually don't
rail against homosexuality. But they don't tend to do much to support
homosexuals either. All the more reason, perhaps, to vote third
party.
And, no, voting Republican doesn't make you "evil", just
misguided. 8^)
Michelle Haines
wrote:
>So what do you think of Angela and Michelle, who belong to religions whose
>official position is that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong?
Actually, the RCC's position on it is that homosexual acts are sinful,
not homosexuality itself. A minor point, perhaps.
Michelle
Flutist
Jess
<hjp...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
snip
> We should have qualified high school teachers in every
>subject, but we're so far from being there. I remember being a
>student teacher during my freshman year of college. I was teaching
>high school juniors MacBeth in an inner city high school and had a
>better understanding of the material than the coach/teacher who was
>delivering the material.
>
Why am I not surprised. Of course, MacBeth was written by a dead
white guy so it obviously could have no relevance to inner city kids.
</sarcasm> Until we get good teachers in all schools (and kick the
bad ones to the curb if they can't or won't improve their skills) this
will be an all too common scenario-and not just in inner-city schools.
This is where most of the talk about educational reform and suchlike
falls apart. Change potentially impacting Teachers Unions has become
the third rail of politics at least as much as social security is.
The unions spend a great deal of money and have a disproportionate
amount of clout-witness Lieberman's hat in hand performance recently.
Which is truly sad because the good caring teachers in the trenches
probably are among the best equipped to define the problems and
provide solutions for fixing them.
--
Jess
Licking the glue side of the stamp isn't normal, it's just common.
Aimee the Magdalene
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jess
wrote:
snip
>
>As far as I can tell, "traditional values" == "Christianity", at least
>when it's tossed around in political circles. I've not yet heard it as
>having any meaning outside Christianity.
Well, which brand of Christianity? Catholics never had much success
making Fridays meatless. The Weslyan Methodists never had much luck
outlawing dancing (Footloose to the contrary :-)
We are really still dealing with the remnants of our Puritan forebears
with a healthy dose of Victorian prudery injected. Yes, it mostly
harkens to the Judeo-Christian heretige a majority of the US shares
but I really think that except for some fundamentalist sects, most
Christians are loath to legislate their spiritual beliefs while still
maintaining that there is a place for common values.
It's unfortunate that the few on the extreme edges of these issues can
so polarize the debate that there is no real chance of having a
meeting of the minds for the majority (and I mean much more than a
simple 50.00000000000000001% majority.)
Michelle Haines
wrote:
> Was advocating abstinence some
>cruel thing? Well, if you voice your argument to hand out birth
>control, that's fine. But it wasn't her faith.
She did also teach the Billings Method, BTW.
Michelle
Flutist
Angela Reid
Andrew Onifer <aon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8pkcmc...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:33:45 -0400, Elusis <elusis@*delight*.rmta.org>
wrote:
> >You doing good works in other areas does nothing to alleviate the wrongs
> >that your beliefs and your party help to perpetuate.
> {snip}
> >I hope it makes you plenty mad to be associated with people who would
> >treat your friends the way Republicans want us treated.
>
> So what do you think of Angela and Michelle, who belong to religions whose
> official position is that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong?
Oh, no, you don't. I'm quite proud of my church on this issue; it's one of
the reasons I became Episcopalian. :)
The Episcopalian church doesn't have that official position. The official
position of the Episcopalian church is "We are not ready, theologically or
scientifically, to say a defining word about the life of homosexuals in the
church...In the context of reverence - and humility - it seems best not to
take absolutist positions on a national level." (Feb 14 2000--The Episcopal
Church's Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music.) Yes, they're waffling,
but since the Episcopalian church is a democratic institution, some waffling
is to be expected. On the matter of gay marriage being officially
sanctioned by the church, the committee suggested local diocese follow their
own opinions on the matter--but as I recall, it lacked -one vote- from
becoming church-wide practice not only to accept, but to officiate (2/3rds
are required to win). The next general convention will be voting on a
ceremony being drafted specifically for the purpose of celebrating
non-traditional committed relationships, same-sex or otherwise.
Since the early 1970s, the Episcopalian church has been ordaining
homosexuals as priests and deacons. It did not at first allow ordination of
practicing homosexuals, although as early as 1979 21 bishops lodged protest
at that, stating it would reduce homosexuals to second-class citizens in the
church. In 1990, a practicing gay male was ordained, and efforts to have
the ordination overthrown failed. In 1994, 72 bishops signed a petition
asking that practicing homosexuals be regularly allowed ordination. At this
point, the church has chosen not to make a universal decision but to allow
local bishops to be guided by their consciences. Currently, some 100 gays
and lesbians are ordained in the US.
There -is- an anti-gay Episcopalian backlash (the American Anglican
Council), but so far it remains relatively small (knock wood vigorously). I
have every reason to hope that over the next decade, homosexuals will be
granted church wide rights, the same as women have done. Once their
ordination was voluntary on the part of a bishop; no longer.
Angela
Andrew Wright
elusis@*delight*.rmta.org (Elusis) wrote:
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 7.
>
>Which is a question on whether you support legislative equality for
>"homosexuals."
>
>> N/P
>
>Thanks. Really. Your queer friends here on rmta thank you from the
>bottom of our little hearts. Please feel free to roll in all the
>special rights that your heterosexual orientation and relationship gives
>you and don't mind us begging over here in the corner for a little crust
>of bread.
I think the question was rather unclear, and I really wouldn't blame Chris
for answering "N/P" on that behalf. The question seemed to be based on the
assumption that there are only two possible answers: pro-gay and anti-gay.
That assumption depends on an assumption that all GLBTQQSS people have the
same needs and the same views on what it takes to get it.
A better question might be, "Do you believe current laws regarding sexual
orientation are sufficient?" with options to say the laws should be changed
to give more rights or changed to give fewer rights.
I'd have to answer that question somewhat differently than "Go gay all the
way." I don't feel particularly disenfranchised here and now; I feel that
the laws are protecting me the best they can. Because I am currently
single, same-sex marriage isn't currently a pressing issue. I'd like to see
the policies changed [1], but that's more of a convenience change than
something that will lead me to "beg...in the corner for a little crust of
bread."
I don't feel threatened by the lack of laws against discrimination. Perhaps
I'm complacent because my "landlord" is gay, and one of my two immediate
supervisors is also gay, but it does provide rather healthy assurance that I
won't be fired or evicted for it. Job discrimination would be a major
problem if it were common enough to be prevalent--if, say, every college in
Detroit would refuse to hire an English teacher because of it. Some places
might discriminate, and though I believe it's wrong, I don't believe it's
something a law would fix, and it concerns me about as much as Hooters' lack
of male waiters or Pronto's lack of straight waiters. Those searching for
jobs should consider a place that's compatible with their needs and
lifestyle. That applies to everyone.
Sometimes, I do feel threatened by hate crimes, and wish something could be
done about it. But a hate crime law wouldn't prevent them from happening.
It might be nice as a symbolic gesture, and might have some effect; however,
I don't see it as a necessary issue or litmus test.
To be clear: I do not support Bush, for a number of reasons. But I don't
feel the claim that Bush supporters are all anti-gay is valid.
I'm actually very curious about this, Elusis. Why do you feel so
disenfranchised by your orientation? I don't feel like a victim, and on
occasion, I get offended when told I *should* feel like a victim.
We speak not of love, only blasphemy in Detroit,
'drew
[1] Actually, I'd be in favor of deregulating marriage. Entirely. Think we
can start a movement for that?
--
"Let's have some motherfucking Hegelian dialectic here!" -Jonathan McCall
Nadyne Mielke
attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
[snip]
> And if you want to agree to that, and say
>that there is something wrong with favoritism given to heterosexuals,
>I will totally agree with you, but instead of turning around and
>giving the same favoritism to other groups, it's easier - and to me,
>more sensical - to remove that favoritism from the heterosexual
>community and straighten out a god awful tax code. The same result is
>achieved.
Just as a point of reference (and I'm sure that you're aware of this
anyway), the tax code is not the only way that heterosexual unions have
precedence over homosexual ones. Just off the top of my head, I can
list inheritance, alllllllll sorts of medical stuff (visits in the
hospital, decision-making ability for a partner, etc), insurance and
related benefits, adoption, and on and on and on.
I agree that the tax code is a damned good place to start, but there's a
-lot- of other work to be done.
/nad
Nadyne Mielke
attention, mha...@oshconsulting.com (Michelle Haines) wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:13:36 -0700, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com>
>wrote:
>> Was advocating abstinence some
>>cruel thing? Well, if you voice your argument to hand out birth
>>control, that's fine. But it wasn't her faith.
>She did also teach the Billings Method, BTW.
Which is ... ?
/nad
{clueless}
WyrdWoman
>
> Oh, no, you don't. I'm quite proud of my church on this
> issue; it's one of the reasons I became Episcopalian. :)
Isn't Bishop John Spong Episcopalian? He's one man of the cloth that I
can listen to without disagreeing. Didn't he retire? I know that he
got on a lot of people's bad sides for his stance on homosexuality, but
I really like him.
--
WyrdWoman
cletus1 (Adrienne)
> I'm actually very curious about this, Elusis. Why do you feel so
> disenfranchised by your orientation? I don't feel like a victim, and on
> occasion, I get offended when told I *should* feel like a victim.
I agree. As someone who has just come out as a lesbian (er, rather, is
still in said process), I don't like it all that people automatically assume
that I'm going to change somehow, maybe create a new lifestyle for my new
orientation. That's bullshit.
One of my friends (a Baptist, I might add) that I came out to said "Well, I
support you, but I also feel kinda sorry for you. You've got a hard life ahead
of you." Again, BS. I think that for the most part, I've had it pretty damn
good. I'm about to attend a college where homosexuals -might- be in the
majority...um, should I be expecting this "hard life" stuff when I get there?
I don't like being told that just because I'm gay, I should march in Pride
parades, campaign for gay rights issues, and be "loud and proud" at all times,
in all ways. I'm still a person, the same person, and I don't want anyone
telling me that all of a sudden I'm a victim. I don't much care for
self-victimizers.
> We speak not of love, only blasphemy in Detroit,
> 'drew
>
> [1] Actually, I'd be in favor of deregulating marriage. Entirely. Think we
> can start a movement for that?
Um, no. Well, you could try, but....:) I don't really agree with this...in
fact, I think that gay marriage is the most important reform that could ever
take place for gays in this country. I want it. :)
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?"
--Adrienn...@ticnet.com--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nadyne Mielke
attention, "Andrew Wright" <madonna_of...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>[1] Actually, I'd be in favor of deregulating marriage. Entirely. Think we
>can start a movement for that?
I'm entirely with you, 'drew. I don't think that marriage of -any- sort
should be sanctioned by the government. AFAIC, whatever happens between
two (or more) consenting adults ain't none of anyone else's business --
and that includes marriage. A legal contract can be drawn up between
two (or more) individual who wish to get married, and they can have
their union blessed by whichever church, priest, reverend, or Jess they
wish.
The only issue that I see with completely deregulating marriage is if a
union has produced or adopted children. Custody battles are already
messy affairs, and heavily tipped in the favor of the mother (regardless
of her fitness for the role). I'm not certain how deregulating marriage
would affect that, but my gut instinct is that it would be negative
(especially in a polyamorous union).
/nad
Chris
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:32:10 -0700, as Koko sat in my lap begging for
>attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> And if you want to agree to that, and say
>>that there is something wrong with favoritism given to heterosexuals,
>>I will totally agree with you, but instead of turning around and
>>giving the same favoritism to other groups, it's easier - and to me,
>>more sensical - to remove that favoritism from the heterosexual
>>community and straighten out a god awful tax code. The same result is
>>achieved.
>
>Just as a point of reference (and I'm sure that you're aware of this
>anyway), the tax code is not the only way that heterosexual unions have
>precedence over homosexual ones. Just off the top of my head, I can
>list inheritance, alllllllll sorts of medical stuff (visits in the
>hospital, decision-making ability for a partner, etc), insurance and
>related benefits, adoption, and on and on and on.
I grant this, but if you're hardcore democrat, isn't the fact that you
had eight years to do something about it but didn't, and two of those
years with a democratic house and senate? And if you intend on
blaming republicans for all the ills in the congress because of their
power, then it's hard to turn around and deny the 1994 budget and
budgets since then, as well as the medicaid reform package that was
passed...
Hey, I'm not arguing that these are issues we should forget about. I
think there are lots of steps in the way. I think a big part of it
comes from equalizing the tax code and start setting things right.
Inheritance is something else that needs totally reformed and for the
government to extricate itself from. From inheritance tax to federal
assumptions, the laws around inheritance are barbaric to everyone, gay
or straight, and the feds should get out of that business altogether.
I'm not denying that these are problems, I'm saying I think that the
way to solve them isn't whipping around lots of pens to write new laws
but to get rid of old, outdated ones that benefit absolutely everyone,
and make everyone feel better about themselves. Because the better
people feel about themselves, their country, and their future, the
better relations with all peoples are.
>I agree that the tax code is a damned good place to start, but there's a
>-lot- of other work to be done.
I agree. But it's a matter of choosing what path we take to get that
work done.
But I also contend though, that this argument started out, and
maintains, that I am evil because I intend to vote republican, and I
have yet to see one shred of evidence that tells me why the democrat
ticket is so pro-gay & pro-wiccan now when their track record surely
doesn't represent it.
If this was such an important issue to them, why did they vote for
defense of marriage? (which is blatantly unconstitutional) why did
they vote against increased funding for HIV study & medication in the
military? Why did the concept of pro-gay policy completely disappear?
And the wiccan argument is so ridiculous it's mindblowing. Yeah, both
parties may be insensitive, but damn, we're talking about people who
worked on a book that I pointed out that talks about how shows like
Sabrina the Teenage Witch encourage involvement in cults.
And then we are going to contend that the democratic ticket is so good
that since I'm going to vote against it, I'm instantly an evil person?
I don't think so.
I'm anti censorship. Which means I'm anti tipper gore.
I'm anti-vchip. Which means I'm anti-joe lieberman.
I happen to like porn. Which means I'm anti-your ticket, which
denounced the playboy mansion and still took money from them.
I don't believe in CDA or any attempt to regulate the internet by
blaming ISPs for adult content of their clients. Which means I'm
anti-Gore.
I'm against the call for a new rating system to replace the current G,
PG, PG-13, R system in place with an obscure system that ranks via
content. Which means i'm against Gore & Lieberman.
All of that having been said, I will never say that people who vote
pro-democrat are all book burning, censorship for the children, punish
the internet community assholes. Because they aren't. I know that if
you vote democrat you are also considering other issues. That's fine.
But I don't take kindly, and haven't taken kindly to the fact that
because I vote republican, I'm doing so only based on the issue of gay
rights, and that makes me anti-gay. It makes me anti-gay like it
makes a democrat voter pro-book burning.
And it also makes me wonder why, when a party is making progress,
instead of saying "hey, they had an openly gay speaker talk to the
delegates, the candidate asked for a revision in the platform (though
he didn't get it) etc.." they lambast. Which makes me wonder what
people think of the elected gay republicans and african american,
female, latino, chinese americans. I'm wondering if those people are
being burned in effigy somewhere, because heaven knows, if you hate me
for voting for them, then what's in store for those *gasp* gay
candidates and republicans who hold office with them and vote with
them? Good lord!
CW
Michelle Haines
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:25:32 GMT, as Koko sat in my lap begging for
>attention, mha...@oshconsulting.com (Michelle Haines) wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:13:36 -0700, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Was advocating abstinence some
>>>cruel thing? Well, if you voice your argument to hand out birth
>>>control, that's fine. But it wasn't her faith.
>>She did also teach the Billings Method, BTW.
>
>Which is ... ?
One of the Natural Family Planning methods. It's a mucus-only method,
no temperature cross-check.
Michelle
Flutist
Chris
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:36:50 GMT, as Koko sat in my lap begging for
Amen kids! Regulation of marriage is not only offensive, but the
whole reason the damn thing started at first was solely to stop
polygomy and mormons and islam followers from following their
religious tennet's observance of multiple spouses. It is the ultimate
example of the failure of seperation of church and state, but it's
something we bought into to kick a few religions down.
Any regulation we have anywhere on the books about marital status,
regulation, benefits, perks, no-nos, etc. should go at the federal
level.
With complete deregulation, the law would also change where the
concepts of pre-nuptials, or faith based legal agreements, which were
common *SHOCK SHOCK* in the early 1800s, in which it was much more "if
so & so dies, or if you get sick.. " but same concept could be
updated.
Amen. Deregulate marriage. Get the government out of doing anything
that prevents anyone from practicing their faith, and from rewarding
those that play by the governments rules about something that the
government should have no position on.
CW
CW
Dances With Cars
Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
<snip>
>And then we are going to contend that the democratic ticket is so good
>that since I'm going to vote against it, I'm instantly an evil person?
Chris, could you please go back and point out the specific quote where
Elusis said _anything_ about how voting against the Democrats makes
you an evil person? Because I've read this whole thread and I can't
find it. In fact, in this entire discussion, I can't find one post
where she references the Democrats.
At no point has she said that the Democrats are
better/pro-gay/pro-wiccan. What she _has_ said is that the
Republicans are somewhat anti-gay and anti-wiccan and that voting for
them is not being supportive of gays or wiccans. She has focussed
specifically on the Republican stance on homosexuals/pagans and has
not drawn any comparisons between the Republicans and any other party.
WRT the whole "evil" thing, I believe her quote was something along
the lines of "good people do evil things". She's not calling you
evil. She's calling the act of voting in a manner that is not
supportive of homosexuals or pagans evil. There's a difference there,
and I think it's an important one. YMM certainly V, but I think "you
suck" and "your actions suck" mean two very different things.
You may disagree vehemently with her assessment, and that's fine - but
you might want to pay closer attention to what she actually did and
didn't say.
As ever I remain
-Dances With Cars (politics give me gas)
~~~~~~~~~~ dwc @ banzai - net . com ~~~~~~~~~~
"You have failed me for the last time! Nice shoes."
- Death, _Six-String Samurai_
Chris
<d...@banzai-net.com> wrote:
>While wandering in search of the house in the valley, Dances saw that
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>And then we are going to contend that the democratic ticket is so good
>>that since I'm going to vote against it, I'm instantly an evil person?
>
>Chris, could you please go back and point out the specific quote where
>Elusis said _anything_ about how voting against the Democrats makes
>you an evil person? Because I've read this whole thread and I can't
>find it. In fact, in this entire discussion, I can't find one post
>where she references the Democrats.
>
>At no point has she said that the Democrats are
>better/pro-gay/pro-wiccan. What she _has_ said is that the
>Republicans are somewhat anti-gay and anti-wiccan and that voting for
>them is not being supportive of gays or wiccans. She has focussed
>specifically on the Republican stance on homosexuals/pagans and has
>not drawn any comparisons between the Republicans and any other party.
>
>WRT the whole "evil" thing, I believe her quote was something along
>the lines of "good people do evil things". She's not calling you
>evil. She's calling the act of voting in a manner that is not
>supportive of homosexuals or pagans evil. There's a difference there,
>and I think it's an important one. YMM certainly V, but I think "you
>suck" and "your actions suck" mean two very different things.
>
>You may disagree vehemently with her assessment, and that's fine - but
>you might want to pay closer attention to what she actually did and
>didn't say.
>
>As ever I remain
Dances, here's what I'm going to reference:
<QUOTE>
.........
> N/P
Thanks. Really. Your queer friends here on rmta thank you from the
bottom of our little hearts. Please feel free to roll in all the
special rights that your heterosexual orientation and relationship
gives
you and don't mind us begging over here in the corner for a little
crust
of bread.
.......
</QUOTE>
Now, there was no ask of why I answered N/P, and the implication, at
least to me was "you bastard"
......
<QUOTE>
Vote to affirm that kind of sentiment, don't vote to affirm it, I
don't
give a fuck. Just be honest about what you're voting for and quit
playing games trying to pretend that your candidate is something he
isn't, or isn't something he is.
Elusis
......
</QUOTE>
The implication is my vote for Bush is a vote on my part based to
oppress gays. I'm telling you, as I put N/P, my issues are elsewhere,
No, that's not a top of the ticket item for me, I'm sorry. I don't
feel it's something that either candidate can or will do. But the
implication, repeatedly, is that because of where I stand, my position
is inherently evil.
Now, here's what I'm going to tell you, I'm not saying Bush is
pro-government gay rights. What I'm saying and have been saying is
that the democratic candidate is the one who has had an eight year
track record with not a lot to show. Who's VP voted for the defense
of marriage, and who's wife has made some vicious comments. Who's
involved with Bill Bennet and campaigned for a pro-family hour. So
I'm saying, let's not play games, and let's not make out one candidate
to be the "great choice" because he most certainly isn't. I'm not
"playing games" with Bush, I'm pointing out the sheer facts. Despite
what is said, he was the first major league baseball team to offer
insurance benefits to gay partners (true), his partner, Dick Cheney,
has an openly outed daughter and his company also offerred benefits
(true again) meanwhile, on the side of the ticket that I'm being told
repetitively that I'm somewhat evil by default for not supporting (if
I'm evil for supporting Bush/Cheney, then the alternative here, unless
defined otherwise is the democratic ticket) is a ticket that most
definitely has a shitty track record in their own right. If we're
arguing that Ralph Nader is a good choice for these issues, then this
could have been over a long time ago, I said Ralph Nader was the
logical choice for those who believe these issues are most important,
and should be handled by legislation.
..........
http://x52.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=559562908&CONTEXT=966474727.454295567&hitnum=131
> I'd hope so. Like I said, can't vote in democratic primaries (I'm a
> repub) but between your two democratic choices, he's the only one
> who's respectable ;)
Pity your party is entirely without "respectable" candidates, given
that I have zero respect for anyone who is so stuck in their own
prejudices, they still feel queers should be treated like second-class
citizens.
:-/
.......
Great, so if -my- party has no respectable choices, then that
classifies someone has in the other party almost by default in a two
party system unless it's clearly redefined. So, my party all sucks, I
suck, and somehow the gore/lieberman ticket is better. Explain that
to me.
The implication is that "my party" of which I am a member (imagine
this in math, a subset of a larger set) is inherently evil, therefore,
I, in part, am evil.
Look, if Elusis is supporting Ralph Nader, it's a different issue.
She is supporting someone there who has actively said he is for a
pro-active government that passes legislation to manage human rights
and as an advocate of the gay & lesbian community. If, however, the
contention is, on a scale of 1-10 that Bush/Cheney is a 1 as most
evil, therefore voting for them as bad, and the alternative is
Gore/Lieberman, I'm telling you not only are you not getting any
better, but you're adding other baggage that was never involved.
I mean, we're talking about running candidates who seem to also go
against the fundamental views. Isn't it great that the Dems are
running someone who doesn't believe in the National Endowment of the
Arts and/or thinks it should be regulated, as it all to often supports
immoral art? I thought this was also one of the top issues here.
*chirp* *chirp* And me, for bringing it up, and pointing out, point
blank, that we are not a two party system right now, we are basically
a one party system, and the parties running are basically the same,
therefore saying that I'm backing the "evil ponies" while proposing
Gore/Lieberman is silly.
CW
Nadyne Mielke
attention, Dances With Cars <d...@banzai-net.com> wrote:
[snip]
>WRT the whole "evil" thing, I believe her quote was something along
>the lines of "good people do evil things". She's not calling you
>evil. She's calling the act of voting in a manner that is not
>supportive of homosexuals or pagans evil. There's a difference there,
>and I think it's an important one. YMM certainly V, but I think "you
>suck" and "your actions suck" mean two very different things.
When I read "more prickles for you on behalf of Korenstopher, and
Darrien, and bramble, and... ", I don't read that as "your actions
suck". That reads, to me, as a direct attack on Chris, not on Chris's
actions.
There's a difference between saying, "these are the issues which I view
as important, and this is where the Republican Party differs greatly
from my viewpoint" and, "I think you should feel guilty about these
stances of the Republican Party". The first is a great way to discuss
differences -- in a discussion, we can exchange ideas and viewpoints,
and (if we're lucky!) come to a middle ground, or at least separate
agreeing to disagree but with an idea of why the other party
(little-pee, not big-pee) has the opinion they do. The second ... where
does that get us? It certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion.
/nad
Elusis
> qua...@rmta.org (Nadyne Mielke) wrote:
>
> >I'm entirely with you, 'drew. I don't think that marriage of -any- sort
> >should be sanctioned by the government.
>
> that prevents anyone from practicing their faith, and from rewarding
> those that play by the governments rules about something that the
> government should have no position on.
<Elusis sits down to patiently await /nad and Chris's announcement that
they are filing for legal divorces from their respective partners in
order to free themselves from government-regulated marriage>
Elusis
--
When is Ocean Spray going to come out with its new Cran-Shut Up juice
blend? -DWC ~*~ Memory is a crazy old woman who hoards colored rags
and throws away food -Anon ~*~ GOTH/INDUSTRIAL NIGHT coming soon to
Syracuse NY on Thursdays - email ve...@notthispart.rmta.org for info
Angela Reid
Elusis <elusis@*delight*.rmta.org> wrote in message
news:1efh6kg.bhduqe1pnhvewN%elusis@*delight*.rmta.org...
<snip>
> <Elusis sits down to patiently await /nad and Chris's announcement that
> they are filing for legal divorces from their respective partners in
> order to free themselves from government-regulated marriage>
You know, I know a woman who did that. Not divorced, but refused to marry.
She and her partner had committed not to marry until homosexuals were
allowed to do so, too.
I haven't seen her for a few years. I wonder if she stuck to her guns.
Angela
WyrdWoman
>
> Elusis <elusis@*delight*.rmta.org> wrote...
> <snip>
> > <Elusis sits down to patiently await /nad and Chris's
> > announcement that they are filing for legal divorces from
> > their respective partners in order to free themselves
> > from government-regulated marriage>
>
> You know, I know a woman who did that. Not divorced, but
> refused to marry. She and her partner had committed not to
> marry until homosexuals were allowed to do so, too.
Well, that's not my reasoning, but I'm not getting married. I see no
purpose for it. Either you marry due to religious convictions, societal
pressure, a green card, or other reasons (such as "everyone else does it
as a symbol of their devotion"), but I don't fit in those categories.
Others have said that you marry "so your kids won't be bastards," but I
totally disagree with that sentiment. I don't need to "validate" my
child for anyone.
I do believe in anyone's right to marry whomever they please, though.
--
WyrdWoman
Chris
wrote:
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>> qua...@rmta.org (Nadyne Mielke) wrote:
>>
>> >I'm entirely with you, 'drew. I don't think that marriage of -any- sort
>> >should be sanctioned by the government.
>>
>> Amen. Deregulate marriage. Get the government out of doing anything
>> that prevents anyone from practicing their faith, and from rewarding
>> those that play by the governments rules about something that the
>> government should have no position on.
>
><Elusis sits down to patiently await /nad and Chris's announcement that
>they are filing for legal divorces from their respective partners in
>order to free themselves from government-regulated marriage>
My marriage was consumated within the bounds of a religious
organization, and not within the united states, as we were married in
Jamaica.
We are not saying that we should get divorced. We are saying that the
act of marriage is an act solely due to the people, or their faith, or
their beliefs, and the government should have never, ever gotten
involved.. I've thought this for a long time, look back, 1993, I think
you can find a project I was involved at in the KSU hist. department
on how these regulations were crushing blows to islamic immigrants,
were a blatant attempt to crush mormonism which believes is poly
marriages, etc.
The regulation and the benefits and negatives provided to any marriage
divides the people from their faiths, and it involved the government
in endorsing acts that single out and discriminate against people who
are single, and people who practice faiths that do not believe in
paper marriages.
Taking the government out of marriages don't end marriages. If you
wish to be married, it's a committment between the two people,
potentially their faith or faiths, etc. But it's not a committment to
the government to follow any of their rules.
CW
Chris
wrote:
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>> qua...@rmta.org (Nadyne Mielke) wrote:
>>
>> >I'm entirely with you, 'drew. I don't think that marriage of -any- sort
>> >should be sanctioned by the government.
>>
>> Amen. Deregulate marriage. Get the government out of doing anything
>> that prevents anyone from practicing their faith, and from rewarding
>> those that play by the governments rules about something that the
>> government should have no position on.
>
><Elusis sits down to patiently await /nad and Chris's announcement that
>they are filing for legal divorces from their respective partners in
>order to free themselves from government-regulated marriage>
I also want to add:
I filed taxes separate of natasha, we are filed as individuals.
I do not receive insurance that is bound to us and our child because
of marriage.
She did not take me name.
And we have never listed ourselves for any sort of assistance or aid
available to married couples over singles.
CW
ai...@rmta.org
> On 14 Aug 2000 23:21:37 GMT, ai...@rmta.org wrote:
[snip]
>>that's what they mean when they say traditional values, too. it's just
>>that sometimes they say it more clearly. either way, it's pretty gross,
>>and it falsely implies that xians are better people. and i'm damn sick of
>>people appropriating the golden rule when that's a rule in almost every
>>fucking ethical or religious system.
> Now you're back to saying it's Xians. We've got someone running from
> the nation of islam here in KC running on a return to traditional
> values as a democrat.
99.99999999999999999999% of the time, it means xianity. ok, there's this
one guy in KC running on muslim bigotry instead of xian. BFD. there's
not a lot of difference between xian fundies and muslim fundies, and i
object to either legislating their values.
Aimee the Magdalene
&&&&&&&&& the cognitive dissonance .sig &&&&&&&&&
& i won't let you fall apart NIN &
& i have to learn to let you crash down Tori Amos &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
ai...@rmta.org
[snip]
> [1] Actually, I'd be in favor of deregulating
> marriage. Entirely. Think we can start a movement for that?
shit yeah. make marriage social rather than legal, and any couple or
group, with any combination of genders and races, can get married just by
having a party with any sort of ceremony they prefer. get married by your
church, get married by your elks club, get married by jess at
toricon. anything goes, and we don't have to bring any pesky laws into
it.
i didn't approach marriage as a legal concern, certainly, and i don't give
a shit about any legal status i get from being married. my marriage is
about the relationship between my husband and i, not about a piece of
paper from the state of missouri.
i think we're a long way from that, though, so for as long as we do have
marriage as a legal concern, i support laws which will allow gays and
groups to get married just like straight couples.
Aimee the Magdalene
*********************************************************************
\ finding jesus in the faces of the dying gutter people of calcutta /
/ is a wonderful way to dissipate one's sex drive - Tony Campolo \
\ you can't stumble if you're on your knees - a church sign /
/ time for cake and sodomy - Marilyn Manson \
*********************************************************************
ai...@rmta.org
> <Elusis sits down to patiently await /nad and Chris's announcement that
> they are filing for legal divorces from their respective partners in
> order to free themselves from government-regulated marriage>
might as well add me to that list while you're at it. i suggest having a
few books to read while you wait.
hey, everybody, i think we should take up a collection to buy elusis a big
pair of pliers for xmas. then maybe by new year's day she can have that
giant dead bug out of her ass.
Aimee the Magdalene
| the view that the metaphysician is to be reckoned among the poets |
| appears to rest on the assumption that both talk nonsense. but |
| this assumption is false. in the vast majority of cases the |
| sentences produced by poets do have literal meaning. |
| - A.J. Ayer |
Chris
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Aug 2000 23:21:37 GMT, ai...@rmta.org wrote:
>[snip]
>>>that's what they mean when they say traditional values, too. it's just
>>>that sometimes they say it more clearly. either way, it's pretty gross,
>>>and it falsely implies that xians are better people. and i'm damn sick of
>>>people appropriating the golden rule when that's a rule in almost every
>>>fucking ethical or religious system.
>> Now you're back to saying it's Xians. We've got someone running from
>> the nation of islam here in KC running on a return to traditional
>> values as a democrat.
>
>99.99999999999999999999% of the time, it means xianity. ok, there's this
>one guy in KC running on muslim bigotry instead of xian. BFD. there's
>not a lot of difference between xian fundies and muslim fundies, and i
>object to either legislating their values.
Lieberman last night used the phrase traditional values.
CW
Chris
>Andrew Wright <madonna_of...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> [1] Actually, I'd be in favor of deregulating
>> marriage. Entirely. Think we can start a movement for that?
>
>shit yeah. make marriage social rather than legal, and any couple or
>group, with any combination of genders and races, can get married just by
>having a party with any sort of ceremony they prefer. get married by your
>church, get married by your elks club, get married by jess at
>toricon. anything goes, and we don't have to bring any pesky laws into
>it.
>
>i didn't approach marriage as a legal concern, certainly, and i don't give
>a shit about any legal status i get from being married. my marriage is
>about the relationship between my husband and i, not about a piece of
>paper from the state of missouri.
>
>i think we're a long way from that, though, so for as long as we do have
>marriage as a legal concern, i support laws which will allow gays and
>groups to get married just like straight couples.
I could see this, but by legally making it "OK" for certain groups to
get married, I think you codify something that could be done simply by
getting out of determining what a marriage is.
Look at it this way:
If you're a mormon - and there are almost 17Million of them, then a
tenet of your religion was forced out because we codified marriage in
the first place, you were one of the first targets.
If you're a nation of islam member who also believes in polygamy, you
to were screwed.
If you are of certain omish groups, you don't believe in paper
marriages because only "god" is required to know if you are married at
all, and you will not put your marriage on paper, because it
diminishes the whole thing.
Those people have been suffering for years and years and they were the
original intent. Singles have also been "singled" out and screwed.
And then you've got some native american tribes that believe that a
spouse isn't "yours" and is sometimes "passed on" both husbands and
wives - and this still happens.
And let's not forget churches and religious groups. Some religious
groups believe in gay and lesbian marriages. By telling them it's
false, it's a clear violation of church and state, you're legislating
their contract with their god, which is only between them and their
interpretation of god. Other churches don't believe in those
marriages. By codifying any of the above (polygamy, same sex
marriages) you are dictating their faith by telling them what's
acceptable.
The whole thing is -unacceptable-. The federal government was never
supposed to be involved. They only got involved in the 1830s and
before as ways to hinder growing religious groups, the ultimate in
violating people's faith in god. Then we turned around and rewarded
people with "supposed' tax benefits, breaks, etc. for those that
followed what we marked as "good" and we didn't give those breaks to
those who weren't (single folks, etc.) but it was so messed up that
we've jacked around the tax system that the minuscule break or benefit
some people get is just smoke and water comparative to the fact that
everyone pays between 27% and 41% of their total income in taxes, to
get a couple hundred back is foolish.
If the state got out of this all together and just said, we aren't
going to BS you, this IRS thing is meddling in churches, it's setting
up a fraud that makes people slaves because you are not entitled to
your own earnings until after the government is done with a large part
of them, and we're getting out. Then we're screwed.
We may be a long way to that point. But I think there is something to
be said to make a convincing argument to both parties that any
government regulation of how marriages are performed - which would
find detractors and supporters of certain types on both sides of the
table - makes sense.
For all those that campaign for the separation of church and state,
this is the greatest example of something the state needs out of
entirely and shouldn't quagmire itself further. Because slowly adding
one group or another to the "OK" list just continues to demonize
others - millions of others - who's faiths, etc. disagree with the
code.
CW
Nadyne Mielke
attention, ai...@rmta.org wrote:
:Elusis <elusis@*delight*.rmta.org> wrote:
:> <Elusis sits down to patiently await /nad and Chris's announcement that
:> they are filing for legal divorces from their respective partners in
:> order to free themselves from government-regulated marriage>
:might as well add me to that list while you're at it. i suggest having a
:few books to read while you wait.
Is it time for another book thread?
I'm currently halfway through _The Science of Discworld_, which is a
good read, but you have to import it.
Next up: _Towing Jehovah_ by James Morrow. This one looks
-excellent-, I'm considering putting aside the above Pterry 'cause
this one looks so good.
I'll skip the articles I'm reading for my thesis. Y'all will fall
asleep. :)
:hey, everybody, i think we should take up a collection to buy elusis a big
:pair of pliers for xmas. then maybe by new year's day she can have that
:giant dead bug out of her ass.
Ain't no set of pliers big enough when Elusis has convinced herself
that she, in her own opposite-sex legally-sanctioned marriage, is as
the defender of the GLBTyaddayaddayadda community.
I'll invoke the rmta equivalent of Hitler: maybe Carla has taken over
Elusis, too. If Carla can turn a sweet guy like Larry into an Ass
(oh, yes, he gets a capital letter there), maybe she can turn someone
who used to be able to engage in meaningful debate into this whiny and
pissy defender of the "downtrodden".
/nad
Nadyne Mielke
attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
:Lieberman last night used the phrase traditional values.
Well, Aimee said xianity, but I always say Judeo-Christianity. Same
diff, as far as I'm concerned. :)
/nad
Chris
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:37:28 -0700, as Tipsy sat in my lap begging for
Ok, good point. *laugh* you live far enough in the bible bet for long
enough, though, and you hear the people who really come out and go for
it. We've got people running ads on TV (independents) who are running
on what could best be called a Fred-Phelps endorsed ticket. In areas
where you don't have that, the tables would be different :)
CW
Kathryn J. Drennan
<madonna_of...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I don't feel threatened by the lack of laws against discrimination. Perhaps
[snip job stuff that is absolutely right]
To be honest, part of why I sometimes feel threatened has to do with
my own peculiar place in a family that might very well disown me if
they ever realized that I'm a lesbian. And no laws the gov't passes
will fix that, but that fact makes me more sensitive to the situation
in the country.
Also, I would very much like to pay off my education with service to
the US. Currently the only way to render that service in the
specialties I'm interested in is to join the U.S. military. Despite
Don't ask, don't tell, they've been kicking out more people for being
queer than ever before. Now, aside from the fact that I'm not willing
to serve an organization that feels that I'm intrinsically unfit for
service. I realize that the odds that I'd get kicked out are pretty
small, but I would hope that 6 years from now, I might have a
girlfriend, and if it's a serious relationship, I think it would be
wrong to put her in a position where I would have to hide her or not
invite her to the same parties everybody else took their spouse too.
So, while I don't feel overwhelmingly threatened or anything, it
pisses me off that I'm not eligible for that 130k in debt repayment
that everybody else is.
I guess I also get pissed off when I hear about things like the right
of civil union and the right to military opportunities referred to as
"special rights for homosexuals".
>done about it. But a hate crime law wouldn't prevent them from happening.
>It might be nice as a symbolic gesture, and might have some effect; however,
>I don't see it as a necessary issue or litmus test.
I'm actually against hate crime laws, because I don't understand why
it's all that different if you kill someone because you don't like
their hairdo or if you kill them because they're gay. Neither is a
decent reason, and both should be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law. What murder/assault isn't a crime of hate?
>To be clear: I do not support Bush, for a number of reasons. But I don't
>feel the claim that Bush supporters are all anti-gay is valid.
It isn't, but then again, sometimes some people seem to be virutally
campaigning for the republicans here, and when someone extolls
republican virtues to such an extent, I do think that it might be
appropriate to question them on certain issues.
--Katy
cletus1 (Adrienne)
> I'm anti censorship. Which means I'm anti tipper gore.
AFAIK, Tipper Gore never was and is not pro-censorship. Taken from the
article "Where is Tipper Gore When We Really Need Her?", in the Sept. issue
of _George_:
<after Frank Zappa attacked her for founding the PMRC>: "Today, Gore says
she was surprised 'at the venom and the volume of the counterattack'. She
thought she'd made it clear she wasn't interested in censorship..."
She co-founded the PMRC, and that organization's goals were to get labels on
albums with explicit lyrics, but moreover to not get the government involved
so much, and to prod the music labels/record industry to self-regulate
putting labels on their music. Since when is giving parents a tool for
keeping certain music from their children a bad thing? What Tipper wanted
was the same thing as the ratings system for movies. It ain't censorship by
any means.
Chris
>my own peculiar place in a family that might very well disown me if
>they ever realized that I'm a lesbian. And no laws the gov't passes
>will fix that, but that fact makes me more sensitive to the situation
>in the country.
Agreed.
>So, while I don't feel overwhelmingly threatened or anything, it
>pisses me off that I'm not eligible for that 130k in debt repayment
>that everybody else is.
Yep. Now, both parties at one point proposed a legislation with
bi-partisan support, and that was the re-extension of small community
docs for payback; in other words: if you were willing to work in
remote areas, (ala alaska, like the show Northern Exposure) you'd get
paid back. I'm not sure what all went with that, didn't follow it
close enough.
>I guess I also get pissed off when I hear about things like the right
>of civil union and the right to military opportunities referred to as
>"special rights for homosexuals".
Well, ok, this is a better way of saying it: the problem is, there are
things we take as rights that aren't rights at all. That should have
never been a "right" we take as a right that we should get benefits
when we are married (and we shouldn't) we also shouldn't be penalized
for it. We take as a right that a marriage is a contract between the
couple and the government, which it isn't, it's only between them
and/or their religious views. We've used marriage "rights" and tax
"rights" to impose codes on people that are abominable that have taken
years to clean up. We've tried to stop religions (mormon, islam,
etc.) we've tried to negate omish marriages because they refuse paper
records of their marriage, we've force initiatives on people when the
fed to consider a mandated blood test in the 1980s (which had support
in both parties) for disease, which violates the beliefs of several,
and outted people, not just gay, but also those who suffered from
potential disease/sickness and changed the boundaries of
relationships. Every single time we've tried to grant a "right"
around marriage, we've done it in order to screw someone over. And
granting these "basic" rights any more which perpetuates to that group
"see, everything is good" while continuing to screw over millions who
still have their core beliefs violated is hypocrisy. The best thing
that can be done is to abandon all attempts by the government to
mandate any sort of "social" contract that in the end, is all about
dictating a top down belief system.
When I read books my freshmen year in college about how states, and
eventually the federal government, passed laws specifically to "get"
the mormons, and while I don't agree with their faith I found it
abominable that not only did we do it then, we're still doing it. No
matter what patchwork we do to get around it, it still sucks.
Now, we reached a point a long time ago when it was ludicris. And my
party is just as guilty as dems. Now, I think the time has to come to
start dismantling the beast instead of continuing to screw around with
it and cobble together that is ultimately wrong.
When you codify peoples beliefs into law, you are doing something
wrong. If we got all of this shit out of the law, and we stopped
rewarding or penalizing people by giving back or taking their money
based on whether or not they follow what the government finds
acceptable.
The government has no right, absolutely no right to my money to decide
that they will dole it back out to me basesd on whether or not they
think what I'm doing is right. Whether or not they think what elusis
is doing is right. Whether or not they think that Ellen Degeneris is
doing is right. None of us should give a goddamn dime (ok, now I'm
getting heated) more or less then any other fool based on any belief,
and the concept that it's even remotely codized is an abomination to
everyone's faith.
Having the "right" to get married given from the government and the
"right" to get your money back based on whether you are single or
married, gay or straight; having it determined by bureaucrats who can
change their mind is bullshit. Washington has no right to spend
incoming tax and income tax status, as well as benefit status based on
any sort of code like that.
Individuals must be treated as individuals, whether or not they are in
a marriage or not, whether or not they are anything. No benefits, no
perks, no disadvantages, and no code. The government should be
silence on all of this rather then handing out any sort of message
that says "hey you, it's OK to be married now" Who the hell thinks
the government should be able to say that?
If jo boo down the rode wants to marry his pet horse, petey, then as
long as jo boo pays taxes on the same basis that I do as a person, I
don't give a crap if he's giving petey the big one nightly. And I
don't want the government to even ask jo boo wtf he's doing, and he
shouldn't have to "register" his marriage at the local county or
government office to make the thing official. It's official when he
says it is.
And the concept of common law marriages, used, in the end, solely to
get people for taxes, and rape them over the government coal to put
code on them that they didn't want to begin with obviously, is
legislating from the top standards that are wrong.
On a lot of issues, I'm more libertarian then republican. But I'd
prefer a government that thought about dismantling all of these laws
and the IRS then one that tried to reform something by patching it up
here and there all neally willy that still fucks people or hands out
"perks" that aren't even perks to begin with.
>I'm actually against hate crime laws, because I don't understand why
>it's all that different if you kill someone because you don't like
>their hairdo or if you kill them because they're gay. Neither is a
>decent reason, and both should be prosecuted to the full extent of the
>law. What murder/assault isn't a crime of hate?
That's part of my argument (as a victim of a violent crime, I'd
concur) I have other problems with what hate crime laws do to the
court system, how long it actually takes (for an example of the
federal court moving, appeal 1 on the oklahoma city bombing begins in
a few days)
>>To be clear: I do not support Bush, for a number of reasons. But I don't
>>feel the claim that Bush supporters are all anti-gay is valid.
>
>It isn't, but then again, sometimes some people seem to be virutally
>campaigning for the republicans here, and when someone extolls
>republican virtues to such an extent, I do think that it might be
>appropriate to question them on certain issues.
And I understand that. I'm not out to say that I agree with my party
100%. I don't. I was a bit livid with the concept that we abandoned
that the NEA was wrong. But that's OK. What I argued against was the
hypocrisy of the track record of the democrat ticket, and of the fact
what they were saying on the stump was out of kilter with what people
were looking for.
Now, I will say this, having seen the speech tonight: we heard a very
different message then when he came here in the primaries. A very
different message then when he was here 3 days ago. And that's OK. I
won't totally drop the hypocrisy argument because the track record
doesn't support it, but that's OK, sometimes rhetoric actually works
out.. you never know.
Though I will say arguing for campaign finance reform as your #1 issue
when in about 1/2 hour a fund raiser on paramount's lot to raise
almost 10 million for your candidates that if it was done any other
time but convention week would be illegal smacks a bit poor.
CW
Chris
<cle...@ticnet.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm anti censorship. Which means I'm anti tipper gore.
>
> AFAIK, Tipper Gore never was and is not pro-censorship. Taken from the
>article "Where is Tipper Gore When We Really Need Her?", in the Sept. issue
>of _George_:
>
><after Frank Zappa attacked her for founding the PMRC>: "Today, Gore says
>she was surprised 'at the venom and the volume of the counterattack'. She
>thought she'd made it clear she wasn't interested in censorship..."
>
>She co-founded the PMRC, and that organization's goals were to get labels on
>albums with explicit lyrics, but moreover to not get the government involved
>so much, and to prod the music labels/record industry to self-regulate
>putting labels on their music. Since when is giving parents a tool for
>keeping certain music from their children a bad thing? What Tipper wanted
>was the same thing as the ratings system for movies. It ain't censorship by
>any means.
>
I guess we can define things however we want. But in this last week
she was here, in Liberal, MO arguing that we need to remove violent
and sex based content from TV and re-introduce a family safe hour in
the first hour of prime time.
*laugh* Tell that to Twisted Sister, who she chased all over the
country, or Marilyn Manson, etc..
CW
Kathryn J. Drennan
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:33:47 -0700, as Tipsy sat in my lap begging for
>attention, kdre...@u.washinnospamgton.edu (Kathryn J. Drennan) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>:I guess I also get pissed off when I hear about things like the right
>:of civil union and the right to military opportunities referred to as
>:"special rights for homosexuals".
>
>That segues into a question that I haven't been able to answer for
>myself yet. What exactly does "special rights" mean, anyway?
*shrug* I think that "special rights" largely translates into civil
rights (as you pointed out later in this post), especially when used
in reference to minorities who want their civil rights. It was used
in reference to blacks who wanted to have the rights to marry
interracially and sit anywhere on the bus 50 years ago. It's been
used in reference to women when they wanted the fact that they were
women to be immaterial in medical school admissions (and countless
other things) in the 70's. Now it's used against queer folk who want
the right to marry and join the military, among other things. It's
basically used against whoever the religious right's target de jure
happens to be, imho. I do not recall a single campaign asking for
special rights for blacks, women, or glbt types. (unless you count
affirmative action, which isn't really the issue we're talking about
here).
>Like Katy, I have heard people referring to gay marriage as a "special
>right". And while I disagree with the idea of marriage as a legal
>institution, I have no issue with legalizing gay marriage until we
>reach a point wherein the government gets its sticky little fingers
>out of it. (Largely because I recognize that the gubmint ain't likely
>to butt out.) I can't see calling two committed individuals who want
>to have a state-sanctioned union like most other folks getting a
>"special right".
Besides, (as has been pointed out before), it seems like there's no
way to justifiy government regulation of marriage without bringing in
some violation of the separation of church and state.
>I think that "special right" has been a phrase introduced to us by the
>Religious Right who are trying their damnedest to stop anyone from
>getting anything they disagree with. By referring to "special
>rights", they muddy the waters. Why aren't they saying "civil rights"
>instead?
Your guess is as good as mine.
>[snip]
>
>:It isn't, but then again, sometimes some people seem to be virutally
>:campaigning for the republicans here, and when someone extolls
>:republican virtues to such an extent, I do think that it might be
>:appropriate to question them on certain issues.
>
>I entirely agree. :) But I think it can be done in a different manner
>than has largely happened here.
Perhaps, but then I can see how its one of those issues that people
(on both sides) get pretty emotionally involved in, and it's hard for
people to step back and realize that the same basic premises can
sometimes lead to two different conclusions, but that that doesn't
make anybody an unclefucker. ;) I think we've all heard enough from
the republican(s) in question to realize that it's pretty unlikely
that they're trying to marginalize anybody. That doesn't mean that
we'll all agree any time soon, but I think that these discussions
would go much better if we all started off on the premise that the
people we're discussing with are likely to be a non-asshole.
>So who're you voting for (or leaning toward, if you haven't made up
>your mind yet), Katy? And what are the issues that are most important
>to you? Who would you chew ground glass rather than vote for?
I have no idea who I'm voting for. At this point, I'm not well
informed enough to vote responsibly for anybody. I've been way too
busy to get much more informed recently (I've worked 7 weeks of 120
hour weeks), and my mom's been in the hospital, which has been time
consuming So, I'll be doing some more research in a couple of weeks
when I get some spare time.
I'd rather chew ground glass than vote for Bush, mostly because I
can't stomach a party that actively seeks such support from the
religious right, bob jones U., and the like, and who claims to favor
more limited government but at the same time supports bans on
abortions and the like. At the same time, I really don't like Gore
very much at all, and I'm not particularly inspired by his choice of
Lieberman as a running mate. I realize that Gore is not necesarily
the answer to all of my civil rights quandries, but at the same time,
I believe that Gore is more likely to replace the supreme court
justices who retire with people who are likely to uphold roe vs. wade,
and abortion, while it's not the most important thing going on in this
country makes a decent index issue to me. After all, people who
oppose a woman's right to choose IME tend to be those very same right
wing fundies that I am trying very hard to keep out of office.
I'm also quite opposed to school vouchers, and I'm opposed to
corporate schools. I just don't trust corporations any further than I
can throw them with the education of our future. I also think that
it's very difficult to ensure that the lower middle class people can
adaquately educate their children if we switch to a voucher program.
After all, if you don't have any more money to add to the voucher, and
yet your local public school blows goats, you're pretty screwed if the
two non-public schools in the area want $12000 a year tuition compared
to the $9000 a year voucher, and I don't really see any feasable way
out of that. It also gives parents the choice to really screw their
kids out of an education, and I don't trust parents any more. [2]
The longer I'm in medicine, the more convinced I am that some form of
health care system (other than those with the money get the care) is
really important. We spend SO much money on taking care of people in
ERs because they don't have the insurance to get things taken care of
in an office for cheap (and if they don't have money for insurance,
they probably won't have money to pay a $2k hospital bill). I'm
wondering if the tradition of employer offered health insurance is
going extinct, and that has been the medical salvation of many working
class americans. We also need to regulate the number of physicians
more tightly and accept the fact that NPs and PAs are going to deliver
much of the primary care in the future. At the same time, I
desparately need to make enough money to not default on my student
loans, which could be difficult to do now, much less on a system that
limited physician reimbursement any more which is one way many people
want to "reform" health care. Also, not even the HMOs or insurance
companies are reliably turning a profit any more, so the system is
going to collapse at some point....
Although gay rights are an issue for me, since I live in Seattle, and
the city offers domestic partnership registration, and won't contract
with anybody who offers benefits to married partners but not to
registered domestic partners, I feel that in the profession I'm in, in
the area of the country I'm in, there's no way that the national
election is going to make things here any better for me. I do wish I
had the choice to join the military and kiss my 120k+ of debt goodbye,
but I doubt that there's anything that could happen to make that a
possibility.
Having said that, I realize that "third party candidates" are also an
option. What I was trying to figure out earlier today is if a vote
for Nader is really a vote for Bush. After all, if people vote for
Nader who otherwise would have voted for Gore, that makes
Bush more likely to win. And like I said, I would rather chew ground
glass than do anything that would make Bush more likely to win. I
hate the fact that I can't just say, "A vote for [guy x] is just a
vote for that guy", but it does seem to be a real consideration.
>Somewhat related note: did y'all see the guy from Maryland who is
>auctioning his vote in the November election off on eBay?
LOL! That is hillarious! How can you trust him to carry through?
Maybe that's what i should do. How high did the bidding get? ;)
--Katy
[2] One of my patients is a tiny toddler who's mother intentionally
inflicted life threatening full thickness burns to nearly 50% of his
body for some minor bit of misbehavior. I've been waking up and going
to sleep angry with that boys parent over this for days. I'm not sure
I'll ever assume that most parents mean well ever again. Goddamn it.
Nadyne Mielke
attention, Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
:Ok, good point. *laugh* you live far enough in the bible bet for long
:enough, though, and you hear the people who really come out and go for
:it. We've got people running ads on TV (independents) who are running
:on what could best be called a Fred-Phelps endorsed ticket. In areas
:where you don't have that, the tables would be different :)
Honey, you're not the only one in the Bible Belt. Georgia is
definitely a part of that, the last I checked. I'm surrounded by
Southern Baptists. If anything, it's worse here than it was when I
was in Michigan, and the phrase "traditional values" is even more
likely to mean "conform to my religious standards, you unwashed
heathens".
/nad
Nadyne Mielke
attention, kdre...@u.washinnospamgton.edu (Kathryn J. Drennan) wrote:
[snip]
:I guess I also get pissed off when I hear about things like the right
:of civil union and the right to military opportunities referred to as
:"special rights for homosexuals".
That segues into a question that I haven't been able to answer for
myself yet. What exactly does "special rights" mean, anyway?
Like Katy, I have heard people referring to gay marriage as a "special
right". And while I disagree with the idea of marriage as a legal
institution, I have no issue with legalizing gay marriage until we
reach a point wherein the government gets its sticky little fingers
out of it. (Largely because I recognize that the gubmint ain't likely
to butt out.) I can't see calling two committed individuals who want
to have a state-sanctioned union like most other folks getting a
"special right".
I think that "special right" has been a phrase introduced to us by the
Religious Right who are trying their damnedest to stop anyone from
getting anything they disagree with. By referring to "special
rights", they muddy the waters. Why aren't they saying "civil rights"
instead? I don't really want to extend "special rights" to anyone --
I don't think anyone should have -more- rights than I do ('cause that
is what a "special right" comes down to). But I'm perfectly happy
extending civil rights to 'bout anyone who asks, 'cause that means
they're getting the same slice of pie that I am.
[snip]
:It isn't, but then again, sometimes some people seem to be virutally
:campaigning for the republicans here, and when someone extolls
:republican virtues to such an extent, I do think that it might be
:appropriate to question them on certain issues.
I entirely agree. :) But I think it can be done in a different manner
than has largely happened here.
So who're you voting for (or leaning toward, if you haven't made up
your mind yet), Katy? And what are the issues that are most important
to you? Who would you chew ground glass rather than vote for?
Somewhat related note: did y'all see the guy from Maryland who is
auctioning his vote in the November election off on eBay?
/nad
Dances With Cars
<snip>
>Somewhat related note: did y'all see the guy from Maryland who is
>auctioning his vote in the November election off on eBay?
You think that's bad? Check out www.voteauction.com.
As ever I remain
-Dances With Cars ("there's nothing wrong with capitalism")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dwc @ banzai - net . com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My dream cost fifteen cents to make and was fifteen dollars for
me to buy." - Pengie
Ken Tough
>> We have someone running in the
>> KC area who's nation of islam running on traditional values; which
>> I've always thought, and it's been campaigned on: treat others as you
>> wish to be treated, honesty, integrity, a hard working ethic, and
>> commitment.
>
>"traditional values" boils down to "*my* religious values force don
>everyone", whether it's xianity or not.
Though if he was Baha'i, that view would be a lot more hazy.
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
[snip how hate crimes legislation creates a bad system]
>So that's it, let's setup a system that makes it easy to persecute
>people. Sounds great to me. Let's make it great to delay justice.
>Boy, that sure works. Let's practice favoritism of the law that's
>difficult to prove and in effect, diminishes violent crimes that occur
>to *gasp* people like me.
Given that Dick Cheney voted (in '86) against the resolution
calling for Nelson Mandela to be freed, are we to assume he
agrees with your above satire?
Then again, given that George Bush's old stomping ground, the CIA,
told the South African government exactly where to find Mandela
as a chauffeur [and as head of CIA George gave the SA authorities
copious help over the years], Cheney's position isn't all that
surprising.
</troll>
--
Ken Tough
Montserrat
Chris
wrote:
That vote also was in favor of acknowledging the ANC. The ANC, which
mandela was figuratively the head of, was still considered a terrorist
organization. And considering Clinton went out and raised money for
Bob Nelson, running in Florida who also voted agains the measure..
The ANC was -not- good. And acknowledging the ANC had nothing to do
with freeing mandela. When Nelson was free, even he noted their
"thuggary" and asked for unity; in the end, he divorced his wife
Winney who had used the ANC as a political hit squad and had her
prosecuted.
The vote wasn't as simple as "a vote to free mandela" we aren't their
government, it's not like they would have said "oh, those guys say we
should let him out" it was (1) a resolution, so no course of action
would have taken place and (2) acknowledging the ANC wasn't as great a
thing as it sounds :)
But I'm glad he went on ABC News and defended the vote exactly as I
would have, as I also would have voted against it.
CW
Angela Reid
Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote in message
news:36gppscahehvc7k0p...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> for it. We take as a right that a marriage is a contract between the
> couple and the government, which it isn't, it's only between them
> and/or their religious views.
That, unfortunately, goes against the history of marriage. A family is not
just a social unit, but a legal one. It's a subdivision of a larger
community, and marriage is, if you will, a sort of charter establishing one.
In Christian society, marriages weren't even performed in the church for
many, many years. Although it became an early custom to celebrate them on
the church door, until the church decided it was a sacrament to marry, they
hadn't that much to do with it (aside from denoting for its members what
marriages were proper and not. No, say, siblings).
I agree with you that marriage has become mired down in all kinds of
unnecessary stuff (advantages and disadvantages), but I don't agree that
it's all unnecessary stuff. Marriage essentially takes the place of other
paperwork. It establishes a direct line of inheritance to your spouse, and
it bestows on your spouse certain rights regarding your medical care (if
your Beatles fan club can't get in to see you in IC, at least your wife
can). I think doing away with marriage will just multiply the problems
ordinary (often poor and uneducated) people face in forming a union. Make
it available for all adults, and get it over with.
I'm not questioning your stance on taxation and marriage. I agree with you
there. On some of the other stuff, though, imo, you've gone a bit over.
<snip>
> relationships. Every single time we've tried to grant a "right"
> around marriage, we've done it in order to screw someone over.
I can't wrap my head around who we tried to screw over by direct line of
inheritance laws. It may have unintentionally disadvantaged non-married
committed couples (by requiring them to go the extra road of getting a
will), but I don't think it was done "in order" to do that. Reading
motivation into the situation is not, imo, the best way to go.
<snip>
> perks, no disadvantages, and no code. The government should be
> silence on all of this rather then handing out any sort of message
> that says "hey you, it's OK to be married now" Who the hell thinks
> the government should be able to say that?
>
> If jo boo down the rode wants to marry his pet horse, petey, then as
> long as jo boo pays taxes on the same basis that I do as a person, I
> don't give a crap if he's giving petey the big one nightly.
<Angela raises her hand>
I do. And I'd care if Jo Boo was giving the big one nightly to his six year
old daughter. And I'd care if Jo Boo was giving the big one nightly to his
dead mom. Some of these marriage laws are meant to protect the object of
affection, you know. Jo Boo's pet horse Petey isn't able to give informed
consent. I the hell am perfectly happy for the government to say "It's okay
to be married now." I just don't think the government should get involved
between consenting (human) adults.
<snip>
> And the concept of common law marriages, used, in the end, solely to
> get people for taxes, and rape them over the government coal to put
> code on them that they didn't want to begin with obviously, is
> legislating from the top standards that are wrong.
Boy, howdy. You need to spend a few years in a law office, Chris. :) If I
had a dime for every woman who called me thinking that North Carolina
extended common law marriage protection to her, I'd have, well, a couple of
dollars.[1] Enough for a good slice of pizza. Distribution of common
property is something else that marriage laws cover, you know. And when Joe
Boo leaves Jane Boo, without any property distribution on paper, those
marriage laws are the only things that prevent him taking everything she has
(at the very least necessitating an unpretty appearance on People's Court).
Angela
[1] It doesn't. Shack up in NC for a hundred years, and you're still
shacking up.
Angela Reid
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:11:28 -0500, "cletus1 (Adrienne)"
> <cle...@ticnet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I'm anti censorship. Which means I'm anti tipper gore.
> >
> > AFAIK, Tipper Gore never was and is not pro-censorship. Taken from
the
> >article "Where is Tipper Gore When We Really Need Her?", in the Sept.
issue
> >of _George_:
> I guess we can define things however we want. But in this last week
> she was here, in Liberal, MO arguing that we need to remove violent
> and sex based content from TV and re-introduce a family safe hour in
> the first hour of prime time.
>
> *laugh* Tell that to Twisted Sister, who she chased all over the
> country, or Marilyn Manson, etc..
I never pictured Tipper as a band follower.
Do you have any specifics on this? I'd be interested in reading them, and
Deja, Yahoo and Google have failed me.
Angela
Chris
http://www.ncac.org/ has links & the story
She has a book: Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society
http://www.theroc.org/
Yesterday, Marylin Manson and a few others issued a "press packet" but
I can't find it online yet.
CW
Chris
<ang...@SPAMFREErmta.org> wrote:
>
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote in message
>news:36gppscahehvc7k0p...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>> for it. We take as a right that a marriage is a contract between the
>> couple and the government, which it isn't, it's only between them
>> and/or their religious views.
>
>That, unfortunately, goes against the history of marriage. A family is not
>just a social unit, but a legal one. It's a subdivision of a larger
>community, and marriage is, if you will, a sort of charter establishing one.
>In Christian society, marriages weren't even performed in the church for
>many, many years. Although it became an early custom to celebrate them on
>the church door, until the church decided it was a sacrament to marry, they
>hadn't that much to do with it (aside from denoting for its members what
>marriages were proper and not. No, say, siblings).
While it has been a social contract for many, many years, it still
doesn't mean that it should have been ;)
>I agree with you that marriage has become mired down in all kinds of
>unnecessary stuff (advantages and disadvantages), but I don't agree that
>it's all unnecessary stuff. Marriage essentially takes the place of other
>paperwork. It establishes a direct line of inheritance to your spouse, and
>it bestows on your spouse certain rights regarding your medical care (if
>your Beatles fan club can't get in to see you in IC, at least your wife
>can). I think doing away with marriage will just multiply the problems
>ordinary (often poor and uneducated) people face in forming a union. Make
>it available for all adults, and get it over with.
Ah, but now we have found new ways around all those.. with
prenuptials, etc. I'm not saying do away with marriage, people have
the right to be married, but if everyone was treated as an equal
individual, we'd be better :)
>I'm not questioning your stance on taxation and marriage. I agree with you
>there. On some of the other stuff, though, imo, you've gone a bit over.
*laugh* that's the point of disagreement. :)
>I can't wrap my head around who we tried to screw over by direct line of
>inheritance laws. It may have unintentionally disadvantaged non-married
>committed couples (by requiring them to go the extra road of getting a
>will), but I don't think it was done "in order" to do that. Reading
>motivation into the situation is not, imo, the best way to go.
No, marriage laws in the west were intentionally done the way they
were, codified, directly to get mormons. The whole idea ran them out
of state after state as people chased them down as the feds eventually
made polygamy illegal, dividing their church and breaking them from
their faith. Wasn't about who inherited what so much, as people
maliciously went after people's faith.
>> If jo boo down the rode wants to marry his pet horse, petey, then as
>> long as jo boo pays taxes on the same basis that I do as a person, I
>> don't give a crap if he's giving petey the big one nightly.
>
><Angela raises her hand>
>I do. And I'd care if Jo Boo was giving the big one nightly to his six year
>old daughter. And I'd care if Jo Boo was giving the big one nightly to his
>dead mom. Some of these marriage laws are meant to protect the object of
>affection, you know. Jo Boo's pet horse Petey isn't able to give informed
>consent. I the hell am perfectly happy for the government to say "It's okay
>to be married now." I just don't think the government should get involved
>between consenting (human) adults.
Ah, but molesting a child etc. is already codified in the law, and
isn't an implication of marriage laws. IE, in order to make that OK,
it would take a lot more then getting rid of the marriage laws. Him
screwing his daughter would still be 100% illegal.
The issue with the horse would of course, be the extreme :) And of
course, he would more then likely fall into trouble anyway under
animal abuse laws. But think about it this way:
If you strip away the right, then spousal abuse, which in many states
is less of an offense - sometimes not an offense - would have to be
treated as an assault 1 or 2. Which would mean you wouldn't get
protection of the court to beat your wife or husband or children
because you're married.
With the "benefits" gone, lots of problems could be handled more
directly then in broad strokes ;)
>Boy, howdy. You need to spend a few years in a law office, Chris. :) If I
>had a dime for every woman who called me thinking that North Carolina
>extended common law marriage protection to her, I'd have, well, a couple of
>dollars.[1] Enough for a good slice of pizza. Distribution of common
>property is something else that marriage laws cover, you know. And when Joe
>Boo leaves Jane Boo, without any property distribution on paper, those
>marriage laws are the only things that prevent him taking everything she has
>(at the very least necessitating an unpretty appearance on People's Court).
Here in Kansas it's 7 years; I'm not sure what it is in NC. Been down
that road before :)
And, if you don't have even distribution of property (a perk) then you
make dissolution a more difficult proposition (1) and you encourage
people to handle their own legal matters before hand.
CW
Ken Tough
>That vote also was in favor of acknowledging the ANC. The ANC, which
>mandela was figuratively the head of, was still considered a terrorist
>organization.
And yet they'll give plenty of support and money to the IRA.
Go figure.
And break the laws of the land to give money and expertise to
those terrorist contras down in Central America. (Or the KLA,
or...don't get me started...). But they were all "good guy"
terrorists I guess.
The ANC, btw, was elected as the majority party in the South
African government and this was re-affirmed in the subsequent
(98?) election. They are still the majority party in the
current Government.
As president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela was also president of
the ANC. Yes, they didn't renounce violence as a method in the
struggle against apartheid (and they were pretty violent)--also
why amnesty had such trouble with the Mandela issue--but it was
a revolution. Anyway, of course they'd be considered a terrorist
organization.. they were fighting against the apartheid
establishment who had banned them.
>And considering Clinton went out and raised money for
>Bob Nelson, running in Florida who also voted agains the measure..
Well, that's alright then.
>The ANC was -not- good. And acknowledging the ANC had nothing to do
>with freeing mandela. When Nelson was free, even he noted their
>"thuggary" and asked for unity; in the end, he divorced his wife
>Winney who had used the ANC as a political hit squad and had her
>prosecuted.
!Don't confuse the ANC with the "Mandela United Football Club"!
>The vote wasn't as simple as "a vote to free mandela" we aren't their
>government, it's not like they would have said "oh, those guys say we
>should let him out" it was (1) a resolution, so no course of action
>would have taken place and (2) acknowledging the ANC wasn't as great a
>thing as it sounds :)
(1) piss-poor excuse.
(2) Not great for the ruling majority, anyway. It was good enough
for Mandela, who was feted round the world.
--
Ken Tough
Montserrat
nymsa
>but if everyone was treated as an equal
>individual, we'd be better :)
yes
colinfindlay & nymsa
Chris
wrote:
>And yet they'll give plenty of support and money to the IRA.
>Go figure.
Hey, I didn't ever ague that that was right.
>And break the laws of the land to give money and expertise to
>those terrorist contras down in Central America. (Or the KLA,
>or...don't get me started...). But they were all "good guy"
>terrorists I guess.
I don't think I ever argued that that was the right thing either.
>The ANC, btw, was elected as the majority party in the South
>African government and this was re-affirmed in the subsequent
>(98?) election. They are still the majority party in the
>current Government.
That's true, but they also went through a huge internal conflict that
reformed the party and put 27 people in prison.
>>And considering Clinton went out and raised money for
>>Bob Nelson, running in Florida who also voted agains the measure..
>
>Well, that's alright then.
No, not saying it's alright, but I'm saying: what does the vote prove?
The vote was a resolution, not a bill, not an act, not a measure. It
had no bearing on any change in policy. It was completely to look
good.
>!Don't confuse the ANC with the "Mandela United Football Club"!
*laugh* No, but seriously. The ANC at the time was not a well rounded
organization. When Mandela got out he went about the job of
stabilizing the party and turning it into something respectable, and
that's a good thing. But for many years they were an unruly mob.
I think we can agree to disagree ;)
CW
Angela Reid
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:30:03 -0400, "Angela Reid"
> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:11:28 -0500, "cletus1 (Adrienne)"
> >> <cle...@ticnet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> I'm anti censorship. Which means I'm anti tipper gore.
> >> >
> >> > AFAIK, Tipper Gore never was and is not pro-censorship. Taken
from
> >the
> >> >article "Where is Tipper Gore When We Really Need Her?", in the Sept.
> >issue
> >> >of _George_:
> >
> >> I guess we can define things however we want. But in this last week
> >> she was here, in Liberal, MO arguing that we need to remove violent
> >> and sex based content from TV and re-introduce a family safe hour in
> >> the first hour of prime time.
> >>
> >> *laugh* Tell that to Twisted Sister, who she chased all over the
> >> country, or Marilyn Manson, etc..
> >
> >I never pictured Tipper as a band follower.
> >
> >Do you have any specifics on this? I'd be interested in reading them,
and
> >Deja, Yahoo and Google have failed me.
>
> http://www.ncac.org/ has links & the story
> She has a book: Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society
> http://www.theroc.org/
I couldn't get to ncac, unfortunately (my browser is truly bizarre). ROC
didn't prove particularly useful to me, I'm afraid. I probably just didn't
find the section you were referring to. I found a few links to people
slamming Tipper, but I didn't find them particularly informative or
persuasive. ("She's the biggest bitch in the whole wide workd, she's a mean
old bitch, she has stupid hair" Erm, yeah.) I can't seem to find out
anything about her book but the title, and that doesn't seem particularly
offensive to me, nor advocating of censorship. Parental guidance, yes.
That's not a bad thing, though. (Is it?)
I don't know what her relationship is with Marilyn Manson, but I do know
that she and Dee Snyder locked horns at the congressional hearings re: the
PMRC. Fortunately, my browser will still let me get at those transcripts,
so I have hope that others can find them, too. :)
http://uweb.superlink.net/~jdandrea/shrg99-529/toc.html
Anyway, about the whole PMRC, Tipper's comment at the hearings was, " A
voluntary labeling is not censorship. Censorship implies restricting access
or suppressing content. This proposal does neither. Moreover, it involves no
Government action. Voluntary labeling in no way infringes upon first
amendment rights. Labeling is little more than truth in packaging, by now, a
time honored principle in our free enterprise system, and without labeling,
parental guidance is virtually impossible. Most importantly, the
committee should understand the Parents Music Resource Center is not
advocating any Federal intervention or legislation whatsoever. The excesses
that we are discussing were allowed to develop in the marketplace, and we
believe the solutions to these excesses should come from the industry who
has allowed them to develop and not from the Government."
I don't know what her approach is to violence and sex oriented television.
I can't get anything on that at all. Is she truly advocating censorship, or
is she urging consumer-driven reform?
Angela
that abby girl
>attention, "Andrew Wright" <madonna_of...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip re deregulating marriage>
>The only issue that I see with completely deregulating marriage is if a
>union has produced or adopted children. Custody battles are already
>messy affairs, and heavily tipped in the favor of the mother (regardless
>of her fitness for the role).
i'm going to disagree with that. there are someinstances where there's a
presumption in favor of the mother, but usually not. in fact, in some
courts, there's been a shift so it's much more likely that the father will
the primary custody than the mother. this shift tends to be limited to
lower-income populations, i'm sure there's still a presumption in favor of
the mother for middleclass+ families, but it's not nearly so cut and dry
in the custody cases that i've seen recently.
abby.
(who agrees that although custody battles are messy, custody battles
between unmarried couples are about ten times messier. add any domestic
violence, and you've got yourself a Huge mess.)
--
that abby girl
>Next up: _Towing Jehovah_ by James Morrow. This one looks
>-excellent-, I'm considering putting aside the above Pterry 'cause
>this one looks so good.
it is excellent. i recommend pretty much everything morrow has written,
and if you like the religion/sci-fi blend, i also recommend _the sparrow_
and _children of god_ by mary russell.
abby.
--
Chris
wrote:
Let me add to this so it isn't perceived incorrectly.
In my high school Jr. year, the national head of the ministry for
south african education came at invite to speak to a large group of
students. She was the first black person to hold that position. She
told us how the situation was, between warring political parties; that
her house had been burned down a few times, etc. The parties in SA at
that time were not friendly, and in no way could be compared to how
they are now. This was at the first of Mandela's release, and she
said that she had hoped that he could bring calm to her country and
stop the horrible infighting that was occurring, not between the white
government and the ANC, but between the ANC and other groups, and the
other groups and the whites, and everyone against everyone.
It took a great deal of internal reform to get that changed, and he
was directly responsible for that.
But let's not paint the ANC at that time period as being what they are
today; get a copy of Paul Simon's Graceland documentary (unedited) and
watch as several get killed by the wars. Get a copy of the book
"South Africa: Thorns along the Way" (1992)...
If I knew point black that the resolution would pass - as everyone
there did know, would I vote against it? Yes, I probably would,
knowing that it represented what I thought of the ANC of the time
period. If I thought the resolution was a close vote, would I vote
that way? Probably not.
Resolutions carry no weight of law, resolutions can be about anything,
eg: we resolve that jo is fat. Two years ago, a resolution to commend
those undertaking the WWII memorial went through the house. 6 people
voted against it. Not because they have anything against WWII, or the
Jews, or anything like that, but because they didn't like the fact
that there was no mention of the segregated brigades, and that while
all dead will be listed, and their brigades, no special notation for
say, the Tuskegee Airmen will be given.
They knew the resolution would pass anyway, but they voted because
they disagreed with that one point.
Those things happen. And it doesn't make the people that evil.
Now, Cheney has said if he had it to do over again, he might vote
differently, but maybe not. It was a resolution that you knew ahead
of time would pass in a landslide. Voting your concious on a tangent
and with the recommendation of the president wasn't that far fetched.
And an even number of democrats and republicans split from the
majority, and they all cited that one issue.
Am I glad Mandela was released? Absolutely, he did unit his country
and reform much of their politics. The series: DeKlerk & Mandela is a
great template for that. But would I, if I knew the resolution would
passed have voted against it? Probably so as well.
CW
Chris
<ang...@SPAMFREErmta.org> wrote:
>I couldn't get to ncac, unfortunately (my browser is truly bizarre). ROC
>didn't prove particularly useful to me, I'm afraid. I probably just didn't
>find the section you were referring to. I found a few links to people
>slamming Tipper, but I didn't find them particularly informative or
>persuasive. ("She's the biggest bitch in the whole wide workd, she's a mean
>old bitch, she has stupid hair" Erm, yeah.) I can't seem to find out
>anything about her book but the title, and that doesn't seem particularly
>offensive to me, nor advocating of censorship. Parental guidance, yes.
>That's not a bad thing, though. (Is it?)
The problem was, the PMRC then later used those nice labels to
effectively brand studios and decry them.... it was asking them to
paint a target on.. the ROC isn't useful in itself but it's got gobs
of links from there.
>I don't know what her relationship is with Marilyn Manson, but I do know
>that she and Dee Snyder locked horns at the congressional hearings re: the
>PMRC. Fortunately, my browser will still let me get at those transcripts,
>so I have hope that others can find them, too. :)
>http://uweb.superlink.net/~jdandrea/shrg99-529/toc.html
She delivered a speech earlier this year saying his music influenced
columbine.
>Anyway, about the whole PMRC, Tipper's comment at the hearings was, " A
>voluntary labeling is not censorship. Censorship implies restricting access
>or suppressing content. This proposal does neither. Moreover, it involves no
>Government action. Voluntary labeling in no way infringes upon first
>amendment rights. Labeling is little more than truth in packaging, by now, a
>time honored principle in our free enterprise system, and without labeling,
>parental guidance is virtually impossible. Most importantly, the
>committee should understand the Parents Music Resource Center is not
>advocating any Federal intervention or legislation whatsoever. The excesses
>that we are discussing were allowed to develop in the marketplace, and we
>believe the solutions to these excesses should come from the industry who
>has allowed them to develop and not from the Government."
>
>I don't know what her approach is to violence and sex oriented television.
>I can't get anything on that at all. Is she truly advocating censorship, or
>is she urging consumer-driven reform?
Well, the PMRC advocated the V-Chip, which isn't consumer reform. It
is a government regulated reform. Everyone had to include a V-Chip.
And while mostly their own fault, that little bit was what pushed
Zenith over the edge and into court protection (it should be noted:
Zenith really did this to themselves by backing DiVX and losing a
storm; unable to recoup from that, when asked to equip all new
equipment with V-Chips, Zenith, who was hoping to pedal all of their
standard on hand equipment until they raised some liquid capital got
crunched. So call it 99% their fault, 1% the hair that broke the
horses back..) PMRC also backed CDA I & II, which require ISP
regulations of the internet for pornography, etc. As someone who
works with a USENet provider, I can tell you: every usenet provider in
the US has to have at least gotten one letter from the PMRC and others
about the "horrible" sex groups and binary groups we carry, and that
we should be sued for it.
CW
Angela Reid
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:29:24 -0400, "Angela Reid"
> <ang...@SPAMFREErmta.org> wrote:
> >Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote in message
> >news:36gppscahehvc7k0p...@4ax.com...
> ><snip>
> >> for it. We take as a right that a marriage is a contract between the
> >> couple and the government, which it isn't, it's only between them
> >> and/or their religious views.
> >
> >That, unfortunately, goes against the history of marriage. A family is
not
> >just a social unit, but a legal one. It's a subdivision of a larger
> >community, and marriage is, if you will, a sort of charter establishing
one.
> >In Christian society, marriages weren't even performed in the church for
> >many, many years. Although it became an early custom to celebrate them
on
> >the church door, until the church decided it was a sacrament to marry,
they
> >hadn't that much to do with it (aside from denoting for its members what
> >marriages were proper and not. No, say, siblings).
>
> While it has been a social contract for many, many years, it still
> doesn't mean that it should have been ;)
No, but it means it -is-, and in the west it always had been. Which means
that your comment, "We take as a right that a marriage is a contract between
the couple and the government, which it isn't, it's only between them and/or
their religious views" is wrong. If you meant that as a statement of how
you perceive that marriage -should- be, well and good, but it would be
better if you specified that. I'm arguing (having made quite a lot of study
of the emergence of marriage laws from Imperial Rome on) that marriage was
first a public, not a private consideration, first a legal, not a religious
construct. I did my college senior history honor's thesis as a comparative
study of marriage laws of Ancient Ireland, Imperial Rome and the early
medieval west. I did more than a few papers in grad school on marital laws
and mores over that time. It's rather a pet subject of mine. :)
<snip>
> >can). I think doing away with marriage will just multiply the problems
> >ordinary (often poor and uneducated) people face in forming a union.
Make
> >it available for all adults, and get it over with.
>
> Ah, but now we have found new ways around all those.. with
> prenuptials, etc.
Did you miss the "poor" and "uneducated" part? :) It's difficult enough to
make professionally prepared prenups stand up in court. People who don't
have the money to hire a lawyer or the training or innate ability to
construct proper paperwork don't deserve to be penalized just so that the
religious right can avoid having to acknowledge the right of gays to marry.
> I'm not saying do away with marriage, people have
> the right to be married, but if everyone was treated as an equal
> individual, we'd be better :)
I agree. So why shouldn't gays be permitted to marry? And why shouldn't
those who attempt to block them be soundly thwapped?
Marriage as a legal construct existed long before the United States, long
before the IRS started monkeying about with extra deductions and whatnot.
Trying to dissolve an institution that has more or less worked in every
society I've ever closely studied to avoid problems created by one
relatively new institution seems a bit, well, backwards. It would be easier
to change the IRS.
> >I can't wrap my head around who we tried to screw over by direct line of
> >inheritance laws. It may have unintentionally disadvantaged non-married
> >committed couples (by requiring them to go the extra road of getting a
> >will), but I don't think it was done "in order" to do that. Reading
> >motivation into the situation is not, imo, the best way to go.
>
> No, marriage laws in the west were intentionally done the way they
> were, codified, directly to get mormons.
Let me get this straight. By "the west," are you referring, say, to
Arizona? Or do you mean by it that broad region not referrred to as the
East, as in the noncommunist countries of Europe and the Americas? If the
former, why are you referring to them as "we"?
I'd be really interested in reading your freshman college books on the
subject of marriage laws. I know a couple of Mormons, but don't pretend to
know their faith fully (although I have read the Book of Mormon). The only
laws that I know of that might discriminate against Mormons are those
restricting polygamy, and those have been in place in that region formerly
called "Christendom" for a lot longer than the Book of Mormon has been
around. The earliest Roman laws on the matter date back to the 4th century.
<snip>
> Ah, but molesting a child etc. is already codified in the law, and
> isn't an implication of marriage laws.
Then why bring up the example of the horse, which is also already codified
in the law? You opened that can of worms. Not me. :)
<snip>
> If you strip away the right, then spousal abuse, which in many states
> is less of an offense - sometimes not an offense - would have to be
> treated as an assault 1 or 2. Which would mean you wouldn't get
> protection of the court to beat your wife or husband or children
> because you're married.
What does beating your children have to do with anything? Whether you're
married or not, they're still your children. Are you and your horse running
on a tangent again? :)
Now, if you strip away what right? The right to be recognized as a unit
under the law? Many states are already beginning to deal with unequal
protection for married partners. Heck, in NC, you're now over-protected.
If Joey and Johnny get drunk and come to blows, Joey and Johnny may be
charged with drunk and disorderly but can refuse to press charges against
one another. If Joey and Janey do it, so long as the law is called, that
option doesn't exist.
> With the "benefits" gone, lots of problems could be handled more
> directly then in broad strokes ;)
More directly? By covering them in a variety of legal documents, instead of
one? Or are you proposing some new kind of document that will not only take
care of property division on dissolution, but also kinship status (can I
visit you in the ICU or not?), inheritance, communal child custody, debt
responsibility, etc? You are really talking about one massive prenutpual
agreement there, certainly, as I said, not one easily constructed by the
poor and uneducated (when it comes to legal documents, the uneducated = the
typical American). And if marriage is between the individuals and/or their
religious institutions, who keeps track of these documents? The
individuals? What happens when psycho Jane Blow burns down the house or
rips up John's paperwork so he can't prove what their agreement was. Who
keeps track when a marriage is divided? Is there any way for Jane Blow to
discover in John Blow is already bound by a prenup agreement with somebody
somewhere else? Are you suggesting that all of this paperwork be
privatized?
<re: common-law marriage)
> Here in Kansas it's 7 years; I'm not sure what it is in NC. Been down
> that road before :)
I think I answered that in my original post, didn't I? <Angela digs> Oh,
yes. Here you go.
"[1] It doesn't. Shack up in NC for a hundred years, and you're still
shacking up." You must have missed that footnote. :)
> And, if you don't have even distribution of property (a perk) then you
> make dissolution a more difficult proposition (1) and you encourage
> people to handle their own legal matters before hand.
Does that (1) refer to anything?
What does that mean, that "even distribution of property (a perk)"? Are you
suggesting that lacking even distribution of property (aka community
property), people would be more likely to get prenuptual agreements? If so,
I have to disagree. NC is -not- a community property state; we're an
equitable distribution state. The percentage of prenup agreements around
here is minimal. Or, at least, it was. I haven't set foot in a law office
in nearly a decade.
And, just as a matter of curiosity, are you posing it as necessarily a good
thing that marriage dissolution become more difficult?
Angela
Angela Reid
<snip stuff I can't research so can't judge>
> Well, the PMRC advocated the V-Chip, which isn't consumer reform. It
> is a government regulated reform. Everyone had to include a V-Chip.
That, of course, isn't censorship. It's offering a tool to people to use or
not use as they please. It doesn't do anything to block publication or
dissemination of material, only its receipt where it is not wanted.
<snip>
> horses back..) PMRC also backed CDA I & II, which require ISP
> regulations of the internet for pornography, etc. As someone who
> works with a USENet provider, I can tell you: every usenet provider in
> the US has to have at least gotten one letter from the PMRC and others
> about the "horrible" sex groups and binary groups we carry, and that
> we should be sued for it.
That could be censorship, depending on how it was worded, I suppose.
Angela
Chris
wrote:
>I'm not disagreeing with you. But I'm quite worried that the gubmint
>can't do it effectively, either. Public schools in the US blow. Look
>at the kids who are making it through the system and are functionally
>illiterate, can't do basic math, can't balance a chequebook to save
>their souls.
Fact: 4 out of 5 of the finalists in the US Spelling be were home
schooled. Fact: 5 out of 5 in the national geographic bee finals were
homeschoolers.
The thing is, the unions -own- the school system in the US. And
because of their power, you just can't do much else. And the concept
of actually *gasp* requiring teaches to keep up testing scores?
Heaven forbid.
>{That's a big ole generalization. I am completely aware that there are
>cases where the parent(s) don't have an option. But I do believe that a
>lot of Americans can't effectively manage their resources -- and that's
>not limited to the lower middle class.}
Here's the situation.. in KC, MO 4 out of the 5 major downtown schools
have either lost accreditation or are on probationary status. Any
parent who had any sort of money enrolled in the local religious
schools, of which two are ranked amongst the best in the country.
Meanwhile, over on the Kansas side (yes, we who've been portrayed as
backwards) we're spending tens of millions on schools.
I spent a night with a school board worker here. And she explained to
me when they tried to re-zone schools, they had parents come in and
stage a protest at a meeting. One parent claimed they were going to
"kill her child" because she'd have to drive 6.1 miles to school every
day.. and of course, her child drove a late series BMW. Take the bus?
hell no. When a parent was asked about their troubled child who was
brought before the board, she said she didn't mind that they had so
much detention because it made it easier for her to work longer
without worrying about him being home alone.
One of the schools had a yard next to it with 150 year old oak trees,
a beautiful pond, and it had always served as an outdoor science lab.
Parents protested. The lot was mowed down for additional parking for
the students.
The schools are hideously wealthy on the kansas side, and private
schools are huge. Several students from the "downtown" (in fact, more
then 900) are bussed in to the private schools here on the kansas side
because: (1) a few of the catholic churches have helped put kids in
the catholic school over here, and (2) several parents have received
"scholarships" for the high schools - one of them on our side costs
over $11,000 a year to attend - more then my college tuition (that's a
non-religious academy school)
Meanwhile, while the schools in the downtown pay teachers -MORE- then
at any other school district, the best teachers are all flocking to
the private schools or to the far suburbs, because of a common reason.
As one teacher pointed out: in those schools, you have almost no
discipline method that means anything because you can't enforce it in
part because of parents, and in part because the school district has
made it difficult for the teachers to feel as though the
administration will back them over a child, because that kid brings in
tax money.
>An interesting question: will the gubmint schools be forced to do better
>if some parents pull their kids out of the underperforming school? Do
>free market conditions apply here?
Well, the problem is, a lot of government schools don't give a crap.
When brigid wanted to graduate early, we had to sue the school and
wage a potential federal case because the school looked at it this
way: Brigid was worth $6,000 a year as a student. She was worth an
extra $4,100 a year because she was a gifted student. And, with her
in school, the had enough members that they crossed into the next
earning level for public school funding, so they got even more money.
When she graduated early, because they couldn't even offer a math
class above algebra 2, they lost tens of thousands. And the concern
wasn't "hey, we graduated a great kid" the concern was, as a board
member pointed out "we don't prepare students for university.
students from this school should just go to the county community
college" and the inner city here is much the same way. Students are
encouraged to attend and performance is fairly meaningless because as
long as they show up, they get paid. And get this: if they don't show
up, and they go truant, schools can get "bonuses" for providing them
catch up, or for finding them and bringing them back to school! Which
is why two of the schools hire guards who's sole task is to look for
truant students, who camp at zoos, etc.. because they are LOOKING FOR
HOMESCHOOLERS. Catching one of them is like pac man catching a power
up.
Meanwhile, they have a teacher shortage, they are now short 350
teachers, so they ran ads, anyone with a college degree can teach,
starting immediately, at a fair pay in KC (around $37-$42).. and they
aren't having much progress because the teachers union is arguing if
they want to do that, then current teachers must be guaranteed tenure.
My ass. Tenure my ass. None of the local private schools offer
tenure.
I'm a big supporter of vouchers, admittedly. But I don't favor them
everywhere for all purposes. But if we are going to phase ourselves
there, then the first priority should be this: if you are in an area
where all, and I mean every single one, of the public schools has
either lost accreditation and/or has a track record for violence, we
should go to parents and say "look, here's how much you paid in for
taxes. we do have a lemon law in our state (most states do now) and
you spent this on what is clearly a lemon. We'll let you buy again"
Because it's horrible for kids who are in those districts. I'm sorry,
pouring more money in doesn't solve - what it does is offer the crap
teachers their guarantees of tenure so you can't touch them, and
doesn't provide any lesson for them to change. For kids in those
districts, who are absolutely screwed by the system, and telling them,
"hey, in about 4-8 years we can have this fixed" well, great. By then
they should be graduated and gone, so then it's just acknowledging
they are fucked.
That's wrong. In those districts, right now, start cutting checks and
putting those kids in schools that work.
>>It also gives parents the choice to really screw their
>>kids out of an education, and I don't trust parents any more. [2]
>
>Heh. I can't disagree with this statement at all. :(
Yeah, see my point above.
That's the other thing: I'd put the KIPP contract to parents
everywhere. Kids, every day get one piece of homework or writing from
every teacher in every class. For the child to get a grade on the
work they turn in, the parent must sign off on the work before the
child goes to work the next day acknowledging that they at least saw
it.
If they don't, no grade. The child will have their paper "graded" but
the grade won't go into the book until the parent signs off. And you
make it clear: your child cannot graduate, cannot move from grade to
grade, without you acknowledging their work. If you force parents to
get involved, everyone is benefitted.
>Last I saw, it's up to $10k. (My web browser is being pissy, otherwise
>I'd see if eBay has pulled the auction yet.) If he does carry through
>with it, the seller and the buyer are subject to some pretty stiff jail
>sentences.
Actually, http://www.voteauction.com/ .. there are people who've
talked about it, and how, since it's open and honest about what it's
doing, it will be difficult to prosecute since there is no current
code against the practice. As long as the politician himself doesn't
pay the money.
CW
Chris
<ang...@SPAMFREErmta.org> wrote:
<I'm going to snip both, and congratulate angela on a well articulated
debate RE: statutes :)>
>Let me get this straight. By "the west," are you referring, say, to
>Arizona? Or do you mean by it that broad region not referrred to as the
>East, as in the noncommunist countries of Europe and the Americas? If the
>former, why are you referring to them as "we"?
No, the west was really this: started in Missouri, in which the code
was changed to basically say: if you marry multiple OR if you marry
single but live with a third party, get out. And lynchings occurred.
Not just minor lynchings, lots of lynchings. Springfield, MO, became
a virtual bloodbath. The law was coded just, pretty much, to get
mormons. Kansas enacted the same thing a few years later. Followed
by colorado. Followed by Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico..
(admittedly, this may be influenced by haivng a Jr. History prof who
happened to be mormon :)
>restricting polygamy, and those have been in place in that region formerly
>called "Christendom" for a lot longer than the Book of Mormon has been
>around. The earliest Roman laws on the matter date back to the 4th century.
Oh my.. I've got a stack of books on mormonism and what happened to
them as they traced their way across the country... there's also a
really great book called American Profiles: Sorrow & Persecution,
Mormonism in America.
>What does beating your children have to do with anything? Whether you're
>married or not, they're still your children. Are you and your horse running
>on a tangent again? :)
No, because in some states, beating a child who is the product of a
marriage is protected as a disciplinary act.. that's right to the
south of us, it's called Oklahoma.
<much snipped>
Hey, I'm not even going to argue that this is the best plan. All I
will contend is that the current system defies everything I believe in
about the purpose of government. It regulates that which cannot be
regulated.
I'll propose it this way, because we're almost there on this one:
Let's say the government comes up with regulation that certain people
can have kids, and others can't (and in some ways, we already do this,
and there are regulations in code for this that go back thousands of
years). Now, we make it discriminatory against five groups. We then
later say, ok, we're going to add group Y, because it's wrong to
exclude them. But groups C,D,E,J are all still excluded.
The system isn't suddenly "cured" it's now, even more then ever,
singling out C,D,E & J. While Y benefits, everyone else is screwed.
So, if we wish to propose any legislation that includes everyone that
isn't to say we will give no status; then we should simply phrase it
the exact opposite way: all committments registered OR contended
within faith will be granted full status, regardless of faith, creed,
color, sex, etc. And that the status of single shall receive equal in
all laws, equal tax status, and equal legal rights.
If this isn't an "all or nothing" proposition then it becomes a third
rail amongst religious groups.
Some will argue they were singled out for their faith - that they, who
don't believe in biracial marriages (5% nation) or multiple marriages
(many) or gay/lesbian marriages (many) or non-paper marriages (legal)
then it's no good.
What -should- and I'm not saying will, we've travelled to far down
this road in many ways to turn around.. is that we should acknowledge
the absolute equality of the individual, and we should do it with less
government codes. If we do it by demolitioning the IRS buildings, and
promising no taxes based on any of these statuses, no special
insurance regulations that benefit a single soul, and no special
federal benefits that benefit anyone differently, then we also don't
penalize anyone.
CW
CW
Chris
<ang...@SPAMFREErmta.org> wrote:
>
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote in message
>news:79nrps8437eseb28b...@4ax.com...
><snip stuff I can't research so can't judge>
>> Well, the PMRC advocated the V-Chip, which isn't consumer reform. It
>> is a government regulated reform. Everyone had to include a V-Chip.
>
>That, of course, isn't censorship. It's offering a tool to people to use or
>not use as they please. It doesn't do anything to block publication or
>dissemination of material, only its receipt where it is not wanted.
Hey, I'm not saying I'm totally anti her issues :) My argument was:
if I was a traditional democrat, I'd look at this ticket and think
that we were running a republican ticket. And I would have thought
that all the way up to Gore's speech last night, where he may have
saved his neck.
><snip>
>> horses back..) PMRC also backed CDA I & II, which require ISP
>> regulations of the internet for pornography, etc. As someone who
>> works with a USENet provider, I can tell you: every usenet provider in
>> the US has to have at least gotten one letter from the PMRC and others
>> about the "horrible" sex groups and binary groups we carry, and that
>> we should be sued for it.
>
>That could be censorship, depending on how it was worded, I suppose.
CDA is a bad deal. It's why even many dems opposed it. CDA basically
said ISPs etc. could be held fiscally responsible for children seeing
porn on the net, that ISPs who didn't filter content, etc. were in
effect selling porn, USENet providers (like myself) should be busted,
etc.
It was not good. Many repubs and democrats opposed it because it
would have been a legislation & enforcement nightmare.
CW
Kathryn J. Drennan
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:49:50 -0700, as Koko sat in my lap begging for
>attention, kdre...@u.washinnospamgton.edu (Kathryn J. Drennan) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>I'm also quite opposed to school vouchers, and I'm opposed to
>>corporate schools. I just don't trust corporations any further than I
>>can throw them with the education of our future.
>
>I'm not disagreeing with you. But I'm quite worried that the gubmint
>can't do it effectively, either. Public schools in the US blow. Look
The federal government can't do it effectively, true. That's why
schools aren't a federal responsibility. But, I believe that
communities that care can do it effectively. I had a wonderful public
school experience in every community I lived in while in school
(Gillette, WY; Sherridan WY; Charlotte, NC; Anchorage AK (x4
schools); Anacortes, WA). My younger brother and sister had a bad
public school experience in Bellingham, WA. This leads me to believe
2 things: 1) In general, most communities take the care to create
good schools and 2) Communities that do put a priority on good
schools can have good schools. Look at anacortes; it's primarily a
retirement/fishing/farming community. They had excellent schools,
primarily because the parents in the community put a high priority on
having excellent schools.
>at the kids who are making it through the system and are functionally
>illiterate, can't do basic math, can't balance a chequebook to save
>their souls.
Maybe in some communities, but that has not ever been my experience.
I recieved a wonderful public educaiton. I think that a lot of what's
on tv about education is total hype. It is certainly nothing like my
experience.
>If gubmint can't do it effectively, and we're worried about corporate
>schools, who do we turn to? I can't answer that question. :/
I don't think that gubmint can't do it effectively. I think that
there are communities that don't demand effective schooling, but that
that's not the fault of the system, that's the fault of the residents
of the communities.
>I think if a parent -really- wants to afford it for their children, they
>can find a way. They'll have to go without cable, they'll have to go
>without dinner out. Tough.
Yeah, but do you want to say tough to a kid because their parents
don't care to afford them an educaiton? Aside from the moral issues
and the issues about how we want to treat the children of our
community, it's just better for everybody to have an adaquately
educated populace.
>An interesting question: will the gubmint schools be forced to do better
>if some parents pull their kids out of the underperforming school? Do
>free market conditions apply here?
I believe that the only way to have better schools is for communities
to demand that their schools do better. If it's an issue for people
in elections, if it's that important to them, they can vote out the
school board and their state legislatures.
>My problem is: I don't think that throwing more money at the schools is
>the answer. Yes, teachers need to get higher pay, but that doesn't mean
>that the system as a whole needs wads of money thrown at it. For
My problem is the fact that I think that in general, the system works.
I'm a product of the system and I'm capable (although I generally
don't need to do it since my expenses and income don't vary at all) of
balancing a checkbook, I was very prepared to enter college, in many
ways, I knew more leaving high school than I do now. I mean, I've
mastered a great deal of material, but I've also forgotten a ton of
stuff that I was actually taught in high school government, econ, and
english classes. But, at one time I did learn it.
I don't think that money is the answer either. I think that the key
to improvement is involvement, and until parents care enough to be
involved, they won't get the schools they want; and (although I don't
have the research to back this up) I think that there are communities
where the community decided to become involved, and that the schools
improved rapidly thereafter. Communities get the schools they
create....
> We need to get the basics down, and then worry
>about teaching them specific skills. If you can do basic math, if you
>can write a sentence, if you can construct a logical argument, learning
>how to use a computer is trivial.
You're absolutely right. My classrooms weren't wired, and I cope well
enough with the information age.
>>[2] One of my patients is a tiny toddler who's mother intentionally
>>inflicted life threatening full thickness burns to nearly 50% of his
>>body for some minor bit of misbehavior. I've been waking up and going
>>to sleep angry with that boys parent over this for days. I'm not sure
>>I'll ever assume that most parents mean well ever again. Goddamn it.
>
>:o
>
>Katy. I sympathize. It's amazing what people will do to a child. :(
The worst is doing the wound care and cleaning the eschar off the
remaining open areas of his wounds. It makes me sick to see how it
pains him, and think that his mom did that to him, and to think that
he's got about a year of painful procedures and skin stretching and
treatment ahead of him.
Although, on a brighter note, I did go and talk to our team social
worker, and apparently he thinks that the kid will probably be
psychologically basically ok when he's a grown up. Small consolation,
I suppose.
--Katy
Chris
<ang...@SPAMFREErmta.org> wrote:
<I'm going to snip both, and congratulate angela on a well articulated
debate RE: statutes :)>
I've been thinking about how it was that the prof who led this class
walked us through what he would do, because I remember at the time
thinking how neat the idea sounded. However, this has been almost 7
years ago now, and I can't even remember where 10 sets of house keys
have wandered off to, so bear with me a bit :) And I will tell you,
he bordered a bit on the socialist side, and a bit on the anarchist
side.
I've culmed through most of his stuff that other people had from
talking in ICQ, and here's how it boiled down mix of my words and many
others. My commentary is at the end. I will try to leave this as "my
commentary free" as possible.
------------------
The situation is this: whenever we add to the current statute, people
get benefits, etc. which are all derived powers of the government, and
they aren't just the obvious ones. By code, married couples are
placed at a higher priority on organ donor lists (I've checked this
again, it's been a touch revised to married with kids), they get
benefits on insurance coverage - including cars, housing, health.
They get perks in regards to federal assistance.
Now, they also get a huge other perk: married or not, two people
living together do not have to spend the same on their existence as
two people living separately; at best figures, the two living
together, married or not, conserve monies by not having to double up
expenditures on commodities, goods & general expenses.
Therefore, the most "screwed" in the scenario is his scenario was the
single gay male, next the single male, then the single gay female,
then the single female, then any arrangement of two living together,
then any arrangements of a multi-plural living together, then those
married and recognized.
Now, in granting status to any group, we intend to do so in order to
elevate them to the status of the top group, the married group, to
gain the most potential benefits.
However, inherently, the single group, no matter what the situation,
is not only deprived of general breaks that are inherent to just
living together, but they are also denied larger life oriented breaks,
like preferential treatment to higher risk medication, etc. and no
matter what arrangement is made with the others, they are continuously
left out, therefore providing the greatest incentive to encourage
marriage which often prompts marriages that are bound for failure,
predicated partially on love, partially on the benefits of the
arrangement.
However, the federal government could reclassify marriages as done
with MCAs, or Miner Contract Agreements. Miner Contract Agreements
were held true for oil, gold, and other minerals. MCAs effectively
said that if a party of two or more entered into a "clap" agreement,
normally a two to four sentence agrement noting their partnership, and
guaranteed by any recognized third party (minister, judge, notary,
etc.) the agreement is then governed as a corporation, in which all
parties are bound by corporate status. The joint party endeavor is
listed and governed as such, regardless of the number of the party.
Single party entities are interpreted as sole proprietorship.
No entity is afforded any government protection nor special regulatory
benefits that prove advantageous to their corporation over any other
status. In other words: a single individual is judged on equal
footing in all conditions, from determining need of medical aid, tax
status, etc.
The intent is to make sure their is no gravitational fact, other then
sheer will of the parties, and the benefits the parties bring to the
table.
More then that, as with all corporations, the government is no way
responsible for the actions of the party, and society as a whole
neither endorses the actions of the party in any way. Just as some
may think that mom & pop run a poor liquor store, that doesn't mean we
try to burn their building down.
The records of the formation of corporation, joint or multiparty, is
held by the individuals involved and a third recognized party, which
is not required to be the state. This means that no one needs to know
except those involved, therefore allowing the protection of privacy
for those involved.
In the case of disillusionment, the parties would be treated as a
corporate entity. And parties who "hide assets" etc. in order to
avoid a fair disillusionment would be subject to laws that match the
guidelines of the SEC, in which those who "hide assets" would in
effect, be guilty of corporate fraud, which would result in direct
fines levied against them to benefit those defrauded, and lawyers
purporting such fraud intentionally would be subject to criminal
action as their actions basically remove money from those who need it.
Children (subsidiaries) are treated as subsidiaries in that even in
disillusionment, the entity with the greatest profit potential is
still obligated to fulfill it's original inherent agreement with a
spawned subsidiary until the subsidiary is able to function to earn on
it's own. Failure to do so is tantamount to forcing that subsidiary
into bankruptcy, a status that if forced into by a profitable parent
company, also results in a case of fraud, in which the offending party
is criminally responsible.
Because the state does not have a listing of exactly which status any
individual is in, as that status is protected by the third party of
the first parties choice, benefits - plus and minuses - guaranteed to
them would be difficult to assess and or handle. More then that, the
negotiations with those individuals, over taxes and any other benefit,
would be handled on a single individual basis instead of negotiating
with one party set to the negative effects against another.
------------------
Now, will this happen ? No. But it's an approach that struck me as
sensible in college. As someone at that time who was single, and
continuously with health concerns, I knew I was getting punned.
The idea of preventing grand lists or ideas or advantages and
disadvantages for any groups I also liked.
Now, in this class (Jr. year, for Angela's sake) the counter argument
was: this was tantamount to creating a mini-private police state in
which private agencies spent their time spying on people to find out
which group they were in before making decisions.
However, the counter argument to that was that a process of spying
would be more expensive then going along.
Others argued the morality of multi-partner systems, and others argued
about the handling of children. Because whereas some states now can
require you to pay for child support through college, it would be more
difficult to enforce in this system, some contended.
Another argument was that scurrilous third parties would have a
blackmail position over the first parties if he/she decided that they
didn't like the party in question.
Whatever the end result, I remember finding the debate intriguing....
There are lots of codes that have been around for quite a while, and
debating the "shoulds" and "what if we could" always struck me as
wildly interesting.
Besides, I'd love to see just once in my lifetime someone take a
radical step to do something completely different from anything ever
done before. The space program really was that. I'd love to see
someone come out and say: all people are equal, and instead of making
laws to make people equal, we're going to get rid of laws that make
people unequal :)
CW
Chris
wrote:
>
>>The system isn't suddenly "cured" it's now, even more then ever,
>>singling out C,D,E & J. While Y benefits, everyone else is screwed.
>
>But in your example, they're each getting screwed on their own,
>regardless of the screwing being dealt to the other groups.
>
>You appear to be saying that we can't incrementally fix a problem. I
>heartily disagree with that. If anything, Y getting <whatever> can help
>the others get it too, or have the whole system where A through Z
>(except our friends CDEJY) tossed out.
>
>I'm not about to argue that homosexual marriages shouldn't be legalized
>'cause someone else can't get it either. I don't see that as a valid
>argument at all.
My argument is, in marginally benefitting, we increase the difference
levels and pretty much put gravitas on others to conform. More then
that, we extend the government again were it just doesn't belong.
Incrementally "fixing" the problem doesn't "fix" the problem. I
believe the people in the groups that are "benefitting" -are- the
problem. If all the other groups were forced to join CDEJY, and admit
that they should not receive special government fostered access to
medical care then a single person or gay person, no special government
differences to tax benefits or negatives, no special government access
to federal services, that they shouldn't benefit from government
programs are setup for them to the exclusion of others.
This isn't the same as saying "all blacks drink from that fountain,
whites over here" It's tantamount to saying: white people don't need
to do anything but be to get better access to government handouts.
Extending the handouts to other groups doesn't make the handouts any
more just. Telling the people that they better get their ass out
there, and recognize how the system works just like everyone else
because the government isn't going to treat them special spawns more
encouragement to actually doing something.
CW
Chris
And take this just a touch further:
Now you've got single people, of all flavors, standing outside looking
in. Those inside suddenly have better access to federal programs for
drug treatment programs - from cancer to HIV. They have better access
to protection of the law. They have better access to all of those
things.
Now, given that all of those things, under the current law are
absolutely true, and it's why many groups want the rights associated
with it, let's say we go for it. What happens? Now you've got a
larger group with less need of being activists for the smaller, single
group because they are being cared for, and now instead of a united
front for homosexual rights, one group becomes more satisfied, with
medical treatment, tax treatment, government recognition. And mark my
words: apathy sets in. Now those single are on the outside looking
in. Their once large lobbying group for efforts for their causes -
which are much greater then just marital privileges, and at it's most
base result in medical care, are zapped because they lose a huge
number of lobbying partners since they suddenly get the benefit of
medical care, therefore the solution becomes: get married and it's all
better. Stay single and you're still screwed.
I'll propose it this way for straight people:
You have a marriage of 30 years. You need a kidney/lung transplant.
You're in fair health. You have 2 children. Because of this status,
the national organ donors bank - and I've heard arguments to the
opposite, but I've worked directly through 22 transplants, and unless
they were all aberrations, the person with the 2 kids is given
preferential treatment in the pecking order if all things are similar
to someone same age not married, no kids.
Now, if the match is spot on for the other guy, he gets it. But if
it's fairly even keel for both, then the married with kids individual
always wins, even if the other party may have a slightly better
chance, or despite any works or good the single person may do. (just
as someone fifteen years younger then them would also receive
preference, but there it's for sound medical reasoning: that
individual has a better survival rate)
I don't hear married people lobbying how wrong it is that we just pass
over single people like that.
Now look at it this way: person A is an HIV+ person who is single.
Person B is an HIV+ person who's now recognized in a marriage. Person
B is absolutely, 100% more likely to get better treatment then person
B, who in effect gets inferior treatment.
Now, just like the case with transplants, as well as cancer, etc.
treatment, I will argue that apathy sets in, and those married, who do
get the benefits, will not be nearly as active lobbyists for their now
single & neglected friends.
In sex in the city a few years ago, they argued that it's always
somewhat a war, married people vs. single, and married people were
always trying to get you to join their team.
Well, the more we hand out the status, the bigger the drive to join
the team is, and the less motivation there is to do anything about the
inequity to others, which is slowly shutting them down and kicking
them farther and farther down the rung.
CW
Michelle Haines
wrote:
>omish marriages because they refuse paper
Amish, damnit!
:)
Michelle
Flutist
Nadyne Mielke
attention, kdre...@u.washinnospamgton.edu (Kathryn J. Drennan) wrote:
[snip]
>I'm also quite opposed to school vouchers, and I'm opposed to
>corporate schools. I just don't trust corporations any further than I
>can throw them with the education of our future.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But I'm quite worried that the gubmint
can't do it effectively, either. Public schools in the US blow. Look
at the kids who are making it through the system and are functionally
illiterate, can't do basic math, can't balance a chequebook to save
their souls.
If gubmint can't do it effectively, and we're worried about corporate
schools, who do we turn to? I can't answer that question. :/
>I also think that
>it's very difficult to ensure that the lower middle class people can
>adaquately educate their children if we switch to a voucher program.
>After all, if you don't have any more money to add to the voucher, and
>yet your local public school blows goats, you're pretty screwed if the
>two non-public schools in the area want $12000 a year tuition compared
>to the $9000 a year voucher, and I don't really see any feasable way
>out of that.
I think if a parent -really- wants to afford it for their children, they
can find a way. They'll have to go without cable, they'll have to go
without dinner out. Tough.
{That's a big ole generalization. I am completely aware that there are
cases where the parent(s) don't have an option. But I do believe that a
lot of Americans can't effectively manage their resources -- and that's
not limited to the lower middle class.}
An interesting question: will the gubmint schools be forced to do better
if some parents pull their kids out of the underperforming school? Do
free market conditions apply here?
My problem is: I don't think that throwing more money at the schools is
the answer. Yes, teachers need to get higher pay, but that doesn't mean
that the system as a whole needs wads of money thrown at it. For
example, I think the idea of wiring every classroom in the nation (or
worse, every seat in every classroom) is fucking insane. If we can't
teach kids basic math, what the hell are we doing trying to teach
technology on top of it? We need to get the basics down, and then worry
about teaching them specific skills. If you can do basic math, if you
can write a sentence, if you can construct a logical argument, learning
how to use a computer is trivial.
>It also gives parents the choice to really screw their
>kids out of an education, and I don't trust parents any more. [2]
Heh. I can't disagree with this statement at all. :(
[snip]
>>Somewhat related note: did y'all see the guy from Maryland who is
>>auctioning his vote in the November election off on eBay?
>LOL! That is hillarious! How can you trust him to carry through?
>Maybe that's what i should do. How high did the bidding get? ;)
Last I saw, it's up to $10k. (My web browser is being pissy, otherwise
I'd see if eBay has pulled the auction yet.) If he does carry through
with it, the seller and the buyer are subject to some pretty stiff jail
sentences.
>[2] One of my patients is a tiny toddler who's mother intentionally
>inflicted life threatening full thickness burns to nearly 50% of his
>body for some minor bit of misbehavior. I've been waking up and going
>to sleep angry with that boys parent over this for days. I'm not sure
>I'll ever assume that most parents mean well ever again. Goddamn it.
:o
Katy. I sympathize. It's amazing what people will do to a child. :(
/nad
Nadyne Mielke
attention, mccl...@ucsu.colorado.edu (that abby girl) wrote:
[custody battles]
>i'm going to disagree with that. there are someinstances where there's a
>presumption in favor of the mother, but usually not. in fact, in some
>courts, there's been a shift so it's much more likely that the father will
>the primary custody than the mother. this shift tends to be limited to
>lower-income populations, i'm sure there's still a presumption in favor of
>the mother for middleclass+ families, but it's not nearly so cut and dry
>in the custody cases that i've seen recently.
I bow to your expertise. :)
/nad