Will Jews Inherit The Universe? (Re: Is Israel Overpopulated?)
bill...@my-deja.com
Savard) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 12:11:04 GMT, bill...@my-deja.com wrote, in
>part:
>>On 3 Sep 2000 02:35:12 GMT, in talk.abortion jher...@ix.netcom.com (Joseph
>>Hertzlinger) wrote:
>quoting yet another person:
>
>>>>Heh - many people in the israeli newsgroups believe that Israel is
>>>>overpopulated.
>
>>>>Of course, being "pro-life", their solution is not more birth
>>>>control, but to increase the size of Israel...
>
>>>Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now
>>>toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and
>>>he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
>
>>The number of stars visible by the naked eye is 6000.
>
>>Jews, follow the Word of God!
>
>>Convert to atheism!
>
>Inability to see all the stars may have been counted the same way as
>inability to count all the stars.
>
>Thus, perhaps Bible prophecy is saying, since there is hardly room for
>10^26 people (10^11 stars per galaxy, 10^15 galaxies) on Earth, that
>humanity *will* colonize space, and there will be Jewish people among
>those in the ships that leave Earth for the stars.
>
>Of course, that will make it difficult for them to follow the Word of
>God in one respect - a respect that they are still unable to follow,
>despite having Jerusalem as part of Israel. They have not rebuilt the
>Temple, and thus they do not have the one permitted place to make
>animal sacrifices, as is required to atone for sin.
>
>John Savard
>http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
Great!
An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
( BTW, what is Lieberman's position on NASA funding?)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brian Mueller
The passage in question is simply saying that if one strives for a
closer relationship to God, one will have a spiritually propserous
life.
That's all.
--Brian
Susan Cohen
Scott Lowther wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > Scott Lowther wrote:
> >
> > > bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
> > > >
> > > > Great!
> > > >
> > > > An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
> > >
> > > No, that's not _another_ reason, that's _a_ reason. There are no others.
> > > But many reasons to vote against them.
> >
> > I suppose if you don't like freedom of religion,
> > that's a good reason to vote against them.
>
> BOOORRRING. The usual "if you vote against a Jew you're an anti-Semite"
No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
Do get some facts *before* you post.
> routine. GoreBot 2000 and his LieberLackey are no better for the 1st
> Amendment rights than anyone else...
They're not the ones going on about "Jesus Days".
> and considering that they want to
> trash the rest of the BoR, it's a safe bet they're bad for the 1st as
> well.
Wrong on both counts.
> > Or education - Bush should be just the ticket
> > for those folks, too.
>
> Well, if Bush gets rid of the Dept. of Education, that's a good start.
> Instead of hiring 100,000 new teachers, how about firing 100,000 bad
> ones and replacing them with good ones?
How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
in the *country* for education?
Mark Atwood
>
> How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
> in the *country* for education?
Really? I had heard that their standardized test scores were among
the "most improved"?
--
Mark Atwood |
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Susan Cohen
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Rory Lindsay" <man...@prophead.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:96806125...@news.win.co.nz...
>
> > The greatest thing holding Israel together is the fact that they are
> > surrounded by Muslim reactionary Arabs that want to destroy them.
>
> And, of course, those Arab nations just want justice done
Except when it comes to actual justice.
> and to have
> Palestine returned to the Palestinians.
Then why were they the ones who told the Palestinians to leave
when the Israelis asked them to stay & help build a nation together,
back in '48?
> Israelis are in *no* position to call Arabs names.
Of course they are. You really haven't listened to the peace talks
ahave you? Not for at least 5-10 years is my guess.
Lewy
Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B497D3...@hers.com>...
>
>
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>> Susan Cohen wrote:
>> >
>> > Scott Lowther wrote:
>> >
>> > > bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
>> > > >
>> > > > Great!
>> > > >
>> > > > An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
>> > >
>> > > No, that's not _another_ reason, that's _a_ reason. There are no
others.
>> > > But many reasons to vote against them.
>> >
>> > I suppose if you don't like freedom of religion,
>> > that's a good reason to vote against them.
>>
>> BOOORRRING. The usual "if you vote against a Jew you're an anti-Semite"
>
>No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
>I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
>I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
>candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
>Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman. Among
the tasty highlights:
"...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals should
depend on the "moral tone" of their programming. He says the Justice
Department and the PTA should be used as "prosecutorial agencies" to
determine truth in movie advertising. He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
to "60 Minutes." He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
television or in movie theaters."
Also:
"Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says he is
"increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them for
us?"
There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
"Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in May.
It would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national
rating system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in
June that websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the
stage" for such an effort in the future."
or http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html
"In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign to let police perform
short-term warrantless wiretaps in some cases that involved potential
"violent acts."
He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap amendment to an anti-terrorism
bill being considered by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing."
And finally, there's http://slate.msn.com/Features/lieberman/lieberman.asp
which compares Lieberman's religious zealotry with Bush's. Among the
highlights:
"Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his
strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while
promoting religion itself. For example, he recently told an African-American
Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and
renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purpose."
Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and ecumenical.
Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday
won't get into heaven. On the other hand, it specifically connects his
religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
nation is to serve God.
In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and Christian
traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of
Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound bite,
Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can be
maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George
Washington. But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable
corollary is that anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a
bit closer here to you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
Susan Cohen
Mark Atwood wrote:
> Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> writes:
> >
> > How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
> > in the *country* for education?
>
> Really? I had heard that their standardized test scores were among
> the "most improved"?
And I've heard that they've *dropped*!
I do know they are either 4th or 5th worst in the nation.
Susan
Scott Lowther
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
> > routine. GoreBot 2000 and his LieberLackey are no better for the 1st
> > Amendment rights than anyone else...
>
> They're not the ones going on about "Jesus Days".
Have you even LISTENED to Lieberman? He hardly ever shuts up about his
moldy, mythical God. And never once mentions Odin, the heathen.
> > and considering that they want to
> > trash the rest of the BoR, it's a safe bet they're bad for the 1st as
> > well.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
Pull your head out.
> How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
> in the *country* for education?
It was also just about the worst when Ann Richards was ruining the
place. When you inheirit from the Democrats, it is sometimes hard to
pick up the pieces.
Scott Lowther
And where is Arkansas?
Gareth Wilson
> No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
> I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
> I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
>
Anti-choice? How horrible! I didn't realise Bush was against people choosing their
interior decor, their hair colour, their peanut butter consistency, and indeed all
the myriad little decisions that a sweeping term like "anti-choice" must cover.
Cite?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shawn Wilson
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
news:39B4986E...@hers.com...
> > > The greatest thing holding Israel together is the fact that they are
> > > surrounded by Muslim reactionary Arabs that want to destroy them.
> >
> > And, of course, those Arab nations just want justice done
>
> Except when it comes to actual justice.
>
> > and to have
> > Palestine returned to the Palestinians.
>
> Then why were they the ones who told the Palestinians to leave
> when the Israelis asked them to stay & help build a nation together,
> back in '48?
They didn't. Your claim that they did is, and has always been, a
propagandistic lie.
> > Israelis are in *no* position to call Arabs names.
>
> Of course they are. You really haven't listened to the peace talks
> ahave you? Not for at least 5-10 years is my guess.
Would the Allies have made a peace with Germany in WWII that left Germany in
possession of continental Europe? Would they have been wrong not to?
Susan Cohen
Scott Lowther wrote:
I believe it's in the South, somewhere. At any rate, Arkansas
is not under discussion, Clinton not running in this election.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Gareth Wilson wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> > No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
> > I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
> > I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> > candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> > Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
> >
>
> Anti-choice? How horrible! I didn't realise Bush was against people choosing their
> interior decor, their hair colour, their peanut butter consistency, and indeed all
> the myriad little decisions that a sweeping term like "anti-choice" must cover.
> Cite?
Oh, I'm sorry - I thought I was dealing with informed adults!
Tell your mommy to steer you towards the PBS Kids site.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Lewy wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B497D3...@hers.com>...
> >
> >
> >Scott Lowther wrote:
> >
> >> Susan Cohen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Scott Lowther wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Great!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
> >> > >
> >> > > No, that's not _another_ reason, that's _a_ reason. There are no
> others.
> >> > > But many reasons to vote against them.
> >> >
> >> > I suppose if you don't like freedom of religion,
> >> > that's a good reason to vote against them.
> >>
> >> BOOORRRING. The usual "if you vote against a Jew you're an anti-Semite"
> >
> >No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
> >I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
> >I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> >candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> >Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
>
> Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
> article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman.
Hey - yet another reason to vote for Lieberman!
> Among
> the tasty highlights:
>
> "...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals should
> depend on the "moral tone" of their programming.
Well, it would be nice, but unfair. Of course, I'd
have to see the original statement - I wouldn't take Esterhaus'
word for anything on this subject.
> He says the Justice Department and the PTA should be used as "prosecutorial
> agencies" to determine truth in movie advertising.
Whatever this means. Of course, I'm all for truth in advertising!!
> He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
> to "60 Minutes."
Which is certainly his right/. Or is he not allowed to have
opinions which clash with sleaze-king Esterhaus?
> He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
> television or in movie theaters."
Which opinion is also his right to express.
> Also:
>
> "Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
> definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says he is
> "increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them for
> us?"
The same right as he has to define his movies as fabulous,
wonderful, or whatever it is that he calls them.
Intersting how some people want freedom of expression only
for themselves.
> There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
>
> "Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in May. It
> would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national rating
> system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in June that
> websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the stage" for
> such an effort in the future."
I can see that truth in advertising bothers both you & Estarhaus.
Why is that?
> or http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html
>
> "In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign to let police perform
> short-term warrantless wiretaps in some cases that involved potential
> "violent acts."
>
> He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap amendment to an anti-terrorism
> bill being considered by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City bombing."
Sounds like a panic measure to me.
Sounds like stuff that's been done before.
Sounds like it would probably help in a lot of cases.
Sounds like it's being blown out of context.
> And finally, there's http://slate.msn.com/Features/lieberman/lieberman.asp
> which compares Lieberman's religious zealotry with Bush's. Among the
> highlights:
>
> "Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his
> strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while
> promoting religion itself.
Sounds exactly like what the American public generally believes.
> For example, he recently told an African-American
> Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and
> renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purpose."
>
> Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and ecumenical.
Yes. It's totally different than the "everyone recognizes Jesus as
a great teacher & should live by his example", etc.
> Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday
> won't get into heaven.
My guess is that it's because he knows better than to believe
that this is true.
> On the other hand, it specifically connects his
> religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
> nation is to serve God.
Actually, no it does not. It connects his religious beliefs to what
people should be doing. The people are here to make things better,
be it within the physical nation or not.
> In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and Christian
> traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of
> Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound bite,
> Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can be
> maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George Washington.
So, as in the nature of soundbites, it could very well have been
just a quote.
Of course, he probably believes this himself, and figures that most
Americans believe it too.
He's wrong, of course, and it's most likely one of the reasons the
ADL told him as well as 7 or 8 other politicians to can the religious
talk.
> But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable corollary is that
> anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a bit closer here to
> you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
No, we're not. And never will, with Lieberman.
It's not how Judaism works, and Lieberman's definitely a Jew.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Scott Lowther wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> > > routine. GoreBot 2000 and his LieberLackey are no better for the 1st
> > > Amendment rights than anyone else...
> >
> > They're not the ones going on about "Jesus Days".
>
> Have you even LISTENED to Lieberman? He hardly ever shuts up about his
> moldy, mythical God.
And, interestingly enough, never tells anyone else that they
have to believe in it, or acts as though they already do.
> And never once mentions Odin, the heathen.
When you get nominated for VP, you can talk about whoever you want.
> > > and considering that they want to
> > > trash the rest of the BoR, it's a safe bet they're bad for the 1st as
> > > well.
> >
> > Wrong on both counts.
>
> Pull your head out.
Stop confusing me with you.
> > How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
> > in the *country* for education?
>
> It was also just about the worst when Ann Richards was ruining the
> place.
"Just about"? Since I've heard it's dropped, I'd have to say that
I don't trust this vague little fudge phrase.
> When you inheirit from the Democrats, it is sometimes hard to
> pick up the pieces.
Especially when you don't give a damn.
Jens Kilian
> > Of course, the Democrats put man on the Moon.
>
> It was? I could have sworn Nixon was President...
Last week, there was a re-run of the 1969 transmission of the Apollo-11
landing on German TV (part of a series of documentaries about the Wild
Sixties). The commenters were a bit miffed about Nixon's "historic phone
call", saying that it wasn't *his* space program that put Armstrong & Aldrin
up there.
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (HP TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Rand Simberg
> I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
Ummmm, not that it's in any way on topic, but what does the First Amendment have
to do with abortion rights? The Supremes managed to find a right somewhere in the
Constitution (though it remains unclear explicitly where), but I don't recall any
citations of the First Amendment.
> Do get some facts *before* you post.
Pot, kettle, black...
Herman Rubin
>> How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
>> in the *country* for education?
>Really? I had heard that their standardized test scores were among
>the "most improved"?
What can a governor do if the people insist that their
football players be academically eligible? The only
solution is to allow parents to send their children to
affordable non-public schools if the public schools are
not to their individual academic standards. Al Gore
is beholden heavily to the teachers' unions, which are
opposed to allowing anyone to be taught by other than
their members, and in their manner.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Ray Drouillard
Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8p1de8$fq6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> <bill...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p1btv$vbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > On 4 Sep 2000 02:31:41 GMT, in soc.culture.jewish jher...@ix.netcom.com
> > (Joseph Hertzlinger) wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:45:40 GMT, bill...@my-deja.com
> > ><bill...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
> > >>
> > >>Great!
> > >
> >
> > Of course, the Democrats put man on the Moon.
>
> It was? I could have sworn Nixon was President...
>
> "Who started the policies that led to X" and "Who was in charge
> when X happened".
>
> Bruce
The president didn't put anyone on the moon. There were a lot of rocket
scientists, engineers, managers, and grunt workers responsible for that.
All the politicians did was talk about it.
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>The president didn't put anyone on the moon. There were a lot of rocket
>scientists, engineers, managers, and grunt workers responsible for that.
>All the politicians did was talk about it.
>
Well, I guess they did also fund it.
Robert A. Woodward
"Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:39B4986E...@hers.com...
>
> > > > The greatest thing holding Israel together is the fact that they are
> > > > surrounded by Muslim reactionary Arabs that want to destroy them.
> > >
> > > And, of course, those Arab nations just want justice done
> >
> > Except when it comes to actual justice.
> >
> > > and to have
> > > Palestine returned to the Palestinians.
> >
> > Then why were they the ones who told the Palestinians to leave
> > when the Israelis asked them to stay & help build a nation together,
> > back in '48?
>
>
> They didn't. Your claim that they did is, and has always been, a
> propagandistic lie.
>
I believe I have seen quotes that support Susan's assertion
Also, this topic is OFF TOPIC for several newsgroups; I have removed them
from the distribution list
--
rawoo...@aol.com
robe...@halcyon.com http://www.halcyon.com/robertaw/
dltjxx
>The president didn't put anyone on the moon. There were a lot of
>rocket scientists, engineers, managers, and grunt workers responsible
>for that. All the politicians did was talk about it.
Agreed.
Aside: One of my parents' friends designed the fiber optics whatever
that went to the moon (and is still up there). Through his good graces,
my husband and I were at JPL when the first pics came from Saturn.
To the point: we, the people, put men on the moon. And we, the people,
funded it.
Deborah
Gareth Wilson
> >
> > Anti-choice? How horrible! I didn't realise Bush was against people choosing their
> > interior decor, their hair colour, their peanut butter consistency, and indeed all
> > the myriad little decisions that a sweeping term like "anti-choice" must cover.
> > Cite?
>
> Oh, I'm sorry - I thought I was dealing with informed adults!
> Tell your mommy to steer you towards the PBS Kids site.
>
Thanks for the tip, but the PBS site wasn't very helpful. I've done a bit more research,
and it seems that "anti-choice" refers to something specific that women should be able
to choose to do. It was mentioned a lot in the Democratic convention, the "women's right
to choose". But I've never heard anyone explain what it is, exactly. I can't imagine
what would be so important that the right to choose it must be constantly stressed, yet
so shocking that no-one dares mention in public.
Susan Cohen
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> > I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> > candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> > Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
>
> Ummmm, not that it's in any way on topic, but what does the First Amendment have
> to do with abortion rights?
Well, it's on topic for this group, soc.culture.jewish.
I know I should trim the headers, but I am afraid to therefore
cut out anyone who really wants to participate.
But the only reason people want abortion to be outlawed is that
their religion says it's murder. Not everyone subscribes to those
religious beliefs - or, indeed, any religious beliefs at all. For any
group (or even groups) to insist that their eligious views muct
prevail for the entire country when medical science doesn't agree
with them is, as far as the First Amendment goes, very WRONG.
> The Supremes managed to find a right somewhere in the
> Constitution (though it remains unclear explicitly where), but I don't recall any
> citations of the First Amendment.
I'm always surprised that they stick to the Privacy Amendment.
> > Do get some facts *before* you post.
>
> Pot, kettle, black...
Oh, are you the pot or the kettle?
I have the facts - you yourself show above that you have no clue.
Susan Cohen
"Robert A. Woodward" wrote:
> In article <vF2t5.11267$On2.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Shawn Wilson" <shawn....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> > news:39B4986E...@hers.com...
> >
> > > > and to have
> > > > Palestine returned to the Palestinians.
> > >
> > > Then why were they the ones who told the Palestinians to leave
> > > when the Israelis asked them to stay & help build a nation together,
> > > back in '48?
> >
> >
> > They didn't. Your claim that they did is, and has always been, a
> > propagandistic lie.
> >
>
> I believe I have seen quotes that support Susan's assertion
I wouldn't have made it if I hadn't been sure.
> Also, this topic is OFF TOPIC for several newsgroups; I have removed them from
> the distribution list
I knew that it was off-topic, but I was also sure that I would
be cutting people out of the thread - so I didn't cut the groups.
Susan
Lewy
Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B4C527...@hers.com>...
>
>
>Lewy wrote:
>
>> Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B497D3...@hers.com>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Scott Lowther wrote:
>> >
>> >> Susan Cohen wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott Lowther wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Great!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No, that's not _another_ reason, that's _a_ reason. There are no
>> others.
>> >> > > But many reasons to vote against them.
>> >> >
>> >> > I suppose if you don't like freedom of religion,
>> >> > that's a good reason to vote against them.
>> >>
>> >> BOOORRRING. The usual "if you vote against a Jew you're an
anti-Semite"
>> >
>> >No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
>> >I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
>> >I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
>> >candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
>> >Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
>>
>> Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
>> article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman.
>
>Hey - yet another reason to vote for Lieberman!
He's not such a bad writer. I kind of liked...well, Sharon Stone looked
good in Basic Instinct.
>> Among
>> the tasty highlights:
>>
>> "...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals
should
>> depend on the "moral tone" of their programming.
>
>Well, it would be nice, but unfair. Of course, I'd
>have to see the original statement - I wouldn't take Esterhaus'
>word for anything on this subject.
I don't think it would be nice. I think it's opening the door to
censorship.
>> He says the Justice Department and the PTA should be used as
"prosecutorial
>> agencies" to determine truth in movie advertising.
>
>Whatever this means. Of course, I'm all for truth in advertising!!
Especially as determined by the PTA.
>> He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
>> to "60 Minutes."
>
>Which is certainly his right/. Or is he not allowed to have
>opinions which clash with sleaze-king Esterhaus?
You can have any opinions you want. It's also the right of anyone to think
your opinions are bizarre. I wonder what kind of fellow thinks "60 Minutes"
is some kind of sleeze-a-thon.
>> He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
>> television or in movie theaters."
>
>Which opinion is also his right to express.
See above. I haven't watched a lot of "Friends", but isn't it about fluffy
bunnies or something? The kind of mindset that would find "Friends"
offensive interests me.
>> Also:
>>
>> "Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
>> definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says he
is
>> "increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them
for
>> us?"
>
>The same right as he has to define his movies as fabulous,
>wonderful, or whatever it is that he calls them.
>Intersting how some people want freedom of expression only
>for themselves.
Like Lieberman? I found his quote about being "increasingly uncomfortable
in a secular culture" to be quite illuminating.
>> There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
>>
>> "Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in
May. It
>> would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national
rating
>> system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in June
that
>> websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the stage"
for
>> such an effort in the future."
>
>I can see that truth in advertising bothers both you & Estarhaus.
>Why is that?
Does the abbreviation "PMRC" mean anything to you?
And specifically what bothers me is the quote that his legislation "sets the
stage" for a regulatory commission for website content.
>> or http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html
>>
>> "In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign to let police perform
>> short-term warrantless wiretaps in some cases that involved potential
>> "violent acts."
>>
>> He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap amendment to an
anti-terrorism
>> bill being considered by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing."
>
>Sounds like a panic measure to me.
>Sounds like stuff that's been done before.
>Sounds like it would probably help in a lot of cases.
>Sounds like it's being blown out of context.
If he's that easily panicked, maybe he shouldn't be VP. I don't think
warrentless wiretaps are a small issue, and I find it hard to blow something
that major "out of context". When you say it sounds "like stuff that's been
done before", well it was illegal then. Lieberman is trying to make it
legal, and it stinks.
>> And finally, there's
http://slate.msn.com/Features/lieberman/lieberman.asp
>> which compares Lieberman's religious zealotry with Bush's. Among the
>> highlights:
>>
>> "Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his
>> strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while
>> promoting religion itself.
>
>Sounds exactly like what the American public generally believes.
Great. And what do you do if you're an atheist or agnostic?
>> For example, he recently told an African-American
>> Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith
and
>> renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's
purpose."
>>
>> Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and
ecumenical.
>
>Yes. It's totally different than the "everyone recognizes Jesus as
>a great teacher & should live by his example", etc.
Really? One's offensive to non-Christians. The other's offensive to
non-believers. As an atheist myself, I'm offended by the implication that
morality can only flow from religion, and that therefore by extension
non-believers are immoral.
>> Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday
>> won't get into heaven.
>
>My guess is that it's because he knows better than to believe
>that this is true.
>
>> On the other hand, it specifically connects his
>> religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
>> nation is to serve God.
>
>Actually, no it does not. It connects his religious beliefs to what
>people should be doing. The people are here to make things better,
>be it within the physical nation or not.
If his religion involves moving "Friends" out of prime time and into the
late night spot, he should keep it to himself. If it involves monitoring
the news for adult content, which is what Eszterhas believes is next on
Lieberman's agenda, he should keep it to himself.
>> In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and
Christian
>> traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of
>> Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound
bite,
>> Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can
be
>> maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George
Washington.
>
>So, as in the nature of soundbites, it could very well have been
>just a quote.
>Of course, he probably believes this himself, and figures that most
>Americans believe it too.
>He's wrong, of course, and it's most likely one of the reasons the
>ADL told him as well as 7 or 8 other politicians to can the religious
>talk.
What's disappointing is that they had to tell him that in the first place.
>> But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable corollary is
that
>> anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a bit closer here
to
>> you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
>
>No, we're not. And never will, with Lieberman.
>It's not how Judaism works, and Lieberman's definitely a Jew.
Rabbis don't always agree about how Judaism works. There are plenty of
flavor of modern day Judaism around. Michael Medved, who is an Orthodox Jew
himself, took Lieberman to task for his views on abortion.
Finally, the author of that Slate article, Bruce Gottlieb, summed things up
quite nicely and I think I'll just crib his words here:
"On the other hand, perhaps Lieberman is saying that if you act as God
wishes but not because of a belief in God, then it somehow doesn't count.
That seems awfully fussy. By requiring faith as a prerequisite for morality,
Lieberman is dismissing a lot of philosophical thinking that grounds itself
in reason, not faith, and still manages to arrive at the same conclusions
that Lieberman would probably endorse. In any event, if people do live by
the rules of decency and honor, the question of whether they do so with or
without believing in God is surely not a concern of the government, of the
vice president in his official capacity, or a concern that belongs in a
national election campaign."
Riboflavin
>> Ummmm, not that it's in any way on topic, but what does the First
Amendment have
>> to do with abortion rights?
>
>Well, it's on topic for this group, soc.culture.jewish.
And you're posting to 3 groups for which it's off-topic.
>I know I should trim the headers, but I am afraid to therefore
>cut out anyone who really wants to participate.
Cross-posted messages tend to really irritate people, especially in
low-traffic groups like rasfs where we don't normally get batches of
off-topic political posts like yours. Do the responsible thing and only post
to the appropriate groups.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"If your posts are illegible, why should I not eat you?" - Frank
Susan Cohen
Lewy wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B4C527...@hers.com>...
> >
> >
> >Lewy wrote:
> >
> >> Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
> >> article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman.
> >
> >Hey - yet another reason to vote for Lieberman!
>
> He's not such a bad writer. I kind of liked...well, Sharon Stone looked
> good in Basic Instinct.
:-D
> >> Among
> >> the tasty highlights:
> >>
> >> "...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals
> should
> >> depend on the "moral tone" of their programming.
> >
> >Well, it would be nice, but unfair. Of course, I'd
> >have to see the original statement - I wouldn't take Esterhaus'
> >word for anything on this subject.
>
> I don't think it would be nice. I think it's opening the door to
> censorship.
You'll note where I said "unfair".
> >> He says the Justice Department and the PTA should be used as
> "prosecutorial
> >> agencies" to determine truth in movie advertising.
> >
> >Whatever this means. Of course, I'm all for truth in advertising!!
>
> Especially as determined by the PTA.
Sounds good, if we're trying to determine what kids should
or should not see. Parents, of course, can always make the
final decision in their own homes.
> >> He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
> >> to "60 Minutes."
> >
> >Which is certainly his right/. Or is he not allowed to have
>
> >opinions which clash with sleaze-king Esterhaus?
>
> You can have any opinions you want. It's also the right of anyone to think
> your opinions are bizarre.
And vice-versa (I thought that was the point I was making?)
> I wonder what kind of fellow thinks "60 Minutes" is some kind of
> sleeze-a-thon.
Depends on which episodes you watch, I guess.
I haven't watched it in I don't know how long!
> >> He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
> >> television or in movie theaters."
> >
>
> >Which opinion is also his right to express.
>
> See above. I haven't watched a lot of "Friends", but isn't it about fluffy
> bunnies or something? The kind of mindset that would find "Friends"
> offensive interests me.
But if you haven't watched it, how do you know that
it's about fluffy bunnies? I thought there was a good
deal of sexual content...? (No, I haven't watched
it either! What little I ever saw was so irritatingly
insipid....)
> >> Also:
> >>
> >> "Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
> >> definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says he
> is
> >> "increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them
> for
> >> us?"
> >
> >The same right as he has to define his movies as fabulous,
> >wonderful, or whatever it is that he calls them.
> >Intersting how some people want freedom of expression only
> >for themselves.
>
> Like Lieberman? I found his quote about being "increasingly uncomfortable in
> a secular culture" to be quite illuminating.
Lieberman doesn't want to keep other people from saying things.
he just wants to make sure that
a) everyone knows before getting stuck just what it is they're
going to be listening to
b) that no one is forced to "host" what someone else wants to say.
I'd say that his remark is on target for a fairly vocal segment of the
population.
> >> There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
> >>
> >> "Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in
> May. It
> >> would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national
> rating
> >> system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in June
> that
> >> websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the stage"
> for
> >> such an effort in the future."
> >
> >I can see that truth in advertising bothers both you & Estarhaus.
> >Why is that?
>
> Does the abbreviation "PMRC" mean anything to you?
Is that the thing with the record labelling that Tipper and Al
Gore liked?
> And specifically what bothers me is the quote that his legislation "sets the
> stage" for a regulatory commission for website content.
Isn't this the idea where x-rated websites will all get the ending
"xxx"? I thought that was brilliant - helps everyone who wants
the sites know exactly where they are, and helps the parents be
able to filter out all the wrong stuff and none of the right stuff
(like the one program that won't let you find out information
on mastectomies because of the use of the word "breast").
Don't pay any attention? He's not talking about *policy*, here!
He's talking about what some people believe, and how it affects
the way they act - and, in this particular instance, how they act
as citizens.
> >> For example, he recently told an African-American
> >> Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith
> and
> >> renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's
> purpose."
> >>
> >> Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and
> ecumenical.
> >
> >Yes. It's totally different than the "everyone recognizes Jesus as
> >a great teacher & should live by his example", etc.
>
> Really? One's offensive to non-Christians. The other's offensive to
> non-believers. As an atheist myself, I'm offended by the implication that
> morality can only flow from religion, and that therefore by extension
> non-believers are immoral.
But he was speaking to a church, right? He was only speaking to
believers! What do you expect him to say to believers?
The real upshot is that if he wasn't Jewish, he wouldn't have to
mention religion at all! *Now* he has to show that he's "just like
them", & placate all those who are scared of having a non-Xian
in the White House.
> >> Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday
> >> won't get into heaven.
> >
> >My guess is that it's because he knows better than to believe
> >that this is true.
> >
> >> On the other hand, it specifically connects his
> >> religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
> >> nation is to serve God.
> >
> >Actually, no it does not. It connects his religious beliefs to what
> >people should be doing. The people are here to make things better,
> >be it within the physical nation or not.
>
> If his religion involves moving "Friends" out of prime time and into the
> late night spot, he should keep it to himself. If it involves monitoring
> the news for adult content, which is what Eszterhas believes is next on
> Lieberman's agenda, he should keep it to himself.
Esterhaus is nuts.
But Lieberman is talking about having one's beliefs prompt
their actions - which is pretty much what *everyone* does.
Some people use religion as a basis for those beliefs, others
don't.
As far as "moving Friends", you don't think he was seriously
contemplating trying that? I'm sure he'd like to see it moved to
when younger children are usually in bed, but I'll bet you anything
you want that he's not going to bother trying to get it done!
> >> In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and
> Christian
> >> traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of
> >> Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound
> bite,
> >> Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can
> be
> >> maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George
> Washington.
> >
> >So, as in the nature of soundbites, it could very well have been
> >just a quote.
> >Of course, he probably believes this himself, and figures that most
> >Americans believe it too.
> >He's wrong, of course, and it's most likely one of the reasons the
> >ADL told him as well as 7 or 8 other politicians to can the religious
> >talk.
>
> What's disappointing is that they had to tell him that in the first place.
See above re; "reassurance".
> >> But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable corollary is
> that
> >> anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a bit closer here
> to
> >> you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
> >
> >No, we're not. And never will, with Lieberman.
> >It's not how Judaism works, and Lieberman's definitely a Jew.
>
> Rabbis don't always agree about how Judaism works.
But all of them agree on a lot of basic things.
> There are plenty of
> flavor of modern day Judaism around. Michael Medved, who is an Orthodox Jew
> himself, took Lieberman to task for his views on abortion.
Which ought to show you, among other things, that Lieberman
isn't letting his religious views get in the wayof doing his job.
> Finally, the author of that Slate article, Bruce Gottlieb, summed things up
> quite nicely and I think I'll just crib his words here:
>
> "On the other hand, perhaps Lieberman is saying that if you act as God
> wishes but not because of a belief in God, then it somehow doesn't count.
> That seems awfully fussy. By requiring faith as a prerequisite for morality,
> Lieberman is dismissing a lot of philosophical thinking that grounds itself
> in reason, not faith, and still manages to arrive at the same conclusions
> that Lieberman would probably endorse. In any event, if people do live by
> the rules of decency and honor, the question of whether they do so with or
> without believing in God is surely not a concern of the government, of the
> vice president in his official capacity, or a concern that belongs in a
> national election campaign."
And it's not like he's going to set this as policy.
Susan
Michael R. Irwin
Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> What can a governor do if the people insist that their
> football players be academically eligible? The only
> solution is to allow parents to send their children to
> affordable non-public schools if the public schools are
> not to their individual academic standards. Al Gore
> is beholden heavily to the teachers' unions, which are
> opposed to allowing anyone to be taught by other than
> their members, and in their manner.
> --
Parents are already allowed to send their kids
to any private school they can afford and choose to.
Home schooling is also legal and practiced
in many states.
If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
removing market accountability on the quality
of the "private" schools.
Mike Irwin
Michael R. Irwin
dltjxx wrote:
So should we lock the President in the White House and
refuse his calls? Who would you propose to have call
the space crew and symbolically congratulate everyone
who worked on or helped pay for the program?
I am pretty certain the transmission bandwidth to the
space craft precluded accepting calls from the general
public.
Mike Irwin
Rand Simberg
> > Ummmm, not that it's in any way on topic, but what does the First Amendment have
> > to do with abortion rights?
>
> Well, it's on topic for this group, soc.culture.jewish.
> I know I should trim the headers, but I am afraid to therefore
> cut out anyone who really wants to participate.
> But the only reason people want abortion to be outlawed is that
> their religion says it's murder. Not everyone subscribes to those
> religious beliefs - or, indeed, any religious beliefs at all. For any
> group (or even groups) to insist that their eligious views muct
> prevail for the entire country when medical science doesn't agree
> with them is, as far as the First Amendment goes, very WRONG.
Wow.
What a stretch. By your logic, the First Amendment would prohibit any laws against
anything, since most of them are based on morality at some level. BTW, I'm not aware
of any "medical science" that either supports or opposes abortion. It's a moral issue,
not a scientific one.
> > The Supremes managed to find a right somewhere in the
> > Constitution (though it remains unclear explicitly where), but I don't recall any
> > citations of the First Amendment.
>
> I'm always surprised that they stick to the Privacy Amendment.
Which amendment would that be? The word "privacy" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
> > Pot, kettle, black...
>
> Oh, are you the pot or the kettle?
> I have the facts - you yourself show above that you have no clue.
If you say so...
Herman Rubin
>Agreed.
And the minority of us who believes in man in space in a big way
would fund that IF the governments were removed from their highly
obstructive roles.
It does not take Congress to fund this, but those who believe in
it; what is needed is to remove the power of governments to
prevent or tax the development.
Rory Lindsay
Herman Rubin
Michael R. Irwin <mir...@harborside.com> wrote:
>Herman Rubin wrote:
>> What can a governor do if the people insist that their
>> football players be academically eligible? The only
>> solution is to allow parents to send their children to
>> affordable non-public schools if the public schools are
>> not to their individual academic standards. Al Gore
>> is beholden heavily to the teachers' unions, which are
>> opposed to allowing anyone to be taught by other than
>> their members, and in their manner.
>Parents are already allowed to send their kids
>to any private school they can afford and choose to.
We have a "chicken and egg" situation here. There are VERY
few academic private schools, and the ones there be are
mostly too expensive for parents with small children.
Quality education needs to start earlier than the public
miseducational system is willing to allow.
>Home schooling is also legal and practiced
>in many states.
Possibly thes private schools can somewhat organized home
schooling procedures. Classes do not need physical
presence.
>If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
>with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
>removing market accountability on the quality
>of the "private" schools.
On the contrary, it would subject the monolithic public
schools to market accountability. Parents should not
have to pay an arm and a leg to provide their children
with an opportunity to learn, unhindered by those who
would force children to be with their age group, or in
classes which are either too hard for them, or what is
more common, so far below their ability as to be pitiful.
Herman Rubin
>> > Ummmm, not that it's in any way on topic, but what does the First Amendment have
>> > to do with abortion rights?
>> Well, it's on topic for this group, soc.culture.jewish.
>> I know I should trim the headers, but I am afraid to therefore
>> cut out anyone who really wants to participate.
>> But the only reason people want abortion to be outlawed is that
>> their religion says it's murder. Not everyone subscribes to those
>> religious beliefs - or, indeed, any religious beliefs at all. For any
>> group (or even groups) to insist that their eligious views muct
>> prevail for the entire country when medical science doesn't agree
>> with them is, as far as the First Amendment goes, very WRONG.
>Wow.
>What a stretch. By your logic, the First Amendment would prohibit any laws against
>anything, since most of them are based on morality at some level. BTW, I'm not aware
>of any "medical science" that either supports or opposes abortion. It's a moral issue,
>not a scientific one.
This is probably as it should be. Any law based on
morality is itself immoral. We should not have ANY "sin
crimes".
You should consider the libertarian philosophy, which would
make the initiation of force or fraud against another the
grounds for retribution or restraint. No sin crimes, no
requirements for businesses to be closed on a certain day,
no taxation to "make things equal", etc. BTW, most of the
present advertising would be found to be fraudulent; there
was a recent Supreme Court decision declaring that HMO
claims were not fraud, but "puffery".
Rand Simberg
> Any law based on morality is itself immoral.
Including that one?
Susan Cohen
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> > > Ummmm, not that it's in any way on topic, but what does the First Amendment have
> > > to do with abortion rights?
> >
> > Well, it's on topic for this group, soc.culture.jewish.
> > I know I should trim the headers, but I am afraid to therefore
> > cut out anyone who really wants to participate.
> > But the only reason people want abortion to be outlawed is that
> > their religion says it's murder. Not everyone subscribes to those
> > religious beliefs - or, indeed, any religious beliefs at all. For any
> > group (or even groups) to insist that their eligious views muct
> > prevail for the entire country when medical science doesn't agree
> > with them is, as far as the First Amendment goes, very WRONG.
>
> Wow.
>
> What a stretch. By your logic, the First Amendment would prohibit any laws against
> anything, since most of them are based on morality at some level.
No, & that's a failrly lame strawman.
Most laws which are based on "morality", are based on what
is best for the common good that doesn't infringe on anyone's
personal rights.
IOW, you're not allowed to murder not because "it's evil" and
"religion doesn't allow it," but because we are all equal and have
the rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. And it would
be chaotic to allow people to do what the heck they want all
the time, *if it affected others.*
> BTW, I'm not aware
> of any "medical science" that either supports or opposes abortion.
Really? How about the fact that medical science does *not* agree
that abortion is murder because medical science does *not*
believe that human life begins at conception?
> It's a moral issue, not a scientific one.
It's scientific in that only the lawso f science are brought to bear
when making public policy on it - as per the 1st Amendment.
We are allowed to use our morality to decide whether or not we
want to do it, but the government is not allowed to choose which
morality we will all follow.
> > > The Supremes managed to find a right somewhere in the
> > > Constitution (though it remains unclear explicitly where), but I don't recall any
> > > citations of the First Amendment.
> >
> > I'm always surprised that they stick to the Privacy Amendment.
>
> Which amendment would that be? The word "privacy" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
I believe it's the 5th Amendment which is called this one, even
though the wording is not as precise.("The right of the people
to be secure in their homes....")
> > > Pot, kettle, black...
> >
> > Oh, are you the pot or the kettle?
> > I have the facts - you yourself show above that you have no clue.
>
> If you say so...
As I have shown.
Rand Simberg
> > What a stretch. By your logic, the First Amendment would prohibit any laws against
> > anything, since most of them are based on morality at some level.
>
> No, & that's a failrly lame strawman.
It's not a strawman, it's a logical conclusion from your premise.
> Most laws which are based on "morality", are based on what
> is best for the common good that doesn't infringe on anyone's
> personal rights.
This is a meaningless statement until one establishes definitions for "the common good" and
"personal rights."
> IOW, you're not allowed to murder not because "it's evil" and
> "religion doesn't allow it," but because we are all equal and have
> the rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. And it would
> be chaotic to allow people to do what the heck they want all
> the time, *if it affected others.*
I don't really want to debate abortion here--just your flawed constitutional reasoning for it
to be legal.
> > BTW, I'm not aware
> > of any "medical science" that either supports or opposes abortion.
>
> Really? How about the fact that medical science does *not* agree
> that abortion is murder because medical science does *not*
> believe that human life begins at conception?
Cite?
> > > > The Supremes managed to find a right somewhere in the Constitution > > >(though it
> remains unclear explicitly where), but I don't recall any
> > > > citations of the First Amendment.
> > >
> > > I'm always surprised that they stick to the Privacy Amendment.
> >
> > Which amendment would that be? The word "privacy" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
>
> I believe it's the 5th Amendment which is called this one, even
> though the wording is not as precise.("The right of the people
> to be secure in their homes....")
Have you ever actually read the Constitution, or are you just regurgitating nonsense that you
picked up in some women's studies course?
> > > > Pot, kettle, black...
> > >
> > > Oh, are you the pot or the kettle?
> > > I have the facts - you yourself show above that you have no clue.
> >
> > If you say so...
>
> As I have shown.
LOL
Ian Stirling
>This is not a space.policy item
I don't see why not.
If the "Will america inherit the universe" general theme of a thread
a few weeks ago is on topic, then this is as much on topic as
"Will lesbian acrobats/ blacks/..."
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Money is a powerful aphrodisiac, but flowers work almost as well.
-- Robert A Heinlein.
Herman Rubin
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote:
>Herman Rubin wrote:
>> >Wow.
>> >What a stretch. By your logic, the First Amendment would prohibit any laws against
>> >anything, since most of them are based on morality at some level. BTW, I'm not aware
>> >of any "medical science" that either supports or opposes abortion. It's a moral issue,
>> >not a scientific one.
>> This is probably as it should be. Any law based on
>> morality is itself immoral. We should not have ANY "sin
>> crimes".
>Is murder a "sin crime"? The prohibition against it is generally considered to derive from
>the Ten Commandments...
The prohibition against murder does not come from the
Ten Commandments, and some versions of the "civil
commandments" are to be found in any societal code.
Even morality does not only come from religion, as seems
to be implied by Lieberman.
>> You should consider the libertarian philosophy, which would
>> make the initiation of force or fraud against another the
>> grounds for retribution or restraint. No sin crimes, no
>> requirements for businesses to be closed on a certain day,
>> no taxation to "make things equal", etc. BTW, most of the
>> present advertising would be found to be fraudulent; there
>> was a recent Supreme Court decision declaring that HMO
>> claims were not fraud, but "puffery".
>I am a libertarian.
Jorge R. Frank
>
> If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
> with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
> removing market accountability on the quality
> of the "private" schools.
Why would it? We already subsidize private universities via the GI
Bill, government scholarships, grants, and guaranteed loans. Have these
programs affected the quality of private universities?
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
>
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > But the only reason people want abortion to be outlawed is that
> > > their religion says it's murder.
Wow, such a blanket statement. The existence of even a single atheist
who opposes abortion on non-religious grounds would constitute a
disproof.
> > BTW, I'm not aware
> > of any "medical science" that either supports or opposes abortion.
>
> Really? How about the fact that medical science does *not* agree
> that abortion is murder because medical science does *not*
> believe that human life begins at conception?
Medical science has also proven, beyond doubt, that a third-trimester
fetus is viable, and that a second-trimester fetus has recognizable
human brain waves. On that basis, anyone who thinks that infanticide is
murder should logically be opposed to third-trimester abortion, and
anyone who thinks that sentient life has rights (= PETA) should be
opposed to second-trimester abortion. Of course, most of them aren't.
That's because they, like you, only use "medical science" as a club to
bash the religious when convenient, and ignore science when its
conclusions do not match their worldviews.
> > > I'm always surprised that they stick to the Privacy Amendment.
> >
> > Which amendment would that be? The word "privacy" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
>
> I believe it's the 5th Amendment which is called this one, even
> though the wording is not as precise.("The right of the people
> to be secure in their homes....")
I see that your knowledge of the Constitution is as solid as your
knowledge of medical science. It's the 4th Amendment, not the 5th:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This would appear to protect people against the government seizing
fetuses without a warrant, but its applicability to abortion is beyond
me.
Joseph Hertzlinger
wrote:
>Well, it's on topic for this group, soc.culture.jewish. I know I
>should trim the headers, but I am afraid to therefore cut out anyone
>who really wants to participate. But the only reason people want
>abortion to be outlawed is that their religion says it's murder. Not
>everyone subscribes to those religious beliefs - or, indeed, any
>religious beliefs at all. For any group (or even groups) to insist
>that their eligious views muct prevail for the entire country when
>medical science doesn't agree with them is, as far as the First
>Amendment goes, very WRONG.
You can find anti-abortion Jews, atheists, and even environmentalists.
Some people come to a conclusion about abortion and look for a
religious justification later.
ObSF: George Bush will supposedly appoint conservative judges. The
most classically conservative character in recent SF was Count Piotr
Vorkosigan.
Ob space policy: The Test-Ban Treaty (which put a stop to Project
Orion) was signed under which administration?
Brian Mueller
>anyone who thinks that sentient life has rights (= PETA) should be
>opposed to second-trimester abortion. Of course, most of them aren't.
One must recognize the dichotomy between "this should be illegal" and
"this is immoral". That is the say, sir, that in my opinion, not all
things which are immoral should be illegal.
>I see that your knowledge of the Constitution is as solid as your
>knowledge of medical science. It's the 4th Amendment, not the 5th:
You are correct, sir, but this subtle and non-sequitur observation has
not added to the discussion.
>This would appear to protect people against the government seizing
>fetuses without a warrant, but its applicability to abortion is beyond
>me.
You are intepreting the Consitution too literally. The 4th Amendment
is an assertion of the God-given right of a man to privacy from the
government.
--Brian (man = human)
Lewy
Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B4AE3A...@hers.com>...
>
>
>Mark Atwood wrote:
>
>> Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> writes:
>> >
>> > How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
>> > in the *country* for education?
>>
>> Really? I had heard that their standardized test scores were among
>> the "most improved"?
>
>And I've heard that they've *dropped*!
>I do know they are either 4th or 5th worst in the nation.
>
>Susan
That's incorrect. Standardized test scores in Texas under Bush have
skyrocketed.
Lewy
Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B5CFEA...@hers.com>...
>
>
>Lewy wrote:
>
>> Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B4C527...@hers.com>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Lewy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
>> >> article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman.
>> >
>> >Hey - yet another reason to vote for Lieberman!
>>
>> He's not such a bad writer. I kind of liked...well, Sharon Stone looked
>> good in Basic Instinct.
>
>:-D
>
>> >> Among
>> >> the tasty highlights:
>> >>
>> >> "...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals
>> should
>> >> depend on the "moral tone" of their programming.
>> >
>> >Well, it would be nice, but unfair. Of course, I'd
>> >have to see the original statement - I wouldn't take Esterhaus'
>> >word for anything on this subject.
>>
>> I don't think it would be nice. I think it's opening the door to
>> censorship.
>
>You'll note where I said "unfair".
Nice, but unfair. I say bad and not at all nice.
>> >> He says the Justice Department and the PTA should be used as
>> "prosecutorial
>> >> agencies" to determine truth in movie advertising.
>> >
>> >Whatever this means. Of course, I'm all for truth in advertising!!
>>
>> Especially as determined by the PTA.
>
>Sounds good, if we're trying to determine what kids should
>or should not see. Parents, of course, can always make the
>final decision in their own homes.
Everything will just get filtered through the PTA first?
>> >> He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
>> >> to "60 Minutes."
>> >
>> >Which is certainly his right/. Or is he not allowed to have
>> >opinions which clash with sleaze-king Esterhaus?
>>
>> You can have any opinions you want. It's also the right of anyone to
think
>> your opinions are bizarre.
>
>And vice-versa (I thought that was the point I was making?)
>
>> I wonder what kind of fellow thinks "60 Minutes" is some kind of
>> sleeze-a-thon.
>
>Depends on which episodes you watch, I guess.
>I haven't watched it in I don't know how long!
Neither have I, but what do you think the odds are that it's turned into a
sleezefest? So, again, I wonder at the mindset of a fellow who would award
a "Silver Sewar" award to 60 Minutes.
>> >> He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
>> >> television or in movie theaters."
>> >
>>
>> >Which opinion is also his right to express.
>>
>> See above. I haven't watched a lot of "Friends", but isn't it about
fluffy
>> bunnies or something? The kind of mindset that would find "Friends"
>> offensive interests me.
>
>But if you haven't watched it, how do you know that
>it's about fluffy bunnies? I thought there was a good
>deal of sexual content...? (No, I haven't watched
>it either! What little I ever saw was so irritatingly
>insipid....)
But obscene? Hardly. So again, I wonder what kind of person could possibly
be offended by "Friends". Maybe Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? And
seemingly, Joseph Lieberman.
>> >> Also:
>> >>
>> >> "Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
>> >> definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says
he
>> is
>> >> "increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them
>> for
>> >> us?"
>> >
>> >The same right as he has to define his movies as fabulous,
>> >wonderful, or whatever it is that he calls them.
>> >Intersting how some people want freedom of expression only
>> >for themselves.
>>
>> Like Lieberman? I found his quote about being "increasingly
uncomfortable in
>> a secular culture" to be quite illuminating.
>
>Lieberman doesn't want to keep other people from saying things.
>he just wants to make sure that
>a) everyone knows before getting stuck just what it is they're
>going to be listening to
>b) that no one is forced to "host" what someone else wants to say.
>
>I'd say that his remark is on target for a fairly vocal segment of the
>population.
Yeah, but that segment of the population is usually boycotting Disney
products because they provide benefits to the partners of gay employees.
>> >> There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
>> >>
>> >> "Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in
>> May. It
>> >> would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national
>> rating
>> >> system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in June
>> that
>> >> websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the
stage"
>> for
>> >> such an effort in the future."
>> >
>> >I can see that truth in advertising bothers both you & Estarhaus.
>> >Why is that?
>>
>> Does the abbreviation "PMRC" mean anything to you?
>
>Is that the thing with the record labelling that Tipper and Al
>Gore liked?
Yup. Tipper and Al liked it, but Frank Zappa, Willie Nelson and John Denver
didn't. That's a pretty broad spectrum of people lined up in opposition.
>> And specifically what bothers me is the quote that his legislation "sets
the
>> stage" for a regulatory commission for website content.
>
>Isn't this the idea where x-rated websites will all get the ending
>"xxx"? I thought that was brilliant - helps everyone who wants
>the sites know exactly where they are, and helps the parents be
>able to filter out all the wrong stuff and none of the right stuff
>(like the one program that won't let you find out information
>on mastectomies because of the use of the word "breast").
That's one of Lieberman's ideas. The bill in question though sets up a
unified regulatory agency to rate video games, movies, comic books, etc.
Jack Valenti of the MPAA said it was a lousy idea because these are
disparate art forms and standards in one cannot be applied to another. What
Lieberman said next is that this regulator agency would set the stage for a
new agency that would monitor website content, which goes above and beyond
simply requiring x-rated website to use a .sex domain.
>> >> or http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html
>> >>
>> >> "In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign to let police
perform
>> >> short-term warrantless wiretaps in some cases that involved potential
>> >> "violent acts."
>> >>
>> >> He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap amendment to an
>> anti-terrorism
>> >> bill being considered by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City
>> bombing."
>> >
>> >Sounds like a panic measure to me.
>> >Sounds like stuff that's been done before.
>> >Sounds like it would probably help in a lot of cases.
>> >Sounds like it's being blown out of context.
>>
>> If he's that easily panicked, maybe he shouldn't be VP. I don't think
>> warrentless wiretaps are a small issue, and I find it hard to blow
something
>> that major "out of context". When you say it sounds "like stuff that's
been
>> done before", well it was illegal then. Lieberman is trying to make it
>> legal, and it stinks.
And I still believe this.
>> >> And finally, there's
>> http://slate.msn.com/Features/lieberman/lieberman.asp
>> >> which compares Lieberman's religious zealotry with Bush's. Among the
>> >> highlights:
>> >>
>> >> "Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his
>> >> strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while
>> >> promoting religion itself.
>> >
>> >Sounds exactly like what the American public generally believes.
>>
>> Great. And what do you do if you're an atheist or agnostic?
>
>Don't pay any attention? He's not talking about *policy*, here!
>He's talking about what some people believe, and how it affects
>the way they act - and, in this particular instance, how they act
>as citizens.
Maybe so, but it's hypocritical to criticize Bush for stating that only
people who have accepted Jesus Christ were eligable for heaven and then
ignore the fact that Lieberman is slandering non-believers.
>> >> For example, he recently told an African-American
>> >> Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our
faith
>> and
>> >> renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's
>> purpose."
>> >>
>> >> Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and
>> ecumenical.
>> >
>> >Yes. It's totally different than the "everyone recognizes Jesus as
>> >a great teacher & should live by his example", etc.
>>
>> Really? One's offensive to non-Christians. The other's offensive to
>> non-believers. As an atheist myself, I'm offended by the implication
that
>> morality can only flow from religion, and that therefore by extension
>> non-believers are immoral.
>
>But he was speaking to a church, right? He was only speaking to
>believers! What do you expect him to say to believers?
Great, so if he goes to a Catholic church, is it okay to slander Jews simply
because there are none there? If he speaks at a synagogue, can he insult
Protestants?
Furthermore, he could have talked about a host of other subjects.
Tolerance, for example.
>The real upshot is that if he wasn't Jewish, he wouldn't have to
>mention religion at all! *Now* he has to show that he's "just like
>them", & placate all those who are scared of having a non-Xian
>in the White House.
He's convinced a lot of my Democratic friends that he's a Republican.
>> >> Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on
Saturday
>> >> won't get into heaven.
>> >
>> >My guess is that it's because he knows better than to believe
>> >that this is true.
>> >
>> >> On the other hand, it specifically connects his
>> >> religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
>> >> nation is to serve God.
>> >
>> >Actually, no it does not. It connects his religious beliefs to what
>> >people should be doing. The people are here to make things better,
>> >be it within the physical nation or not.
>>
>> If his religion involves moving "Friends" out of prime time and into the
>> late night spot, he should keep it to himself. If it involves monitoring
>> the news for adult content, which is what Eszterhas believes is next on
>> Lieberman's agenda, he should keep it to himself.
>
>Esterhaus is nuts.
Lieberman's not looking too stable either.
>But Lieberman is talking about having one's beliefs prompt
>their actions - which is pretty much what *everyone* does.
>Some people use religion as a basis for those beliefs, others
>don't.
What's insulting is him insinuating that only religion can spawn moral
beliefs.
>As far as "moving Friends", you don't think he was seriously
>contemplating trying that? I'm sure he'd like to see it moved to
>when younger children are usually in bed, but I'll bet you anything
>you want that he's not going to bother trying to get it done!
No, his constant rhetoric and the fact that he's co-sponsor of a bill to
apply ratings to popular media doesn't indicate that.
>> >> In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and
>> Christian
>> >> traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration
of
>> >> Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound
>> bite,
>> >> Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality
can
>> be
>> >> maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George
>> Washington.
>> >
>> >So, as in the nature of soundbites, it could very well have been
>> >just a quote.
>> >Of course, he probably believes this himself, and figures that most
>> >Americans believe it too.
>> >He's wrong, of course, and it's most likely one of the reasons the
>> >ADL told him as well as 7 or 8 other politicians to can the religious
>> >talk.
>>
>> What's disappointing is that they had to tell him that in the first
place.
>
>See above re; "reassurance".
If he's really nervous about his religion being a factor, maybe he should
downplay it in his campaign?
>> >> But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable corollary
is
>> that
>> >> anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a bit closer
here
>> to
>> >> you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
>> >
>> >No, we're not. And never will, with Lieberman.
>> >It's not how Judaism works, and Lieberman's definitely a Jew.
>>
>> Rabbis don't always agree about how Judaism works.
>
>But all of them agree on a lot of basic things.
Is this a basic thing? Remember, Gottlieb isn't talking about a literal
belief in Christ being necessary to gain entrance to heaven.
>> There are plenty of
>> flavor of modern day Judaism around. Michael Medved, who is an Orthodox
Jew
>> himself, took Lieberman to task for his views on abortion.
>
>Which ought to show you, among other things, that Lieberman
>isn't letting his religious views get in the wayof doing his job.
Not sure what you mean here. If Lieberman was pro-life, would that be
getting in the way of doing his job?
>> Finally, the author of that Slate article, Bruce Gottlieb, summed things
up
>> quite nicely and I think I'll just crib his words here:
>>
>> "On the other hand, perhaps Lieberman is saying that if you act as God
>> wishes but not because of a belief in God, then it somehow doesn't count.
>> That seems awfully fussy. By requiring faith as a prerequisite for
morality,
>> Lieberman is dismissing a lot of philosophical thinking that grounds
itself
>> in reason, not faith, and still manages to arrive at the same conclusions
>> that Lieberman would probably endorse. In any event, if people do live by
>> the rules of decency and honor, the question of whether they do so with
or
>> without believing in God is surely not a concern of the government, of
the
>> vice president in his official capacity, or a concern that belongs in a
>> national election campaign."
>
>And it's not like he's going to set this as policy.
How do you know?
Lewy
Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B6B7EB...@hers.com>...
What does "medical science" mean in this context? The AMA?
>> It's a moral issue, not a scientific one.
>
>It's scientific in that only the lawso f science are brought to bear
>when making public policy on it - as per the 1st Amendment.
>We are allowed to use our morality to decide whether or not we
>want to do it, but the government is not allowed to choose which
>morality we will all follow.
What laws of science are brought to bear regarding abortion?
michael schilling
> ObSF: George Bush will supposedly appoint conservative judges. The
> most classically conservative character in recent SF was Count Piotr
> Vorkosigan.
Miles would disagree. See the speech in "The Mountains of Mourning"
which begins (from memory, so perhaps not fully accurate) "He wasn't the
last of the Old Vor; he was the first of the New." Compared to Pierre
Le Sanguainaire, Piotr was a mixture of Ralph Nader and Martin Luther
King:-)
Michael R. Irwin
Rory Lindsay wrote:
> This is not a space.policy item
On the contrary, if we wish to become a
spacefaring civilization then educational
policy is foundational.
Peasants tithing grain to landlords
do not build multi-billion
dollar space infrastructure.
Nor do minimum wage workers
flipping burgers get ecstatic about
tax supported space stations vs.
feeding their kids or paying for daycare.
Mike Irwin
Phil Fraering
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> >Is murder a "sin crime"? The prohibition against it is generally considered to derive from
> >the Ten Commandments...
>
> Rather, the prohibition against murder is derived from philosophy
> (specifically, morality), not from the Bible. It is cross-cultural.
It is cross-some-cultural, not cross-all-cultural. The Vikings, before
conversion to christianity, were a lot more violent than afterwards.
--
Phil Fraering "One day, Pinky, A MOUSE shall rule, and it is the
p...@globalreach.net humans who will be forced to endure these humiliating
/Will work for tape/ diversions!"
"You mean like Orlando, Brain?"
Michael R. Irwin
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
> "Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
> >
> > If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
> > with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
> > removing market accountability on the quality
> > of the "private" schools.
>
> Why would it? We already subsidize private universities via the GI
> Bill, government scholarships, grants, and guaranteed loans. Have these
> programs affected the quality of private universities?
>
Yes. Consumer costs at the university levels have sky rocketed
in the past couple of decades.
Assuming the educational content has not dramatically
changed, this higher cost translates directly to lower
quality, I.E. Same product at a higher price.
Medical costs in the U.S. have done the same as
the government gets involved. I was disappointed
to see Bush unveil a me-too medicare plan copying
the Democrats. Must have learned this technique
at Yale as part of a "lower quality" education.
A more conservative market oriented approach
would have been to initiate massive research funding
at the federal level and then release public domain
specifications for any new resulting pharmeceuticals
that could be produced as a generic drug by any
qualified manufacturer.
It would take a few years but drug prices would get
reasonable damn fast as new generics started coming
on the market. Witness IBM clone computers
and associated products.
If the pharmaceutical industry or Wall Street refused
to step up to producing generics, Americans have been
known to organize non-profit organizations when they
wanted something done and the private sector would
not tackle it. Could also import the generics from
elsewhere after they were in production.
This approach would also work with space shuttles
and space suits if the U.S. Government was not
so attached to its monopoly on space access.
Mike Irwin
Susan Cohen
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Have you ever actually read the Constitution, or are you just regurgitating nonsense that you
> picked up in some women's studies course?
You mean the way you predicate your condescencion
on sexism, rather than any actual facts?
Susan Cohen
Brian Mueller wrote:
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> >> Really? How about the fact that medical science does *not* agree
> >> that abortion is murder because medical science does *not*
> >> believe that human life begins at conception?
> >
> >Cite?
>
> The citation would encompass the vast majority of all literature
> written with regard to modern medicine.
Which was why I ignored the "request".
> If you are the educated
> gentleman that you imply yourself to be, it would not be necessary to
> state this.
>
> --Brian (a better statement might be, "medical science does *not*
> believe that humans are endowed with intelligence at conception"
> (intelligence emerges later))
I suppose the *best* statement would have been that
"medical science doe not believe that viable human life
begins with conception." Or, "life as we know it."
Susan
Susan Cohen
Brian Mueller wrote:
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
> >I see that your knowledge of the Constitution is as solid as your
> >knowledge of medical science. It's the 4th Amendment, not the 5th:
>
> You are correct, sir, but this subtle and non-sequitur observation has
> not added to the discussion.
Yes, I got the number wrong.
Some people need those little victories.
> >This would appear to protect people against the government seizing
> >fetuses without a warrant, but its applicability to abortion is beyond
> >me.
>
> You are intepreting the Consitution too literally. The 4th Amendment
> is an assertion of the God-given right of a man to privacy from the
> government.
>
> --Brian (man = human)
It is certainly how the Amendment has been interpreted.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Brian Mueller wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> >> The Supremes managed to find a right somewhere in the
> >> Constitution (though it remains unclear explicitly where), but I don't recall any
> >> citations of the First Amendment.
> >
> >I'm always surprised that they stick to the Privacy Amendment.
>
> I agree with your position, madam, being from the San Francisco Bay
> Area, but I don't agree with your method of support in this posting.
> Sepecifically, the right to have an abortion, in my opinion, is not an
> issue of the First Amendment, but rather of the Fourth, the Fourth
> being that Amendment which protects the right not to be subject to
> unwarranted searches and seizures (sp).
I will take that, too. :-)
> Other than that aspect, we seem to be in agreement.
>
> --Brian (grew up in Silicon Valley, the area an hour's drive south of
> San Francisco)
Got a friend who lives in San Mateo - do be careful when the quakes strike!
Susan
Rand Simberg
> > You are intepreting the Consitution too literally. The 4th Amendment
> > is an assertion of the God-given right of a man to privacy from the
> > government.
> >
> > --Brian (man = human)
>
> It is certainly how the Amendment has been interpreted.
By some. It is not universally so. Many constitutional scholars heartily
disagree.
Rand Simberg
> >Which amendment would that be? The word "privacy" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
>
> The 4th Amendment.
Can you provide some cite from the Federalist papers that would justify the assertion that
the purpose of that amendment is to protect privacy, as opposed to simply ensuring against
unwarranted fishing expeditions in the gathering of evidence?
Look. As I said, I don't really want to discuss the legality of abortion (particularly in
sci.space.policy)--the issue that started this was what the Consitutional basis for Roe v.
Wade was. Even many scholars who favor legal abortion think that decision deeply flawed
(including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Even the Supremes, in their torture of the meaning
of the document, didn't think that such a right derived from the First Amendment, as Ms.
Cohen mistakenly believes. So if she doesn't like Mssr. Bush/Cheney because they aren't
pro-choice, that's fine, but she shouldn't confuse this with lack of support for the First
Amendment (or accuse people of not having facts when she gets called on it). Frankly,
though I'll almost certainly vote for Harry Browne, I like them for their support of the
Second Amendment, without which the others will unlikely stand long.
Steve Taylor
> As I said, I don't really want to discuss the legality of abortion (particularly in
> sci.space.policy)
Then don't. It's that simple.
S./
Jorge R. Frank
>
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> >> that abortion is murder because medical science does *not*
> >> believe that human life begins at conception?
> >
> >Cite?
>
> gentleman that you imply yourself to be, it would not be necessary to
> state this.
>
> --Brian (a better statement might be, "medical science does *not*
> believe that humans are endowed with intelligence at conception"
> (intelligence emerges later))
It would be equally true to state that "medical science does *not*
believe that humans are endowed with intelligence at birth".
Malcolm McMahon
<jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote:
>
>It would be equally true to state that "medical science does *not*
>believe that humans are endowed with intelligence at birth".
No, that's not the case. Of course scientists are wary of the word
"inteligence", there are many aspects of it, but probably the least
disputable is the ability the learn, which is actually very highly
developed at birth.
As to at what stage an embryo is human, well human is a cluster concept.
An embryo goes gradually from having none of the defining attributes of
being human to, at birth, having most of them. There's no sudden leap to
provide a handy ethical dividing line.
Reproduction isn't an event, just like death it's a process.
Herman Rubin
>> If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
>> with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
>> removing market accountability on the quality
>> of the "private" schools.
>Why would it? We already subsidize private universities via the GI
>Bill, government scholarships, grants, and guaranteed loans. Have these
>programs affected the quality of private universities?
What gives you the idea that the public schools have any
accountability, let alone market accountability?
The private schools would almost automatically have market
accountability, in that anyone could choose, including
choose to use the public schools.
Rand Simberg
What I meant to say was that I don't want to discuss whether or not abortion should be
legal. I'm perfectly content to discuss the flawed basis of Roe v. Wade...
Mark Atwood
>
> What I meant to say was that I don't want to discuss whether or not abortion should be
> legal. I'm perfectly content to discuss the flawed basis of Roe v. Wade...
Unfortunatly, it's not an easy point to debate, because many people
cannot seperate the two issues. State's Rights and racism, 2A debates,
etc, have similar problems.
--
Mark Atwood |
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Rand Simberg
> > What I meant to say was that I don't want to discuss whether or not abortion should be
> > legal. I'm perfectly content to discuss the flawed basis of Roe v. Wade...
>
> Unfortunatly, it's not an easy point to debate, because many people
> cannot seperate the two issues. State's Rights and racism, 2A debates,
> etc, have similar problems.
True, and it's true of discussions about Supreme Court decisions in general. Many people
tend to want to argue about the outcome, rather than how it was arrived at. They don't
understand that the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to give them the result that they
want, but to determine whether or not it is Constitutional.
Mark Atwood
>
> True, and it's true of discussions about Supreme Court decisions in
> general. Many people tend to want to argue about the outcome,
> rather than how it was arrived at. They don't understand that the
> purpose of the Supreme Court is not to give them the result that
> they want, but to determine whether or not it is Constitutional.
That being the danger of judical activism.
How many people have *really* considered the implications of the
recent massive inflation of the power of tort law from the tobacco
settlement.
They're going after the guns makers now, to the cheers of the usual
suspects.
Somewhere, not too far down the line, it's going to be automobile
mfgrs, fast food restaurants, and suburban housing developers.
I am not kidding.
Rand Simberg
> How many people have *really* considered the implications of the
> recent massive inflation of the power of tort law from the tobacco
> settlement.
I think that they have considered them, and they like them. Fascism via
the back door...
Roy Jose Lorr
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott Lowther wrote:
> > >
> > > > bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
> > > > >
> > > > > Great!
> > > > >
> > > > > An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
> > > >
> > > > No, that's not _another_ reason, that's _a_ reason. There are no others.
> > > > But many reasons to vote against them.
> > >
> > > I suppose if you don't like freedom of religion,
> > > that's a good reason to vote against them.
> >
> > BOOORRRING. The usual "if you vote against a Jew you're an anti-Semite"
>
> No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
> I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
> I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
>
> Do get some facts *before* you post.
>
> > routine. GoreBot 2000 and his LieberLackey are no better for the 1st
> > Amendment rights than anyone else...
>
> They're not the ones going on about "Jesus Days".
>
> > and considering that they want to
> > trash the rest of the BoR, it's a safe bet they're bad for the 1st as
> > well.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> > > Or education - Bush should be just the ticket
> > > for those folks, too.
> >
> > Well, if Bush gets rid of the Dept. of Education, that's a good start.
> > Instead of hiring 100,000 new teachers, how about firing 100,000 bad
> > ones and replacing them with good ones?
>
> How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
> in the *country* for education?
Democoms destroy education, fight to keep it destroyed,
and blame others for not fixing it.
Roy Jose Lorr
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Atwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > How is it that Texas has just about the *worst* record
> > > > > in the *country* for education?
> > > >
> > > > Really? I had heard that their standardized test scores were among
> > > > the "most improved"?
> > >
> > > And I've heard that they've *dropped*!
> > > I do know they are either 4th or 5th worst in the nation.
> >
> > And where is Arkansas?
>
> I believe it's in the South, somewhere. At any rate, Arkansas
> is not under discussion, Clinton not running in this election.
Think again.
Mark Atwood
No no no. Facism isn't the right word for this.
We need a better term for "totalitarianism for your own good" than
"nanny state".
Michael R. Irwin
Herman Rubin wrote:
> In article <39B7299F...@harborside.com>,
> Michael R. Irwin <mir...@harborside.com> wrote:
>
> >Rory Lindsay wrote:
>
> >> This is not a space.policy item
>
> >On the contrary, if we wish to become a
> >spacefaring civilization then educational
> >policy is foundational.
>
> >Peasants tithing grain to landlords
> >do not build multi-billion
> >dollar space infrastructure.
>
> Let those who wish contribute to the infrastructure,
> and let them also have first dibs on the benefits.
> There is no way the present governments care if we
> form a spacefaring civilization, nor will most of
> the people who receive a so-called "education" from
> the public schools. It is only the few who believe
> in doing anything out of the ordinary.
On the contrary, Gore just made a major quantitative
committment to new high tech jobs and increasing the
middle class. Since the upper crust insists on ever
higher corporate dividends, this leaves only the publicly
educated lower classes to raid for the new middle class.
Publicly educated citizens become believers in the
extraordinary very quickly when their jobs and stock
options become dependent on cancer cures, moon
rocks, or the internet.
Americans have never allowed ideology to come between
them and the "American Dream" of personal prosperity. If
you wish to push libertarianism you should get busy figuring
out how it will advance the individual voters' interests.
Otherwise, you are just wasting time and resources on an
ideological fantasy.
>
>
> >Nor do minimum wage workers
> >flipping burgers get ecstatic about
> >tax supported space stations vs.
> >feeding their kids or paying for daycare.
>
> Nor do $20/hour mechanics and assembly line workers
> wish to put money into space when it would detract
> from either their current spending or from the boons
> they want the government to provide for them currently
> or later; they will not support development of space
> over "free" healthcare, higher Social Security payments,
> or other such boons from the government.
On the contrary. American mechanics and assembly line
workers have proven over and over that they prefer to go to
work and earn their just rewards vs. standing in line for the
government dole. Nobody is advocating "free" healthcare
but a lot of people are getting pissed at $1000/month bills
for $20 dollars worth of controlled prescription medicine so
Wall Street speculators can make millions on IPOs.
As for Social Security payments, I have paid labor taxes
for several years on employees. I can assure you that it is
factored into the cost of labor and therefore "earned" by the
employee.
Affluent Americans, in general, have an excellent understanding
of the benefits of a robust economy and effective spending on
industrial development. This is the reason for the widening
wealth gap. Once a surplus is generated in a family it usually
gets invested effectively.
It is unrealistic to expect a $20/hour assembly worker to
invest in speculative space investments until he gets his house
mortgage paid off. Particularly when large government
deficits drive the interest rates sky high and the IRS attempts
to tax barter labor and loans from relatives.
If massive investment in space activities is desired then
government, like the private sector, must document massive
potential returns on a firm schedule. I am amazed ISS
has survived, the accelerator ring started in Texas was
canceled.
Mike Irwin
Paul D. Shocklee
> No no no. Facism isn't the right word for this.
> We need a better term for "totalitarianism for your own good" than
> "nanny state".
"Compassionate conservatism."
--
Paul Shocklee
Graduate Student, Department of Physics, Princeton University
Researcher, Science Institute, Dunhaga 3, 107 Reykjavík, Iceland
Phone: +354-525-4429
Roy Jose Lorr
"Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
Without "peasants", Democoms would be out of
business.
Who else could they buy votes from with false
promises?
RJL
Roy Jose Lorr
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
> "Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
> >
> > If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
> > with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
> > removing market accountability on the quality
> > of the "private" schools.
>
> Why would it? We already subsidize private universities via the GI
> Bill, government scholarships, grants, and guaranteed loans. Have these
> programs affected the quality of private universities?
How about market accountability for government mandated, "affirmative
action" programs.
RJL
Michael R. Irwin
Herman Rubin wrote:
> In article <39B6DBE1...@ibm-pc.org>,
> Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote:
> >"Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
>
> >> If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
> >> with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
> >> removing market accountability on the quality
> >> of the "private" schools.
>
> >Why would it? We already subsidize private universities via the GI
> >Bill, government scholarships, grants, and guaranteed loans. Have these
> >programs affected the quality of private universities?
>
> What gives you the idea that the public schools have any
> accountability, let alone market accountability?
Everyplace I have ever lived in America has
a local school board elected by local voters.
Interest by parents and public letters to the editor
seems to drive policy to some extent.
Nobody said or implied that public schools have
"market accountability". However, most people
I know who have purchased a home take a look
at local school quality before closing the deal.
>
>
> The private schools would almost automatically have market
> accountability, in that anyone could choose, including
> choose to use the public schools.
Reducing the cost the private schools to the consumer
automatically reduces market accountability by definition.
If you disagree with that basic premise of economics then
we should eliminate discussion of "market accountability"
and get down to talking about ideology or other factors
of interest to the discussion.
Market accountability is reduced because of the greater
supply of students who can "afford" the private school.
A school selecting a new class of 100 from 200 applicants
vs. advertising for 10 more students to fill its classrooms
because only 90 students could afford the tuition
is clearly less accountable to the parents in the "market"
for its educational quality.
Recent allegations involving subsidized farm loans,
the Dept. of Agriculture, and Southern Banks imply
that racial criteria were used to allocate scarce subsidies
in the American South. I wonder what criteria private schools
would use to select from this new wealth of students subsidized
by the U.S. government?
Mike Irwin
Michael R. Irwin
Phil Fraering wrote:
> Brian Mueller <seek...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Rand Simberg wrote:
> >
> > >Is murder a "sin crime"? The prohibition against it is generally considered to derive from
> > >the Ten Commandments...
> >
> > Rather, the prohibition against murder is derived from philosophy
> > (specifically, morality), not from the Bible. It is cross-cultural.
>
> It is cross-some-cultural, not cross-all-cultural. The Vikings, before
> conversion to christianity, were a lot more violent than afterwards.
Most societies distinguish between members and outsiders
for purposes of religious taboos. Were the Vikings slaughtering
"Christians" in their raids or merely pre-emptively defending
their lifestyles against prosperous heathen communities?
Mike Irwin
Roy Jose Lorr
Lewy wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B497D3...@hers.com>...
> >
> >
> >Scott Lowther wrote:
> >
> >> Susan Cohen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Scott Lowther wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Great!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
> >> > >
> >> > > No, that's not _another_ reason, that's _a_ reason. There are no
> others.
> >> > > But many reasons to vote against them.
> >> >
> >> > I suppose if you don't like freedom of religion,
> >> > that's a good reason to vote against them.
> >>
> >> BOOORRRING. The usual "if you vote against a Jew you're an anti-Semite"
> >
> >No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
> >I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
> >I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> >candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> >Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
>
> Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
> article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman. Among
> the tasty highlights:
>
> "...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals should
> depend on the "moral tone" of their programming. He says the Justice
> Department and the PTA should be used as "prosecutorial agencies" to
> determine truth in movie advertising. He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
> to "60 Minutes." He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
> television or in movie theaters."
>
> Also:
>
> "Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
> definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says he is
> "increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them for
> us?"
>
> There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
>
> "Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in May.
> It would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national
> rating system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in
> June that websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the
> stage" for such an effort in the future."
>
> or http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html
>
> "In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign to let police perform
> short-term warrantless wiretaps in some cases that involved potential
> "violent acts."
>
> He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap amendment to an anti-terrorism
> bill being considered by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City
> bombing."
>
> And finally, there's http://slate.msn.com/Features/lieberman/lieberman.asp
> which compares Lieberman's religious zealotry with Bush's. Among the
> highlights:
>
> "Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his
> strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while
> promoting religion itself. For example, he recently told an African-American
> Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and
> renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purpose."
>
> Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and ecumenical.
> Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday
> won't get into heaven. On the other hand, it specifically connects his
> religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
> nation is to serve God.
>
> In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and Christian
> traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of
> Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound bite,
> Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can be
> maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George
> Washington. But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable
> corollary is that anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a
> bit closer here to you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
What a man, willing to give up his place in heaven, for the sake of the
Democratic party.
Ross TenEyck
>How many people have *really* considered the implications of the
>recent massive inflation of the power of tort law from the tobacco
>settlement.
>They're going after the guns makers now, to the cheers of the usual
>suspects.
There was an article in the Economist about this, some months back.
They quoted one of the gun manufacturers as saying, essentially, that
making guns wasn't so bad... it wasn't like they were making *cigarettes,*
after all.
I think that statement says a lot about the modern American mindset...
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
michael schilling
>
>
> That being the danger of judical activism.
>
> How many people have *really* considered the implications of the
> recent massive inflation of the power of tort law from the tobacco
> settlement.
>
> They're going after the guns makers now, to the cheers of the usual
> suspects.
>
> Somewhere, not too far down the line, it's going to be automobile
> mfgrs, fast food restaurants, and suburban housing developers.
>
> I am not kidding.
>
And some time after that, you think it'll be people who *don't* deserve
it?
Mark Atwood
> Mark Atwood wrote:
> >
> > I am not kidding.
> >
>
> And some time after that, you think it'll be people who *don't* deserve
> it?
I will assume that your tongue was planted firmly in cheek?
Or are you one of the ones who is looking forward to "total nanny"
because you firmly believe that *your* "superior" POV and ideals
should and must be imposed on everyone else for "all our good"?
Roy Jose Lorr
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Lewy wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B497D3...@hers.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > >Scott Lowther wrote:
> > >
> > >> Susan Cohen wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Scott Lowther wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > So the Jews are obligated to support space research?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Great!
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > An another reason to vote for Gore - Lieberman!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > No, that's not _another_ reason, that's _a_ reason. There are no
> > others.
> > >> > > But many reasons to vote against them.
> > >> >
> > >> > I suppose if you don't like freedom of religion,
> > >> > that's a good reason to vote against them.
> > >>
> > >> BOOORRRING. The usual "if you vote against a Jew you're an anti-Semite"
> > >
> > >No, what's BORING is your TOTAL STRAWMAN.
> > >I said nothing abot "anti-Semitism" and "voting for a Jew.
> > >I knew long before Gore chose *any* vice-presidential
> > >candidate that Bush was going to be lousy for First Amendment
> > >Rights, if only because he is anti-choice.
> >
> > Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
> > article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman.
>
> Hey - yet another reason to vote for Lieberman!
>
> > Among
> > the tasty highlights:
> >
> > "...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals should
> > depend on the "moral tone" of their programming.
>
> Well, it would be nice, but unfair. Of course, I'd
> have to see the original statement - I wouldn't take Esterhaus'
> word for anything on this subject.
>
> > He says the Justice Department and the PTA should be used as "prosecutorial
> > agencies" to determine truth in movie advertising.
>
> Whatever this means. Of course, I'm all for truth in advertising!!
>
> > He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
> > to "60 Minutes."
>
> Which is certainly his right/. Or is he not allowed to have
> opinions which clash with sleaze-king Esterhaus?
>
> > He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
> > television or in movie theaters."
>
> Which opinion is also his right to express.
>
> > Also:
> >
> > "Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
> > definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says he is
> > "increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them for
> > us?"
>
> The same right as he has to define his movies as fabulous,
> wonderful, or whatever it is that he calls them.
> Intersting how some people want freedom of expression only
> for themselves.
>
> > There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
> >
> > "Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in May. It
> > would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national rating
> > system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in June that
> > websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the stage" for
> > such an effort in the future."
>
> I can see that truth in advertising bothers both you & Estarhaus.
> Why is that?
>
> > or http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html
> >
> > "In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign to let police perform
> > short-term warrantless wiretaps in some cases that involved potential
> > "violent acts."
> >
> > He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap amendment to an anti-terrorism
> > bill being considered by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City bombing."
>
> Sounds like a panic measure to me.
> Sounds like stuff that's been done before.
> Sounds like it would probably help in a lot of cases.
> Sounds like it's being blown out of context.
>
> > And finally, there's http://slate.msn.com/Features/lieberman/lieberman.asp
> > which compares Lieberman's religious zealotry with Bush's. Among the
> > highlights:
> >
> > "Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his
> > strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while
> > promoting religion itself.
>
> Sounds exactly like what the American public generally believes.
You've done a poll?
>
>
> > For example, he recently told an African-American
> > Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and
> > renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purpose."
> >
> > Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and ecumenical.
>
> Yes. It's totally different than the "everyone recognizes Jesus as
> a great teacher & should live by his example", etc.
>
> > Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday
> > won't get into heaven.
>
> My guess is that it's because he knows better than to believe
> that this is true.
Loverman claims to be an Orthodox Jew. No? This makes your guess
farmisht (mixed up), at best.
>
>
> > On the other hand, it specifically connects his
> > religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
> > nation is to serve God.
>
> Actually, no it does not. It connects his religious beliefs to what
> people should be doing. The people are here to make things better,
> be it within the physical nation or not.
Taken as a whole, the Democoms in charge have made things
worse for the physical nation, not better. The only thing they've
made better is their ability to buy votes with false promises, based
on incitement of class warfare - to say nothing of their war against
religion. True to form, beneath Loverman's rhetorical, religious
costume you'll find an exploitative, secular atheist.
>
>
> > In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and Christian
> > traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of
> > Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound bite,
> > Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can be
> > maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George Washington.
>
> So, as in the nature of soundbites, it could very well have been
> just a quote.
> Of course, he probably believes this himself, and figures that most
> Americans believe it too.
> He's wrong, of course, and it's most likely one of the reasons the
> ADL told him as well as 7 or 8 other politicians to can the religious
> talk.
>
> > But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable corollary is that
> > anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a bit closer here to
> > you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
>
> No, we're not. And never will, with Lieberman.
> It's not how Judaism works, and Lieberman's definitely a Jew.
If the Democoms insisted that Loverman accept Christ or leave the ticket, he would
be first in line for the next communion.
RJL
Roy Jose Lorr
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Lewy wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote in message <39B4C527...@hers.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > >Lewy wrote:
> > >
> > >> Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/joe/ for an
> > >> article by Joe Eszterhas about why he won't be supporting Lieberman.
> > >
> > >Hey - yet another reason to vote for Lieberman!
> >
> > He's not such a bad writer. I kind of liked...well, Sharon Stone looked
> > good in Basic Instinct.
>
> :-D
>
> > >> Among
> > >> the tasty highlights:
> > >>
> > >> "...Joe Lieberman frightens me. He says TV stations' license renewals
> > should
> > >> depend on the "moral tone" of their programming.
> > >
> > >Well, it would be nice, but unfair. Of course, I'd
> > >have to see the original statement - I wouldn't take Esterhaus'
> > >word for anything on this subject.
> >
> > I don't think it would be nice. I think it's opening the door to
> > censorship.
>
> You'll note where I said "unfair".
>
> > >> He says the Justice Department and the PTA should be used as
> > "prosecutorial
> > >> agencies" to determine truth in movie advertising.
> > >
> > >Whatever this means. Of course, I'm all for truth in advertising!!
> >
> > Especially as determined by the PTA.
>
> Sounds good, if we're trying to determine what kids should
> or should not see. Parents, of course, can always make the
> final decision in their own homes.
>
> > >> He has awarded a "Silver Sewer" award
> > >> to "60 Minutes."
> > >
> > >Which is certainly his right/. Or is he not allowed to have
> >
> > >opinions which clash with sleaze-king Esterhaus?
> >
> > You can have any opinions you want. It's also the right of anyone to think
> > your opinions are bizarre.
>
> And vice-versa (I thought that was the point I was making?)
>
> > I wonder what kind of fellow thinks "60 Minutes" is some kind of
> > sleeze-a-thon.
>
> Depends on which episodes you watch, I guess.
> I haven't watched it in I don't know how long!
>
> > >> He says "Friends" should be shown either on late night
> > >> television or in movie theaters."
> > >
> >
> > >Which opinion is also his right to express.
> >
> > See above. I haven't watched a lot of "Friends", but isn't it about fluffy
> > bunnies or something? The kind of mindset that would find "Friends"
> > offensive interests me.
>
> But if you haven't watched it, how do you know that
> it's about fluffy bunnies? I thought there was a good
> deal of sexual content...? (No, I haven't watched
> it either! What little I ever saw was so irritatingly
> insipid....)
>
> > >> Also:
> > >>
> > >> "Vulgarity? Normal? Instability? Piety? Better stuff? What is the
> > >> definition of those words, and what right does Joe Lieberman, who says he
> > is
> > >> "increasingly uncomfortable in a secular culture," have to define them
> > for
> > >> us?"
> > >
> > >The same right as he has to define his movies as fabulous,
> > >wonderful, or whatever it is that he calls them.
> > >Intersting how some people want freedom of expression only
> > >for themselves.
> >
> > Like Lieberman? I found his quote about being "increasingly uncomfortable in
> > a secular culture" to be quite illuminating.
>
> Lieberman doesn't want to keep other people from saying things.
> he just wants to make sure that
> a) everyone knows before getting stuck just what it is they're
> going to be listening to
> b) that no one is forced to "host" what someone else wants to say.
>
> I'd say that his remark is on target for a fairly vocal segment of the
> population.
>
> > >> There's also http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38055,00.html
> > >>
> > >> "Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in
> > May. It
> > >> would move the videogame and movie industries toward a single national
> > rating
> > >> system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in June
> > that
> > >> websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the stage"
> > for
> > >> such an effort in the future."
> > >
> > >I can see that truth in advertising bothers both you & Estarhaus.
> > >Why is that?
> >
> > Does the abbreviation "PMRC" mean anything to you?
>
> Is that the thing with the record labelling that Tipper and Al
> Gore liked?
>
> > And specifically what bothers me is the quote that his legislation "sets the
> > stage" for a regulatory commission for website content.
>
> Isn't this the idea where x-rated websites will all get the ending
> "xxx"? I thought that was brilliant - helps everyone who wants
> the sites know exactly where they are, and helps the parents be
> able to filter out all the wrong stuff and none of the right stuff
> (like the one program that won't let you find out information
> on mastectomies because of the use of the word "breast").
>
> > >> or http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html
> > >>
> > >> "In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign to let police perform
> > >> short-term warrantless wiretaps in some cases that involved potential
> > >> "violent acts."
> > >>
> > >> He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap amendment to an
> > anti-terrorism
> > >> bill being considered by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City
> > bombing."
> > >
> > >Sounds like a panic measure to me.
> > >Sounds like stuff that's been done before.
> > >Sounds like it would probably help in a lot of cases.
> > >Sounds like it's being blown out of context.
> >
> > If he's that easily panicked, maybe he shouldn't be VP. I don't think
> > warrentless wiretaps are a small issue, and I find it hard to blow something
> > that major "out of context". When you say it sounds "like stuff that's been
> > done before", well it was illegal then. Lieberman is trying to make it
> > legal, and it stinks.
> >
> > >> And finally, there's
> > http://slate.msn.com/Features/lieberman/lieberman.asp
> > >> which compares Lieberman's religious zealotry with Bush's. Among the
> > >> highlights:
> > >>
> > >> "Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his
> > >> strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while
> > >> promoting religion itself.
> > >
> > >Sounds exactly like what the American public generally believes.
> >
> > Great. And what do you do if you're an atheist or agnostic?
>
> Don't pay any attention? He's not talking about *policy*, here!
> He's talking about what some people believe, and how it affects
> the way they act - and, in this particular instance, how they act
> as citizens.
>
> > >> For example, he recently told an African-American
> > >> Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith
> > and
> > >> renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's
> > purpose."
> > >>
> > >> Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and
> > ecumenical.
> > >
> > >Yes. It's totally different than the "everyone recognizes Jesus as
> > >a great teacher & should live by his example", etc.
> >
> > Really? One's offensive to non-Christians. The other's offensive to
> > non-believers. As an atheist myself, I'm offended by the implication that
> > morality can only flow from religion, and that therefore by extension
> > non-believers are immoral.
>
> But he was speaking to a church, right? He was only speaking to
> believers! What do you expect him to say to believers?
>
> The real upshot is that if he wasn't Jewish, he wouldn't have to
> mention religion at all! *Now* he has to show that he's "just like
> them", & placate all those who are scared of having a non-Xian
> in the White House.
>
> > >> Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday
> > >> won't get into heaven.
> > >
> > >My guess is that it's because he knows better than to believe
> > >that this is true.
> > >
> > >> On the other hand, it specifically connects his
> > >> religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the
> > >> nation is to serve God.
> > >
> > >Actually, no it does not. It connects his religious beliefs to what
> > >people should be doing. The people are here to make things better,
> > >be it within the physical nation or not.
> >
> > If his religion involves moving "Friends" out of prime time and into the
> > late night spot, he should keep it to himself. If it involves monitoring
> > the news for adult content, which is what Eszterhas believes is next on
> > Lieberman's agenda, he should keep it to himself.
>
> Esterhaus is nuts.
>
> But Lieberman is talking about having one's beliefs prompt
> their actions - which is pretty much what *everyone* does.
> Some people use religion as a basis for those beliefs, others
> don't.
>
> As far as "moving Friends", you don't think he was seriously
> contemplating trying that? I'm sure he'd like to see it moved to
> when younger children are usually in bed, but I'll bet you anything
> you want that he's not going to bother trying to get it done!
>
> > >> In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and
> > Christian
> > >> traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of
> > >> Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound
> > bite,
> > >> Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can
> > be
> > >> maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George
> > Washington.
> > >
> > >So, as in the nature of soundbites, it could very well have been
> > >just a quote.
> > >Of course, he probably believes this himself, and figures that most
> > >Americans believe it too.
> > >He's wrong, of course, and it's most likely one of the reasons the
> > >ADL told him as well as 7 or 8 other politicians to can the religious
> > >talk.
> >
> > What's disappointing is that they had to tell him that in the first place.
>
> See above re; "reassurance".
>
> > >> But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable corollary is
> > that
> > >> anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a bit closer here
> > to
> > >> you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ."
> > >
> > >No, we're not. And never will, with Lieberman.
> > >It's not how Judaism works, and Lieberman's definitely a Jew.
> >
> > Rabbis don't always agree about how Judaism works.
>
> But all of them agree on a lot of basic things.
>
> > There are plenty of
> > flavor of modern day Judaism around. Michael Medved, who is an Orthodox Jew
> > himself, took Lieberman to task for his views on abortion.
>
> Which ought to show you, among other things, that Lieberman
> isn't letting his religious views get in the wayof doing his job.
>
> > Finally, the author of that Slate article, Bruce Gottlieb, summed things up
> > quite nicely and I think I'll just crib his words here:
> >
> > "On the other hand, perhaps Lieberman is saying that if you act as God
> > wishes but not because of a belief in God, then it somehow doesn't count.
> > That seems awfully fussy. By requiring faith as a prerequisite for morality,
> > Lieberman is dismissing a lot of philosophical thinking that grounds itself
> > in reason, not faith, and still manages to arrive at the same conclusions
> > that Lieberman would probably endorse. In any event, if people do live by
> > the rules of decency and honor, the question of whether they do so with or
> > without believing in God is surely not a concern of the government, of the
> > vice president in his official capacity, or a concern that belongs in a
> > national election campaign."
>
> And it's not like he's going to set this as policy.
He told you this personally?
RJL
Susan Cohen
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> > Rand Simberg wrote:
> >
> > > Have you ever actually read the Constitution, or are you just regurgitating nonsense that you
> > > picked up in some women's studies course?
> >
> > You mean the way you predicate your condescencion
> > on sexism, rather than any actual facts?
>
> I am not a sexist. I just predicate my "condescencion" (whatever that is--the word doesn't appear
> in any English dictionary with which I'm familiar) on someone of either gender who claims to have
> the facts, and that I don't, but doesn't even know which amendment of the Constitution that she's
> inappropriately applying to the issue at hand.
IOW, you have to resort to cheap typo flames when you
don't have the facts.
And you still haven't realized what an ass you look like when
you jump on a mistake in *numbers*
Shawn Wilson
"Michael R. Irwin" <mir...@harborside.com> wrote in message
news:39B824A0...@harborside.com...
> Affluent Americans, in general, have an excellent understanding
> of the benefits of a robust economy and effective spending on
> industrial development. This is the reason for the widening
> wealth gap.
There is no "widening wealth gap". Here's a tip for looking at those tables
published every once in a while purporting to show that 'the rich are
getting richer while the poor are getting poorer': people don't have rich
or poor tattooed on their forehead at any point in their lives.
Phil Fraering
They seemed to be remarkably egalitarian about the matter.
--
Phil Fraering "One day, Pinky, A MOUSE shall rule, and it is the
p...@globalreach.net humans who will be forced to endure these humiliating
/Will work for tape/ diversions!"
"You mean like Orlando, Brain?"
Brian Mueller
>Wade was. Even many scholars who favor legal abortion think that decision deeply flawed
>(including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
True but not relevent.
>Even the Supremes, in their torture of the meaning
>of the document, didn't think that such a right derived from the First Amendment, as Ms.
>Cohen mistakenly believes.
Ms. Cohen's position, as expressed in the post to which I originally
replied, was not that the right to abortion is derived from the First
Amdendment, but that the right of the people not to be enslaved by
laws founded upon organized religion is protected by said Amendment.
--Brian (theist who doesn't support organized religion)
Brian Mueller
>It is cross-some-cultural, not cross-all-cultural. The Vikings, before
>conversion to christianity, were a lot more violent than afterwards.
You speak not of murder, sir, but of killing. There is a difference.
James Bond put it best: "I only kill professionals."
--Brian (who is not saying that the Vikings only killed military
people.)
Brian Mueller
>> It is certainly how the Amendment has been interpreted.
>
>By some. It is not universally so. Many constitutional scholars heartily
>disagree.
Such scholars are in the vast minority.
--Brian
Brian Mueller
>I believe he was being sarcastic. Either way, the statement that "medical
>science does not believe that human life begins at conception" is clearly
>nonsensical.
Intelligence at conception, sir, is empricially false. The fertilized
egg lacks a central nervous system, and indeed lacks any nervous
system. Therefore it cannot be intelligent.
--Brian
Joseph Hertzlinger
<michael....@Sun.COM> wrote:
>Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
>
>> ObSF: George Bush will supposedly appoint conservative judges. The
>> most classically conservative character in recent SF was Count Piotr
>> Vorkosigan.
>
>Miles would disagree. See the speech in "The Mountains of Mourning"
>which begins (from memory, so perhaps not fully accurate) "He wasn't the
>last of the Old Vor; he was the first of the New." Compared to Pierre
>Le Sanguainaire, Piotr was a mixture of Ralph Nader and Martin Luther
>King:-)
Come to think of it, classical conservatism (based on such ideas as
"noblesse oblige" etc.) was a great improvement on the practice of
having The Powers That Be kick around their subjects as much as they
wanted.
Michael R. Irwin
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> "Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
>
> > Rory Lindsay wrote:
> >
> > > This is not a space.policy item
> >
> > On the contrary, if we wish to become a
> > spacefaring civilization then educational
> > policy is foundational.
> >
> > Peasants tithing grain to landlords
> > do not build multi-billion
> > dollar space infrastructure.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Without "peasants", Democoms would be out of
> business.
> Who else could they buy votes from with false
> promises?
>
> RJL
Well, accepting your false premises as a basis
for repartee:
Anybody who thought they had more credibility
and ability to administer their proposals than Republican
candidates with me-too plans.
Any self respecting billionaire who thought
giving fellow citizens a chance to climb up the
economic ladder was more important than
how many years it took to earn his next billion
in economic profits.
For those readers who have not studied economics,
IIRC an economic profit is the surplus between the
return required to attract capital for an economic
activity and the actual return. If 10% is required
to attract investment in a sure thing, and 25% is returned, then
there is an economic profit of 15%.
Calculation of Nike's economic profits for
the last few years while paying Chinese workers
peanuts to work with carcinogens illegal in the
U.S. without proper protective gear is left as
an exercise for the discerning reader.
Extra credit: Assuming these Chinese workers
are volunteers happy to get these priveleged jobs,
is it ethical for executives earning multiple millions
in a free society which chooses not to expose its
workers to these problems, to export cancer to
third world nations for economic profits?
Would you want these executives using
weed and feed on a common backyard
hedge or coaching a soccer team with his
kids and your kids on it? I.E. Do you trust
his sense of fairness to assure impartiality?
Do you trust him to warn your kids to play
elsewhere while he sprays herbicide?
Do you want these executives in your
space settlement?
Mike Irwin
Susan Cohen
Tom Billings wrote:
> Susan, you are posting to sci.space.policy, among people who
> often find that a mistake in "*numbers*" gets people very dead,
> if it isn't corrected soon enough. At least that's the case for the
> field that ssp discusses. *Expect* that even a designator number,
> such as seems the case here, *will* be corrected. If it's a calculation
> number, then expect a demand for what calculation produced the
> number you gave, and be ready to defend the model behind the
> calculation. Anyone irritated with this behavior shouldn't bother
> posting to sci.space.policy.
Correction is one thing.
I am never irritated with *correction* -
I *welcome* it.
However, trying to discount everything else on the
basis of that is pretty sad. The childish ad hominem
thrown in for good measure is even worse.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Brian Mueller wrote:
Thank you.
I never said for one minute that our right to abortion is
founded on the First Amendment.
I said that it *should* be, and that I was surprised that it
was not.
Susan
Michael R. Irwin
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Michael R. Irwin" <mir...@harborside.com> wrote in message
> news:39B8282F...@harborside.com...
>
> > > The private schools would almost automatically have market
> > > accountability, in that anyone could choose, including
> > > choose to use the public schools.
> >
> > Reducing the cost the private schools to the consumer
> > automatically reduces market accountability by definition.
>
> Not even remotely, but I would like to see that purported definition.
>
> > If you disagree with that basic premise of economics
>
> I certainly do.
>
> > Market accountability is reduced because of the greater
> > supply of students who can "afford" the private school.
> > A school selecting a new class of 100 from 200 applicants
> > vs. advertising for 10 more students to fill its classrooms
> > because only 90 students could afford the tuition
> > is clearly less accountable to the parents in the "market"
> > for its educational quality.
>
> Non sequiter. Private schools have to provide value lest the children be
> moved to a competitor.
Non sequiter. Parents have choice because they can move
the children to the public school of their choice.
Try analysing the evaluation criteria of the choice between
public and private in the context of price with and without
vouchers.
How do you address the supply and demand issue?
Do you think with universal school vouchers we will
instaneously have thousands of new private schools?
Perhaps the solution is to merely to sell or giveaway
all public schools and give all children 100% vouchers.
We then have 100% private schools. Will this improve
schools? Will it increase the supply of quality teachers?
Will it change the classroom atmosphere?
Mike Irwin
michael schilling
>
> michael schilling <michael....@Sun.COM> writes:
>
> > Mark Atwood wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not kidding.
> > >
> >
> > And some time after that, you think it'll be people who *don't* deserve
> > it?
>
> I will assume that your tongue was planted firmly in cheek?
>
> Or are you one of the ones who is looking forward to "total nanny"
> because you firmly believe that *your* "superior" POV and ideals
> should and must be imposed on everyone else for "all our good"?
>
If you don't believe in government regulation, and you don't believe in
tort law, how do you intend to dissuade, oh hypotheticaly speaking, a
tire company from knowingly selling tires likely to cause fatal
accidents?
Michael R. Irwin
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> How about market accountability for government mandated, "affirmative
> action" programs.
>
I do not understand your question or proposal. Affirmative action
was designed to change the racial mix of opportunity
being delivered to segments of the population by the economy.
How does "market accountability" come into play?
Forty years ago if 100 fireman were required,
100 white fireman were hired. Today if 100 fireman
are required in a racially mixed city, a racial mix
of qualified firemen are hired.
Presumably if 100 new white fireman were trained
then some of them lost out, just as other races used
to lose out and specific people still lose out when
there is an oversupply.
When the demographics data show equal opportunity
is occurring throughout the U.S. economy then we should
get rid of "Affirmative Action". It will then be redundant
and serving no purpose. I am not satisfied this has
occurred yet. Having worked for a few "equal
opportunity" employers subject to "Affirmative Action"
requirements I am satisfied it is having a long term
effect.
You disagree? You think it unfair? I think it
is a lot less unfair than civil war, which is where
I think we were headed until we addressed
the bigotry in the U.S. It was prevalent and excerised
in offensive and destructive ways throughout our society
to oppress specific races and women.
You think they were going to put up with
that forever? You lost that argument when
education became widespread.
Mike Irwin
Michael R. Irwin
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> "Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
>
> >
> > Parents are already allowed to send their kids
> > to any private school they can afford and choose to.
> >
> > Home schooling is also legal and practiced
> > in many states.
> >
> > If you are referring to subsidizing private schools
> > with vouchers, you should discuss the anticipated effect of
> > removing market accountability on the quality
> > of the "private" schools.
>
> Pure convoluted, demagogic, Democom claptrap. Most parents who
>
> choose ( like in "women's right to") the voucher option are
> seeing vast
> improvement in their children's education - in the "private"
> schools.
> Market account for that.
>
So what percentage of the public education
market are private schools prepared to take
on next year? What selection criteria do you
hope private schools will use to select for limited
capacity when you successfully have universal
vouchers in place?
Mike Irwin
Michael R. Irwin
Mark Atwood wrote:
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> writes:
> Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> > How many people have *really* considered the implications of the
> > recent massive inflation of the power of tort law from the tobacco
> > settlement.
>
> I think that they have considered them, and they like them. Fascism viaAlright, just for fun I will bite. How is the tobaco
> the back door...No no no. Facism isn't the right word for this.
We need a better term for "totalitarianism for your own good" than
"nanny state".
industry attempting manage legal liabilities by settling
out of court an example of "totalitarianism for your own
good"?
If they thought they were clean they could take their
chances in civil court just like any pusher can take
his chances in criminal court, with the Jury, instead of
settling with the District Attourney.
Is it your contention that smoking does not cause
cancer or that the industry did not systematically
engage in managing the addictiveness of the nicotine
levels in their brands?
As far as I know no criminal conspiracy or accessory
to fraud or murder charges have been brought. Ever
wonder why? If Columbian drug lords incorporated
would that excuse pushers giving away addictive samples
in schoolyards from prosecution?
Mike Irwin
Michael R. Irwin
Mark Atwood wrote:
> michael schilling <michael....@Sun.COM> writes:
>
> > Mark Atwood wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not kidding.
> > >
> >
> > And some time after that, you think it'll be people who *don't* deserve
> > it?
>
> I will assume that your tongue was planted firmly in cheek?
>
> Or are you one of the ones who is looking forward to "total nanny"
> because you firmly believe that *your* "superior" POV and ideals
> should and must be imposed on everyone else for "all our good"?
>
Actually I am glad you warned me in time. I am
going to start looking over my shoulder before exercising
my god given right to jaywalk.
Have you considered growing your own tobacco?
Better get some seeds before they are outlawed.
Be careful, locally they have been detecting industrial
sized pot greenhouses by reviewing power bills.
Caught the local building inspector, LOL, seriously!
Mike Irwin
Jorge R. Frank
>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:13:56 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
> <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote:
>
> >It would be equally true to state that "medical science does *not*
> >believe that humans are endowed with intelligence at birth".
>
> No, that's not the case. Of course scientists are wary of the word
> "inteligence", there are many aspects of it, but probably the least
> disputable is the ability the learn, which is actually very highly
> developed at birth.
I believe we are in agreement here; I worded my statement poorly. What
I meant to say is that intelligence is not endowed *all at once* at
birth.
> As to at what stage an embryo is human, well human is a cluster concept.
> An embryo goes gradually from having none of the defining attributes of
> being human to, at birth, having most of them. There's no sudden leap to
> provide a handy ethical dividing line.
Many pro-choicers like to believe in such a sudden leap.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
>
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
> >anyone who thinks that sentient life has rights (= PETA) should be
> >opposed to second-trimester abortion. Of course, most of them aren't.
>
> One must recognize the dichotomy between "this should be illegal" and
> "this is immoral". That is the say, sir, that in my opinion, not all
> things which are immoral should be illegal.
Of course. And I see no inconsistency in an animal-rights activist
being pro-choice, as long as they do not advocate codifying their
beliefs in animal rights into law.
> >This would appear to protect people against the government seizing
> >fetuses without a warrant, but its applicability to abortion is beyond
> >me.
>
> You are intepreting the Consitution too literally. The 4th Amendment
> is an assertion of the God-given right of a man to privacy from the
> government.
And this right, like all other rights, extends only to the extent that
another's rights are not infringed. Otherwise it can (and, in
less-enlightened times, was) extended to the right of parents to abuse
their children in the privacy of their homes, and slaveowners likewise
to their slaves.