Newt Gingrich a Heinlein fan?
John Paul Vrolyk
--- begin excerpt ---
Amazon.com:
You're also a longtime science fiction fan. What are
your favorite titles?
Gingrich:
Isaac Asimov's Foundation books left a big impression
on me when I read them in high school. I've read them
again since then. I also like Robert Heinlein,
especially Starship Troopers.
Amazon.com:
Did you see the movie?
Gingrich:
I saw the preview. I couldn't quite convince myself to go.
--- end excerpt ---
Comments anyone?
The full interview is at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/categories/nonfiction/apr-10-1998-newt-gingrich-interview/002-0178081-7637635
--
John Paul Vrolyk j...@vrolyk.org http://www.vrolyk.org/jp/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yea the whole world seems very strange / In a pleasant kinda way"
-- from "English Bay", by Blue Rodeo
Bill Dauphin
John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
> Gingrich:
> Isaac Asimov's Foundation books left a big impression
> on me when I read them in high school. I've read them
> again since then. I also like Robert Heinlein,
> especially Starship Troopers.<snip>
> Comments anyone?
Gee, I wonder what Newt the Grinch thought of SIASL? or TEFL? <gd&rlh>
Seriously, when someone calls hirself a Heinlein fan and *only* mentions ST, I have to
wonder if that person gets it. Don't misunderstand: I think ST is a great book -- one of
RAH's best -- but if you only like the yin and ignore all that bothersome yang, you're
not getting the whole picture.
-JovBill
Geo Rule
On Mon, 11 May 1998 14:03:23 -0400, John Paul Vrolyk <j...@vrolyk.org>
wrote:
>Comments anyone?
>
Way back when the "Republican Revolution" was young and frisky,
in early '95, Newt put out a list of "suggested reading" for all the
new freshman Repubs. "TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT!" was on it.
Geo_...@MSN.COM
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
"America is like a large, friendly dog in a small room. Every time it
wags it's tail it knocks over a chair." --Arnold Toynbee
--- GEnieTag v3.0a ------[Geo]-------
Wayne Morgan
John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
> --- begin excerpt ---
>
> Amazon.com:
> You're also a longtime science fiction fan. What are
> your favorite titles?
> Gingrich:
> Isaac Asimov's Foundation books left a big impression
> on me when I read them in high school. I've read them
> again since then. I also like Robert Heinlein,
> especially Starship Troopers.
> Amazon.com:
> Did you see the movie?
> Gingrich:
> I saw the preview. I couldn't quite convince myself to go.
>
> --- end excerpt ---
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> The full interview is at:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/categories/nonfiction/apr-10-1998-newt-gingrich-interview/002-0178081-7637635
>
I don't know why anyone would consider that strange. Asimov and Heinlein were the two Science Fiction mainstream greats
of the era when we were growing up. As for watching Starship Troopers, I wish I hadn't been quite able to convince
myself to go, either...
Wayne Morgan
John Paul Vrolyk
Wayne Morgan wrote:
> I don't know why anyone would consider that strange. Asimov and Heinlein were the two Science Fiction mainstream greats
> of the era when we were growing up. As for watching Starship Troopers, I wish I hadn't been quite able to convince
> myself to go, either...
I never said it was strange. I was simply looking for
commentary. As an outsider, I don't have a very good grasp
of who Gingrich is or why he's important, or what he stands
for. Is liking Heinlein typical of Republicans? Is Gingrich
typical of Republicans? Despite my ignorance of it, the US
being what it is, US politics has a non-trivial effect on the
rest of the world. I like getting an occasional insight
about such things from Americans who (presumably) understand
better what's going on in their country than do I.
Wayne Morgan
John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
> Wayne Morgan wrote:
> > I don't know why anyone would consider that strange. Asimov and Heinlein were the two Science Fiction mainstream greats
> > of the era when we were growing up. As for watching Starship Troopers, I wish I hadn't been quite able to convince
> > myself to go, either...
>
> I never said it was strange. I was simply looking for
> commentary. As an outsider, I don't have a very good grasp
> of who Gingrich is or why he's important, or what he stands
> for. Is liking Heinlein typical of Republicans? Is Gingrich
> typical of Republicans? Despite my ignorance of it, the US
> being what it is, US politics has a non-trivial effect on the
> rest of the world. I like getting an occasional insight
> about such things from Americans who (presumably) understand
> better what's going on in their country than do I.
>
It's kind of hard to say what Heinlein's politics were when he was into politics early in his writing career. It's safe to
say he was not a fan of "big government" or socialism.
Newt Gingrich is the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the US Congress. As such he is third in line-of-succession to
the head of the government (after the President and Vice-President). He is a former historian who used aggressively
antagonistic tactics when the Republicans were the minority party in Congress and was instrumental in engineering the
resignation of a former Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, for ethics violations. This earned him the undying
emnity of the Democrats, who have striven to do the same to him.
As the Speaker, he has lost some of the "attack dog" aggressiveness that made him both reviled and celebrated earlier in his
career; his overall effectiveness as Speaker has declined under the continual attacks of his enemies and rivals from within
the ranks of Congress.
Wayne Morgan
Yog Sysop
Yog stirred in the depths when John Paul Vrolyk <j...@vrolyk.org>
uttered:
> especially Starship Troopers.
>Amazon.com:
> Did you see the movie?
>Gingrich:
> I saw the preview. I couldn't quite convince myself to go.
>
>--- end excerpt ---
>
>Comments anyone?
The man shows amazingly good taste.
--
James D. Macdonald
http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/
Yog Sysop
Yog stirred in the depths when Wayne Morgan <morg...@indy.net>
uttered:
>career; his overall effectiveness as Speaker has declined under the
>continual attacks of his enemies and rivals from within
>the ranks of Congress.
Plus, the SF novel he wrote with Bill Forstchen (_1945_) sucked
rocks, had astronomically high return rates, nearly drove Baen
Books out of business, and didn't do a thing for the reputation
of SF novels in general, it being the only SF novel that many
mainstream readers ever heard of -- there were huge amounts of
publicity accorded it because of Gringrich's day job.
SBECK1
Wayne Morgan <morg...@indy.net> writes: >
> It's kind of hard to say what Heinlein's politics were when he was into politics early in his writing career. It's safe to
> say he was not a fan of "big government" or socialism.
>
According to Jerry Pournelle's introduction to RAH's
_Take Back Your Government_, RAH started out as a
"moderate Democrat," but then later in life "moved closer to the
libertarian position."
In truth, RAH is hard to pigeonhole politically. He was definitely
not a "typical Republican," although he would have agreed with some
Republican's "we need less government" views.
--Steve
SBECK1
John Paul Vrolyk <j...@vrolyk.org> writes: >
> As an outsider . . .I like getting an occasional insight
> about such things from Americans who (presumably) understand
> better what's going on in their country than do I.
>
John Paul-- I didn't know you weren't a Yank. Where are you
from, may I ask?
Also, I suspect you know at least as much about American government
and politics as most Americans.
Most people would say its horrible that Americans seem to know and
care so little about politics. I'm not so sure.
I've been told that the central government of Switzerland (for example)
plays such a small part in people's ordinary lives, the average Swiss
does not even know the name of the president of the Swiss Republic.
I find this incredible...and somewhat enviable, if true. (Imagine not
knowing who Bill Clinton is... * sigh *)
--Steve
SBECK1
Actually, Bill, I think The Newter's comments reveal a pretty good
familiarity with RAH. It would take a pretty good understanding of ST
to decide to dislike the movie based on the previews.
Besides, if some reporter asked ME: "I understand you are a big science
fiction fan. Who are your favorite authors?" I would say, in an
interview, "I'm a big fan of Larry Niven's Known Space stories. Arthur
C. Clarke's 2001 is a favorite, a classic. I really like Robert
Heinlein, especially Starship Troopers and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
and, uh, Friday..."
Presumably around this point, the reporter would cut me off. That
doesn't mean I haven't read other works. --Steve
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
>
> > Gingrich:
> > Isaac Asimov's Foundation books left a big impression
> > on me when I read them in high school. I've read them
> > again since then. I also like Robert Heinlein,
> > especially Starship Troopers.<snip>
> > Comments anyone?
Cecil Rose
y...@sff.net (Yog Sysop) wrote:
Oh come now. More mainstream readers heard of "1945" than, say,
"Jurassic Park"?
____________________________________________________________
Cecil Rose <ala...@earthlink.net>
Cary, North Carolina
Member: Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Critters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Paul Vrolyk
Yog Sysop wrote:
> Plus, the SF novel he wrote with Bill Forstchen (_1945_) sucked
> rocks, had astronomically high return rates, nearly drove Baen
> Books out of business, and didn't do a thing for the reputation
> of SF novels in general, it being the only SF novel that many
> mainstream readers ever heard of -- there were huge amounts of
> publicity accorded it because of Gringrich's day job.
Wow. I'm a SF reader, and *I* had never heard of _1945_
before. Of course, I'm in Canada.
Yog Sysop
Yog stirred in the depths when ala...@earthlink.net (Cecil
Rose) uttered:
> Oh come now. More mainstream readers heard of "1945" than, say,
>"Jurassic Park"?
_Jurassic Park_ wasn't advertised as SF. It was in the
"bestseller" subgenre.
Cecil Rose
y...@sff.net (Yog Sysop) wrote:
>Yog stirred in the depths when ala...@earthlink.net (Cecil
>Rose) uttered:
>> Oh come now. More mainstream readers heard of "1945" than, say,
>>"Jurassic Park"?
>_Jurassic Park_ wasn't advertised as SF. It was in the
>"bestseller" subgenre.
And _1945_ _was_ advertised as SF?
Fader
John Paul Vrolyk <j...@vrolyk.org> wrote in article
<355854...@vrolyk.org>...
> I like getting an occasional insight
> about such things from Americans who (presumably) understand
> better what's going on in their country than do I.
>
Possibly you presume too much<bg>
Fader
Bill Dauphin
Cecil Rose wrote:
>
> y...@sff.net (Yog Sysop) wrote:
> >_Jurassic Park_ wasn't advertised as SF. It was in the
> >"bestseller" subgenre.
>
> And _1945_ _was_ advertised as SF?
It was certainly *shelved* as SF in the bookstores I frequent, and _Jurassic Park_ was
not.
-JovBill
<<Big Charlie>>
All--
I disagree with the evaluation that the book "sucked rocks", I
bought and read it at the time. And reported on it here, to very little
comment, at least very little comment on the book itself.
I've met Bill Forstchen on a couple of occasions and have the first
couple of his "lost regiment" series that he autographed for me. He was
getting a doctorate of history at Ourdue at the time. As Mr. Gingrich
was at one time a history professor, I can see they have some common
interest. IMHO, "1945" has a lot of the "flavor" of Forstchen's
writing.
However, I can see two items that well could have cut into
sales--1) the tendency of many bookstores whose employees and or owners
are liberal to "hide" title they feel are "unworthy" (some of the
stories about trying to find the Rush Limbaugh books, then the major
player on the non-fiction best sellers' list) 2) unrealistic assumptions
about the number of people who would buy a book, expecially a "genre"
book, just because a famous (or infamous, if you prefer) name was on the
cover. The latter would cause very heavy returns 3) the attitude of
many "PC" types to say "I won't read anything by that person". (Lack of
prejudice at work.)
As to the book itself--it was a good read, but not one I feel any
urge to go out and re-read.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
"Flying is the second greatest experience known to man. Landing is the
first."
Bill Dauphin
<<Big Charlie>> wrote:
> 1) the tendency of many bookstores whose employees and or owners
> are liberal to "hide" title they feel are "unworthy" (some of the
> stories about trying to find the Rush Limbaugh books, then the major
> player on the non-fiction best sellers' list)
?????? Limbaugh's books have always been VERY prominently displayed in the stores I shop
(usually major chains like B. Dalton, Waldenbooks, and Barnes & Noble). And when I
*worked* in a Waldenbooks (admittedly that was back in the late 70s), there was never
any political aspect to choosing what we displayed: We shelved what we thought would
sell. Period.
IIRC, _1945_ was promoted pretty heavily, and was kept on the shelves a good deal longer
than a weak-selling first novel normally would be.
I didn't read it, and so can't comment on its quality, but I seriously doubt its poor
sales were the result of any liberal conspiracy.
-JovBill
Bill Dauphin
Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> ...Add to that the resentment of the science fiction
> people (readers and writers) at the "outsider" barging into our genre
Good point. Along the same lines, I was in a bookstore the other night and noticed LeVar
Burton's SF novel on the shelf. One of the cover blurbs said "Brings new depth and
dimension to the SF genre." Mebbe so -- I haven't read it. But it seems to me that
making such a claim about the first novel of an actor whose only connection to SF is
playing a supporting role on a TV series is, on its face, a grave insult to the genre,
and to everything that's come before. LeVar Burton brings the genre "depth and
dimension" that it lacked when all it had going for it were hacks like Heinlein,
Sturgeon, Anderson, Niven, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Robinson (pick one <g>), and on and
on? Sorry, but you're gonna hafta PROVE that one to me!
-JovBill
Deb Houdek Rule
> However, I can see two items that well could have cut into
>sales--
A good analysis. Add to that the resentment of the science fiction
people (readers and writers) at the "outsider" barging into our genre
with a big bucks, high profile book. That's enough to lose a good
portion of the sf readers who might otherwise have bought a copy.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
Love cats? Read Cat Tales http://www.jps.net/georule/CatTales/
deb...@jps.net
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
Yog Sysop
Yog stirred in the depths when "<<Big Charlie>>"
<chas...@aol.com> uttered:
> As to the book itself--it was a good read, but not one I feel any
>urge to go out and re-read.
I can't agree that it was "a good read." My review is at
http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/r_1945.htp
William G. Jennings
Wayne Morgan wrote:
> John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
>
> > Wayne Morgan wrote:
> > > I don't know why anyone would consider that strange. Asimov and
> Heinlein were the two Science Fiction mainstream greats
> > > of the era when we were growing up. As for watching Starship
> Troopers, I wish I hadn't been quite able to convince
> > > myself to go, either...
> >
> > I never said it was strange. I was simply looking for
> > commentary. As an outsider, I don't have a very good grasp
> > of who Gingrich is or why he's important, or what he stands
> > for. Is liking Heinlein typical of Republicans? Is Gingrich
> > typical of Republicans? Despite my ignorance of it, the US
> > being what it is, US politics has a non-trivial effect on the
> > rest of the world. I like getting an occasional insight
> > about such things from Americans who (presumably) understand
> > better what's going on in their country than do I.
> >
>
> It's kind of hard to say what Heinlein's politics were when he was
> into politics early in his writing career. It's safe to
> say he was not a fan of "big government" or socialism.
>
> Newt Gingrich is the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the
> US Congress. As such he is third in line-of-succession to
> the head of the government (after the President and
> Vice-President). He is a former historian who used aggressively
> antagonistic tactics when the Republicans were the minority party in
> Congress and was instrumental in engineering the
> resignation of a former Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright,
> for ethics violations. This earned him the undying
> emnity of the Democrats, who have striven to do the same to him.
>
> As the Speaker, he has lost some of the "attack dog" aggressiveness
> that made him both reviled and celebrated earlier in his
> career; his overall effectiveness as Speaker has declined under the
> continual attacks of his enemies and rivals from within
> the ranks of Congress.
>
> Wayne Morgan
I applaud your fair and unbiased descritption. It will be more helpful
to JPV's understanding of Newt than anything he could get from the US
media, or an explanation from me, which would have been little more
than pro-Newt partisan fawning and gushing.
Two undeniable intellectual connections between RAH and Newt are the
distrust of an intrusive government and a much higher regard than
liberals (those expousing the American version of liberalism) for the
capabilities of the Common Man.
While 'typical of Republicans' can be debated, I would say the
Heinlein Influenced (who's current world and political views are
strongly influenced by his work) would be found in greater numbers
among Republicans in terms of strong national defense, less intrusive
government, gun ownership, and more Libertarian on social issues of
self-responsibility and personal freedom.
Generally, if you were to attend a political convention and seek out
Heinlein fans, you'd probably meet a more knowledgeable, higher
pro-Heinlein ratio among Republicans and Libertarians than Democrats
and Socialists.
Will
William G. Jennings
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> <<Big Charlie>> wrote:
> > 1) the tendency of many bookstores whose employees and or owners
> > are liberal to "hide" title they feel are "unworthy" (some of the
> > stories about trying to find the Rush Limbaugh books, then the
> major
> > player on the non-fiction best sellers' list)
>
> ?????? Limbaugh's books have always been VERY prominently displayed
> in the stores I shop
> (usually major chains like B. Dalton, Waldenbooks, and Barnes &
> Noble). And when I
> *worked* in a Waldenbooks (admittedly that was back in the late
> 70s), there was never
> any political aspect to choosing what we displayed: We shelved what
> we thought would
> sell. Period.
>
>
Re Limbaugh's Books.
There were dozens of calls to his show at the time his books were out,
not that the book was being 'hidden' by the stores, but that people
would actually stand by the shelf and everytime someone would show an
interest in "The Way Things Ought To Be", or "See, I Told You So",
these busybodies, these so-called lovers of Free Expression, would
launch into a near identical spiel about Limbaugh is racist, Limbaugh
hates women, etc. etc and no honest, intellectual person would read
such rants. The stores were happy to stock and sell Limbaugh, it was
self-appointed, busybody, ill-informed, truth-blocking Liberals who
tried to hide Limbaugh's books. There were also report of clerks
tunring up their noses in disgust and asking patrons: You really want
to buy this?
Wonder how many of those who bought "Putting People First" were
treated to sniffs of disdain?
Will
Bill Dauphin
William G. Jennings wrote:
> There were dozens of calls to his show at the time his books were out,...
Surely you realize calls to his show are not exactly an unbiased source?
> ...that people
> would actually stand by the shelf and everytime someone would show an
> interest in "The Way Things Ought To Be", or "See, I Told You So",
> these busybodies, these so-called lovers of Free Expression, would
> launch into a near identical spiel about Limbaugh is racist, Limbaugh
> hates women, etc. etc and no honest, intellectual person would read
> such rants. The stores were happy to stock and sell Limbaugh, it was
> self-appointed, busybody, ill-informed, truth-blocking Liberals who
> tried to hide Limbaugh's books. There were also report of clerks
> tunring up their noses in disgust and asking patrons: You really want
> to buy this?
I never bought any of Limbaugh's books, but I seriously shopped them -- standing at the
shelves, flipping through copies, reading cover blurbs, and generally looking like a
serious customer -- and nobody ever said a word to me. I'm certain any bookstore manager
-- no matter how liberal s/he might be personally -- would immediately fire an employee
caught behaving the way you describe. They're there to sell books; those fancy stores
cost too much for them to worry about much of anything *but* selling books. You might
find a little Mom-and-Pop store somewhere with some political agenda or another (and
BTW, if they want to risk their livelihood to promote whatever it is they believe is
right, more power to 'em), but the major chains will happily sell any book the public
wants... including some *far* more controversial than anything Limbaugh ever wrote. I
still say I've seen NO evidence that Rush or Newt or Bill Bennett or *any* conservative
author has been suppressed or harrassed by the national chain bookstores.
> Wonder how many of those who bought "Putting People First" were
> treated to sniffs of disdain?
I wonder how many people bought _Putting People First_ in the first place. I don't know
what the actual sales numbers are, but my perception is that commentators like Limbaugh,
Bennett, George Will, etc. generally sell *far* more books than the actual politicians,
regardless of political orientation. IIRC, the biggest selling recent book by a White
House insider was "written" by a DOG! <vbg>
-JovBill
Michael P. Calligaro
That's a great review, Yog.
--
Michael P. Calligaro
What would you get if you combined a distant spaceport,
six alien races, a group of humans trying desperately to fit
in, and a murder that might unravel the fabric of society?
Find out for free at http://www.mystikeep.com
Martin J. Hillard
> commentary. As an outsider, I don't have a very good grasp
> of who Gingrich is or why he's important, or what he stands
Speaker of the House of Commons would be in a parliamentary system, though
more powerful. The more power is for a couple of reason: 1) Unlike a
Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system who is elected by Commons, our
President is not, so the Speaker, while less powerful than the President,
is the highest official of the House (while the Speaker in a parliamentary
system would be subordinate to the PM); 2) The House is Republican while
the President is Democrat. Thus Gingrich is arguably the most powerful
Republican. If the President were also Republican, the Speaker would have
less power as a result.
> for. Is liking Heinlein typical of Republicans?
Well, it might be typical of Republicans who read SF (I'd guess that most
Repubs, like most Demos, don't read SF). I'd say RAH has stronger appeal
among Repub SF fans than Demo SF fans (but there are certainly Demos who
like RAH).
>Is Gingrich typical of Republicans?
That's a question that even Republicans can't answer! (I'm only semi-joking
here). Seriously, I'm not sure what a "typical" Republican is. I live in
one of the most Republican counties in the country, yet we have a wide
variety of people in the party (even among office holders). I would say
that Gingrich is fairly typical of newer, younger Republican office-holders
from the conservative wing of the party (though Gingrich is not himself
particularly new or young), though perhaps not as attached to the religious
interests as many of those are.
--
Mart H
Ed Johnson
On Sun, 17 May 1998 William G. Jennings posted:
<snip>
>Generally, if you were to attend a political convention and seek out
>Heinlein fans, you'd probably meet a more knowledgeable, higher
>pro-Heinlein ratio among Republicans and Libertarians than Democrats
>and Socialists.
>
>Will
>
Will: (I whole heartedly agree). My surprise here on the HF has
been encountering the occasional staunch Liberal who is a fan of
Heinlein. The works of RAH have a much wider appeal than most
concervatives would imagine. I guess that people get what they want
from an author's work. Case in point: I have met a few
anti-Libertarian types (?neo Nazis?) who enjoyed their reading ST
by: (their quote, NOT mine !): "skipping over the philosophical bull
sh*t", so that they could enjoy the combat scenes. For my
money, the action sequences in the novel ST helped rivet the
attention of teen-aged readers and get them exposed to some good,
pro Libertarian, pro 'Good Citizenship' philosophy. Heinlein's
Starship Troopers is my favorite 'read' of all time. The movie of
the same name seems to be a poor caricature at best.
(2 cents worth <g>)
Ed J
John Paul Vrolyk
Martin J. Hillard wrote:
> Gingrich is Speaker of the House. It's roughly the same as the position of
> Speaker of the House of Commons would be in a parliamentary system, though
> more powerful.
Actually, the Speaker in our system isn't that powerful
at all. The traditional role of the Speaker was to speak to
the monarch on behalf of the House. Since (with the possible
exception of times of emergency) the monarch, or hir direct
representatives, the Governor-General & Lt.-Governors, play
no non-cerimonial role in either the legislative or executive
portions of the government, the Speaker doesn't matter that
much. The Speaker does not get to vote on issues before
the house, unless there is a tie. And although the Speaker
does sort of "preside" over the House, that's not a power
that can effectively be used.
> The more power is for a couple of reason: 1) Unlike a
> Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system who is elected by Commons, our
> President is not, so the Speaker, while less powerful than the President,
> is the highest official of the House (while the Speaker in a parliamentary
> system would be subordinate to the PM);
Clarification: the PM is the leader of the party (or coalition)
with a majority of seats in Parliament. (Well, technically the
monarch appoints the PM, but convieniently appoints the
right person.) The leaders of the various parties are known
beforehand, and were chosen by those parties in some
party-specific way. (Usually either direct voting by all party
members, or voting by delegates sent from various riding
associations. The latter is more traditional, but the former
is becoming more common as telecommunications and computers
make it more practical.) And the the members of the House
of Commons are chosen by election by the voters. Parliament
does not choose the PM. (More often, it's kind of the other
way around: people choose for whom to vote for their local
Member of Parliament based on who they would like to see
as PM. Specific individuals often matter less than to which
party they belong.)
> 2) The House is Republican while
> the President is Democrat. Thus Gingrich is arguably the most powerful
> Republican. If the President were also Republican, the Speaker would have
> less power as a result.
Thanks for the explanations.
<<Big Charlie>>
Jim--
So we disagree. Have you read the other Forstchen book and what
did you think of those?
mac...@alaska.net
In article <3561AE...@vrolyk.org>,
John Paul Vrolyk <j...@vrolyk.org> wrote:
>
> Martin J. Hillard wrote:
(snip)
> > 2) The House is Republican while
> > the President is Democrat. Thus Gingrich is arguably the most powerful
> > Republican. If the President were also Republican, the Speaker would have
> > less power as a result.
>
> Thanks for the explanations.
It's a pretty good explanation, but leaves me (a U.S. citizen) wondering why
Martin thinks Gingrich is more powerful than Trent Lott, the majority leader
in the Senate. I'm not sure about the relative political power of the upper
house in Canada's Federal governement, but it's certainly the case that
compared to the House of Lords in the UK, the U.S. Senate is much more
important in governance... and that's another significant difference between
the U.S. system and most parliamentary ones I'm aware of.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
William G. Jennings
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> William G. Jennings wrote:
> > There were dozens of calls to his show at the time his books were
> out,...
>
> Surely you realize calls to his show are not exactly an unbiased
> source?
Granted, though I would put the trustworthiness of a Limbaugh fan
quite high. Also, if the liberals who call his show are any
indication, I have no trouble believing some would stake out a book
store and discourage buyers.
I think Rush is a special case because as long as his critics could
keep other people's perceptions of him second hand they could continue
to portray him as some kind of 'end of the specturm' kook. The last
thing certain elements of the Left wanted was for people with open
minds to digest Rush first hand. He communicates too cohertently a
differing viewpoint with unarguable rationale.
>
>
> > Wonder how many of those who bought "Putting People First" were
> > treated to sniffs of disdain?
>
> I wonder how many people bought _Putting People First_ in the first
> place. I don't know
> what the actual sales numbers are, but my perception is that
> commentators like Limbaugh,
> Bennett, George Will, etc. generally sell *far* more books than the
> actual politicians,
> regardless of political orientation. IIRC, the biggest selling
> recent book by a White
> House insider was "written" by a DOG! <vbg>
>
> -JovBill
A Republican dog, I might add. Though, an insider tome from the
current First Dog might do well. Buddy's story could be called:
"Monica, Kathleen and Paula, et al: Yet They Neutered *ME*."
An excerpt:
"Today, a strange lesson from The Master. I let loose again inside,
but because it was on the leg of one those humans always standing
outside the door, the Master, instead of scolding me, made the
very-much-pleased sound and remarked: 'There's something he can
testify to Starr about.' Very much confusing, these humans."
Will
P.S. This this thread began with a comment about Speaker Newt, here's
a site
Those of you who are uncertain what to think of him, read his own
words and base your opinion on that, not the filtered opinions of his
supporters and detractors.
Bill Dauphin
William G. Jennings wrote:
> I think Rush is a special case because as long as his critics could
> keep other people's perceptions of him second hand they could continue
> to portray him as some kind of 'end of the specturm' kook. The last
> thing certain elements of the Left wanted was for people with open
> minds to digest Rush first hand. He communicates too cohertently a
> differing viewpoint with unarguable rationale.
Will: I really don't mean to offend, and I know I risk being tarred as one of those
dadgum lib'rals by even saying this, but this comment strikes me a more than a little
bit paranoid. I have friends whose convictions lie all along the political spectrum, and
virtually all of them -- no matter whether left, right, or center -- are sincere, well
meaning, intellectually honest people. Certainly I've noticed no particular tendency for
liberals or centrists to be any more likely to lie about, or suppress the ideas of, the
"other side." Folks who have faith in their own convictions (and yes, some people other
than conservatives *do* have faith in their convictions) don't *need* to suppress
opposing ideas: If you're convinced that what you believe is correct and true, then
other ideas can't threaten you.
The sad fact is that ideas have been all but lost in recent political discourse.
There's *always* room to challenge public policy ideas with which you disagree -- in
fact, a thoughtful voter is virtually obligated to speak out in support of the ideas
s/he believes in, and to challenge those s/he disagrees with. But this notion of evil,
cowardly liberals lurking in bookstores is reminiscent of the medieval tales of Jews
stealing gentile babies: It's just reflexive, baseless demonization of the "other," and
it has nothing to do with useful political discourse. Lest you think I'm just a whining
liberal, I didn't like it any better when liberals did during the Reagan and Bush
administrations. Politics should be about seeking consensus regarding our common civil
life, but in recent years it's been less and less about good government and more and
more about winning... and in very recent years, it's become obvious that merely winning
isn't sufficient: Everyone -- on all sides -- seems Hell-bent on humiliating and
destroying the opposition. This nastiness *always* damages the body politic, even if it
turns out to be deserved in one case or another.
-JovBill
Yog Sysop
>Jim--
> So we disagree. Have you read the other Forstchen book and what
>did you think of those?
There are several other Forstchen books. They're all pretty
awful in the prose department, but they really started going
downhill after Fortschen and his wife split up.
Wayne Morgan
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> (Comments on "reasonable discourse" snipped)
> The sad fact is that ideas have been all but lost in recent political discourse.
> There's *always* room to challenge public policy ideas with which you disagree -- in
> fact, a thoughtful voter is virtually obligated to speak out in support of the ideas
> s/he believes in, and to challenge those s/he disagrees with. But this notion of evil,
> cowardly liberals lurking in bookstores is reminiscent of the medieval tales of Jews
> stealing gentile babies: It's just reflexive, baseless demonization of the "other," and
> it has nothing to do with useful political discourse. Lest you think I'm just a whining
> liberal, I didn't like it any better when liberals did during the Reagan and Bush
> administrations. Politics should be about seeking consensus regarding our common civil
> life, but in recent years it's been less and less about good government and more and
> more about winning... and in very recent years, it's become obvious that merely winning
> isn't sufficient: Everyone -- on all sides -- seems Hell-bent on humiliating and
> destroying the opposition. This nastiness *always* damages the body politic, even if it
> turns out to be deserved in one case or another.
>
> This is possibly because 'negative campaigning' has proven so effective (and why should
> anyone be surprised at that; it's what Hitler, Stalin, and others have used for ages).
> It's also possibly because we get our information in "sound bites", which are easily
> manipulated.
Wayne Morgan
news.sff.net
William G. Jennings <geea...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3562181A...@hotmail.com>...
>
> I think Rush is a special case because as long as his critics could
> keep other people's perceptions of him second hand they could continue
> to portray him as some kind of 'end of the specturm' kook. The last
> thing certain elements of the Left wanted was for people with open
> minds to digest Rush first hand. He communicates too cohertently a
> differing viewpoint with unarguable rationale.
>
I found him quite arguable, even when I agreed with him. I was not
impressed with his rationality, but was most impressed with his biases.
I didn't find this too annoying until a group of people published a list of
factual things Rush Limbaugh had just plain wrong. This list didn't bother
me at all; anyone who talks that much is going to be wrong frequently,
including myself- people make mistakes. What bothered me was his response
to the list, also published- a list every bit as full of side-stepping, "I
used this lie to illustrate a greater truth" (i.e. You're are too stupid to
understand the truth directly, so I need to create easy examples.), and
other politician's tricks as anything I've ever seen any politician do. He
didn't typically deny that they were right; he sidestepped the questions
and argued irrelevant points having nothing to do with the facts in
question. I don't recall a single admission on his part that he simply
goofed, every admission that he was wrong (not nearly enough of them) came
along with, "I did to illustrate a higher truth" or "No, I can't produce a
single one of the people who I referred to in the show, but they exist
anyway, in large numbers", or something similar.
It wasn't people arguing against Rush Limbaugh that caused me to stop
listening to him, it was Rush himself.
Filksinger
<<Big Charlie>>
JovBill--
>>Certainly I've noticed no particular tendency for liberals or centrists
>>to be any more likely to lie about, or suppress the ideas of, the
>>"other side."
Excuse me? How about people like William Shockly, Clarence Thomas
and Phyllis Schafley being being harassed out of speaking dates on
colleges in the name of "free speech"?
Bill Dauphin
<<Big Charlie>> wrote:
>
> JovBill--
>
> >>Certainly I've noticed no particular tendency for liberals or centrists
> >>to be any more likely to lie about, or suppress the ideas of, the
> >>"other side."
>
> Excuse me? How about people like William Shockly, Clarence Thomas
> and Phyllis Schafley being being harassed out of speaking dates on
> colleges in the name of "free speech"?
I'm not familiar with the specific incidents you cite, and so can't speak to them... but
I don't doubt they happened. If you think about it real hard, you can probably remember
cases of conservatives being equally obnoxious. It's a fact of life all up and down
the political spectrum that some folks are hypocrites and some are just plain jerks. But
it's also true, thankfully, that most of our fellow citizens are *NOT* jerks, and
*that's* true all up and down the spectrum as well. I stand by my assertion that you
can't judge a person's sincerity, intellectual honesty, or ethics by hir stand on
abortion or gay marriage or national health policy or any of the other issues that
divide conservatives and liberals.
We need to always remember that the folks who disagree with us are not necessarily
traitors or godless fiends; they're just folks who disagree with us. And (as Stuart
Smalley would say), that's... OK. Seriously, the fact that sincere, patriotic men and
women of good will can disagree on issue of public policy without being condemned or
jailed is the bedrock of our society.
-JovBill
joe
Newt may read Heinlein but definately doesn't incorporate it into his
political ideology. Newts district recieves more govt money than any
other in th US. He Caters to the Very rich and would trounce on
individual liberty at the drop of a hat. As far as Asimov I remember
reading in Heinleins writings that he was very fond of Asimov..
joe
Wasn't fond of Asimov.
joe
Newt may read RAH but he definately doesn't incorporate his teachings
into his political ideology. Newts represents the Very rich and has no
problems with restricting individual freedoms. I find RAH to be a great
teacher and am offended that he even be associated with Newt.
Wayne Morgan
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> <<Big Charlie>> wrote:
> >
> > JovBill--
> >
> > >>Certainly I've noticed no particular tendency for liberals or centrists
> > >>to be any more likely to lie about, or suppress the ideas of, the
> > >>"other side."
> >
> > Excuse me? How about people like William Shockly, Clarence Thomas
> > and Phyllis Schafley being being harassed out of speaking dates on
> > colleges in the name of "free speech"?
>
> I'm not familiar with the specific incidents you cite, and so can't speak to them... but
> I don't doubt they happened. If you think about it real hard, you can probably remember
> cases of conservatives being equally obnoxious. It's a fact of life all up and down
> the political spectrum that some folks are hypocrites and some are just plain jerks. But
> it's also true, thankfully, that most of our fellow citizens are *NOT* jerks, and
> *that's* true all up and down the spectrum as well. I stand by my assertion that you
> can't judge a person's sincerity, intellectual honesty, or ethics by hir stand on
> abortion or gay marriage or national health policy or any of the other issues that
> divide conservatives and liberals.
>
> (snipped)
Please, relate to me a story of "conservatives" being equally obnoxious. I haven't heard of
any.
Wayne Morgan
William J. Keaton
joe wrote in message <356421...@yahoo.com>...
>Wasn't fond of Asimov..
Who wasn't? You or someone else?
WJaKe
Cecil Rose
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
><<Big Charlie>> wrote:
>>
>> JovBill--
>>
>> >>Certainly I've noticed no particular tendency for liberals or centrists
>> >>to be any more likely to lie about, or suppress the ideas of, the
>> >>"other side."
>>
>> Excuse me? How about people like William Shockly, Clarence Thomas
>> and Phyllis Schafley being being harassed out of speaking dates on
>> colleges in the name of "free speech"?
>I'm not familiar with the specific incidents you cite, and so can't speak to them... but
>I don't doubt they happened. If you think about it real hard, you can probably remember
>cases of conservatives being equally obnoxious. It's a fact of life all up and down
>the political spectrum that some folks are hypocrites and some are just plain jerks. But
>it's also true, thankfully, that most of our fellow citizens are *NOT* jerks, and
>*that's* true all up and down the spectrum as well. I stand by my assertion that you
>can't judge a person's sincerity, intellectual honesty, or ethics by hir stand on
>abortion or gay marriage or national health policy or any of the other issues that
>divide conservatives and liberals.
>We need to always remember that the folks who disagree with us are not necessarily
>traitors or godless fiends; they're just folks who disagree with us. And (as Stuart
>Smalley would say), that's... OK. Seriously, the fact that sincere, patriotic men and
>women of good will can disagree on issue of public policy without being condemned or
>jailed is the bedrock of our society.
No, actually, off-hand I can't think of a single case of a speaker
from the left being hounded off the stage of an American university by
right-wingers. Can you?
____________________________________________________________
Cecil Rose <ala...@earthlink.net>
Cary, North Carolina
Member: Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Critters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael P. Calligaro
Wayne Morgan wrote in message <3564248C...@indy.net>...
>Please, relate to me a story of "conservatives" being equally obnoxious. I
haven't heard of
>any.
Was McCarthy a liberal or a conservative? I don't know for sure, but he
acted like a conservative.
bytor
Bill Dauphin
Wayne Morgan wrote:
> Please, relate to me a story of "conservatives" being equally obnoxious. I haven't heard of
> any.
Coincidentally, just this evening I saw a TV news story about several unexploded acid
bombs being discovered at an abortion clinic. They apparently don't know who planted
them, but I think I'm safe in guessing it wasn't the local ACLU. Likewise, it wasn't
liberals who tried to ban doctors from even *talking* to certain patients about a legal
medical procedure. How's *that* for free speech?
I pick those examples despite the fact that I personally oppose abortion. My point --
and the point I was trying to make in the previous post -- is that the folks we agree
with are just as likely to contain a few bad apples as the folks we disagree with. I
*don't* intend to get involved in a shouting match over whether liberals or
conservatives are "worse"; if we could deal more with the merits of ideas and policies
and less with personal attacks on the people who hold them, the quality or our public
discourse would be *much* better.
-JovBill
Bill Dauphin
Cecil Rose wrote:
> No, actually, off-hand I can't think of a single case of a speaker
> from the left being hounded off the stage of an American university by
> right-wingers. Can you?
How 'bout the entire internet being "hounded off the stage" (however briefly) by
legislative censorship? But I shouldn't pursue that thought, since I *don't* want to get
sucked into a game of "can you top this" on this issue; that's the whole thing I'm
arguing against. If you're committed to the notion that all conservatives are saints and
all liberals are freedom-hating devils, there's probably nothing I can say to change
your mind. But *I* don't buy that notion. I think there's a roughly even sprinkling of
saints and devils across all philosophies and belief systems, and that most of us are
somewhere in between.
-JovBill
Wayne Morgan
Bill Dauphin wrote:
We're always going to have folks on opposite sides of any spectrum who would rather fight - for
any reason - rather that listen. However, I was asking about examples specific to your example;
conservatives who have booed a liberal speaker off the stage simply for trying to state his/her
beliefs.
Wayne Morgan
mac...@alaska.net
In article <35644...@news.sff.net>,
"William J. Keaton" <wj...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> joe wrote in message <356421...@yahoo.com>...
> >Wasn't fond of Asimov..
He was correcting an earlier post in which he had stated that Robert A.
Heinlein _was_ very fond of Asimov... but he didn't give a specific citation.
I've never read anything to support that idea in any of RAH's writings, but
it's clear from "I.Asimov: A Memoir" that Asimov thought RAH was not one to
brook any opposition to his opinions, and therefore hard to get along with,
since Asimov was a "Liberal" (crudely speaking in the usual current US pop
usage of the term) and RAH was a "Conservative" (crudely speaking etc as
before), and that they were definitely not close friends at any time after
the middle 40's if then, although each could objectively recognize the
importance of the other as a writer in the SF pantheon. But it's interesting
that Dr. A. based that opinion (if I read his autobio correctly) on his
experiences with RAH at the Phila Navy Yard, which was _before_ he married
Virginia, whom Dr. A. blames for RAH's "swing to the Right". It's still a
bit confusing to me. Maybe we'll never know for sure.
<<Big Charlie>>
JovBill--
Using the abortion clinic bombers as an example is no more valid
that considering the unabomber typical of liberals.
I am not claiming all conservatives are pure in heart (and I don't
consider myself a conservative; I am a libertarian). But I have seen
far more examples of intolerance of other opinions from liberals that
from conservatives.
Liberals don't care how you live, as long as they have your money.
Conservatives don't care that you have your money, as long as you
live like they KNOW you should live.
daup...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Morgan wrote:
> ...However, I was asking about examples specific to your example;
> conservatives who have booed a liberal speaker off the stage simply for trying to state his/her
> beliefs.
That was someone else's example originally, and I ever *meant* to
respond to it all that specifically. *My* point is that it's unfair --
and more importantly, counterproductive -- to use the bad behavior of a
few people to demonize everyone who shares their philosophy. The old
joke about Mussolini was "yes, he was a Fascist, but he made the trains
run on time." Imagine if I tried to generalize from that that everyone
who cares about meeting schedules is a Fascist? It would be similarly
foolish to suggest that because some (presumably) liberal protesters
shouted down Phyllis Schlafly at some speaking engagement, that must
mean everyone who supports national health care and abortion rights must
hate free speech. Not only is that sort of illogical namecalling unfair,
it doesn't help us work on improving our government and society, whichis
what political discourse *ought to* be about.
Criticize *behavior* you find reprehensible; refute *ideas* you disagree
with... but don't forget which ic which.
-JovBill
daup...@ix.netcom.com
BC:
> Using the abortion clinic bombers as an example is no more valid
> that considering the unabomber typical of liberals.
Thank you, thank you, *thank you*! This is *exactly* the point I've been
trying to make throughout this thread: That it's invalid to demonize
people based on the abberant behavior of individuals who happen to share
some of their ideas. Historically most abortion clinic bombers *have*
been conservatives, and you'd certainly have to call the Unabomber a
liberal, but as you say, in both cases it's invalid data on which to
base your evaluation of an entire wing of political thought.
> ...But I have seen
> far more examples of intolerance of other opinions from liberals that
> from conservatives.
Not only do I not buy this, but you obviously don't either, since you go
on to say...
> *Liberals don't care how you live,* as long as they have your money.
>
> Conservatives don't care that you have your money, *as long as you
> live like they KNOW you should live.* [emphasis added]
I happen to think both statements are unfair, oversimplified
generalizations, but accepting them for the sake of argument, they boil
down to: "Liberals are greedy libertines; conservatives are intolerant,"
which is inconsistent with your statement above.
-JovBill
William G. Jennings
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> William G. Jennings wrote:
> > I think Rush is a special case because as long as his critics
> could
> > keep other people's perceptions of him second hand they could
> continue
> > to portray him as some kind of 'end of the specturm' kook. The
> last
> > thing certain elements of the Left wanted was for people with open
>
> > minds to digest Rush first hand. He communicates too cohertently a
>
> > differing viewpoint with unarguable rationale.
>
> Will: I really don't mean to offend, and I know I risk being tarred
> as one of those
> dadgum lib'rals by even saying this, but this comment strikes me a
> more than a little
> bit paranoid. I have friends whose convictions lie all along the
> political spectrum, and
> virtually all of them -- no matter whether left, right, or center --
> are sincere, well
> meaning, intellectually honest people. Certainly I've noticed no
> particular tendency for
> liberals or centrists to be any more likely to lie about, or
> suppress the ideas of, the
> "other side." Folks who have faith in their own convictions (and
> yes, some people other
> than conservatives *do* have faith in their convictions) don't
> *need* to suppress
> opposing ideas: If you're convinced that what you believe is correct
> and true, then
> other ideas can't threaten you.
>
> -JovBill
First off, an honest, open, well articulated point never offends me.
Second, I agree that sincere, honest and intellectual people inhabit
all political spectrums.
Third, the blame for negativity of the discourse can be laid almost
without exception on the liberal leadership of the Democratic party,
the leaders of politically active liberal advocacy groups, and their
willing allies in the media.
You come very close to a subject that interests me greatly: the
direction of public political debate.
Listen to when a conservative critizises liberal policies. There point
is: they are failures. We need to try alternatives. Pick any policy
and they can offer clear, concise anectdotal evidence of failure.
Sure, this is negative, but it is also the truth.
When a liberal critizises a conversative, what you get is name
calling, lies and distortions.
Privitasing Social Security. The liberals debate response: Republicans
want to take it away so old people wil starve and die.
Give state and local governments greater control over school lunch.
Liberal debate response. Republicans want to starve children.
Welfare reform: Liberal debate response: Republicans are racists.
Re-examine environmental policies, loosening the overly restrictive
and unreasonable ones. Liberal debate tactic: Republicans want to
poison the air and dirty the water.
Any tax cut. Liberal debate response: Taking from the poor to give to
the rich.
This shift came in the 80's. Ronald Reagan was The Great Communicator.
Liberals realized an open, honest debate of the issues by a good
communicator, like Reagan, (now like Limbaugh), would expose the
seemingly utter intellecual bankruptcy of modern liberal thought.
Don't debate the facts, just call your opponents names. Change the
focus from ideas to personalities. Distort your opponents position.
School Lunch is a perfect example. Both sides wanted to increase
spending per student. Exact numbers escape me, but I think it was
something like 19 cents per student by the Democrats, 12 cents more
per student by Republicans. No one on either side was advocating a
cut, yet the Liberal leadership with the help of a willing media, kept
shrieking and shreiking about the Republican cuts for the school lunch
programs. Republicans want to starve your children.
The recent flap over the Hubbell tapes is quite illustrative of
liberal hypocrisy. Burton and his staff NEVER altered any tapes. They
simply transcribed only the sections that buttressed their points. The
entire tapes were there for any reporter to listen to, including
Hubbell's statements exonerating Hillary Clinton.
Now go back to the Social Security debate in '95, the liberals, with
malaice and forethought, deliberatly spliced together different
sections of a Newt Gingrich speech to make it sound like he wanted
Social Security to 'wither on the vine'. What Gingrich was referring
to was a governmental agency who's functions could be better switched
to the private sector, that particular agency then would 'wither on
the vine.' because the better performing private sector alternative
would be used.
I feel strongly that Truth will arise from an open, honest debate. I
believe its possible for honorable people to reach different
conclusions when exposed to the same set of arguments. For instance,
having read just about every book on the JFK assasination, the most
convincing presentation leads me to believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a
sad, pathetic loner with delusions of granduer who acted alone.
I don't know what the modern liberal believes because they don't
explain or defend their beliefs: they simply attack Conservatives as
bigoted, racist, misogynist, child killing, environment destroying
Nazis. The liberal leadership, those who are annointed or
self-proclaimed spokespersons, seem unwilling respond by articulating
their visions and beliefs.
If vouchers aren't the answer to our educations problems; what is the
Liberal alternative?
If not letting the average tax payer keep more of their income isn't a
way to help the economy; what is the Liberal alternative?
If gradual privatization isn't the way to save Social Security; what
is the Liberal alternative?
If Affirmative Action penalizes innocent white males; what is the
Liberal plan to address that particular inequity?
The only Liberal response I've ever heard to any problem is: create
more bureaucracies and spend more money. This has failed in almost
every case. It reminds of someone's definition of insanity. It's doing
the exact same thing over and over again and expecting a different
result.
Modern American political debate consists of Republicans offering an
alternative solution, and the Left responding with name calling.
Insults seem to have supremacy over ideas among the modern American
liberal. All we hear from them is: We feel your pain -- those other
people are just a bunch of Nazis.
I'm a firm believer that the best solution to a problem arises as a
result of rational, diverse debate. Since the 80's, its become
increasingly evident the leadership of modern American liberalism
believes problem solving consists mainly of painting your idealogical
opponents as evil, insensitive radicals, and preserving at all costs
an imperfect status quo. That's not a vision. That's not a plan.
That's not a solution.
Countless numbers of Americans lie in their graves, and Memorial Day
gives us a particular opportunity to dwell on this. These heroes did
not give up their lives so Democracy in America could degenerate to
the Politics of Insult. Their sacrifice helped preserve the Right to
Free Expression, the Right to state divigent political views without
fear of reprisal. So, I ask:
What is so abhorent about their beliefs that requires the modern
liberal to insult their opponents rather than articulate their own
convictions?
I have my own theory about that, but this is already too long and I am
weary. That a problem confronting the most politically free and open
country in the history of this planet should be the choice of one
political philosophy to respond with demagogory to the critical issues
of the day rather than engage in free and open debate is quite
depressing to me.
Will
William G. Jennings
joe wrote:
Newt & RAH share the belief in the abilities of the Common Man to
excell best where government is limited: political conservativism.
They do diverge on social issues: Heinlein was more libertarian.
I am always amused when any politician is 'attacked' for representing
the Very Rich. Is it your contention that the Very Rich, by virtue of
their wealth, should be denied political representation?
What other groups, races, religions, et al bother you to have
political representatives catering to them?
Will
Valeria Palmer
> >>Certainly I've noticed no particular tendency for liberals or centrists
> >>to be any more likely to lie about, or suppress the ideas of, the
> >>"other side."
>
> Excuse me? How about people like William Shockly, Clarence Thomas
> and Phyllis Schafley being being harassed out of speaking dates on
> colleges in the name of "free speech"?
>
<er> Getting $20K + for an hour of time isn't what I'd call free speech.
<smartass mode off> However, I don't think you can think of paid speakers as
being silensed if some of the people who paid for the speech take vocal
exception to it. From my long-ago days as a student activities programmer, I
can recall many times when the university booked speakers and required that
the speaking fees be paid from student activity money - regardless of whether
the students from whom the money was required quarterly - had any interest in
hearing that speaker. Free speech, IMHO, isn't the issue with paid speakers
- they're in the theatrical or fund-raising business and if I have paid for
their performance then I can boo or hiss to my heart's delight. Which makes
me in bad taste, not a violator of someone's Constitutional rights.
Valeria <Republican, RAH fan since age 11, feminist, etc.>
Valeria Palmer
> No, actually, off-hand I can't think of a single case of a speaker
> from the left being hounded off the stage of an American university by
> right-wingers. Can you?
I can cite instances of speakers not being booked because a conservative college
administration refused to let the student programming office hire them even though the
students who were PAYING had requested that speaker. That's MUCH more an issue of free
speech than when the people whose money is paying for the speaker arte bad mannered enough to
publically (and koudly) disagree.
Valeria Palmer
> Is Gingrich typical of Republicans?
> That's a question that even Republicans can't answer! (I'm only semi-joking
> here). Seriously, I'm not sure what a "typical" Republican is. I live in
> one of the most Republican counties in the country, yet we have a wide
> variety of people in the party (even among office holders). I would say
> that Gingrich is fairly typical of newer, younger Republican office-holders
> from the conservative wing of the party (though Gingrich is not himself
> particularly new or young), though perhaps not as attached to the religious
> interests as many of those are.
>
I live in Noot's congrssional district and he isn't even typical of the
Republicans in his district. He gets BIG redneck vote and every election he
gets more primary opposition. But he gets big GOP money because his GOP
primary opponents might not get the redneckerson vote and the GOP is afraid of
losing his seat. Driving through the area, I see many Bewt Noot bumperstickers
- right next to other stickers inidcating that the car belongs to someone with
Republican sentiments.
Valeria Palmer
> It's a pretty good explanation, but leaves me (a U.S. citizen) wondering why
> Martin thinks Gingrich is more powerful than Trent Lott, the majority leader
> in the Senate. I'm not sure about the relative political power of the upper
> house in Canada's Federal governement, but it's certainly the case that
> compared to the House of Lords in the UK, the U.S. Senate is much more
> important in governance... and that's another significant difference between
> the U.S. system and most parliamentary ones I'm aware of.
Noot's position is more analogous to Strom Thurmond's position as President pro
tempore of the Senate, than Lott's. For example, Noot and Strom both are in the
line of succession to the President by virtue of being Speaker and PPT, while
majority leaders are further down the feeding chain.
Valeria Palmer
> Newt may read Heinlein but definately doesn't incorporate it into his
> political ideology. Newts district recieves more govt money than any
> other in th US. He Caters to the Very rich and would trounce on
> individual liberty at the drop of a hat.
He also caters to the "trailer, pickup and 2 hound dog rednecks" in his
district - but, yes, he's not very much at all in favorof individual
choice and individual responsibility.
<<Big Charlie>>
JovBill--
You wrote:
>> ...But I have seen
>> far more examples of intolerance of other opinions from liberals that
>> from conservatives.
>Not only do I not buy this, but you obviously don't either, since you go
>on to say...
Wrong. I named three examples jsut from memory of conservative
speakers who have been booed of stage or disinvited after protests by
those who claim to be "tolerant". I have NOT seen from you or elsewhere
any examples of conservatives doing this to liberals.
No, I would not particularly care to live under a system where
either side forces their beliefs into law. But over the last several
decades, far more liberal ideas have been pushed there than otherwise.
Bill Dauphin
<<Big Charlie>> wrote:
> >Not only do I not buy this, but you obviously don't either, since you go
> >on to say...
>
> Wrong. I named three examples jsut from memory of conservative
> speakers who have been booed of stage or disinvited after protests by
> those who claim to be "tolerant". I have NOT seen from you or elsewhere
> any examples of conservatives doing this to liberals.
Nor would you see such examples from me, even if I had them, since my whole point is
that that sort of tit-for-tat discourse is counterproductive. Accepting your description
of these incidents (since I don't know the details myself), I would only comment that
booing and "disinviting" sound to me more like *exercises* of freedom rather than
suppression of same. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to sponsor or accept or even listen
to ideas you disagree with; it does mean you shouldn't try to make them illegal.
But in any case, I was responding to *your* description of conservatives: For my money,
someone insisting that I "live like they KNOW [I] should live," opposed to living how
*I* feel I should live, is the very definition of intolerance. As I said in my previous
post, *I* wouldn't tar all conservatives with that brush... but I do note that
conservatives' most common complaint about liberals' social ideas is that they're too
"permissive," which sounds to my ear more like *too tolerant* than intolerant.
Personally, I'd rather consider ideas, policies, and politicians individually, on their
merits, rather than applying one of only two or three labels to each and then
reflexively treating everything with either contempt or adulation depending on the
label.
-JovBill
Cecil Rose
"Michael P. Calligaro" <mik...@mystikeep.com> wrote:
>Wayne Morgan wrote in message <3564248C...@indy.net>...
>>Please, relate to me a story of "conservatives" being equally obnoxious. I
>haven't heard of
>>any.
>Was McCarthy a liberal or a conservative? I don't know for sure, but he
>acted like a conservative.
Weren't we talking of speaker being hounded from podiums or prevented
from speaking on college campuses in the first place? What has this
to do with McCarthy?
McCarthy is usually poRtrayed as some kind of conservative
right-winger (by liberals). I can't think of an conservative stands
he took, off hand. On the other hand, many conservatives have
defended some of his ideas, aT least, if not his practices (Wm F.
Buckley wrote a book, for instance). On the other hand, one of his
principle staffers, visible right there along-side tail-gunner Joe on
the tapes of the Army-McCarthy hearings, was none other than Robert F.
Kennedy.
Cecil Rose
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wayne Morgan wrote:
>> Please, relate to me a story of "conservatives" being equally obnoxious. I haven't heard of
>> any.
>Coincidentally, just this evening I saw a TV news story about several unexploded acid
>bombs being discovered at an abortion clinic. They apparently don't know who planted
>them, but I think I'm safe in guessing it wasn't the local ACLU. Likewise, it wasn't
>liberals who tried to ban doctors from even *talking* to certain patients about a legal
>medical procedure. How's *that* for free speech?
Weren't thes doctors being funded by the federal government, and
wasn't this a matter of federal policy, as decided by our
representatives? The right to free speech does not include the right
to have your speech subsidized.
Cecil Rose
daup...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Wayne Morgan wrote:
>> ...However, I was asking about examples specific to your example;
>> conservatives who have booed a liberal speaker off the stage simply for trying to state his/her
>> beliefs.
>That was someone else's example originally, and I ever *meant* to
>respond to it all that specifically. *My* point is that it's unfair --
>and more importantly, counterproductive -- to use the bad behavior of a
>few people to demonize everyone who shares their philosophy.
Unless, of course, it's not just a few people, but a consistent
pattern of behavior by people of one viewpoint, and not their
opponents.
Bill Dauphin
Cecil Rose wrote:
> Weren't thes doctors being funded by the federal government, and
> wasn't this a matter of federal policy, as decided by our
> representatives? The right to free speech does not include the right
> to have your speech subsidized.
It's the access to health care that's subsidized by Medicare/Medicaid, not the *content*
of the doctor's advice. We're not talking about federally funded abortions, here
(which, BTW, I personally would strongly oppose)... we're talking about forbidding
doctors from even acknowledging that such a procedure exists. You're welcome to your own
opinion about that; it sounds pretty Owellian to me (not to mention bizarrely
impractical to enforce).
-JovBill
Wayne Morgan
Bill Dauphin wrote:
It's obviously NOT impractical to enforce, since the government and courts have enforced
the silence on certain non-violent groups who opposed abortion. We're not talking about
people physically interfering with a woman's "right" to abortion, we're talking about
situations where people were forbidden to pray in front of abortion clinics. Freedom of
speech should work both ways, don't you think?
Wayne Morgan
Eli Hestermann
daup...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Criticize *behavior* you find reprehensible; refute *ideas* you disagree
> with... but don't forget which ic which.
"Small minds discuss people. Mediocre minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas."
OWTTE. I'm sorry, but attribution escapes me. I'll look it up and post it unless somebody beats me
to it.
E
--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehest...@whoi.edu
http://www.mit.edu/people/octavian/eli.html
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca
Eli Hestermann
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> I know it's a vain hope, but I really believe if we could get away from this
> are-too/am-not mode and start
> dealing with the content of each other's ideas, we could actually make some progress on
> some of the divisions in this society. Ahhh... windmills ahead! Pardon me while I
> tilt... <vbg>
Well said! Sign me on for the role of Sancho!
Everybody sing: "Dream the impossible dream..."
> PS: None of the above should be construed as a put-down of anyone on this newsgroup:
> This forum has hosted some of the most thoughtful political discussions I've ever
> "heard"; it's just a d@mn shame it's the exception rather than the rule.
Of course, there's a selective process that goes on at the level of reading and posting to
this group in the first place. <vbg>
Eli Hestermann
All-
I thought JovBill has been doing quite nicely carrying his side of this
thread and have been staying out of the way, but he's starting to sound
tired and lonely, so I'll attempt to back up what he's been saying here.
William G. Jennings wrote:
> First off, an honest, open, well articulated point never offends me.
>
> Second, I agree that sincere, honest and intellectual people inhabit
> all political spectrums.
>
> Third, the blame for negativity of the discourse can be laid almost
> without exception on the liberal leadership of the Democratic party,
> the leaders of politically active liberal advocacy groups, and their
> willing allies in the media.
In order to reconcile points 2 and 3, either recognizing "sincere, honest
and intellectual" liberals doesn't necessarily prohibit "negativity of the
discourse" being "laid almost without exception on the liberal leadership"
or there are plenty "sincere, honest and intellectual" liberals, but not
in the leadership. Neither seems likely to me.
> You come very close to a subject that interests me greatly: the
> direction of public political debate.
>
> Listen to when a conservative critizises liberal policies. There point
> is: they are failures. We need to try alternatives. Pick any policy
> and they can offer clear, concise anectdotal evidence of failure.
> Sure, this is negative, but it is also the truth.
>
> When a liberal critizises a conversative, what you get is name
> calling, lies and distortions.
This sort of over-generalization is exactly the sort of discussing
people's behavior and not their ideas that everyone seems to be decrying,
but yet in which some continue to engage. You might respond that they
haven't presented any ideas to discuss, in which case I would say they're
defending the status quo and one can simply debate why hir idea is better
than that. It doesn't require condemning their behavior. If you truly
believe good ideas will win out, then argue the ideas. If you don't, then
you're sunk from the beginning and might as well attack the opposition
personally.
> I don't know what the modern liberal believes because they don't
> explain or defend their beliefs: they simply attack Conservatives as
> bigoted, racist, misogynist, child killing, environment destroying
> Nazis. The liberal leadership, those who are annointed or
> self-proclaimed spokespersons, seem unwilling respond by articulating
> their visions and beliefs.
<following section relocated out of context to string together similar
points>
> Modern American political debate consists of Republicans offering an
> alternative solution, and the Left responding with name calling.
> Insults seem to have supremacy over ideas among the modern American
> liberal. All we hear from them is: We feel your pain -- those other
> people are just a bunch of Nazis.
Granted I don't follow public debate among leading political thinkers as
much as I might, but I've only heard one such person call anyone a Nazi,
and that was in the contraction "Feminazi." I would guess from this
person's stated views that he should be labelled a conservative. <wry
grin> This is not behavior I would call espousing one's ideas rather than
attacking the opponent.
> If vouchers aren't the answer to our educations problems; what is the
> Liberal alternative?
>
> If not letting the average tax payer keep more of their income isn't a
> way to help the economy; what is the Liberal alternative?
>
> If gradual privatization isn't the way to save Social Security; what
> is the Liberal alternative?
>
> If Affirmative Action penalizes innocent white males; what is the
> Liberal plan to address that particular inequity?
Each of these presupposes a problem which it can be argued doesn't exist,
and therefore doesn't need to be addressed. Even presupposing the
problem, again I would say that a lack of alternatives indicates support
for the current system. Tell me why yours is better.
I don't have too many liberal leanings myself, so I can't do justice to a
similar list from the other side of the aisle, but they exist. Here's the
first example that came to mind:
If health care is prohibitively expensive for a large portion of our
population, what is the Conservative plan to address that particular
inequity?
> The only Liberal response I've ever heard to any problem is: create
> more bureaucracies and spend more money. This has failed in almost
> every case. It reminds of someone's definition of insanity. It's doing
> the exact same thing over and over again and expecting a different
> result.
Nearly anything you want government to do will create a bureaucracy which
requires money to support. For example, one might characterize the
administration of any school voucher program as the creation of another
bureaucracy. Even ideas that require government to do less in the long
run initially require more bureaucracy, e.g. privatizing Social Security
will need some system to transfer the money while the old system is still
in place. Creating new bureaucracies isn't an end; it's a means to
anything a group of people does.
> I'm a firm believer that the best solution to a problem arises as a
> result of rational, diverse debate. Since the 80's, its become
> increasingly evident the leadership of modern American liberalism
> believes problem solving consists mainly of painting your idealogical
> opponents as evil, insensitive radicals, and preserving at all costs
> an imperfect status quo. That's not a vision. That's not a plan.
> That's not a solution.
I'm a firm believer that our system of government doesn't work as well as
it could. I still choose to defend it against what I believe are worse
systems. I don't have a better alternative than what we have now, so all
I can do is tell you why your plan is worse. I guess it's not a vision, a
plan, nor a solution, but neither is it a lack of ideas or a personal
attack. It's possible to be "sincere, honest and intellectual" and still
support the current way of doing things against competing ideas.
> Countless numbers of Americans lie in their graves, and Memorial Day
> gives us a particular opportunity to dwell on this. These heroes did
> not give up their lives so Democracy in America could degenerate to
> the Politics of Insult. Their sacrifice helped preserve the Right to
> Free Expression, the Right to state divigent political views without
> fear of reprisal. So, I ask:
>
> What is so abhorent about their beliefs that requires the modern
> liberal to insult their opponents rather than articulate their own
> convictions?
<sigh> The word "abhorent" in the above brings in the sort of insult that
you are deploring. Free speach means the freedom to insult your opponent;
the alternative has been shown to us in the views of those wishing to be
"politically correct." In that respect, those we honor ever day, but
especially on Memorial Day did "give up their lives so Democracy in
America could degenerate to the Politics of Insult," if we so choose. I
desparately hope it doesn't, but they died for the freedom to choose, not
for any particular choice.
> I have my own theory about that, but this is already too long and I am
> weary. That a problem confronting the most politically free and open
> country in the history of this planet should be the choice of one
> political philosophy to respond with demagogory to the critical issues
> of the day rather than engage in free and open debate is quite
> depressing to me.
More than one political philosophy engages in this behavior, and what
really depresses me is that they wouldn't do it if it didn't work at least
some of the time.
Tell us your views, please. Trust us to respect that and attach more
value to your opinion because you don't insult your opponent. If you lack
that trust, then you can't really believe that rational debate in a
democracy will yield the best solution.
news.sff.net
Eli Hestermann <ehest...@whoi.edu> wrote in article
<356AC7AC...@whoi.edu>...
> Bill Dauphin wrote:
>
> > I know it's a vain hope, but I really believe if we could get away from
this
> > are-too/am-not mode and start
> > dealing with the content of each other's ideas, we could actually make
some progress on
> > some of the divisions in this society. Ahhh... windmills ahead! Pardon
me while I
> > tilt... <vbg>
>
> Well said! Sign me on for the role of Sancho!
>
> Everybody sing: "Dream the impossible dream..."
>
Don't start me singing. You wouldn't like me when I'm singing.
Filksinger
Bill Dauphin
Wayne Morgan wrote:
> ...we're talking about
> situations where people were forbidden to pray in front of abortion clinics.
News of this law must not have reached my church, which holds anti-abortion prayer
vigils all the time.
-JovBill
Bill Dauphin
Eli Hestermann wrote:
> I thought JovBill has been doing quite nicely carrying his side of this
> thread...
Thanks...
> ...but he's starting to sound
> tired and lonely
....I think <vbg>
You quoted:
> > I don't know what the modern liberal believes because they don't
> > explain or defend their beliefs... The liberal leadership, those who are annointed or
> > self-proclaimed spokespersons, seem unwilling respond by articulating
> > their visions and beliefs.
I interject: But those who criticize liberals are somehow certain that those
*unarticulated* visions involve Machiavellian building of bureaucratic empires? It's not
that liberals don't articulate their ideas, it's that you *don't like* their ideas.
That's OK -- I don't like some of them either -- but don't pretend something else is
going on. <sorry, Eli, for using your post to respond to others>
Still quoting:
> > What is so abhorent about [liberals'] beliefs that requires the modern
> > liberal to insult their opponents rather than articulate their own
> > convictions?
.... and you resond:
> <sigh> The word "abhorent" in the above brings in the sort of insult that
> you are deploring....
.... and I (after a moment of quiet applause) add: The "abhorent" beliefs held by the
liberals I know (who are, BTW, *not* shy about expressing their positions) involve a
deep commitment to personal liberty, freedom of ideas, and the dignity of human life.
Essentially, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Not coincidentally, the
conservatives I know share the same beliefs. The argument between the two camps has to
do with how those values work themselves out in the real world: The fact that one group
of people believes their freedom and dignity depend more on their right to own a gun
(for example) than on their right not to be shot and another group believes vice versa
does NOT mean either group is lacking in commitment to the right basic values. Standing
at opposite sides of the room shouting "trigger-happy Fascist!" and "gun-grabbing
Socialist!" at each other accomplishes exactly bupkis toward the critical goal of
reconciling these two very valid concerns about how to promote "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." There are, of course, some evil folks among us, but it's not
their considered opinions about the issues of the day that defines them.
-JovBill
William G. Jennings
Eli Hestermann wrote:
I don't think being sincere, honest and intellectual prevents someone
from degenerating to distorted sloganism during a debate. Good, decent
people can fall into that trap.
It is hard to argue ideas when your opponents won't debate. That's my
point. There are no political discussions any more. The 'debate' is
framed by the Democratic leadership and their willing accomplices in
the media. Republicans offer a plan. Democrats call them names, and
all you hear reported is that Democrats think Republicans want to
starve children, oppress women and minorities, deny the elderly food
and medicine, dirty the air and water, and take from the poor to give
to the rich. No one goes to Newt Gingrich and says: Explain your plan.
They go to him and say: The Democrats say you want to starve children.
Is that true?
Pat Schroeder referred to the Republicans winning the house in '94 was
"goose stepping" their way into power. Charles Rangel routinely refers
to conservatives as the new KKK. One democrat refered to the
Republican plan to save Social Security as the Conservative's "Final
Slution" to the problem of the elderly.
This is a far cry from a radio talk show host's characterization of a
very small number of pro-abortion zealots.
> > If vouchers aren't the answer to our educations problems; what is
> the
> > Liberal alternative?
> >
> > If not letting the average tax payer keep more of their income
> isn't a
> > way to help the economy; what is the Liberal alternative?
> >
> > If gradual privatization isn't the way to save Social Security;
> what
> > is the Liberal alternative?
> >
> > If Affirmative Action penalizes innocent white males; what is the
> > Liberal plan to address that particular inequity?
>
> Each of these presupposes a problem which it can be argued doesn't
> exist,
> and therefore doesn't need to be addressed. Even presupposing the
> problem, again I would say that a lack of alternatives indicates
> support
> for the current system. Tell me why yours is better.
In a debate, I don't think its appropiate to assume the nature my
opponents stance. My opponent should be required to state it. If he
supports the current system, he should be required to detail why. Back
to the point I made earlier. The Republicans do have alternatives. But
the alternatives are never debated because their opponents won't
respond to those alternatives in any way except insults and
distortions.
What is the liberal plan to improve schools? Pour more money into the
current system? If they're going to throw darts at my idea balloons,
they should at least have the courage to give me something of their's
to aim at. Its a fundemental issue of fairness.
>
>
> I don't have too many liberal leanings myself, so I can't do justice
> to a
> similar list from the other side of the aisle, but they exist.
> Here's the
> first example that came to mind:
>
> If health care is prohibitively expensive for a large portion of our
>
> population, what is the Conservative plan to address that particular
>
> inequity?
Put it back in the Private Sector. Force doctors to compete for
patients. Let's see if competition can bring the prices back down.
>
>
> > The only Liberal response I've ever heard to any problem is:
> create
> > more bureaucracies and spend more money. This has failed in almost
>
> > every case. It reminds of someone's definition of insanity. It's
> doing
> > the exact same thing over and over again and expecting a different
>
> > result.
>
> Nearly anything you want government to do will create a bureaucracy
> which
> requires money to support. For example, one might characterize the
> administration of any school voucher program as the creation of
> another
> bureaucracy. Even ideas that require government to do less in the
> long
> run initially require more bureaucracy, e.g. privatizing Social
> Security
> will need some system to transfer the money while the old system is
> still
> in place. Creating new bureaucracies isn't an end; it's a means to
> anything a group of people does.
The 'power' from a voucher system will rest mostly within the parent,
not the bureaucrat. The last thing a liberal wants is a citizen who
doesn't need a bureaucrat.
The function of conducting background checks on government employees
was shifted from a government agency to a private agency. If this
governmental function can be switched to the private sector, why can't
others?
>
>
> > I'm a firm believer that the best solution to a problem arises as
> a
> > result of rational, diverse debate. Since the 80's, its become
> > increasingly evident the leadership of modern American liberalism
> > believes problem solving consists mainly of painting your
> idealogical
> > opponents as evil, insensitive radicals, and preserving at all
> costs
> > an imperfect status quo. That's not a vision. That's not a plan.
> > That's not a solution.
>
> I'm a firm believer that our system of government doesn't work as
> well as
> it could. I still choose to defend it against what I believe are
> worse
> systems. I don't have a better alternative than what we have now,
> so all
> I can do is tell you why your plan is worse. I guess it's not a
> vision, a
> plan, nor a solution, but neither is it a lack of ideas or a
> personal
> attack. It's possible to be "sincere, honest and intellectual" and
> still
> support the current way of doing things against competing ideas.
>
This point again: They defenders of the status quo refuse to stack
their beliefs up against their opponents beliefs in the light of day.
Not one liberal has had the courage to stand up and say: "I think the
way we've been doing things is just fine, and I'll tell you way." All
they do is attack the other plans.
Analogy. Baseball. My stance: The Yankees are the best team in
baseball. (Forgive me, my beloved Oakland Athletics!). They have
outstanding starting pitching, a deep bullpen, a solid mix of speed
and power, and a deep bench. If this were a political discussion, the
liberal response would not be: No, I think the Braves are better, and
the reasons are: . . .
The liberal political response would be: I don't like the Yankees.
Strawberry used to do drugs and hit his wife.
Okay, but how does the Braves hitting compare with the Yankees?
Liberal response. And ball players get paid way to much money. They
ought to be forced to give part of their salaries to the poor.
Then what about each team's bullpen? Liberal response.And why did they
give all that money to that Japanese pitcher? They probably passed
over a better qualified black pitcher, the racists!
But the Yankees have a stronger defense, right? Liberal response: And
how come there are no women players? Bunch of misogynists!
It takes two to debate.
I thought long and hard about using abhorent. It seemed most
descriptive. Its use can be debated. I chose it because it strikes me
that if someone simply refuses to detail the ideas they support, then
there must be something terribly wrong with those ideas.
How can we properly "choose" when one side refuses to present an
alternative? How can we properly "choose" when one side is permitted
to do nothing more than distort the position of the other side?
>
>
> > I have my own theory about that, but this is already too long and
> I am
> > weary. That a problem confronting the most politically free and
> open
> > country in the history of this planet should be the choice of one
> > political philosophy to respond with demagogory to the critical
> issues
> > of the day rather than engage in free and open debate is quite
> > depressing to me.
>
> More than one political philosophy engages in this behavior, and
> what
> really depresses me is that they wouldn't do it if it didn't work at
> least
> some of the time.
What depresses me is that it wouldn't work (for either side) if the
American media acted like the Free Press our Founders envisioned and
not the social soulmates of one side of the political spectrum.
What has happened is that the Liberals have tapped into the lazy
streak inherrent in many of us. For too many people it was much easier
to believe Clinton "feels our pain" and the Republicans don't than it
is for them to actually dig into the issues and do the hard work
themselves to learn where the parties really stand. Why pull yourself
up by your own bootstraps when Clinton will take other peoples money
and hire someone to do it for you?
The thing that keeps me going is that the last two elections (94 & 96)
showed enough were digging deep enough to keep the House and Senate
Republican.
>
>
> Tell us your views, please. Trust us to respect that and attach
> more
> value to your opinion because you don't insult your opponent. If
> you lack
> that trust, then you can't really believe that rational debate in a
> democracy will yield the best solution.
This is long enough already. I'll put my views on another rock.
Will
Bill Dauphin
William G. Jennings wrote:
> In a debate, I don't think its appropiate to assume the nature my
> opponents stance. My opponent should be required to state it. If he
> supports the current system, he should be required to detail why.
In fact, in formal competitive debate (I was a debater in high school), the
presumption is that the status quo should continue unless the other side can *prove* it
needs to be changed. It's not even sufficient that the alternative be a good idea; it
must be proven *both* that the status quo is significantly flawed AND that the
proposed solution would materially address those flaws. Just as in a criminal
prosecution (where the presumption is with the defendent), if the team advocating
change can't make a valid prima facie case, the other side need not say a word. (It
never works out that way, of course: Folks don't get involved in debate to *not*
talk! <vbg>)
> Back
> to the point I made earlier. The Republicans do have alternatives.
As Eli pointed out, your emphasis on "alternatives" presumes that certain things are
problems that require solutions, and it's possible not everyone agrees with that
premise. As a matter of fact, liberals and Democrats (not precisely the same set, BTW)
have plenty of "alternatives" to offer (check out their environmental agenda, for
instance), they just happen often to be about things that *Republicans* don't consider
legitimate problems... so what's offered as an "alternative" gets written off as
"another new bureaucracy from those d@mn liberals who have no ideas." And, of course,
the same thing cuts the other way as well.
> What is the liberal plan to improve schools? Pour more money into the
> current system?
OK, I've been trying to avoid direct discussion of particular issues, but, as a former
teacher myself, I happen to have something to say about this one: I couldn't begin to
tell you what the "liberal plan" for schools is, but *my* plan is exactly that: Pour
money into the current system. Virtually *everything* that's wrong with our public
schools (and frankly, there's not as much wrong with them as the doomsayers often claim)
can be remedied by adequate funding. Funds for more teachers (i.e., smaller classes),
better pay for teachers, more schools, better equipment, and more improvements and
better upkeep to the existing equipment and facilities. Frankly, if we'd spend a little
money to make our schools -- particularly the inner city ones -- into "clean,
well-lighted places," it would go a long way toward improving not only education but the
quality of some of our most disadvantaged communities. I've seen schools that were
shining lights of their otherwise blighted neighborhoods -- safe havens of knowledge and
civility that help beat back the ravages of poverty that surround them. But *most* inner
city schools are too poor themselves to manage that level of success. For all the
derision that folks heap on "throwing money at the problem," education is one problem
that desperately requires having money thrown at it. I personally would vote for a 100%
increase in my property taxes if I knew it would all go directly to public school
funding... and I'd *certainly* rather see that $500/child tax credit (is that what
finally got passed) going directy to school funding.
Friends, our schools really don't have many fundamental flaws that money can't fix:
they're full of primarily dedicated, well-educated teachers who work with a fair degree
of intellectual freedom with perfectly adequate curricula... and the institutions
themselves are controlled, to a very large degree, by ordinary grass-roots citizens at
the state and local level (I can't think of another aspect of government that's more
accessible to ordinary citizens, both as candidates and petitiioners, than school
boards).
And to anticipate the likely conservative response, private schools are *NOT* the
answer. I've taught in private schools, and I believe they have an important place in
the mix. But the economics of private schools absolutely cannot support the whole burden
of educating the country. And even the most robust voucher system would only gut public
school funding and *still* fail to provide access to most of the middle class and all of
the poor. Running a private school -- a good one, at least -- is a constant tug of war
with bankruptcy. The marketplace *can't* support them: They rely on vast amounts of
charity, fundraising, and even government grants... and most of them *still* can't
survive without charging ruinously expensive tuition. It's not the rugged, capitalist
panacea it's sometimes portrayed to be.
Finally, publicly funded education is *philosophically* correct in a democracy: The
essential point of education in a free society is not to get Johnny a good job or keep
Janey off drugs; it's to make sure Johnny and Janey are reasonably prepared to
participate in their own government. It's appropriate that all citizens share the burden
of providing that education, since all citizens share in the benefits of participatory
government. Education really is properly a civic function, not a private one.
<Soapbox mode off>
-JovBill
Valeria Palmer
> I believe that the law was crafted /worded to prevent such prayer
> vigils to impede the lawful ingress and egress from the buildings as
> opposed to a carte blanche ban on such practice of freedom of speech.
Yeah, like the excellent Christian who was howiling imprecations at me while I was
walking women into a local clinic on the day scheduled for low-cost mammography. One
thing that gets glossed over often in the reproductive rights debate is that many
so-called "abortion" clinics offer sliding scale pre-natal care, mammography, gyn exams
& contraception services - and that women utilizing these services often are abused by
people exercising their free speech about abortion. Telling a woman she's going to
hell because she has a mammogram at a women's clinic which also offers abortions isn't
exactly free speech.
Valeria Palmer
> >> Weren't thes doctors being funded by the federal government, and
> >> wasn't this a matter of federal policy, as decided by our
> >> representatives? The right to free speech does not include the right
> >> to have your speech subsidized.
>
> >It's the access to health care that's subsidized by Medicare/Medicaid, not the *content*
> >of the doctor's advice. We're not talking about federally funded abortions, here
> >(which, BTW, I personally would strongly oppose)... we're talking about forbidding
> >doctors from even acknowledging that such a procedure exists. You're welcome to your own
> >opinion about that; it sounds pretty Owellian to me (not to mention bizarrely
> >impractical to enforce).
>
> Isn't the doctors advice part of the health care being subsidized?
> Seems perfectly appropriate to em to decide what health care we're
> paying for with tax money through our representatives. Is anybody
> stopping doctors from (outside of government subsidized clinics)
> discussing abortion when their own their own time (or being paid by
> their patients)? I don't think so.
Telling physicians that they cannot answer a patient's questions about a LEGAL procedure is
insanely wrong. It harks back to the 1950s when my mother's physician was barred, by law,
from even mentioning birth control to the young bride. Instead, he sensibly sent his
newlywed patients to a colleague over the state line who could, and did, explain
contraception. This same doctor subsequently - and bravely - put his license and freedom on
the line 7 years later when my mother contracted rubella during the first trimester of her
second pregnancy by telling her that she should consider an abortion and that he would
arrange for if she so chose - given the substantial risk of delivering a deaf, blind and
retarded infant at the same time that my mother was nursing her dying mother.
Yeah, those were the good old days. That's the kind of family values we need. Doctors under
gag orders to prevent them from even answering a patient's questions under threat of license
revocation and imprisonment. Yup.
Cecil Rose
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Cecil Rose wrote:
>> Weren't thes doctors being funded by the federal government, and
>> wasn't this a matter of federal policy, as decided by our
>> representatives? The right to free speech does not include the right
>> to have your speech subsidized.
>It's the access to health care that's subsidized by Medicare/Medicaid, not the *content*
>of the doctor's advice. We're not talking about federally funded abortions, here
>(which, BTW, I personally would strongly oppose)... we're talking about forbidding
>doctors from even acknowledging that such a procedure exists. You're welcome to your own
>opinion about that; it sounds pretty Owellian to me (not to mention bizarrely
>impractical to enforce).
Isn't the doctors advice part of the health care being subsidized?
Seems perfectly appropriate to em to decide what health care we're
paying for with tax money through our representatives. Is anybody
stopping doctors from (outside of government subsidized clinics)
discussing abortion when their own their own time (or being paid by
their patients)? I don't think so.
____________________________________________________________
Cecil Rose <ala...@earthlink.net>
Earthlink address temporarily hors d' combat
But you can try cr...@mis06.dot.state.nc.us
Gary Cavender
On Tue, 26 May 1998 20:08:44 -0700, Bill Dauphin
<daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wayne Morgan wrote:
>> ...we're talking about
>> situations where people were forbidden to pray in front of abortion clinics.
>
>News of this law must not have reached my church, which holds anti-abortion prayer
>vigils all the time.
>
>-JovBill
I believe that the law was crafted /worded to prevent such prayer
vigils to impede the lawful ingress and egress from the buildings as
opposed to a carte blanche ban on such practice of freedom of speech.
Gary
-----------------------------------------------
Please remove words in caps from email to reply
-----------------------------------------------
Michael P. Calligaro
>Don't start me singing. You wouldn't like me when I'm singing.
> Filksinger
JovBill, I'm with you on this.
bytor
--
Michael P. Calligaro
What would you get if you combined a distant spaceport,
six alien races, a group of humans trying desperately to fit
in, and a murder that might unravel the fabric of society?
Find out for free at http://www.mystikeep.com
Filksinger
Bill Dauphin wrote in message <356B8C...@ix.netcom.com>...
<snip>
I really hate posts like the one I am making now, but:
YES!
Or, to quote (roughly, at least) the Master:
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own mind."
In virtually all of these debates, both sides have the same, basic
core values, though sometimes to different degrees. In the gun debate,
both sides believe in the same things, for the most part, but one side
believes guns help support these values while the other side believes
guns destroy these values. Two people can believe in the right to be
safe from violence, to be protected in their freedoms, and to defend
themselves. However, if one believes that owning a gun prevents
violence, protects his freedoms, and defends him against his
attackers, while the other believes that guns cause violence, destroy
freedoms, and that gun ownership is preventing them from defending
themselves from these dangerous causes of crime, death, and
oppression, they will nevertheless be bitter enemies on this issue.
Filksinger
Ed Johnson
On Wed, 27 May 1998 John Paul Vrolyk posted:
> <snip>
>
>Why do (some) people feel that I must have a complete and
>perfect solution to problem in my hand before they'll even
>admit there is a problem? Shouldn't you recognize what the
>problems are first, so that you can then try to fix them?
>
>--
>John Paul Vrolyk
jp: Well said! There is nothing wrong with a thorough discussion
of the problem. This often leads to people coming up with a variety
of solutions; once the 'problem' has been dissected and aired
openly. IMHO
Ed J
Filksinger
Michael P. Calligaro <mik...@mystikeep.com> wrote in article
<356cd...@news.sff.net>...
> >Don't start me singing. You wouldn't like me when I'm singing.
> > Filksinger
> Au contrair. I've heard you sing and it's cool.
>
> JovBill, I'm with you on this.
>
Really? Wow.
At Worldcon in Los Angeles, my five year old daughter came into the
hospitality suite and said, "Daddy, there's a vampire in the hallway!" I
took her out to meet the vampire, though she wasn't inclined to go along
with this.
I told her, "Daddy stays out all night, and vampires never bother her,
because filksinging repels vampires."
The vampire said, "It does?"
I replied, "Of course. Filksinging repels everybody."
Later, at the request of other filksingers, I amended that to, "My
filksinging repels everybody."
Now I've got to add "almost" before the last word. Oh, well.:)
Filksinger
John Paul Vrolyk
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> And to anticipate the likely conservative response, private schools are *NOT* the
> answer. I've taught in private schools, and I believe they have an important place in
> the mix. But the economics of private schools absolutely cannot support the whole burden
> of educating the country. And even the most robust voucher system would only gut public
> school funding and *still* fail to provide access to most of the middle class and all of
> the poor. Running a private school -- a good one, at least -- is a constant tug of war
> with bankruptcy. The marketplace *can't* support them: They rely on vast amounts of
> charity, fundraising, and even government grants... and most of them *still* can't
> survive without charging ruinously expensive tuition. It's not the rugged, capitalist
> panacea it's sometimes portrayed to be.
Depends on just what sort of private school you're talking
about, methinks.
I have passing familiarity with private schools, through
narrowly having avoided being an attendee. Most of the kids
of families in my parent's church went to "christian school".
(We lived too far away for feasible busing.) I'm not talking
about rich people, but lower-middle class farmers and
tradesmen. From stuff I heard and saw, it wasn't always easy
for those families to pay the tuition, but it was far from
"ruinous", and of course they were paying that on top of the
taxes that went to the public school system.
--
John Paul Vrolyk j...@vrolyk.org http://www.vrolyk.org/jp/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yea the whole world seems very strange / In a pleasant kinda way"
-- from "English Bay", by Blue Rodeo
Filksinger
John Paul Vrolyk <j...@vrolyk.org> wrote in article
<3575B8...@vrolyk.org>...
<snip>
> I have passing familiarity with private schools, through
> narrowly having avoided being an attendee. Most of the kids
> of families in my parent's church went to "christian school".
> (We lived too far away for feasible busing.) I'm not talking
> about rich people, but lower-middle class farmers and
> tradesmen. From stuff I heard and saw, it wasn't always easy
> for those families to pay the tuition, but it was far from
> "ruinous", and of course they were paying that on top of the
> taxes that went to the public school system.
Those "christian school" private schools are able to survive only barely,
often not at all, and are heavily subsidized by donations. This will not
work as a replacement for the public school system, unless the vouchers in
question are considerably larger than is generally proposed, because you
simply will not get enough of the required additional money from donations
to support private schools for the majority of students. Such a voucher
program would primarily help those whose income is sufficient to make up
the difference between the voucher and the real costs of private education.
Filksinger
<<Big Charlie>>
Bill
You wrote:
>>but *my* plan is exactly that: Pour money into the current system. >>Virtually *everything* that's wrong with our public schools (and >>frankly, there's not as much wrong with them as the doomsayers often >>claim) can be remedied by adequate funding.
If this were the case, Wash. DC would have the best public schools
int he land (they spend more per student than any of the states--and
twice the national average) and New Hampshire, which is among the
lowest, would have the worst. This is simply not the case.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
"The history of progress is a long, long list of specialists who were
dead wrong when they were the most certain." --SIASL
<<Big Charlie>>
Will--
You wrote:
>>No one goes to Newt Gingrich and says: Explain your plan.
>>They go to him and say: The Democrats say you want to starve
>>children. Is that true?
They don't even do that. They are as likely to say--"Why is it
that you enjoy starving children so much?"
Nuclear Waste
> If this were the case, Wash. DC would have the best public schools
>int he land (they spend more per student than any of the states--and
>twice the national average) and New Hampshire, which is among the
>lowest, would have the worst. This is simply not the case.
>
>--
><<Big Charlie>>
Yes, but, having worked in primary education, I must say that California's
latest exercise in throwing money at a problem seems to be working. (I am
talking about class size reduction. No more than 15 students in a classroom
for the first 3 years.) I no longer teach, other than as a sub, but I have
friends who do, and I know that their kids are progressing at better than
the national average. Very important in the first years.
Not sure if I advocate throwing money at the problems though. Big Charlie
is right. The current success of that method here in CA does not make up
for all of the failures. Peer education, and promotion, whole language,
etc...
In addition to this, all of the programs in the world, no matter how well
thought out will not help a child who does not want to learn. It is very
important for parents _and_teachers to work together to encourage the
children.
Nuclear Waste
Bill Dauphin
John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
> Depends on just what sort of private school you're talking
> about, methinks.
>
> narrowly having avoided being an attendee. Most of the kids
> of families in my parent's church went to "christian school".
> (We lived too far away for feasible busing.) I'm not talking
> about rich people, but lower-middle class farmers and
> tradesmen. From stuff I heard and saw, it wasn't always easy
> for those families to pay the tuition, but it was far from
> "ruinous", and of course they were paying that on top of the
> taxes that went to the public school system.
I agree that the kinds of schools you describe, including traditional Roman Catholic
parochial schools, are somewhat more affordable than many other private schools, but I
still don't think they could even come close to replacing the public schools. For one
thing, even though they're more affordable, they're still expensive: Tuition at even the
cheapest private schools can run to a couple thousand dollars per year per child...
many middle-middle class families -- and even some lower-middle class folks -- can
afford this, albeit at a pretty significant financial hardship, but the poor and working
poor cannot. And they're the primary segment of society whose schools currently need the
most help. *AND* private school tuition would not replace school taxes for these folks,
since they typically don't own their homes and thus usually don't pay any school taxes
anyway. Relief from a tax you don't pay anyway doesn't help much.
For another thing, there simply aren't enough church schools to take up the whole
burden, nor are they usually well enough funded or equipped to match any but the poorest
public schools (I'm talking about typical congregation/parish-supported schools here,
not those expensive private academies that happen to be affiliated with a church or
denominational organization). Church schools are not self-supporting: They're massively
subsidized by the churches that run them... and I don't see any evidence that church
donations are going to increase by the multiples that would be required for these
schools to serve the entire public.
Finally, for many citizens -- poor, middle class, and wealthy alike -- replacing the
public schools with a system built on church-supported education would be a
philosophical anathema. Remember that the first duty of education in a democractic
society is to prepare citizens to vote. Even though I'm a religious person myself, I'm
afraid I believe mixing that role with religious indoctrination on a society-wide scale
would severely threaten freedoms everyone on this forum holds dear.
Just as I said about high-end private schools, there's certainly a place for religious
schools... but I still believe that the public schools must continue to educate the vast
majority of our young citizens... and I still believe the best way to improve our public
schools is to be willing to *pay* for the level of quality we expect and our children
deserve. It's certainly true that "throwing money at the problem" is often a waste, but
it's also true sometimes that "you get what you pay for," and when it comes to public
education, we've generally been pretty miserly.
-JovBill
Filksinger
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<357650...@ix.netcom.com>...
<snip>
> I agree that the kinds of schools you describe, including traditional
Roman Catholic
> parochial schools, are somewhat more affordable than many other private
schools, but I
> still don't think they could even come close to replacing the public
schools. For one
> thing, even though they're more affordable, they're still expensive:
Tuition at even the
> cheapest private schools can run to a couple thousand dollars per year
per child...
> many middle-middle class families -- and even some lower-middle class
folks -- can
> afford this, albeit at a pretty significant financial hardship, but the
poor and working
> poor cannot. And they're the primary segment of society whose schools
currently need the
> most help. *AND* private school tuition would not replace school taxes
for these folks,
> since they typically don't own their homes and thus usually don't pay any
school taxes
> anyway. Relief from a tax you don't pay anyway doesn't help much.
I agree with virtually everything you said in this post, with the exception
of the last few lines above. The poor _do_ pay these taxes. They pay by
renting their living quarters, with a portion of the rent going to pay the
tax. That tax is paid by the tenants.
Whether or not it would be lower is another question entirely.
Filksinger
Bill Dauphin
Filksinger wrote:
> I agree with virtually everything you said in this post,
Like Bartles and Jaymes, "we thank you for your support." <vbg>
> ...with the exception
> of the last few lines above. The poor _do_ pay these taxes. They pay by
> renting their living quarters, with a portion of the rent going to pay the
> tax. That tax is paid by the tenants.
You're right, of course. TANSTAAFL, after all. I should have said they don't pay school
taxes *directly*. I still think, though, that the poor would not benefit much from any
reduction in school taxes: How many landlords do you think would actually lower their
rents if their property taxes went down? And, of course, a reduction in property taxes
wouldn't have any effect on the cost of living in public housing projects.
-JovBill
Bill Dauphin
<<Big Charlie>> wrote:
> If this were the case, Wash. DC would have the best public schools
> int he land (they spend more per student than any of the states--and
> twice the national average) and New Hampshire, which is among the
> lowest, would have the worst. This is simply not the case.
Oh, I would never claim that funding level is the only factor in school quality. What I
*did* say was that most of the deficiencies of our schools can be addressed by more
money, and I stand by that. The most commonly cited problems in our schools are
overcrowded classrooms, overworked/undertrained teachers, inadequate or unsafe
facilities, and outdated or insufficient equipment and materials. The fixes are
expanding existing facilities, building more schools, hiring more and better teachers
(to teach fewer students each), and replacing or upgrading classroom equipment and
materials... and every last one of those things requires more money.
As for DC and New Hampshire, there're some other differences between those two
communities, right? I'll bet if you normalized school spending against the median
personal income and/or cost of living, the discrepancy would be *much* smaller. AND I'll
bet that *within* each of those two communities there's a strong correlation between
individual schools' funding levels and school success.
In case you're wondering why I'm so passionate on this subject, it's because many of my
fellow Floridians are retirees who feel like they've already paid for *their* kids'
education (usually in another state), and they don't want to keep on paying. As a
result, Florida's public schools are consistently grossly underfunded, and (not
coincidentally, IMHO) they're also consistently ranked among the nation's worst.
Luckily, we live in one of the state's wealthiest counties and my daughter qualifies as
gifted, so her school program is actually pretty decent. But far too many of my fellow
citizens -- the ones in greatest need, for the most part -- do not share in our good
fortune. And that affects me (and my short-sighted neighbors) because it increases the
levels of poverty and crime of the community we live in.
I know it doesn't hold for every single example, but I really believe it's generally
true that poorly funded schools = low performing schools = higher rates of crime and
poverty. And I'd definitely rather pay more for schools than pay more for prisons and
welfare.
-JovBill
John Paul Vrolyk
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> For one
> thing, even though they're more affordable, they're still expensive: Tuition at even the
> cheapest private schools can run to a couple thousand dollars per year per child...
My point wasn't that everyone should send their kids to church
school (God forbid! :-} ) I was only pointing out that such
schools seem to get along, without alot of money. I'd bet that
such type of school gets more from every dollar than do most
public schools, regardless of whether dollars come from donations,
tuition, or taxes. Shouldn't be possible to run a (non-religious)
school system at least as effectively?
Filksinger
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3577A9...@ix.netcom.com>...
<snip>
>
> You're right, of course. TANSTAAFL, after all. I should have said they
don't pay school
> taxes *directly*. I still think, though, that the poor would not benefit
much from any
> reduction in school taxes: How many landlords do you think would actually
lower their
> rents if their property taxes went down?
In most economic endeavors, the price of a business's products or services
will go down when their prices go down, subject to supply and demand.
>And, of course, a reduction in property taxes
> wouldn't have any effect on the cost of living in public housing
projects.
No, but if it lowers rent, it might keep people out of public housing
projects.
Filksinger
Bill Dauphin
John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
> My point wasn't that everyone should send their kids to church
Understood. But my point (to which you ere replying) was that private schools can never
replace public schools... and your point, though well taken, doesn't change that.
> ...(God forbid! :-} )
vbg!
> schools seem to get along, without alot of money.
Depends on what you mean by "get along." Many such schools are poorly equipped by
comparison to all but the most disadvantaged public schools. They also accept only a
limited number of students, and often have looooooong waiting lists.
> I'd bet that
> such type of school gets more from every dollar than do most
> public schools, regardless of whether dollars come from donations,
> tuition, or taxes. Shouldn't be possible to run a (non-religious)
> school system at least as effectively?
Don't forget that the faculty at religious schools often see their teaching as a
donation or an act of faith; they don't have *nearly* the same (perfectly
reasonable) salary expectations that other teachers do. I suppose you *can* run a school
pretty cost-effectively if half or more of your faculty members have taken a literal vow
of poverty! <g>
-JovBill
Bill Dauphin
Filksinger wrote:
> In most economic endeavors, the price of a business's products or services
> will go down when their prices go down, subject to supply and demand.
Normally true, but low-income housing is *always* in short supply, so landlords might
not have much incentive to pass a tax cut along to their tenants. Unless, of course, the
Gummint forced them to... which would be hateful to the conservative among us, no?
> >And, of course, a reduction in property taxes
> > wouldn't have any effect on the cost of living in public housing
> projects.
>
> No, but if it lowers rent, it might keep people out of public housing
> projects.
It wouldn't lower rents *that* much, in any case: As an exercise, consider that my own
*total* annual property tax bill is ~$1000, on a 3-bedroom townhouse that's measurably
more valuable than anything that would qualify as "low-income housing." So $80/month
will serve as a conservative upper bound on the total property tax burden on the kinds
of units we're talking about. Now no more than half of that goes to schools, so if
school taxes were *completely eliminated* AND if landlords passed 100% of the savings on
to tenants, the most rents would go down would be $40/month... and the actual figure
would likely be much lower. That's certainly not enough incentive to motivate poor folks
to move: It might take a year or more just to recoup the nonrecurring costs of the move
(truck rental, deposits, etc).
-JovBill
Nuclear Waste
John Paul Vrolyk wrote in message <3577F8...@vrolyk.org>...
> big snip. Shouldn't be possible to run a (non-religious)
>school system at least as effectively?
>
Yes, but is it realistic to think that it will be done? A public school is
many things, but, (at least at this point in history), it is first and
formost, part of the beauracracy.
Nuclear Waste
Filksinger
>
> It wouldn't lower rents *that* much, in any case:
> It might take a year or more just to recoup the nonrecurring costs of the
move
> (truck rental, deposits, etc).
True. Been there, done that.
Filksinger
<<Big Charlie>>
JovBill--
You said:
>>I'll bet if you normalized school spending against the median
>>personal income and/or cost of living, the discrepancy would be
>>*much* smaller.
I ought to hold you to that; actually the discrepancy is much
greater; as the average income in NH if quite a bit higher than in DC.
The problem is that correlations have been made showing increased
funding vs. poorer results and have shown that spending "X" dollars more
on education reduces test scores by "Y". (Sorry, I don't have the
actual numbers available.)
<<Big Charlie>>
JovBill--
>>Tuition at even the cheapest private schools can run to a couple >>thousand dollars per year per child...
This is considerably less than (about half) of what is being spent per
student in the public schools and the reason that many support voucher
systems.
Bill Dauphin
<<Big Charlie>> wrote:
> I ought to hold you to that; actually the discrepancy is much
> greater; as the average income in NH if quite a bit higher than in DC.
I don't have any reason to disbelieve this, but I confess I find it surprising. What
about cost of living? DC is frequently cited in the press as one of the most expensive
places in the U.S. to live, but I admit I don't know any actual numbers.
> The problem is that correlations have been made showing increased
> funding vs. poorer results and have shown that spending "X" dollars more
> on education reduces test scores by "Y". (Sorry, I don't have the
> actual numbers available.)
I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to buy this without real data. You could argue
without hard data that increased funding doesn't help, and I'd consider it at least
arguable, but increased funding *hurts* performance? That's so counterintuitive (and
counter to my own personal experience) that I refuse to believe it without seeing not
only the numbers but the data collection and analytical methodologies as well.
Admittedly, I haven't cited any studies myself, but here's what I'm sure of, based not
only on stuff I've read but also on my own experiences as a teacher: One of the most
critical factors in school performance is class size (i.e., student/teacher ratio). The
ONLY way to improve this factor is by *both* hiring more teachers and providing more
classroom space... and I fail to see how it's possible to accomplish this without
spending more money. The same logic goes for improving the physical condition of school
facilities, replacing outdated and inadequate equipment, buying new textbooks, etc. It's
impossible for me to believe that a school that hired more and better teachers,
increased and improved its educational space, and added new and upgraded equipment and
curriculum materials would actually be *damaged* by those actions.
I suppose I can believe that here or there a school district has received increased
funding and actually dropped in performance, due to corruption or gross mismanagement...
or perhaps due to factors entirely unrelated to funding levels (correlation doesn't
necessarily indicate causation, after all). But I'm not buying "more school funding =
poorer educational performance" as a general rule unless you *absolutely* prove it too
me... and I don't think you can.
-JovBill