janw@inmet.UUCP (09/17/86)
[geoff@ism780c.UUCP ] >janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >>I agree with your priorities, which makes me reject your position. >>Since early 60's, as government kept throwing more and more > More money in what sense? As a % of government expenditures? > Adjusted for inflation? Per capita? Per student? All of the above. >>money at public schools, the education level was steadily >>going down. That system does not work. > Correlation implies causality? No. Correlation is a fact to be explained. My explanation is that the money did not cause the decline - but was a symptom of the problem that did: namely the workings of a rotten system that maximizes bureaucratic empires, and is indifferent to results. > Are you trying to tell us that there > have been *no* other relevent changes in our society since the 60's? > What about the changes in demographics? What about TV? What about > the changes in the structure and stability of the family? What > about the increase in mobility (people moving the household more > often)? All these occurred; many changes, however, are favorable to edu- cation. E.g., it is cumulative. As new generations are born to better educated parents, they should get a head start. Educators, too, ought to get some experience with time; and *their* educa- tional level should grow. TV could be an educator's tool, rather than an evil competitor. Other new technology, too. Under a reasonably good system, we'd see a gradual increase in test results, even with constant expenditure. > More money is not the whole solution, agreed, but how is > less money going to solve anything? Don't throw good money after bad: change the system that wasted it. Private and parochial schools work much better: a voucher system would let them compete with public schools - and public schools with each other. This is exactly what NEA is afraid of. I could almost say: ask NEA, and do the opposite. >>[Tom Albrecht] In New Jersey, Governor Kean has >>said that a degree from a teacher's college is no longer needed to teach in >>the state. All one needs to show is a proficiency in the subject area and >>an ability to communicate with young people and you can teach in NJ >>schools. Someone is finally moving to break the death grip that the >>educational establishment has on the public schools. > It sounds to me like Gov Kean is just lowering standards to > attract more teachers, instead of raising salaries or improving > working conditions. It creates competition to the incompetent products of teacher's colleges. Why do you assume his new tests to be less stringent than theirs? But why have centralized tests at all? Why not have the parents hire and fire any teachers they want? Most of them care more about their children's education than state officials do. And *if* they need any experts to evaluate the teachers, they can ask the experts. But usually parents, even illiterate, can discern the quality of the teacher quite well. >>95% of Americans support the concept of merit pay and teacher competency >>tests. Americans believe that good teachers should be paid more money and >>that bad teachers should be fired to make room for better teachers. Yeah, but I am scared of bureaucratic evaluations. A simple competitive system, where schools compete for students, and pay more to the teachers who attract them, would be best. >>Teachers unions, on the other hand, want more money but are unwilling to >>submit themselves to any review process linked to salary increases. > (Where are you getting this information?) The teachers I've talked > to want to get rid of the bad eggs too, but there's a lot of > disagreement about how to identify them. As in all fields, the bad > eggs are often very politically adept. It's not a simple problem. You are quite right. But Tom is right, too: teacher unions *are* firmly opposed to merit pay. Is it because, as you say, "bad eggs" are politically adept in the unions? On this note of agreement, I'll leave you two... Jan Wasilesky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
>[al@aurora.UUCP ] >/* ---------- "Re: Schultz and Isolationism" ---------- */ >> >> Morality goes deeper than surface behavior and a superficial >> insistence on ritual "human-rights". Maintaining a balance >> of power in the world requires both subtle intelligence and >> judicious use of force. >Note that every period in the past which has based it's stability >on a balance of power has ended in a devistating war. Every period of stability in the past ended in a devastating war, period. All of them were based either on a balance of power, or on a one-power domination ; neither lasted forever. >In any case, we cannot afford a war so we'd better find a stabile >basis that avoids the pitfalls of power balancing. I agree. The situation is precarious. So let's not be dogmatic, and consider *all* ideas, however unlikely. Surrender to the So- viets? I've thought that scenario through, and it probably ends in a devastating war, after other kinds of devastation. SDI ? I know *your* position against it; but even if it worked as planned, it would only stop *one* danger - ballistic missiles - out of many (e.g., bacteriological warfare has become quite feasible lately). Change within the Soviet Union? It may in- crease the danger as well as decrease it. I think we can gain time by keeping the aggressive nation (the USSR) at bay - but the future is dark. >> Grand Strategy is not a field for naive liberals. >I haven't noticed that conservatives have done a particularly good job. Well, Churchill was right when others were wrong. That does not make all conservatives right, of course. What made Churchill right - both with respect to the Bolshevik danger and the Nazi danger - was a clear-eyed approach to great accumulations of power, whatever their ideological tint. >Hitler and Napoleon we're certainly right wing by any definition. Not really. The Nazi party program was quite socialist; and in the Reichstag, they often voted with the Communists. Napoleon was viewed by the reactionaries of his time as a subversive influence, and by many progressives as a hope. He did not favor political freedom, but he codified civil equality - in his time, not a right-wing position at all. >Both ended their rule with their countries torn to pieces. Both were dictators. Dictators are dangerous. Democracies don't make war on each other. If only Russia could become a democracy - but this is not in the cards... If she could stop being a superpower, through economic decline, this would be the next best thing - and not quite incredible. But even if a period of peace ensued, it would end some day with some new accumulation of uncontrolled power. In the long run, space colonization seems the best hope. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
[nose@nbires.UUCP ] /* ---------- "Capital Punishment [New subject]" ---------- */ >[...] > -Steve "Two's company, Three's a totalitarian dictatorship" Dunn >-The first duty of a citizen is to mistrust his government Thank you, Steve. I agree with all you say on this (and the signature line sums up much of it). Let me add a couple of other arguments, less important than yours. - The condemned person is dead but the executioner stays with us. Personally, I don't relish the idea of living in the same society with him. I might shake his hand by mistake. - Death may or may not be an inhuman punishment - but ten years on Death Row certainly are. Unless we are ready to dispense with due process guarantees that drag this out (and we aren't) we'd better dispense with capital punishment. - (This is an extension of your argument). If we ever have a totalitarian dictatorship here, it will probably come to power with lots of fine-sounding slogans, and will have, at first, well- meaning allies. If the absence of death penalty is by that time a well-established principle - then it may take the new order a month or two to restore it. This would save thousands of innocent lives. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
[orb@whuts.UUCP ] /* ---------- "Re: Population control" ---------- */ >But to imply that caring people throughout the world who are do- >ing what they can, including population control, to stop the >senseless deaths of 30 children a minute from starvation simply >view humans as "tools" is an absolute outrage. I won't join in discussing their motives, which I presume good. But you might wish to read the arguments of those who assert that these programs make the problems worse. See, for example, the article "Helping Hand Won't Solve Africa's Problems" by Nick Eberstadt, in WSJ, Sep 17, 1986, p.30. The article ends: Western aid directly underwrites current policies and practices; indeed, it may make possible some of the more injurious ones, which couldn't be financed without external help. The public in the U.S. and other Western countries must face this awful reality honestly and squarely. The West is, at present, directly complicitous with Africa's rulers in the results they inflict upon their subjects. No change in rationales for aid, no new names for programs, no optimistic pronouncements about policy changes in the near future will alter this fact.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
>/* Written 11:13 am Sep 11, 1986 by rjn@duke.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---------- */ >The word terrorist is an over used one these days. Terrorism and legitimate >revolution are often confused. In many cases the difference between the two >depends on an individuals political and moral views. I think not. Terrorism consists of deliberate action against the innocent. I've elsewhere posted an excellent definition of terrorism (from "Terrorism: How the West Can Win" by Netanyahu). Unless there is some confusion about who is a combatant and who is not, about which action is deliberate and which is not, there should be little confusion about who employs terrorism and who does not. >Violence is not in >itself terrorism, nor is the killing of civilians. If this were true then >the Afghani freedom fighters are also terrorists, as are the Isrealis, and >the United States (after all we killed civilians and children when we >bombed Libya). The presence of noncombatant, nonsupport, civilians plays no enlightening role in accounting for the bombing, as I understand it. If we knew that not a single civilian would have been killed, we would have gone ahead with the mission. A terrorist attempts to foment TERROR -- he attacks the civilian population because it is a good way to do this. If you were to tell him (authoritatively) that a bomb in given place wouldn't harm a soul, he'd choose another target. He's after terror, not demolished buildings. While innocents died in the US bombing of Libya attack, this was an unavoidable side-effect of an attack aimed at military installations, rather than a deliberate attack on, say, a disco in West Germany. >In my opinion and the opinion of many others, violence and >armed conflict in South Africa is justified given the circumstances. Attempts >at a peaceful solution have been rebuffed by a repressive government. > >A group cannot be measured by its actions alone, these actions must be put >in the context of their situation. The ANC is not a terrorist group. To >argue that they are is to support a racist government. Oh, tosh. I don't know the situation, but to say they are terrorist or not terrorist is to define something of their procedure and targets. If they kill people, shall we not call them "killers" because it would "support a racist government"? Of course not! Now it may be that folks arguing against a good cause may wrongly accuse the cause of inspiring terrorism in order to denigrate the cause, THIS is a contemptible action. But to label terrorists acting in (what you think to be) a good cause is merely to call a spade a spade. >This is a contemptable >action for any intelligent individual. Is there a name for this tactic of labelling your opponents as contemptible or unintelligent (take your pick) before you've heard their side of it?
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
>/* Written 3:28 pm Sep 10, 1986 by orb@whuts.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Population control (to sevener)" ---------- */ >YOU HAVE MADE ME VERY ANGRY!! >YOU have the AUDACITY to claim that I and others who are doing >whatever we can to feed the hungry, who have contributed to groups like >Oxfam America which provides TOOLS and seeds so that starving people >can grow their own food and not rely on subsidies forever, that >WE are the ones who view humans "as mere tools of society. > ... >I myself have yet to join the Peace Corps or the American Friends >Service Committee but I know other people who have eschewed the >luxuries of life in America to go live in the Third World, where >thirty children die EVERY MINUTE, not every day, not every hour >but EVERY MINUTE from HUNGER and STARVATION. And at that rate, it will take them 114 years to catch up with what the Soviets did between 1917 and 1959. An estimated 60,000,000 dead in the name of Socialism. Nothing like certain sorts of helping hands, eh? By the way, I suggest you read the Reason article on the Peace Corps before you make too much noise about joining. The charges are incompetence, inappropriateness, and outlandishness. >... >Well, if you don't care that thirty children died of hunger in the >time in which you read this article, that is your right. But I don't think *you're* doing "whatever you can" to feed the hungry: to be consistent you should surely spend every iota of energy into helping the folks in South America. Refuting a straw-man version of Albrecht while another 90-150 children die is surely a sign of mismatched priorities! At least, it is if you want us to believe that you really, truly, honestly, do "whatever" you can to feed the hungry. By the way, you didn't quote Albrecht as saying that he didn't care. Another Straw Man for the Straw Horde? >But to imply that caring people throughout the world who >are doing what they can, including population control, to >stop the senseless deaths of 30 children a minute from starvation >simply view humans as "tools" is an absolute outrage. Straw man, Sevener -- at least in the section you quoted, Albrecht referred only to "you", not to "caring people throughout the world", or those who are doing "whatever we can" to feed the hungry. It is not at all clear to me you can put yourself in that category, chum. > > *** FLAME OFF *** > >I have tried to stick to facts and logic but I have had it up to >here with this brand of selfcentered greedy idiocy. I imagine that when you said "here", you pointed to your heart, not your head. If you really want to refute Albrecht, attack him on factual, statistical grounds. Anecdotal grounds (one person killed is not, after all, as impressive as 60,000,000) do not indicate the overall picture as well. I will admit that the number of children dying per minute is impressive, but it needs a little more context. >Now that I have vented my spleen, I will return to more rational >exposition. Good for you! I can hardly wait ;-)
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
>[devonst@burdvax.UUCP ] >/* ---------- "Re: Taxing Schools Etc. (paranoid e" ---------- */ >Secretary of Education Bennett relates the story of a school system in the >midwest that set up a sort of magnet school specializing in the humanities. >The educational possibilities were so superior to other schools in the same >system that four times as many students applied as there were >openings in the school. So what did the benighted school officials do? >Did they open another school or two in order to accommodate the demand for >quality education? No, they shut down the new school because they said it >was "unworkable". They have the same kind of objection to the voucher idea: it would ruin the public schools system, they say - because it would create competition. A brazen position that they can afford because of an immense political clout. >This sort of story only points out the utter failure of public >education. As long as "professional educators" run the system, >the public schools are doomed to failure. Agreed. >In New Jersey, Governor Kean has said that a degree from a >teacher's college is no longer needed to teach in the state. All >one needs to show is a proficiency in the subject area and an >ability to communicate with young people and you can teach in NJ >schools. Someone is finally moving to break the death grip that >the educational establishment has on the public schools. Right way to go. >95% of Americans support the concept of merit pay and teacher competency >tests. Americans believe that good teachers should be paid more money and >that bad teachers should be fired to make room for better teachers. This depends on who evaluates the merit. Bureaucratic or peer evaluation can become a nightmare. Purely objective tests - change in students' scores - would be better than nothing. Best of all would be the marketplace test: a voucher system, parents free to choose the school and the teacher - and teacher paid ac- cording to the income she attracts. >Teachers unions, on the other hand, want more money but are unwilling to >submit themselves to any review process linked to salary increases. >Teachers say they want to be treated like professionals, but are unwilling >to accept the same sort of qualification process that other professionals >have. Now here we have a choice: the present system (no good); a "professional" system with more stringent state tests; or a free-market system with parents being the judges of merit. I would favor the latter; teachers could still pass tests, on a voluntary basis, to show the certificates to parents - the way some car mechanics do. >Teachers and school administrators better get it through their >heads that they work for the parents and not for themselves nor >the teacher's unions. They only will when parents make them. Tax revolt got us a tax reform of sorts; we need a parent revolt for a school reform. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/18/86)
[oaf@mit-vax.UUCP ] > I will not accuse Brian Mahoney of having the scholarliness of Ri- >chard Carnes, Accuse? Since when is scholarliness a vice? R. Carnes may have his imperfections, but his habit of systematic reading is an asset. > the crude cynicism of Oded Feingold, Oh, that's all right; rather cute even. Your main fault is that you prefer to discuss personalities, not issues. > the fanatic liberalism of Tim Sevener We certainly need that point of view represented, and he is a near-perfect representative. > the blind dogmaticism of Jan Wasilewski 'Y' at the end, please. I am blindly dogmatic about that, at least. Y is my favorite letter, 'cos WHY is my favorite word. E.g.: WHY must dogmatism be called dogmaticism? If this goes on, someone will top you with dogmaticalism, and then dogmaticalicism... > , or conversely the moral turpitude of Ken Arndt. This raises some questions, too: why should immorality be seen as the "converse" of dogmatism? Then again, what moral turpitude? There's not much that Ken and I agree on; his style is all his own; and he's teased many people on the net, and got as good as he gave; his taste, his sanity, and his existence have all been challenged - but I've not seen the slightest cause to question his moral uprightness. Which is no one's business, anyway. > ... You did not need all that mud-slinging to pay a somewhat diluted compliment to Tim Maroney, did you? His spelling, BTW, has improved drastically. Jan Wasilewsky
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (10/05/86)
In article <117200040@inmet> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>/* Written 11:13 am Sep 11, 1986 by rjn@duke.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >>/* ---------- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---------- */ >>The word terrorist is an over used one these days. Terrorism and legitimate >>revolution are often confused. In many cases the difference between the two >>depends on an individuals political and moral views. > >I think not. Terrorism consists of deliberate action against >the innocent. I've elsewhere posted an excellent definition of >terrorism (from "Terrorism: How the West Can Win" by Netanyahu). Unless >there is some confusion about who is a combatant and who is not, >about which action is deliberate and which is not, there >should be little confusion about who employs terrorism and who does not. > Depends on how you define innocent. I don't define many white South Africans as innocent. They have been supporting a racist government. That is not innocent in my book. Children are certainly innocent, but in the case of South Africa many more black children have been killed than white. This doesn't make killing children right. >>Violence is not in >>itself terrorism, nor is the killing of civilians. If this were true then >>the Afghani freedom fighters are also terrorists, as are the Isrealis, and >>the United States (after all we killed civilians and children when we >>bombed Libya). > >The presence of noncombatant, nonsupport, civilians plays no enlightening >role in accounting for the bombing, as I understand it. If we knew >that not a single civilian would have been killed, we would have >gone ahead with the mission. A terrorist attempts to foment >TERROR -- he attacks the civilian population because it is a good >way to do this. If you were to tell him (authoritatively) that a >bomb in given place wouldn't harm a soul, he'd choose another target. He's >after terror, not demolished buildings. > >While innocents died in the US bombing of Libya attack, this was an unavoidable >side-effect of an attack aimed at military installations, rather than >a deliberate attack on, say, a disco in West Germany. > Agreed, which is exactly why I say that the ANC is not a terrorist group. For the most part their violent actions have not been designed to cause terror, but to disrupt an enemy government. >>In my opinion and the opinion of many others, violence and >>armed conflict in South Africa is justified given the circumstances. Attempts >>at a peaceful solution have been rebuffed by a repressive government. >> >>A group cannot be measured by its actions alone, these actions must be put >>in the context of their situation. The ANC is not a terrorist group. To >>argue that they are is to support a racist government. > >Oh, tosh. I don't know the situation, but to say they are terrorist or >not terrorist is to define something of their procedure and targets. >If they kill people, shall we not call them "killers" because it would >"support a racist government"? Of course not! > The connotation of calling someone a terrorist is in my mind to say that they are wrong or bad. After all the President says we are going to 'wipe out terrorism' not wipe out Arab terrorism. I believe the commonly accepted meaning of the word is that of unjustified violence against innocents. In my opinion to place this label on the ANC is to say that they are wrong in their fight for freedom. Since this fight is for basic racial equality, to oppose it is racist. I also believe the moral issue of racial equality holds precedence over any type of political issue. I believe those who cry 'communist' all the time are simply making excuses. If the US made a STRONG comittment to black freedom, we could easily guide those people into democracy. But the US probably won't make that kind of comittment anywhere in Africa. The simple fact is that a large part of the US population is still very racist. Oh they give lip service to equality, but in their hearts they still don't really accept it. Now before people jump all over me for saying this you better be damn sure you have a good argument. There are large areas of the country where race relations are very good, especially in some of our large cities. But have you lived in the South, or the West (where Indians and Mexicans are the niggers of convenience)? Think hard, how many of your friends are racists? Many people I know and who I consider good people in every other way do not really believe in the equality of the races. Check out a factory or other blue collar setting sometime as an insider and you will see what I mean. >Now it may be that folks arguing against a good cause may wrongly >accuse the cause of inspiring terrorism in order to denigrate the cause, >THIS is a contemptible action. But to label terrorists acting in >(what you think to be) a good cause is merely to call a spade a spade. > >>This is a contemptable >>action for any intelligent individual. > >Is there a name for this tactic of labelling your opponents as contemptible >or unintelligent (take your pick) before you've heard their side of it? Racism is contemptable in any form. Perhaps you haven't experienced it like I have. Maybe you haven't had to listen to repeated statements that the black race is 'just plain inferior'. Maybe coon, nigger, darky, jigaboo, etc., aren't words that you have had to live with every day, but I have. Maybe if you had lived with racism as I have you might understand my extreme hate for the South African government. I equate the Afrikaners and the radical right in SA with the Klan, White Patriot Party, and the Aryan Nations in the US. If you think that the Afrikaners are even going to consider peacefully giving up control of that country to the blacks, I think you are sadly mistaken. If you really want to know just how strongly I feel about it I'll tell you. I would wholeheartedly support (even to the tune of joining up) military support for the black majority in South Africa. I would love to see blood and guts Ronnie send the military over to liberate our black brothers in South Africa. This would be one of the few instances of military intervention that I would support. BTW this might satisfy the people who are so afraid of a communist government in SA. Surely our military support would be a strong influence for democracy in that country. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/09/86)
>/* Written 11:59 pm Oct 4, 1986 by rjn@duke.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >In article <117200040@inmet> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >>I think not. Terrorism consists of deliberate action against >>the innocent. I've elsewhere posted an excellent definition of >>terrorism (from "Terrorism: How the West Can Win" by Netanyahu). Unless >>there is some confusion about who is a combatant and who is not, >>about which action is deliberate and which is not, there >>should be little confusion about who employs terrorism and who does not. >> > >Depends on how you define innocent. I don't define many white South Africans >as innocent. And therefore non-terrorist attacks would target only those folks the possibility of whose innocence may be safely discounted: members of the government, soldiers, combatants. Simply exploding a bomb in a public place is an not an act calculated to exclude the innocent, and not an act forced on the bomber by lack of official targets. This notion of defining non-combatants as non-innocent, WITHOUT establishing their guilt is a typical terrorist tactic -- it is what allows them to "justify" pushing helpless old men off boats. The terrorists would like you to believe that nobody is innocent (at least, after the bomb went off that killed them). This is what justifies hijacking American airplanes -- those on board must be "part" of the "imperialist" American way of life, right? >They have been supporting a racist government. That is not >innocent in my book. Children are certainly innocent, but in the case of >South Africa many more black children have been killed than white. This >doesn't make killing children right. Correct -- therefore terrorism remains terrorism, regardless of the worthiness of the cause used to justify the action. Once again, the ideological *ends* do not matter: terrorism is a tactic. >>>Violence is not in >>>itself terrorism, nor is the killing of civilians. Again, check out Netanyahu's definition. >>>If this were true then >>>the Afghani freedom fighters are also terrorists, as are the Isrealis, and >>>the United States (after all we killed civilians and children when we >>>bombed Libya). >> >>The presence of noncombatant, nonsupport, civilians plays no enlightening >>role in accounting for the bombing, as I understand it. If we knew >>that not a single civilian would have been killed, we would have >>gone ahead with the mission. A terrorist attempts to foment >>TERROR -- he attacks the civilian population because it is a good >>way to do this. If you were to tell him (authoritatively) that a >>bomb in given place wouldn't harm a soul, he'd choose another target. He's >>after terror, not demolished buildings. >> >>While innocents died in the US bombing of Libya attack, this was an unavoidable >>side-effect of an attack aimed at military installations, rather than >>a deliberate attack on, say, a disco in West Germany. >> > >Agreed, which is exactly why I say that the ANC is not a terrorist group. >For the most part their violent actions have not been designed to cause >terror, but to disrupt an enemy government. "For the most part", eh? Not persuasive. "For the most part" a pregnant woman isn't pregnant, but that doesn't mean she is *NOT* pregnant. If the ANC indulges, even occasionally in terrorism, it is a terrorist organization. Certainly you seem to stand ready to justify such conduct: can we expect less from them? >>>In my opinion and the opinion of many others, violence and >>>armed conflict in South Africa is justified given the circumstances. Attempts >>>at a peaceful solution have been rebuffed by a repressive government. >>> >>>A group cannot be measured by its actions alone, these actions must be put >>>in the context of their situation. The ANC is not a terrorist group. To >>>argue that they are is to support a racist government. >> >>Oh, tosh. I don't know the situation, but to say they are terrorist or >>not terrorist is to define something of their procedure and targets. >>If they kill people, shall we not call them "killers" because it would >>"support a racist government"? Of course not! >> > >The connotation of calling someone a terrorist is in my mind to say that >they are wrong or bad. That's because it *is* wrong or bad to engage in terrorism. Even in a just cause. >After all the President says we are going to 'wipe >out terrorism' not wipe out Arab terrorism. I believe the commonly accepted >meaning of the word is that of unjustified violence against innocents. I think you'll find that Netanyahu's definition is more precise; that's why I took advantage of your article to propose it. >In my opinion to place this label on the ANC is to say that they are wrong >in their fight for freedom. No -- merely that their choice of tactics is evil. As I said before, I *don't* know the situation with the ANC. I don't care what they are fighting for: terrorism remains an evil. >Since this fight is for basic racial equality, >to oppose it is racist. Really? Suppose they proposed to torture to death any whites they found, in the name of "racial equality". Would opposing *THAT* be racist? Why not? Both are merely tactics of a "good" cause; both are unpalatable. >I also believe the moral issue of racial equality >holds precedence over any type of political issue. I rather doubt that: for example would you prefer a society where there was no right to life, (but there was racial equality) to one that didn't allow Asians to vote but guaranteed them every other liberty? >I believe those >who cry 'communist' all the time are simply making excuses. If the >US made a STRONG comittment to black freedom, we could easily guide those >people into democracy. Guide them, or at least offer to, yes: but that doesn't mean they'd care to follow us. They have the right not to, if they choose. >But the US probably won't make that kind of comittment anywhere in >Africa. The simple fact is that a large part of the US population >is still very racist. Oh they give lip service to equality, but in >their hearts they still don't really accept it. Now before people >jump all over me for saying this you better be damn sure you have >a good argument. There are large areas of the country where race >relations are very good, especially in some of our large cities. >But have you lived in the South, or the West (where Indians and >Mexicans are the niggers of convenience)? Think hard, how many of >your friends are racists? Many people I know and who I consider >good people in every other way do not really believe in the equality >of the races. Check out a factory or other blue collar setting >sometime as an insider and you will see what I mean. The worthiness of the ANC's cause is not in dispute here. I will gladly postulate it; but that doesn't excuse even a single act of terrorism. Nor does it render racist the refusal to excuse such acts. >>Now it may be that folks arguing against a good cause may wrongly >>accuse the cause of inspiring terrorism in order to denigrate the cause, >>THIS is a contemptible action. But to label terrorists acting in >>(what you think to be) a good cause is merely to call a spade a spade. >> >>>This is a contemptable >>>action for any intelligent individual. >> >>Is there a name for this tactic of labelling your opponents as contemptible >>or unintelligent (take your pick) before you've heard their side of it? > >Racism is contemptable in any form. But you haven't established that opposition to any action of the ANC constitutes racism. This is rather like certain pro-Israeli people who have argued that since the Jews want Israel so badly, opposition to US funding of Israel's sovereignty constitutes anti-semitism. Nonsense! One may disagree on means while agreeing on ends. One may disagree with religious people without being anti-religious, and one may oppose terrorism without the slightest reflection on the cause the terrorists are fighting for. >Perhaps you haven't experienced it >like I have. Maybe you haven't had to listen to repeated statements >that the black race is 'just plain inferior'. Maybe coon, nigger, darky, >jigaboo, etc., aren't words that you have had to live with every day, but >I have. Maybe if you had lived with racism as I have you might understand >my extreme hate for the South African government. I equate the Afrikaners >and the radical right in SA with the Klan, White Patriot Party, and the >Aryan Nations in the US. If you think that the Afrikaners are even going >to consider peacefully giving up control of that country to the blacks, I >think you are sadly mistaken. I don't doubt the resolve of the Afrikaners, nor the sad desirability of violence in certain cases (once again, I protest my ignorance of the specifics in SA). I do not dispute your rhetorical buildup of your anti-racism credentials: I merely note that terrorism, in however good a cause, remains terrorism. >If you really want to know just how strongly I feel about it I'll tell >you. I would wholeheartedly support (even to the tune of joining up) >military support for the black majority in South Africa. I would love >to see blood and guts Ronnie send the military over to liberate our >black brothers in South Africa. This would be one of the few instances >of military intervention that I would support. BTW this might satisfy >the people who are so afraid of a communist government in SA. Surely >our military support would be a strong influence for democracy in that >country. So prove it: join up. I'm sure the insurgents would welcome you. On the other hand, when you're asked to set off explosives in a busy bus station "for the good of the causes", I hope whatever remains of your conscience calls this to mind: the ends *DO NOT* justify the means.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/09/86)
>/* Written 2:09 am Sep 25, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Re: Re: Officer, arrest that ma" ---------- */ >> Anyhow, this is *MY* last word on the subject. If *any* government officials >> come to my door to take away my copy of "Lustful Weasels and the Lubrication >> Sisters Do Planet Penis" they will become warmly acquainted with my >> Bic Pocket Napalm Dispenser(tm). >> "Nuf said." > >You haven't been reading; the Supreme Court ruled that under no case may mere >possession of obscene matter be a punishable offense, whether that material >is legally obscene or not. On the other hand, your stockpile of 17 000 >copies *might* be evidence of intent to distribute ... Oh, I get it -- driving is okay, it's just obtaining fuel that is illegal! How consistent! How convincing! :-)
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>/* Written 1:15 am Oct 3, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Re: Re: Commission on Pornograp" ---------- */ >> >[certain materials linking sex with violence encourage certain acts by >> > a certain group of people ...] >> > >> >Because the interaction of the two affects people (victims) of these >> >individuals, and because patterns of victimization are not always simple and >> >evident (look at columns by Ann Landers, look at articles on this newsgroup >> >about dogs and cleaning the house) the simple remedy of ``well, leave him'' >> >does not protect these victims adequately. Further, where force or threat of >> >bodily harm is involved, that remedy is simply not available. >> > >> >> This is as valid an argument for gun control or banning religion as it >> is for pornography legislation. Watch this: Although we don't have very >> much evidence about the general population, there is a subpopulation which >> uses firearms in the commission of crimes. And the legality of firearms >> does make it easier for them to obtain guns and commit these crimes. Because >> these crimes have victims, the simple remedy of "well, just arrest the >> criminals and leave us law-abiding citizens alone" does not protect these >> victims adequately. > >There are a couple of differences. First, with the horrible case of domestic >violence put aside, the victims or crimes committed with guns and the victims >of bigotry do not have emotional attatchments to the people harming them. Sorry -- domestic violence is not so easily brushed aside. My understanding is that most murderers are known by their victims. >Second, people who have been shot or robbed at gunpoint can either be >identified or can identify themselves rather easily; likewise victims of most >overt and harmful acts of bigotry. But Mark -- you just got through lecturing us about the use of porn by violent people. Don't they count? But it actually doesn't matter. This inability to identify the culprit is due to their not being a "clear and present danger" in porn. If it were clear and present, it would be... clear and present. >Third, of all crimes committed with the >threat of use of a firearm, only rape (which does not *require* a firearm) >carries the potential for emotional damage that long-term assault on sexual >dignity (by subtle demands for acts that are painful or that feel degrading) >carries. Establish this bald assertion with something other than your unsupported word, please. Or other arguments from authority. Rape is devastating, but doesn't carry the long-term emotional danger that murder does. >In this case: > >1) The victims are people with emotional ties to the offenders >2) The victims often cannot identify themselves and no one else can usually > identify them (except after many years when awareness begins to penetrate > the shame and guilt) >3) The potential for extraordinarily deep damage is large. If you're talking about porn, the statements are unsupported. C'mon, Mark -- say SOMETHING definite, SOMETHING that has some meat attached to it: bald assertions, unsupported by data cut no ice with me.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>/* Written 2:31 am Sep 27, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Grey Porn (Re: Re: Re: Commissi" ---------- */ >The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole. If there is >serious literary, etc, value, even to the extent of generating controversy >among ``experts'' in the field, it seems unlikely that a work could be >considered to be without merit. Oho! We are reduced to "experts", are we? Thank you sooo much! You don't know how my heart lifts to hear that you are only proposing to censor that which "experts" condemn. >Did *I Claudius* appeal to a prurient interest in sex? Doubtful. On the >other hand, I would have felt many of the explicit depictions in poor taste >were it not for the overall quality of the work. There are many people who >would not even consider the latter. And in no way could *I Claudius*, taken >as a whole, be considered legally obscene. It's very kind of you to second-guess the court, but nobody should assume that you can claim any degree of accuracy. >(In fact, even *Caligula*, when >it came before the Supreme Court, was declared to have serious value and >therefore protected from obscenity statutes.) Sorry, but didn't you make a big point (a couple of thousand lines ago) about how prosecution (or the threat thereof) had all but disappeared in the last 20 years? >... >> History is full of examples, not of hard censorship, but of the polarizing >> effect of censorship. > >True, because the censorship was broad and rarely included the balancing >third requirement of the *Miller* standard, nor the objective second >requirement. Establish this, please: I find it difficult to believe that you *seriously* argue that *OUR* censorship was somehow superior. Its big advantage was that it ENDED. >> Unfortunately, local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which >> resulted in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed >> in general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores. > >I agree wholeheartedly that overzealous prosecution of people without the >resources to handle lengthy appeals has been a problem. But the meanings >of the decisions are getting clarified and where once an appeal might have >been lengthy, such an appeal now would often result in the conviction being >thrown out summarily. Were this true, there would be no continued challenges of nuclear reactor construction in the courts. There are. >Where lower courts have respected this, and made it >clear to prosecutors that they will observe the judgement of the higher courts, >there is less margin for abuse. > How comforting! It may only cost you $100,000 to print a $1000 print run! Thank you Mark: at least you have admitted that only the margin decreases. >The margin can never be eliminated in obscenity law, nor in zoning and public >nuisance law (witness one poster on another group who was served with an >order to patch up his house with a coat of paint rather than give it the >lengthy and temporarily unsightly restoration it requires ...). Does this >mean that we should discard all law? Red herring. >Or does it mean that we should attempt >to report abuses through the Press and to elect just and fairminded officials? False dichotomy. >... > >I also read CitR in ... 10th, I think. What the heck. But there is a >world of difference between that and LCL. As to a deeper interest in >reading ... well, I found LCL a boring and unrewarding book a few years >ago, and I had a lot more stamina then than I did in HS. Thanks a lot -- your *opinion* of LCL shouldn't, and doesn't interest us. Your argument that somebody ELSE'S opinion should have the power to prevent us from buying a book is disgusting.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>/* Written 1:56 am Sep 29, 1986 by gabor@qantel.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Volunteers for a Clean Chernobyl" ---------- */ >No news (so far) about brand-new labor camps for the cleanup crews around >Chernobyl but there is this little item from the Party paper in Estonia: >it reported a spontaneous strike by hundreds of young Estonians conscripted >for decontamination of the Chernobyl area. The paper mentioned grueling >14-hour workdays in gas masks "with some falling sick from radiation exposure >and others anguished that they may return sterile to wives and fiancees". The >article talked about the brutality in the handling of the conscripts as they >washed down trees and dug up contaminated topsoil. [NY Times 8-31-86] > >These 18-year old Estonian kids are part of the roughly 1 million Soviet >construction troops, subject to Army discipline and treated even more >atrociously than the average Soviet conscript. They exist in part because >of traditional fondness for forced labor and in part to rough up / keep tabs >on non-conformists and unreliables. (Estonians are unreliable by definition.) >These construction troops are usually included in East-West force comparisons >even though they spend their years in uniform without ever being allowed near >weapons or live ammunition. > Gary Hart was proposing a similar idea (not, of course, including the brutality and radiation-exposure) He called it "National Service" and appeared to think it was one of his new ideas. I heard a radio editorial in favor of it on one of the Boston Radio stations.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>/* Written 5:41 pm Sep 24, 1986 by terry@nrcvax.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Drug Abuse - True Problem or Me" ---------- */ >One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it >virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me, >therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some >stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able >to work. (In case you didn't notice, I'm not talking about the casual >user or the social user, but the hard-core, can't-live-without-it >addict.) > One answer: you steal some hubcaps, or panhandle, and you get enough money for a dose of (say) liquor. It doesn't COST much, so you don't STEAL much (too risky!)
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>/* Written 9:29 am Sep 29, 1986 by ray@rochester.ARPA in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Drug Abuse - True Problem or Me" ---------- */ Oh goodness! >In article <135@spectrix.UUCP>, clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >> >> You walked right into this one - they did murder and steal for alcohol >> during prohibition. An extremely strong case can be made that the >> damage to society (crime, health costs etc) of a drug of any sort >> is *higher* when the drug is illegal. >> >We all know the damage that alcohol currently does to our society. I doubt >500,000 people annualy were killed or seriously wounded during prohibition. I don't know how many people were killed annually in prohibition, but DRINKING went up. Since the society of the '20's is not otherwise comparable to our own (different technology, different bunch of people with automobiles) the two situations are not comparable on the basis of raw deaths (you may as well compare them on the basis of "damage in dollars" without using constant dollars). I suggest you ASK some of the people who lived through that time: I predict you'll find that drinking DROPPED in popularity after prohibition ended. Not overnight, but slowly, as the glitz wore off. >So much for your extremely strong case. In the paper this morning, a headline >read 'Four young girls, ages 4 to 14 were killed by a drunken driver as they >sat in their car IN THEIR DRIVEWAY waiting for their mother to come out of the >house to drive them somewhere. The driver of the pickup truck crossed through >their yard, into the driveway, rammed the car, crossed the yard, back out into >the street, hit three other cars and came to a stop.' The driver wasn't hurt. >Again, so much for your extremely strong case. Try convincing that family >about the safety of legalizing dangerous chemical substances. Again, Ray, you miss the point: the same incident could have happened in a society where drinking was illegal. >... >ray > >Legalizing dangerous chemical substances does not render them less dangerous. >/* End of text from inmet:talk.pol.misc */ > Au contraire! If they're legal, you can buy them from safe, non-criminal producers, and employ clean needles. And the government can't fool around with paraquat.
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>[janw@inmet.UUCP ] >/* ---------- "Cuban Chernobyl" ---------- */ >A graphite core nuclear reactor is under construction in Cuba, in >the city of Cienfuegos. It is identical to the one at Cherno- >byl. Soviet technicians are overseeing the construction. >This reactor will be quite safe. >Castro himself has said so. But what is truly remarkable - no one in Cienfuegos protests, or has protested, or will protest. Their reaction cannot be anything but a glow of enthusiasm.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>/* Written 3:19 am Sep 27, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Re: Evidence and Pornography Le" ---------- */ >... >It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and >esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes >that have most touched the average individual have occurred in an avalanche >since 1962, +/- 5 years. I argue that trying to do both at once is preventing >us from evaluting the impact of either. I also realize that the second cannot >be stopped or slowed, so I would argue for a slowing and stabilizing of the >first until we get the other stuff straightened out. Oh, I like this! Shall we stop the development of entertainment media so that we can avoid its possible effects while studying musical excellence? No more CD players, folks! Shall we also restrict the right of access to the media by church figures so that we may evaluate their actions apart from the impact of the media? It's all very fun to talk about... I've another: in the same spirit, let's "slow and stabilize" the progress of women towards equality in our society until we get some other stuff straightened out, ok? Paah! We are *NOT* your experimental animals: go recruit your control groups among mice! >It may be that the increase in the amount of explicit/violent/degrading >erotica/porn is the result of technological improvements in the publishing >process (both print and video ...). It may be that it really is part of the >removal of repression. > >But when we remove repression, it is not unreasonable to expect all the >results to be good. If I take this as written, it is untrue (and also inconsistent with what you've been saying). Remove oppression and you can cause economic dislocation: just for example: release the Japanese from the Internment camps after WWII, and you must now compete with them. This doesn't mean we should continue oppression: merely that removal of "repression" is not Pareto-optimal: you always offend somebody who'd prefer the oppression remain. >An increase in the amount of material used by sick >people to encourage their sickness may occur at the same time as an increase >in the willingness of people to report sexual abuse and rape. So go find some "sick" people -- and confirm that they really are "encouraging" their sickness. Tell me, Mark: does Aspirin "encourage" a cold? Oh yes -- while you're at it, define "normal" human sexuality and tell us why we should all be encouraged to feel as it dictates. >An increase >in the number of parents who can't teach their kids how to integrate sexuality >with love and affection may occur at the same time as an increased willingness >to express both. (Expressing sexuality does not *have* to include the sex >act, does not *have* to include heavy petting. But it may.) May, may, may! Let's have some FACTS, at least some ASSERTIONS -- or some silence. >It may be that some of the bad things came about *because* of the repression, >like a closed and festering wound. *MAY*???? Absolutely. *Ulysses* was illegal in this country. Books were banned. Nobody could have put on an "uncut" version of Equus. The Hayes (sp?) office required that movies not show evil triumphant. Too bad if you were a screenwriter, or wanted to show *1984*. >Does this mean that we must accept the bad effects without question or >attempt to remedy them? Hardly. No -- but stop short of tromping on the rights of others, will you? (Or won't you agree to even this?) >Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to >testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean >that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? FIND 'em. DEFINE 'em. Then decide whether you've the RIGHT to reduce 'em. After all, being born leads to crimes, but you've no right to fool with *THAT*. >I certainly >accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased openness, >but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that mean that >we should cease attempting to remove the encouragement so such abuse? Straw man! And it also seems to assume that porn encourages abuse. Don't assume what you have not and (apparently) cannot prove. >As regards unusual sexual practices: as you note, in order to work, they >require an unusual mindset and an unusual communication between the partners. >The problem is that there are some people who do not realize this. Of people >who watch films showing fighter pilots operating their beautiful (but also >terrible) machines, there are undoubtedly a few who believe that they can >do these things without the months of pain, sweat, and doubt that the pilots >endure in training. We protect against them by making access to fighter planes >difficult. If we could not, if everybody could operate their automobile >as though it were a fighter aircraft, we would undoubtedly try to educate >people about the consequences. A simple way to do this would be to endow the aircraft with human minds and warn them about the dangers of allowing themselves to be abused. The other persons affected by porn already have the brains: feel free to tell them not to allow the abuse. >... >Two specifics that I will address: > >As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there >is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we >ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if >there is. Good -- now assume (on firmer ground!) that religious access to the media is more harmful. Get to work on it, will you? And leave PRIVATE individuals alone. (Not that I'm for religious repression! But YOU should be). >One study, even an objective one, can raise concerns and cast >doubts, but it cannot answer the question. A range of studies over several >years may. Insofar as the studies may be poorly done and badly reported, the >``investigators'' are doing a real disservice by throwing away time, resources, >and credibility that are badly needed. Like the Meese commission? >But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to >see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re- >directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the >study remains objective and the methods reliable. Fine: get some. THEN start talking. >While the testimony of law enforcement officials cannot substitute for >studies, and while the testimony that certain offenders have large collections >of certain materials, often material of little interest to the public, cannot >demonstrate that self-exposure to these materials *causes* the offenses, >when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the >material is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that >for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of >the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the >material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense. Sorry -- if you have the word of Jerry Falwell HIMSELF that this is so, it doesn't justify a study. The justification of the study (it seems to me) would be that the information is worth knowing to the people who wish to fund the study.