Wade Riddick wrote:
> I believe
the sworn affidavits of Choicepoint employees who were told by
the Secretary
of State to use race as a screening criterion for their felon
lists but
weren't allowed to call to verify any of the information and were
prevented
from using more narrow classifications like date of birth which
would have
prevented false matches. <
First of all, if those Choicepoint folks didn't
have the integrity to report an abuse like that before the election -- and they
could have done so anonymously -- you have to wonder if they're telling the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth now. But I'll grant there is
strong evidence that you may be right here.
Secondly, I object to your
presumption that these particular partisans would want to beat anyone over
the head. It's that sort of attribution of the worst possible motives to
people who disagree with you that bothers me. They may just
be ignorant racists, not hateful ones.
> Many
districts in Florida remain under Federal
> supervision for civil rights
voting violations - not
> that this
has amounted to much.
The Civil Rights Commission inquiry was a charade with a
pre-determined outcome. Its own abuses are on record.
> I believe racism persists in the South,
It persists everywhere.
> There was a report issued on it a few weeks ago. Students from
similar
socioeconomic backgrounds start having sex at a later age and have
fewer
partners when fully exposed to information about reproduction
and
contraception. <
I'm not questioning that sex ed can have this
effect, or saying sex ed in the schools is wrong. I'm asking if stressing abstinence works better than stressing
contraceptive techniques and giving out contraception.
>>> And yet we let idiots run
>> >around bullying
schoolboards
>
>> Why is it bullying? Did they use nightsticks,
Wade, or the threat of
>> democratic reprisals -- voting them off the
school board?
>> Please try putting yourself in someone else's shoes
and listening to their
>> reasoning instead of name calling-- it's the
first step towards the
>> tolerance contemporary liberals are always
preaching.
> What kind of tolerance is it for idiots on the
schoolboards in Oklahoma to
> tell you you're going to hell for teaching
your kids evolution and to
> denounce a person of a different faith as a
secular humanist?
I didn't say *they* were tolerant -- two
wrongs don't make a right. But they aren't bullying either, unless you
really think the accused believed them, and unless you really think the
accusers don't mean what they say.
> What kind of tolerance is it for Jerry
Falwell and Pat
Robertson to go on TV and say NYC got what it deserved and
the US is in for
more of the same because it's in moral decline?
Again, wrong category. Assigning blame is not
tolerant or intolerant. And re: tolerance in general, we all draw the line
somewhere. No one shows "tolerance" to what they consider a true and dangerous
evil. So call the fundamentalists nuts if you will, but to call them intolerant
is to misuse the word and to be inconsistent (notice I'm trying to
practice what I preach, so I don't say "hypocritical").
> Do you think I'm advocating sex ed because I'm some
liberal out to have
> kids practicing free love?
No I don't caricature you that way the way you've
caricatured many conservatives -- "Those who claim government should make it easier for people to be good
who then stand up and oppose sex ed in light of this
evidence ............. Too many of them would rather be right than do
better."
> As a
reader, you have to examine who's
> picking up the tab and how the data
model was designed and its assumptions.
Yes. What about the one you cite?
Here's hoping your health improves.
Ken