subject:"Re\: \[UC\] The Triumph of Moral Values\?"

Title: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

With all due respect..

I have spent my life’s work trying to sell higher thought and education to the great unwashed masses in the School District of Philadelphia.

Each succeeding year it has gotten harder (28 years and counting) and I can tell you that they live in a different world and they do NOT get it. Even when those of us try to sacrifice ourselves and explain to them how education, knowledge, research are in their own interest.

I try NOT to see them this way, but after years and years the evidence to the contrary mounts.

How many years have YOU spent in the trenches trying to educate people who are simply fixed? Trying to relate to them and NOT calling them stupid, ignorant or dense and just trying to give them opportunities of which they will not avail themselves? How long would your patience last and would you try again yet another year hoping that THIS time it would be different?

Let’s face it; the group who rejected the Democrats did so from racial and moral fears of difference from their insolated existence and NOT because they were the great unwashed.

The sad fact is that there are many amongst us, who know better and continue to plead ‘the rejection of the cultural elite’ façade.

They are the most dangerous in my opinion.

Wilma

On 11/5/04 2:51 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In a message dated 11/5/2004 12:57:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What the Democrats need to do
is to get this message into the "heartland".
With all due respect...
Those with the vision of the anointed seem to think that if people disagree with them, they simply didn't get the message through to the great unwashed masses. So they'll try again. Could it possibly be that the message was received loud and clear and was rejected based on collective systemic experience?
Always at your service and ready for a dialog,

Al Krigman

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values

Title: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values



You forgot to mention that luckily for the hoi polloi, it's also a stronghold of those who have the vision of the anointed. 

Unfortunately, the “hoi polloi” are the very common folk and not the cultural, intellectual or financial elite.

Wilma
 


On 11/4/04 5:28 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In a message dated 11/4/2004 12:45:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For all  its faults, West Philly is in fact a bastion of rationality and tolerance.  
You forgot to mention that luckily for the hoi polloi, it's also a stronghold of those who have the vision of the anointed. 
 
Al Krigman
(Left of Ivan Groznyj)

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

   From:  "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date:  Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:55:30 -0500

   This is all predicated on the idea that there's one real truth, and that
   if we all talk about it rationally with each other, we all might arrive
   at it.  Sort of center in on it, like triangulate all the opinions and
   get the truth.  But what if truth is not absolute?  What if we'll never
   agree?  How sad.

I'm an engineer, a professional problem solver.  I don't think that
there's one best solution for everyone.  I think every solution will
benefit some people more than others, and hurt some people more than
others.  But, it's better to really understand the problem, from as
many perspectives as possible, and really understand the hopes and
fears of people looking at it from all different sides, before
deciding what solution to go with.

And then do it in humility, knowing that you are being unfair, and
knowing that some people are being hurt, and knowing that you may be
screwing up big time, with other people's lives are on the line.

I've learned from personal experience that people will forgive you
more readily if you really listen to them before making a decision.
It's usually better to say, "Yes, I understood how this decision was
going to hurt you, but I thought it was the best decision for these
reasons." than to say, "You're not really being hurt" or "Ooops, I
didn't realize that you would be hurt" or "I don't care if you think
you are being hurt."

It's best if the decision is made with everyone's participation.
Sometimes, people will make personal sacrifices if they see all the
options and agree that the alternatives are worse for the community as
a whole.

--- Chip

(Sometimes the best solution is "do nothing"; sometimes not.
 Sometimes the best solution is "the greatest good for the greatest
 number", sometimes not.)

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

   From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date:  Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:51:13 EST

   In a message dated 11/5/2004 12:57:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What the Democrats need to do is to get this message into the
  "heartland".

   With all due respect...

   Those with the vision of the anointed seem to think that if people
   disagree with them, they simply didn't get the message through to
   the great unwashed masses. So they'll try again. Could it possibly
   be that the message was received loud and clear and was rejected
   based on collective systemic experience?

Yup, the conversation has to go both ways.  We have to learn from
their experiences, and help them to learn from ours.  Maybe we'll
change our minds, and maybe they will change theirs.

I was thinking specifically of people who had said, essentially, "I
would have voted for Kerry if his campaign had been more respectful of
my culture and values."  In that case, it's not a matter of "getting
the message through".  They have already received it.  It's a matter
of building bridges, and overcoming some well-deserved mistrust from
the other side of the river.  And it's hard to do that quickly, when
you have an immediate ulterior motive (like getting a vote).  It's
easier to do over a long period of time, when there's no immediate
"prize" to be fought over.

--- Chip

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

   From:  =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L_a_s_e_r_B_e_a_m_=AE?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date:  Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:19:38 -0500

   Charles H. Buchholtz wrote:

   > What the Democrats need to do
   > is to get this message into the "heartland".  It might be a good idea
   > to start a left-wing religious values campaign now, in a gentle way,
   > so that in four years it's an accepted part of the political dialogue.

   I disagree!

   why are we being asked to 'talk to each other' in terms of 
   religious values? when we live in a secular democracy?

Because it's just language.  Why run ads in Spanish, when we speak
English?  Because it's arrogant to say, "This is the way we talk.  The
way you talk has no place in politics."

   I don't think religion should enter into our definitions of 
   citizenship, of nationhood. 

I agree.  But we do need to make decisions based on our fundamental,
shared values.  We need to explain and argue for those positions based
on fundamental shared values.  And when we talk about values, we
should use the "values language" that our audience understands.

Here's a hypothetical.  Suppose that I'm running for president, and
I'm meeting with a group of Native Americans.  I would do my best to
get Native American advisors to brief me before the meeting, both in
issues that are important to Native Americans, and also in the general
cultural values that were important to them.  I'd try to learn some of
their ettiquette so that I could avoid offending anyone.  I'd try to
learn a few words in the language of the people I was meeting.  I
wouldn't try to pass myself off as a Native American, but I'd indicate
by my efforts that I respected their beliefs and culture, that I
didn't want to offend them, and that I wanted to benefit by learning
more of their culture, not just for the sake of impressing them, but
because learning about other cultures is intrinsically beneficial.
And, I would try to put my postion and arguments in the terms of their
culture whenever I could.  And, maybe, as I learned about their
culture, and concerns, and problems, and values, I'd change my stand
on some issues.

If I would do this for a minority culture, why should I do less for the
majority culture?

Here's another (not so) hypothetical.  I'm not Christian.  Suppose I'm
arguing politics with a good friend of mine who is strongly Christian.
I'd comfortably say, "But, didn't Jesus say ." if I thought it
would make a point.  I'd also quote Homer, Shakespeare, or Marx, if I
thought that the person would be familiar with the reference and it
would help me make my point.

There's a Star Trek episode where Picard has to deal diplomatically
with a people, and the translators don't do any good, because these
people only communicates by making references to the shared stories of
their culture.  In order to make peace, they first have to learn each
other's stories.

--- Chip

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms" -- Muriel Rukeyser.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

This is all predicated on the idea that there's one real truth, and that
if we all talk about it rationally with each other, we all might arrive
at it.  Sort of center in on it, like triangulate all the opinions and
get the truth.  But what if truth is not absolute?  What if we'll never
agree?  How sad.



ELISABETH DUBIN
Hillier ARCHITECTURE
One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F
215 636-9989 | hillier.com

-Original Message-
From: Charles H. Buchholtz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dubin, Elisabeth; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values? 

   From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Date:  Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:51:13 EST

   In a message dated 11/5/2004 12:57:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What the Democrats need to do is to get this message into the
  "heartland".

   With all due respect...

   Those with the vision of the anointed seem to think that if people
   disagree with them, they simply didn't get the message through to
   the great unwashed masses. So they'll try again. Could it possibly
   be that the message was received loud and clear and was rejected
   based on collective systemic experience?

Yup, the conversation has to go both ways.  We have to learn from their
experiences, and help them to learn from ours.  Maybe we'll change our
minds, and maybe they will change theirs.

I was thinking specifically of people who had said, essentially, "I
would have voted for Kerry if his campaign had been more respectful of
my culture and values."  In that case, it's not a matter of "getting the
message through".  They have already received it.  It's a matter of
building bridges, and overcoming some well-deserved mistrust from the
other side of the river.  And it's hard to do that quickly, when you
have an immediate ulterior motive (like getting a vote).  It's easier to
do over a long period of time, when there's no immediate "prize" to be
fought over.

--- Chip



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

RE: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

One more thing to take away from this discussion... Since people often
aren't interested in the facts, we should probably focus more on
emotional arguments.  How many times have you deleted a fact-filled
email before reading more than a few lines, because you already knew
that you either agreed or disagreed with the conclusions?  Email
forwards about who served in the army and for how long, who stole what,
who did what drugs and when... I guess in the end, they aren't effective
at all.  They just travel in the same circles, around and around.  Same
thing with opinions.  I try to read Craig's stuff before deleting it,
but I admit to failing sometimes (see previous post regarding stomach
acid).  

If I really was a devout Christian, I'd probably want to save the world,
too, by showing everyone the way of God and the difference between good
and evil, etc.  Wouldn't you, if you believed you had found the truth?

I've been thinking about forming a reverse-missionary group to travel
the heartland explaining the ways of secularism to the non-heathens.
You know, so they understand us better, a la this thread about fostering
understanding.  What do you think?
  


ELISABETH DUBIN
Hillier ARCHITECTURE
One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F
215 636-9989 | hillier.com

-Original Message-
From: Charles H. Buchholtz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:21 PM
To: Dubin, Elisabeth
Cc: UnivCity listserv
Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values? 

   From:  "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date:  Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:09:57 -0500

   I think what Chip wrote here is pretty interesting.  My problem this
   election was not the holding back from calling people Neanderthals
part,
   but rather not having enough "opponents" to talk rationally to about
why
   I'm voting for Kerry.  

Kerry carried Pennsylvania, so the problems wasn't that we didn't do a
good job of talking to our neighbors.  What the Democrats need to do is
to get this message into the "heartland".  It might be a good idea to
start a left-wing religious values campaign now, in a gentle way, so
that in four years it's an accepted part of the political dialogue.

I once talked to a friend of mine, who was something of a Christian
theologian, and I told her that everytime I heard about Christian
values, it was always something I opposed.  She explained that left-wing
Christians don't believe in claiming that their political stands are
endorsed by God.  So, when you see left-wing Christians in the media,
they either don't mention that they are Christian, or they don't talk
about politics.

I replied that I felt that this was a privileged position that
Christians could take because they are the majority religion in this
country.  If a wacko Muslim, or a Neo-Pagan, or even a Jew, took some
un-popular stand and claimed that it was motivated by their religion,
dozens of religious leaders would speak out to clarify the issue.  She
said that that would be an in-appropriate response for a Christian,
because since this is a Christian culture, "everyone knows" what
Christianity really is, so it's best to just maintain a dignified
silence when people say "obviously" looney things in the name of
Christianity.

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't feel that it would be effective or
appropriate for me to lead in this area.  But I hope someone does,
because this "dignified silence" thing isn't working.

Hmmm, left-wing televangelists...  Think about it...

--- Chip


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?





In a message dated 11/5/2004 12:57:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What the 
  Democrats need to dois to get this message into the 
  "heartland". 

With all due respect...
 
Those with the vision of the anointed seem to think that if people disagree 
with them, they simply didn't get the message through to the great unwashed 
masses. So they'll try again. Could it possibly be that the message was received 
loud and clear and was rejected based on collective systemic experience? 
 
Always at 
your service and ready for a dialog,Al 
Krigman

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

2004-11-05 Thread Benseraglio2




In a message dated 11/5/2004 12:57:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I once talked to a friend of mine, who was something of a Christiantheologian, and I told her that everytime I heard about Christianvalues, it was always something I opposed.  She explained thatleft-wing Christians don't believe in claiming that their politicalstands are endorsed by God.  So, when you see left-wing Christians inthe media, they either don't mention that they are Christian, or theydon't talk about politics.
For a little oldtime left-wing Christianity, try:
 
http://www.sojo.net/
 
 

Ross Benderhttp://rossbender.org

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread L a s e r B e a m ®

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But can't you just FOR ONCE not have to try to divide everybody up
and set up opposing sides?  

After our recent extraordinary election, for a moment let me take off my 
rose colored glasses and my Cheshire cat grin.

craig®, did you see these (you may want to put your 
rose-colored glasses back on!):

http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg
8-)
.
laserbeam®
[aka ray]







You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

2004-11-05 Thread L a s e r B e a m ®

Charles H. Buchholtz wrote:
What the Democrats need to do
is to get this message into the "heartland".  It might be a good idea
to start a left-wing religious values campaign now, in a gentle way,
so that in four years it's an accepted part of the political dialogue.

I disagree!
why are we being asked to 'talk to each other' in terms of 
religious values? when we live in a secular democracy?

I don't think religion should enter into our definitions of 
citizenship, of nationhood. sadly, it has -- and this 
election was a sort of jihad, in our own backyard... we need 
to learn how get the dialog going in terms we all have an 
equal stake in, an equal voice in, back to what freedom and 
democracy are all about.

after all, bush is waging a war overseas against that other 
jihad -- in order to bring them freedom and democracy!


.
laserbeam®
[aka ray]




















You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Monique . M . Harvey


Jon Moore said:

  "...Probably the best single thing each of us needs to do, for the
good of
  America, is to find someone who voted the other way, and really try
to
  understand *why* they voted the way they did. The vast majority of
  Americans are reasonable, decent folks (on both sides of the
political
  fence). Bush voters are not dumb any more than Kerry voters are
indecent.
  We have got to get back in touch with each other, and then demand
that the
  political parties recognize our common interests rather than playing
up
  their extreme ideological platforms."

By golly, I think that might very well be one of the most profound
statements I have read on the list since the political discussions began,
when I started hitting my delete key regularly.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I
had not thought of things in quite this way.  Bush has won the election,
for better or for worse, and perhaps its about time we moved on to a more
positive set of and conversations, one that can lead us into an
understanding of what it is we all really want in a leader, and for our
country, and then hold him to the fire for it.  Democrats and Republicans
alike.  Liberal and Conservative alike. I bet we do have more in common
than not, and have probably been victimized by the massive divide and
conquer ritual that is the hallmark of a bipartisan system.

This realization also comes in light of what Ross posted.  He said:

  "Polls also showed that, despite several years of evidence to the
contrary, a majority of Americans believed the Bush claims about  WMDs,
connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, nucular yellowcakes, and the rest.
They knew all about Dubya's "service" in  the Texas Air National Guard,
Cheney and Scalia's duck-hunting trips, Halliburton's no-bid contracts and
the rest...Americans aren't   concerned with the truth. They want a STRONG
LEADER. One who doesn't FLIP FLOP. One who will bring FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY
  to the Ay-rabs, even if we have to kill them all first."

I am not so sure if the fact is they really believed it or just don't care,
or perhaps his satire has maybe gone a bit off the deep end, but there
could be a hint of truth in what I think he implies.  It's that people
aren't always motivated by the "truth" but by their own gut-level needs,
fears, and an overall desire to be "safe." We have these preconceived
notions (that we are taught, or brainwashed with...) about what we think
"the other" cares about, or wants.  And maybe we're all wrong. Maybe in
some deep place inside, all Americans just want to feel "safe" and
protected - Democrats and Republicans alike. Maybe wehn we all lay down to
sleep at night we want to know we have done the "right" thing - morally, I
mean.  Maybe feeling "safe" to Bush's voters means taking the fight to
their asses. Maybe feeling "safe" to the anti-Bush, anti-war group of
voters means stsying out the war in the first place, and getting out now,
and cutting our losses. Maybe being "safe" AND "morally right" to a liberal
minded voter means live and let live, and so if gays want to marry, well by
Golly it's their right, and besides
"who-am-to-say-they-are-not-as-loved-as-any-other-of-God's
creatures-so-let-me-not-persecute-them because I might piss God off.
Picking on his children, and all..."  Maybe to the anti-gay marriage sect -
"safe" means leaving marriage as it is, for whom has always enjoyed it,
because always been that way, and what-if-we-piss-God-off? Certainly THAT
would not feel so "safe" now would it? There may be as many religious
Democrats as there Republicans, but for each, "safe" and "moral" seem to
take on whole new meanings.  And so, like Jon Moore says, let's ask
ourselves what really motivated people to vote like they did - dig deeper
than the political propaganda and rhetoric - find the common ground, and
hold Bush's ass to the fire to provide it. And recognize, that we are
definitely not going to agree on HOW he does it.

Point:  I will always believe that our voting history has shown that even
for local politics here in Philly, we seem to prefer those with a hint of
gangsterism, questionable ethics, and notariety.  And we're damn good at
knowing it and overlooking it, just like Ross said about Bush's voters.  It
would seem that people like to know that whomever they elect, in a tight
squeeze, they got our backs.  I voted for Kerry.  But truthfully, I never
felt that "safe" with my choice.  I just felt even less "safe" being over
there in waht some people refer to as the Garden of Eden doing what we are
doing, and I questioned our reason for being there, and our continued stay.
A choice between two evils...









M. M. Harvey, MPP, MPH
Administrator of Quality Management
Office of the Health Commissioner
1101 Market Street, Suite 840
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 685-5690
fax - (215) 685-5398
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscri

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Dan Widyono

Amen, Jon.  Amen.

Thanks for clarifying, Al.

Dan W.

> Probably the best single thing each of us needs to do, for the good of
> America, is to find someone who voted the other way, and really try to
> understand *why* they voted the way they did.

This is what I take away from "love thy neighbor" and "love your enemies".
Truly try to understand your fellow human beings.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Marianne Das

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:20 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral 
  Values -- Everyman's America

  In a message dated 11/5/2004 10:20:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Could you please dumb it down for 
non-annointed folks like myself?  What areyou trying to say in that 
paragraph?  What is your position?

  It's my belief that prejudices against single-sex relationships, per se, 
  have greatly diminished over the past few decades and are continuing to 
  decline. It's also my belief that the prevailing sentiment in this country is 
  that marriage has a traditional heritage involving a man and a woman, with 
  hosts of ramifications and lots of complexities -- not the least of which 
  being the hazy boundary between church and state. The reconciliation of these 
  two factors (the decline in prejudices and the prevailing sentiment), which 
  are not necessarily in opposition to one another, can come without redefining 
  marriage. Surely, there are other ways to provide the key benefits 
  to single-sex couples that presently accrue to traditional couples, when such 
  benefits encourage and reward behaviors in some comparable manner.

  Al Krigman

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "civil unions" for single-sex 
  couples give them the same benefits as marriage only in the state 
  where they live. Benefits the federal government gives to married 
  heterosexual couples -- federal tax exemptions, etc. -- don't apply. This 
  is why the human rights groups are pushing for single-sex marriages.

  What I can't understand is why conservatives, men in particular, feel so 
  threatened by the concept of single-sex marriage. 

  Marianne Das

RE: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread S. Sharrieff Ali

Well said Jon. I agree.

Yesterday there was a forum in center city moderated
by Monica Malpass of Channel 6 TV focused on the election results.
The forum panel included members of the Kerry and Bush Pennsylvania
team and audience Q&A participation. I couldn't make it but I thought 
it was a great idea for both sides to share their views.

I think the Kerry team should continue to work with citizens
to promote the agenda that Kerry said was important for America. After
the elections the ones that didn't win seems to disappear.

I thought that the right..was way too right and the left..was way too
left.
No wonder folks were so divided. I believe that public education on the
issues is needed to bridge America. We also need to understand that
certain people will never change their beliefs. I think the answer is to
agree to a system that will allow multiple beliefs to exist, a true
diversity, instead of telling people that "if I am elected" I will make
sure that someone else's beliefs will get thrashed to the ground. A more
moderate approach.

Democrats did the job locally, but what about the rest of America? Why
were there so many "undecided" voters going into the polls?

President Clinton received criticism for his administrations efforts to
create bi-partisanship. His administration was so successful because he
didn't have an "all or nothing" approach. I believe this is where Kerry
failed in the Red Zones of America, being too far left and leaving many
Americans with no other choice but to turn right. The outcome could have
been much different then what we ended up with.

S.



FYI
*Another historic election, with record turnout, some very
raw *emotions, and lots of unanswered questions.  So we hope you
can join us today, Thursday, November 4th, at 6 p.m., for Young America
PAC's annual post-election Pundits Panel to discuss how and why it all
turned out the way it did, at the Racquet Club, 215 South 16th Street
(with snacks and 
a cash bar).

Our panel will include senior staffers from the Pennsylvania campaigns 
of both the Bush and Kerry campaigns, and will be moderated by Channel 
Six news anchor (and host of Sunday morning's "Inside Story") Monica 
Malpass.  The first half of the event will be commentary among the 
panelists, followed by questions from the audience.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Moore
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Nothing made this as clear to me as the defeat of the gay marriage
| propositions in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. It would be
| encouraging if the people who advocated this position really examined
| why it proved to be unacceptable to the majority of the voters --
rather
| than just excused their own prejudices by attributing it to homophobia
| or to that sinister conspiracy of right-wing evangelical Christians.

I think this hits the nail on the head. I have many family and friends
in
the "flyover states", many of whom probably voted for Bush. These people
are not dumb backwoods rednecks, as I have heard many Democratic voters
complain over the last couple of days. In fact, they are hard working,
honest, normal people who try to do the right thing. You would probably
be
glad to have them as your neighbors.

This summer, when I was in Michigan, I overheard the following exchange
between an elderly couple (I could easily have imagined them as my
grandparents) upon seeing a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker lying on the
ground:

Woman: Does that say Kerry-Edwards?
Man: I think so.
Woman: Step on it!

What is wrong with this country that I, as someone who voted for Kerry,
am
so out of touch with these other ordinary Americans? I was induced to
despise Bush, and they were induced to despise Kerry. I learn to think
that
people who voted for Bush are dumb or didn't care about the election or
didn't want to think hard about it. They, in turn, learn to think that
Kerry voters have no morality or respect for decency.

Probably the best single thing each of us needs to do, for the good of
America, is to find someone who voted the other way, and really try to
understand *why* they voted the way they did. The vast majority of
Americans are reasonable, decent folks (on both sides of the political
fence). Bush voters are not dumb any more than Kerry voters are
indecent.
We have got to get back in touch with each other, and then demand that
the
political parties recognize our common interests rather than playing up
their extreme ideological platforms.

Jon

- --
Jon Moore
"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
(Lee Iacocca)
-BEGIN PG

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America





In a message dated 11/5/2004 12:04:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Probably 
  the best single thing each of us needs to do, for the good ofAmerica, is 
  to find someone who voted the other way, and really try tounderstand *why* 
  they voted the way they did. 

Great thought.
 
I'll (sort-of) start. I didn't like either major party candidate very much, 
and didn't like the minor party bozos either. Kerry and Bush each 
had things that seemed objectionable, as did their running mates. So I had to 
prioritize, and go for the team which seemed best for what I considered 
most important, accepting the rest as the washwater not thrown out because 
we were worried about the baby slipping away with it.
 
When all was said and done, two issues were tied in my mind as at the top 
of the list. Iraq and the fact that the 2004-2008 president will get to 
nominate as many as four Supreme Court justices. While I believe that Iraq was a 
terrible mistake, we're there and both candidates seems to have roughly the same 
ideas about what we have to do now. So that left the Supreme Court. Here, it 
boiled down to the question of an interpretive or an activist court.
 
I won't say which way I leaned, although most people on this list will 
have it figured correctly.
 
(Third on the list, by the way, was domestic security. This was also a tie 
-- in that I disagree with those parts of the Patriot Act that take away 
people's constitutional protections, but was concerned that a Kerry 
administration would leave us too vulnerable.)
 
Al 
Krigman(Left of Ivan Groznyj)

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

   From:  "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date:  Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:09:57 -0500

   I think what Chip wrote here is pretty interesting.  My problem this
   election was not the holding back from calling people Neanderthals part,
   but rather not having enough "opponents" to talk rationally to about why
   I'm voting for Kerry.  

Kerry carried Pennsylvania, so the problems wasn't that we didn't do a
good job of talking to our neighbors.  What the Democrats need to do
is to get this message into the "heartland".  It might be a good idea
to start a left-wing religious values campaign now, in a gentle way,
so that in four years it's an accepted part of the political dialogue.

I once talked to a friend of mine, who was something of a Christian
theologian, and I told her that everytime I heard about Christian
values, it was always something I opposed.  She explained that
left-wing Christians don't believe in claiming that their political
stands are endorsed by God.  So, when you see left-wing Christians in
the media, they either don't mention that they are Christian, or they
don't talk about politics.

I replied that I felt that this was a privileged position that
Christians could take because they are the majority religion in this
country.  If a wacko Muslim, or a Neo-Pagan, or even a Jew, took some
un-popular stand and claimed that it was motivated by their religion,
dozens of religious leaders would speak out to clarify the issue.  She
said that that would be an in-appropriate response for a Christian,
because since this is a Christian culture, "everyone knows" what
Christianity really is, so it's best to just maintain a dignified
silence when people say "obviously" looney things in the name of
Christianity.

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't feel that it would be effective or
appropriate for me to lead in this area.  But I hope someone does,
because this "dignified silence" thing isn't working.

Hmmm, left-wing televangelists...  Think about it...

--- Chip

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

Title: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

Hadn’t you heard “the masses are asses”?

Simply because the common man or the street rapper thinks so doesn’t mean it is necessarily what is best for all.

I do not find it difficult to fathom, rather to the contrary I have come to expect it, and probably The Founding Fathers did as well when they set this nation up as a Democratic Republic rather than a Democracy where the people decide everything.

Intelligent people have always been persecuted. The masses have NEVER shared the view of the intelligensia, but that point of view was not deliberately celebrated as it is now.

That said, just because they rejected Kerry’s platform doesn’t mean they get to decide the criteria for the rest of us as to what constitutes an American. THAT’s what worries me. Remember “The Lord High Protector Oliver Cromwell.”

On 11/5/04 8:55 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In a message dated 11/4/2004 10:43:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No matter how you try to twist the statistics, and might I say without humor, the ordinary people of America soundly repudiated you blues.
This is at the core of the point I've been making. The masses, as it were, do not share the vision of the self-anointed.
There's just been a book (I didn't buy it when I first read the review and now can't remember the title or author -- can someone help, here?) that discussed the idea of the collective wisdom of the populace essentially universally trumping the pronouncements of the people who think they have superior credentials -- intellectually and morally. Of course, the latter find this impossible to fathom.
Nothing made this as clear to me as the defeat of the gay marriage propositions in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. It would be encouraging if the people who advocated this position really examined why it proved to be unacceptable to the majority of the voters -- rather than just excused their own prejudices by attributing it to homophobia or to that sinister conspiracy of right-wing evangelical Christians.
Al Krigman
(Left of Ivan Groznyj)

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Jon Moore

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Nothing made this as clear to me as the defeat of the gay marriage
| propositions in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. It would be
| encouraging if the people who advocated this position really examined
| why it proved to be unacceptable to the majority of the voters -- rather
| than just excused their own prejudices by attributing it to homophobia
| or to that sinister conspiracy of right-wing evangelical Christians.
I think this hits the nail on the head. I have many family and friends in
the "flyover states", many of whom probably voted for Bush. These people
are not dumb backwoods rednecks, as I have heard many Democratic voters
complain over the last couple of days. In fact, they are hard working,
honest, normal people who try to do the right thing. You would probably be
glad to have them as your neighbors.
This summer, when I was in Michigan, I overheard the following exchange
between an elderly couple (I could easily have imagined them as my
grandparents) upon seeing a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker lying on the ground:
Woman: Does that say Kerry-Edwards?
Man: I think so.
Woman: Step on it!
What is wrong with this country that I, as someone who voted for Kerry, am
so out of touch with these other ordinary Americans? I was induced to
despise Bush, and they were induced to despise Kerry. I learn to think that
people who voted for Bush are dumb or didn't care about the election or
didn't want to think hard about it. They, in turn, learn to think that
Kerry voters have no morality or respect for decency.
Probably the best single thing each of us needs to do, for the good of
America, is to find someone who voted the other way, and really try to
understand *why* they voted the way they did. The vast majority of
Americans are reasonable, decent folks (on both sides of the political
fence). Bush voters are not dumb any more than Kerry voters are indecent.
We have got to get back in touch with each other, and then demand that the
political parties recognize our common interests rather than playing up
their extreme ideological platforms.
Jon
- --
Jon Moore
"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
(Lee Iacocca)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBi68NosdJ57trIsQRAjldAJ9PSVzrE1tDkI1WfNlYPx3MNIw1fACfT0tM
O85KVDU/sFGn1na2EoZ7zws=
=RAPr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values that you don't share

2004-11-05 Thread Craigsolve





In a message dated 11/5/2004 10:53:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, thanks for the advice about the tree 
  thing.


Just as I contacted you re 
trees from the list, off list, the same is happening regarding this political 
schism.
 
Changing your mind 
never occurred to me. If your stomach is upset, the easiest way to deal with it 
is Nexium 20 or 40 mg, once daily for 4 to 8 weeks. You are probably 
fortunate to have quality medical insurance with a prescription 
component.
 
The other possibility 
is your limbic system is being activated because your construct of American 
society is under fire. Remember, I am railing on about the incompetence of the 
leadership of the Democratic Party. To project that I am a big supporter of B2 
may be inaccurate.
 
That so many people 
failed to realize what a poorly crafted fraud Kerry is, I find 
mind-boggling.
 
I thought Rumi was a 
nice touch yesterday, applicable to the electorate every election, to the 
losers after this election, and to B2 all the time.
 
I do try to turn out a 
quality product, even if it is not your flavor.
 
Again, UCD aint middle 
America. You are America's intelligentsia. Nevertheless, you cannot give of 
your riches until you learn to eat their porridge.
 

Ciao,
 
Craig

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions...

Well, their marketing strategy certainly must have broken down very strictly
along racial lines as I and other people of color that I know of did not
receive any such calls or literature.  If others have please advise.

Although some of my white friends did hear from the likes of Sean Combs.

How's THAT for unity, to circumvent certain populations, especially since
African-American people tend not to be in favor of gay marriages.

Wilma

On 11/5/04 8:30 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Wilma de Soto wrote:
> 
> 
>> Was there an underground campaign of fear directed solely at them, ( a
>> largely mono-cultural, non-diverse group) that caused them to vote the way
>> they did in spite of their dire economic straits, AND an overt campaign
>> regarding National Security and Economy directed at the rest of us?
> 
> 
> Here is an experience I had, courtesy RNC.
> 
> Answer the phone, an upbeat young male addresses my by my first name.
> While I didn't recognize the voice, I admit to being guilty as charged.
> 
> He then bubbled into a speech about "Frank [mumble] told me to call. I'm
> John from Republican Outreach to Catholics" (or some title along those
> lines). I kept trying to get him to repeat the name of the person who
> "referred" him, which he wouldn't do, countering with a question.
> 
> I finally just said, pal, you got the wrong number.
> 
> How these people fingered me as RC is mysterious. To say I'm
> non-practicing is an understatement. To say I stopped giving a dime to the
> diocese when Bevilacqua started out handing out anti-gay rights postcards
> at mass is a fact.
> 
> So, yes, there was a certain sneaky business going on. Long distance, too,
> cause the caller ID showed RNC at a Washington number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> .

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values

2004-11-05 Thread Stephen Fisher

As much as I disagree with Craig's views, I think it's good for us to 
confront them.  Given that few on the list agree with Craig, it seems 
that he should be responding on a more frequent level to "offset" the 
hordes that disagree with him.  Most of his posting seem to be in 
response to someone, so it doesn't seem like he's just spitting out 
postings.

At the same time I agree with Elisabeth, that it's more productive (and 
for some, less acid building) if the posting (on both side) remained 
more factual and less provoking.

Slash away my neighbors the day is still young,
Mr Rogers
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote:
Craig, with some due respect, you are shouting your manifestos into an 
ocean of people who not only largely disagree with you, but who 
fervently and passionately oppose most of what you are putting out here 
on the listserve, day after day.  You cannot bend me to your mindset any 
more than I can bend you to mine, so I typically don't waste my time 
yelling at you on the listserve.  You, practically alone on your 
hilltop, shouting into the blue, blue sea, are giving me a lot of acid 
in my stomach.  Can you do me a favor and just cut down on the frequency 
of your dogmatic postings?  It would save me a lot on my Tums bill.  By 
the way, thanks for the advice about the tree thing.
 
 
*ELISABETH DUBIN*
*Hillier **ARCHITECTURE
*One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F 
215 636-9989 | hillier.com
 


*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:22 PM
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Subject:* Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

In a message dated 11/4/2004 7:11:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But can't you just FOR ONCE not have to try to divide everybody up
and set up opposing sides?  

After our recent extraordinary election, for a moment let me take off my 
rose colored glasses and my Cheshire cat grin.

 

The divisiveness continues on the part of the blues, unwilling to see 
reality. So, let us look at the election like a football game. The blues 
lost on the defensive side of the ball, the offensive side of the ball, 
and most importantly on the scoreboard.

 

The Democratic Party has been reduced from a national party to a 
regional party, yet allowed to participate in national governing. The 
blues now represent the Loony left coast, the liberal northeast coast, 
and the socialist leaning north central states.

 

For the arty or science oriented among you: Red is the color of richly 
oxygenated life giving blood. Blue is the color of blood and organs 
approaching failure.

 

No matter how you try to twist the statistics, and might I say without 
humor, the ordinary people of America soundly repudiated you blues. 
Never in my lifetime, in this country, has one political party so 
dominated all three branches of government.

  

May you be long to rail on Special K; do not let the wrongly 
self-anointed push you out into the cold wet unforgiving night.

 

Study the management methods of Ivan the Terrible or work to unite our 
precious nation: E Pluribus Unum.

 

Learn to think differently or die.
 

T

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions...

2004-11-05 Thread Benseraglio2




After the revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, a poll found that 42% of Americans did not object to torturing enemy prisoners during wartime. No doubt many of them were sincere Christians, whatever that means. The problem with welcoming Neanderthals into the discussion or into your big tent is that they tend to piss all over the carpet and rape your sister. The problem with liberals in general is that they really believe in dialogue, and that it's possible to have a real conversation with the Swaggarts, the Falwells, the Robertsons, the Coulters and the Limbaughs. 
 
Polls also showed that, despite several years of evidence to the contrary, a majority of Americans believed the Bush claims about WMDs, connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, nucular yellowcakes, and the rest. They knew all about Dubya's "service" in the Texas Air National Guard, Cheney and Scalia's duck-hunting trips, Halliburton's no-bid contracts and the rest.
 
Americans aren't concerned with the truth. They want a STRONG LEADER. One who doesn't FLIP FLOP. One who will bring FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY to the Ay-rabs, even if we have to kill them all first.
 
To me this year feels a lot like 1968, after Nixon's election, except that the country has moved so far to the right in the meantime that it's about to feel more like Argentina in the 70s.
 
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org/rorschachmovie.html
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 11/5/2004 10:44:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From:  Stephen Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Date:  Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:56:02 -0500   It was a real eye-opener that people feel so strongly about abortion and    gay rights that they are willing to overlook everything else -- EVEN a    war they didn't necessarily believe in or a President with questionable    motives.I heard a number of people call into WHYY to explain why they votedfor Bush.  What they said was much more complex and subtle than"family values".  Let me see if I can capture it.These were people who cared a great deal about treating people right,doing the right thing, and (for the Christians among them) "doing whatJesus would do".They were in a dilemma.  Kerry supported abortion and gay marriage,and they were deeply disturbed by that.  Bush was against helping thepoor (both here in abroad) and was causing a lot of pain and sufferingby starting wars, and they were deeply concerned by that, too.In their conversations with Bush supporters about their concerns aboutBush, they heard, "Yes, those are very serious concerns, and thePresident is also very concerned about these issues.  Bush reallywants to help the poor, but it's a tough problem.  He really thinksthat what he's doing is the right thing.  Aare very serious concerns, and thePresident is also very concerned about these issues.  Bush reallywants to help the poor, but it's a tough problem.  He really thinksthat what he's doing is the right thing.  And Bush really wants tohelp the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, he is aware that there's alot of pain and suffering over there, but he really believes that whathe's doing is the right thing in the long run."In their conversations with Kerry supporters about their concerns aboutKerry, they heard, "What, you're one of those neanderthals who stillsupports school prayer, and wants to eliminate abortions andhomosexuality!  What's next, eliminating all sex outside of marriage!I bet you think the earth is flat, too.  Where have you been since1960, under a rock!  I can't believe you could be s stupid."So, they voted for Bush.  I don't think they heard any specialcampaign that everyone else was not aware of.  I think they justreacted to it in a way that few people expected.One person mentioned that when Clinton talked about abortion, he saidthat he wanted to make abortion "legal, available, and rare."  The"and rare" part communicated to people that he understood, respectedand shared their concerns about abortion.The important thing is to welcome people who are anti-gay, andanti-abortion into the discussion, not saying that we will change theparty platform, but saying that we respect their concerns, but we canagree on fundemental issues.  We need to speak to Christians,particularly evangelical Christians, in language that shows that weshare their values and that our platform is based upon those sharedvalues.There's no hyprocrisy involved.  My Christian friends supported Kerry>because< of their Christian values, not in spite of them.  I googledfor ' "I was hungry" jesus ' and the first site I found was, "GeorgeW. Bush and the teachings of Jesus" (religiousleft.bmgbiz.net/bushandjesus.html).Just my 2 cents,

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America





In a message dated 11/5/2004 10:20:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could 
  you please dumb it down for non-annointed folks like myself?  What 
  areyou trying to say in that paragraph?  What is your 
  position?

It's my belief that prejudices against single-sex relationships, per se, 
have greatly diminished over the past few decades and are continuing to decline. 
It's also my belief that the prevailing sentiment in this country is that 
marriage has a traditional heritage involving a man and a woman, with hosts of 
ramifications and lots of complexities -- not the least of which being the hazy 
boundary between church and state. The reconciliation of these two factors (the 
decline in prejudices and the prevailing sentiment), which are not necessarily 
in opposition to one another, can come without redefining marriage. Surely, 
there are other ways to provide the key benefits to single-sex couples 
that presently accrue to traditional couples, when such benefits encourage and 
reward behaviors in some comparable manner.
 
I could elaborate, but then we'd be discussing the fallacy of "the 
level playing field." Which, of course, we are. 
 
Always at 
your service and ready for a dialog,Al 
Krigman

RE: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values?

I think what Chip wrote here is pretty interesting.  My problem this
election was not the holding back from calling people Neanderthals part,
but rather not having enough "opponents" to talk rationally to about why
I'm voting for Kerry.  Most of my friends are already on the same page.
When I _did_ have the rare opportunity to have a civilized conversation
with someone of a religious-based, pro-Bush mindset, I found myself out
of practice in how to talk to them about my attitude towards the
candidates.  Weird, right?  I need to set up a family of cardboard
evangelists in my living room and practice talking about these things,
to be better prepared next time.


ELISABETH DUBIN
Hillier ARCHITECTURE
One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F
215 636-9989 | hillier.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles H.
Buchholtz
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:31 AM
To: Stephen Fisher
Cc: Wilma de Soto; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity listserv
Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions... 

   From:  Stephen Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date:  Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:56:02 -0500

   It was a real eye-opener that people feel so strongly about abortion
and 
   gay rights that they are willing to overlook everything else -- EVEN
a 
   war they didn't necessarily believe in or a President with
questionable 
   motives.

I heard a number of people call into WHYY to explain why they voted for
Bush.  What they said was much more complex and subtle than "family
values".  Let me see if I can capture it.

These were people who cared a great deal about treating people right,
doing the right thing, and (for the Christians among them) "doing what
Jesus would do".

They were in a dilemma.  Kerry supported abortion and gay marriage, and
they were deeply disturbed by that.  Bush was against helping the poor
(both here in abroad) and was causing a lot of pain and suffering by
starting wars, and they were deeply concerned by that, too.

In their conversations with Bush supporters about their concerns about
Bush, they heard, "Yes, those are very serious concerns, and the
President is also very concerned about these issues.  Bush really wants
to help the poor, but it's a tough problem.  He really thinks that what
he's doing is the right thing.  And Bush really wants to help the people
of Afghanistan and Iraq, he is aware that there's a lot of pain and
suffering over there, but he really believes that what he's doing is the
right thing in the long run."

In their conversations with Kerry supporters about their concerns about
Kerry, they heard, "What, you're one of those neanderthals who still
supports school prayer, and wants to eliminate abortions and
homosexuality!  What's next, eliminating all sex outside of marriage!
I bet you think the earth is flat, too.  Where have you been since 1960,
under a rock!  I can't believe you could be s stupid."

So, they voted for Bush.  I don't think they heard any special campaign
that everyone else was not aware of.  I think they just reacted to it in
a way that few people expected.

One person mentioned that when Clinton talked about abortion, he said
that he wanted to make abortion "legal, available, and rare."  The "and
rare" part communicated to people that he understood, respected and
shared their concerns about abortion.

The important thing is to welcome people who are anti-gay, and
anti-abortion into the discussion, not saying that we will change the
party platform, but saying that we respect their concerns, but we can
agree on fundemental issues.  We need to speak to Christians,
particularly evangelical Christians, in language that shows that we
share their values and that our platform is based upon those shared
values.

There's no hyprocrisy involved.  My Christian friends supported Kerry
>because< of their Christian values, not in spite of them.  I googled
for ' "I was hungry" jesus ' and the first site I found was, "George W.
Bush and the teachings of Jesus" 
(religiousleft.bmgbiz.net/bushandjesus.html).

Just my 2 cents,

--- Chip

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named
"UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Naomirie

Book's called: 
What's the Matter with Kansas:  How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, by Thomas 
Frank
I haven't read it yet but it's supposed to be fabulous.
Naomi

Naomi Segal
Regent Square


In a message dated 11/5/2004 10:51:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, Mark Krull <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> writes:

>
> 
>Hello There is a book that just came out. I think its called something like "What 
>happend to Kansas?" It speaks how the plains were a hotbed of Progressiveism and how 
>it became a Republican stronghold..even as Republican economic policies hurt them. 
>What is the name of the book and has anyone read it??
>
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Nov 5, 2004 9:27 AM 
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America 
>
>  In a message dated 11/5/2004 9:12:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> writes: There's just been a book (I didn't buy it when I first read the review and 
> now can't remember the title or author -- can someone help, here?) that discussed 
> the idea of the collective wisdom of the populace essentially 
> universallynbsp;trumping the pronouncements of the people who think they have 
> superior credentials -- intellectually and morally. Of course, thenbsp;latter find 
> this impossible to fathom.
>  The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki. See my scathing review at: nbsp; 
> http://rossbender.org/wisdom.html nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;  
>
>Ross Bender
>http://rossbender.org/wisdom.html
>
>
> 
>
>nbsp;
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>  You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." 
> To unsubscribe or for archive information, see . 

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Mark Krull



Hello
There is a book that just came out. I think its called
something like "What happend to Kansas?"
It speaks how the plains were a hotbed of Progressiveism
and how it became a Republican stronghold..even as Republican
economic policies hurt them. What is the name of the book and has anyone read it??-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 5, 2004 9:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America 

In a message dated 11/5/2004 9:12:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

There's just been a book (I didn't buy it when I first read the review and now can't remember the title or author -- can someone help, here?) that discussed the idea of the collective wisdom of the populace essentially universally trumping the pronouncements of the people who think they have superior credentials -- intellectually and morally. Of course, the latter find this impossible to fathom.

The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki. See my scathing review at:
 
http://rossbender.org/wisdom.html
 
 
 

Ross Benderhttp://rossbender.org/wisdom.html
 



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values




Craig, with some due 
respect, you are shouting your manifestos into an ocean of people who not only 
largely disagree with you, but who fervently and passionately oppose most 
of what you are putting out here on the listserve, day after day.  You 
cannot bend me to your mindset any more than I can bend you to mine, so I 
typically don't waste my time yelling at you on the listserve.  You, 
practically alone on your hilltop, shouting into the blue, blue sea, are giving 
me a lot of acid in my stomach.  Can you do me a favor and just cut down on 
the frequency of your dogmatic postings?  It would save me a lot on my 
Tums bill.  By the way, thanks for the advice about the tree 
thing.
 
 ELISABETH DUBINHillier ARCHITECTUREOne 
South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F 215 636-9989 
| hillier.com 
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:22 
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [UC] The 
Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America


In a message dated 11/4/2004 7:11:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But 
  can't you just FOR ONCE not have to try to divide everybody up and set up 
  opposing sides?  


After our recent 
extraordinary election, for a moment let me take off my rose colored glasses and 
my Cheshire cat grin.
 
The divisiveness 
continues on the part of the blues, unwilling to see reality. So, let us look at 
the election like a football game. The blues lost on the defensive side of the 
ball, the offensive side of the ball, and most importantly on the 
scoreboard.
 
The Democratic Party 
has been reduced from a national party to a regional party, yet allowed to 
participate in national governing. The blues now represent the Loony left coast, 
the liberal northeast coast, and the socialist leaning north central 
states.
 
For the arty or 
science oriented among you: Red is the color of richly oxygenated life 
giving blood. Blue is the color of blood and organs approaching 
failure.
 
No matter how you try 
to twist the statistics, and might I say without humor, the ordinary people of 
America soundly repudiated you blues. Never in my lifetime, in this country, has 
one political party so dominated all three branches of 
government.
  
May you be long to 
rail on Special K; do not let the wrongly self-anointed push you out into the 
cold wet unforgiving night.
 
Study the management 
methods of Ivan the Terrible or work to unite our precious nation: E Pluribus 
Unum.
 
Learn to think 
differently or die.
 
T

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions...

2004-11-05 Thread Craigsolve




In a message dated 11/5/2004 9:21:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How 
  these people fingered me as RC is mysterious.
There was a rumor that for at least one previous election the Church 
released its membership DB to help a pro life candidate. No other specifics 
available. Other possibilities are religious groups who sell their mailing 
lists. Ever buy mass cards, chances, St Anthony's magazine, etc., then you may 
have been sold.
So, yes, 
  there was a certain sneaky business going on. Long distance, too,cause the 
  caller ID showed RNC at a Washington number.
Most national campaign management groups have their HQ in the DC area, thus 
they phone from their. The availability of an educated workforce that can speak 
a recognizable form of English, distinguishes them from, say, the Philly 
workforce.
 
Ciao,
 
Craig

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Dan Widyono

> Nothing made this as clear to me as the defeat of the gay marriage  
> propositions in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. It would be  encouraging 
> if 
> the people who advocated this position really examined why it  proved to be 
> unacceptable to the majority of the voters -- rather than just  excused their own 
> prejudices by attributing it to homophobia or to that sinister  conspiracy of 
> right-wing evangelical Christians.  

Could you please dumb it down for non-annointed folks like myself?  What are
you trying to say in that paragraph?  What is your position?

Thanks for clarifying,
Dan W.

-- 
-- Daniel Widyono --
-- www.widyono.net--
-- www.cis.upenn.edu/~widyono --
-- 

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions...

   From:  Stephen Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date:  Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:56:02 -0500

   It was a real eye-opener that people feel so strongly about abortion and 
   gay rights that they are willing to overlook everything else -- EVEN a 
   war they didn't necessarily believe in or a President with questionable 
   motives.

I heard a number of people call into WHYY to explain why they voted
for Bush.  What they said was much more complex and subtle than
"family values".  Let me see if I can capture it.

These were people who cared a great deal about treating people right,
doing the right thing, and (for the Christians among them) "doing what
Jesus would do".

They were in a dilemma.  Kerry supported abortion and gay marriage,
and they were deeply disturbed by that.  Bush was against helping the
poor (both here in abroad) and was causing a lot of pain and suffering
by starting wars, and they were deeply concerned by that, too.

In their conversations with Bush supporters about their concerns about
Bush, they heard, "Yes, those are very serious concerns, and the
President is also very concerned about these issues.  Bush really
wants to help the poor, but it's a tough problem.  He really thinks
that what he's doing is the right thing.  And Bush really wants to
help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, he is aware that there's a
lot of pain and suffering over there, but he really believes that what
he's doing is the right thing in the long run."

In their conversations with Kerry supporters about their concerns about
Kerry, they heard, "What, you're one of those neanderthals who still
supports school prayer, and wants to eliminate abortions and
homosexuality!  What's next, eliminating all sex outside of marriage!
I bet you think the earth is flat, too.  Where have you been since
1960, under a rock!  I can't believe you could be s stupid."

So, they voted for Bush.  I don't think they heard any special
campaign that everyone else was not aware of.  I think they just
reacted to it in a way that few people expected.

One person mentioned that when Clinton talked about abortion, he said
that he wanted to make abortion "legal, available, and rare."  The
"and rare" part communicated to people that he understood, respected
and shared their concerns about abortion.

The important thing is to welcome people who are anti-gay, and
anti-abortion into the discussion, not saying that we will change the
party platform, but saying that we respect their concerns, but we can
agree on fundemental issues.  We need to speak to Christians,
particularly evangelical Christians, in language that shows that we
share their values and that our platform is based upon those shared
values.

There's no hyprocrisy involved.  My Christian friends supported Kerry
>because< of their Christian values, not in spite of them.  I googled
for ' "I was hungry" jesus ' and the first site I found was, "George
W. Bush and the teachings of Jesus" 
(religiousleft.bmgbiz.net/bushandjesus.html).

Just my 2 cents,

--- Chip

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America

2004-11-05 Thread Benseraglio2




In a message dated 11/5/2004 9:12:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

There's just been a book (I didn't buy it when I first read the review and now can't remember the title or author -- can someone help, here?) that discussed the idea of the collective wisdom of the populace essentially universally trumping the pronouncements of the people who think they have superior credentials -- intellectually and morally. Of course, the latter find this impossible to fathom.

The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki. See my scathing review at:
 
http://rossbender.org/wisdom.html
 
 
 

Ross Benderhttp://rossbender.org/wisdom.html

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- Everyman's America





In a message dated 11/4/2004 10:43:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No matter how you 
  try to twist the statistics, and might I say without humor, the ordinary 
  people of America soundly repudiated you blues.

This is at the core of the point I've been making. The masses, as it were, 
do not share the vision of the self-anointed.
 
There's just been a book (I didn't buy it when I first read the review and 
now can't remember the title or author -- can someone help, here?) that 
discussed the idea of the collective wisdom of the populace essentially 
universally trumping the pronouncements of the people who think they have 
superior credentials -- intellectually and morally. Of course, the latter 
find this impossible to fathom.
 
Nothing made this as clear to me as the defeat of the gay marriage 
propositions in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. It would be 
encouraging if the people who advocated this position really examined why it 
proved to be unacceptable to the majority of the voters -- rather than just 
excused their own prejudices by attributing it to homophobia or to that sinister 
conspiracy of right-wing evangelical Christians. 
 
Al 
Krigman(Left of Ivan Groznyj)

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions...

2004-11-05 Thread maruca

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Wilma de Soto wrote:

> Was there an underground campaign of fear directed solely at them, ( a
> largely mono-cultural, non-diverse group) that caused them to vote the way
> they did in spite of their dire economic straits, AND an overt campaign
> regarding National Security and Economy directed at the rest of us?

Here is an experience I had, courtesy RNC.

Answer the phone, an upbeat young male addresses my by my first name.
While I didn't recognize the voice, I admit to being guilty as charged.

He then bubbled into a speech about "Frank [mumble] told me to call. I'm
John from Republican Outreach to Catholics" (or some title along those
lines). I kept trying to get him to repeat the name of the person who
"referred" him, which he wouldn't do, countering with a question. 

I finally just said, pal, you got the wrong number.

How these people fingered me as RC is mysterious. To say I'm
non-practicing is an understatement. To say I stopped giving a dime to the
diocese when Bevilacqua started out handing out anti-gay rights postcards
at mass is a fact. 

So, yes, there was a certain sneaky business going on. Long distance, too,
cause the caller ID showed RNC at a Washington number. 

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions...

2004-11-05 Thread Stephen Fisher

Actually Wilma I did receive literature from the RNC attacking 
(deamonizing) a local candidate soley on the ground that she was pro-gay 
marriage.  There was no other information on the literature about the 
candidate or other issues to consider.

It was a real eye-opener that people feel so strongly about abortion and 
gay rights that they are willing to overlook everything else -- EVEN a 
war they didn't necessarily believe in or a President with questionable 
motives.

Take care,
Stephen
Wilma de Soto wrote:
Dear Craig,
Understandably you are elated to have your candidate win.  I respect 
your choice.

I do have a few questions though.  Why is it AFTER the election do we 
find out that the BIG deciding issue was family values?

As a resident of a swing state, I am surprised that of all the campaign 
advertisements played here, they were mostly pertaining to National 
Security and the Economy.

What exactly were The Religious Right told during the campaign that we 
did NOT get to hear?

Even at Bush rallies from which we saw excerpts on TV, I never heard him 
say anything about gay marriage etc., that supposedly was the deciding 
factor in the south and Midwest.

Was there an underground campaign of fear directed solely at them, ( a 
largely mono-cultural, non-diverse group) that caused them to vote the 
way they did in spite of their dire economic straits, AND an overt 
campaign regarding National Security and Economy directed at the rest of us?

It’s one thing to decide your vote based upon what you believe to be the 
issues that have been presented.  

It’s quite another to have one group of voters believe the campaign was 
based one one issue, and a covert campaign targeted to a specific group 
on quite another.

Take care,
Wilma
On 11/4/04 9:22 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 11/4/2004 7:11:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But  can't you just FOR ONCE not have to try to divide everybody
up and set up  opposing sides?  

After our recent extraordinary election, for a moment let me take
off my rose colored glasses and my Cheshire cat grin.
 
The divisiveness continues on the part of the blues, unwilling to
see reality. So, let us look at the election like a football game.
The blues lost on the defensive side of the ball, the offensive side
of the ball, and most importantly on the scoreboard.
 
The Democratic Party has been reduced from a national party to a
regional party, yet allowed to participate in national governing.
The blues now represent the Loony left coast, the liberal northeast
coast, and the socialist leaning north central states.
 
For the arty or science oriented among you: Red is the color of
richly oxygenated life giving blood. Blue is the color of blood and
organs approaching failure.
 
No matter how you try to twist the statistics, and might I say
without humor, the ordinary people of America soundly repudiated you
blues. Never in my lifetime, in this country, has one political
party so dominated all three branches of government.
  
May you be long to rail on Special K; do not let the wrongly
self-anointed push you out into the cold wet unforgiving night.
 
Study the management methods of Ivan the Terrible or work to unite
our precious nation: E Pluribus Unum.
 
Learn to think differently or die.

T


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] The Triumph of Moral Values -- A Few Questions...