HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:27:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <4JAN199316184454@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor) writes:
>
>	Most of the prejudice against Homos is based on ideas about
>their behaviour too.  The point is that many of these supposed behaviours
>are not practised by all homosexuals.  They don't define homosexuality.
>The goal, in my view, is to expose people to what homosexuality is 
>really all about, so that they can realise that condemning a whole
>culture because of preconceived general assumptions is unwarranted.

Which is my whole point.  Don't worry, because without any programs or
laws the "gay community" is doing quite a job at exposing people to 
what homosexuality is.  That is the root of problem that homosexuals face.

I'll use my own experience to illustrate...

Dear Susan will tell you that I've told many times (here in discussion on
the local boards) of how I was raised.  Born early in the sixties to teenage 
parents who were the model liberal, dope smoking flower children I was
always exposed to homosexuals.  They had friends that were gay, many were
couples that I've still had occasion to keep in touch with and some of them
reject the so called gay rights agenda out of hand.

Fact is not so long ago I never considered homosexual any different than
anybody else.  However, fifteen years of in your face politics, more than
a few chance encounters with the leather clad crowd in on the street 
corners of NYC (encounters that left me wondering how anyone could behave
like "that") insistance that some extremist groups should have access to
the public schools so they can teach the "right way to think", Dykes on
Bikes, Avenging Lesbians, Queer Nation and a whole list of groups that
seem to be a bit better of economicaly and educationaly than the average
American screaming oppression has left me pretty sick and fed up.

I assure you, despite your arguements to the contrary, the gay rights
"movement" and a large portion of the gay community, has done more to
fuel hate and bigotry than anything some hokey preacher in some fundy
church could ever do intentionally.

PSG



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:24:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>Excuse me Mr. Sunder, the target may be the president-elect, but the
>result of the decision does concern Chelsea. The fact is that Repubs
>are trying to force Clinton into making a pointless symbolic gesture
>at the expense of his daughter.

Actually, no.  I haven't heard anyone saying that Clinton should change his
decision, just that his decision was hypocritical.  Considering the same
Federal government (particularly Congress) that he expects to reform education
has been managing the DC school system, and the mutual admiration society 
between Clinton and the public school teachers unions, calling it anything but
hypocritical is beyond me.  No reason he should change, though.  It's not as 
though he's a stranger to hypocrisy.


-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
They cut, I hack.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19879 alt.politics.elections:24778 alt.politics.libertarian:3202 talk.politics.misc:66726
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:38:36 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <Bkd=W-_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.222202.27215@unet.net.com>, steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:

>|> Please explain how a child living in poverty in an inner city is going 
>|> to get a better education than he or she is currently getting because his 
>|> or her parent(s) receive(s) a school voucher worth $1000.00 or even $2500.00
>|> considering the cost of a good private (or public for that matter)
>|> education.

>It helps by creating a competitive market for education in the inner city.
>Instead of money automatically going to the local government school,
>parents will have the option of spending it elsewhere.  Some enterprising
>soul(s) will create alternative schools in the hopes of attracting
>the voucher money.  If a school gets a good reputation, it will attract
>more students, if it doesn't, students will go elsewhere.  Clearly the
>size of the voucher will make a big difference.  Most voucher plans that
>I am aware of have voucher amounts which are enough to pay for a reasonable
>education.  Additional money from parents, relatives, friends and 
>scholarships can all be used to supplement the voucher amount.

The amount of the voucher is critical.  A voucher of $1000 would do virtually
nothing to create competition among schools in poor neighborhoods.  A voucher
of $2500 might but I don't think it's enough.  A $1000 voucher would take
money away from the public schools while leaving poor and lower middle class
students in the same bad schools, which now have less money.  It will take
more money away from the poor, and worse, it will serve as another excuse to
do nothing.

If you want to do this, go all the way.  The New York City public schools
spend over $7000 per student.  Give them all vouchers for $7000, or even
$4000 or $5000, and then we'll have something.  The private enterprise you
spoke of would then certainly get into gear, and we would have a realistic
solution.  But $1000?  Is that what Bush suggested?  It's a pathetic idea,
worse than nothing.  I'm for vouchers, but _large_ vouchers.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:53:49 GMT
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu


>>	all special interest groups.  His decision to send the first
>>	daughter to a private school is just his latest example of say
>>	one thing and do another.
>
>So, consider me an ignoramus if you must, but what promise did Clinton break
>by sending his daughter to a private school?
>

He did not break any promises that I know of, although it is hard to 
remember all the promises he made.  What he did do is show that his
populist retoric is just retoric.


fred
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:47:14 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1725@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

[lots more of the same old tired stuff---Demmies all bad, Reps. all good---]
[nobody knows what's going on but him etc..                                ]


As I have posted many a time before---there have been many good Reps. that
have done much good for this country. And there will be many good Reps. in
the future who will do much good for this country. Likewise for the Demmies.
To split who can do good for the country and who can't strictly along party 
lines is not very bright and quite possibly dangerous in the long run. You
stated that George lost because he did not have the same conservative values
as his party. I agree he did not share his party's conservative values but
that is not why he lost. George didn't loose as much as the Rep. party lost
the White House. That's because the Rep. party was the ones whose 
conservative values did not match that of the country's. You say Kemp has 
a good shot at winning the White House in '96. I agree again. Of course
Kemp is hardly your ultra-conservative right winger that seemed to personify
the Rep. party this past election. 

To condemn an entire adminstration before they even take power is just a little
whacky there Paul. Wait a year or so and then we'll know if all your rantings
and ravings have any merit or not. The way I see it is that the Demmies have
been given a shot---it's totally up to them to either do good or fall flat
on their faces. If they do good then people will vote for them again in '96,
if not then they will have a hard time regaining the White House for some
time to come----and rightfully so I beleive.


Stan Knight
|The future ain't here yet|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:29:26 GMT

In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>Perhaps we do, in fact, live in "interesting times." If the death of
>socialism in Eastern Europe was not the end but merely the beginning
>of the end then we can expect tumultuous changes in the twilight years
>of the 20th century, a century that will go down in history as the
>most vicious and brutal to date, a century in which the state waged
>war upon its citizens in the various guises of the common good.
>
>But what comes next? If it is all over for the political class, are we
>simply going to get a new ruling class? Will the political class manage
>to drag the world economy down with them? Or are we on the verge of a new
>age of peace and prosperity as governments return to more modest roles
>in society?
>
>What will life be like in the post-socialist 21st century?
>

I don't claim to support all of their conclusions,  but I think the book
"The Great Reckoning" is an interesting depiction of what could happen.
They make some good points about the devolution of power and the
collapse of the welfare state. They conclude that it may usher in an age
of new personal freedom  or it may end up balkanizing the world for some
time to come.  I definitely DON'T agree with their analysis of where
nanotechnology will lead us.  In any case, the era of large centralized
governments is coming to a close.  Human progress has moved beyond it.

- Ted D.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19729 alt.politics.elections:24712 alt.president.clinton:1366 talk.politics.misc:66463
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:11:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) says:

>
>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>education vouchers?
>

And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
at this elite private school.  And if it turns out to be predominantly white
in an area of the country which has a high minority population, will they
splash across the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that 
Bill has chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter?  I WOULDN'T
COUNT ON IT!

It sickened me last night to see that Clinton doesn't even have to defend
himself on this - CBS was doing all his spin control for him!

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1399 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19906 alt.politics.elections:24794 talk.politics.misc:66774
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:35:41 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan8.153231.9006@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>I mean, some of the libertarian pipe dreams in this thread have been
>amazing. "Maybe now Clinton will support vouchers." "He'll implement
>school choice in his second term." "Now is the time to privatize the
>school system." Look, the right-wingers have had three terms (including
>one lame-duck one) to implement any one of a number of libertopias
>and they didn't do it. So now that Clinton's in, they will???? There
>is some serious denial going on here.

Hey, I'm the one who speculated that Clinton might push for vouchers in his
second term, and I voted for Clinton.  In fact, I carried around Clinton/Gore
signs.  But just because I lean towards the Democratic Party doesn't mean
I'll tow the party line on all issues.  I think vouchers are the way to go;
it's the specifics of Bush's proposals that fall short.  The vouchers have to
be large, at least $4000, I think, and then we'll have a far, far more
effective way of distributing quality education to everyone.  The $1000 voucher
that Bush suggested would be worse than nothing, but the New York City Public
School system spends over $7000 per student, and the result is shit.  Give
every child in New York a voucher for $7000, or even $4000 or $5000, and they
will get good education somewhere, public or private.  Just because Bush
suggested a poor version of educational vouchers, doesn't mean that we can't
make a good or even great version.  Don't let the educational establishment
brainwash you - they're more interested in their own pockets than in the good
of the children.  Remember, the fundamental goal is "good education for
everyone", not "good education in the publicly administered school system".
If better education can be gotten, for the same money, in private schools, then
we should send everyone to private schools and pay for it too!  That's not
libertarian or ultra-right wing, because the right-wingers wouldn't want to pay
for it either.  Vouchers have attracted a lot of attention lately, and the idea
will probably grow in popularity, like it or not.  I say, let's do it now, and
do it right, because if we wait until the Republicans are back in power, then
it really will be all the bad things the teachers unions and the bureacratic
education establishment say it will be.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:08:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194239.16465@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
>confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
>mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
>monolithic in their wants and desires.
>
>If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
>say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
>is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
>whether Clinton has accomplished this task.


	Why is it that when the same-old-white men are picked for
cabinet jobs, there is a lot less harping about "capabilities"? And I
said "a lot less", not that there is no harping at all. Is it because
the faces of power are darker than before, or perhaps were a bit more
lipstick, that our confidence in their abilities is just a bit shaken?
	For some time now, the face of political power in this country
has been white and male. We're used to it, so some of us are a lot
less likely to question it I suppose.
	Also, is it perhaps because women and ethnic minorities have
been in politics for such a short time (relatively speaking, compared
to white men) that we feel these groups haven't yet been in the game
long enough to produce excellent minds in governement?
	I think once we get over the initial shock of seeing black,
hispanic and female faces where we have been used to seeing white men
almost exclusively, we'll find that most of the people in Clinton's
cabinet are perfectly capable of doing their jobs well.



-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:18:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.233717.25886@infonode.ingr.com>, drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes:
|> ...
|> The Chinese government has a long way to go in allowing many personal
|> freedoms that we take for granted in the US.  However, it's certainly
|> much further along in making free-market economic reforms than any of
|> the Eastern Bloc nations or Russia.  And the ruling elite show no signs 
|> of stopping the spread of capitalism.  In fact,  they're doing just
|> about everything they can to encourage it.

I got the impression they were divided.  The head gerontocrat,  Deng Xiaoping,
probably favors "bourgoisification" (The French Academy will be out for your
hide :),  but is too judicious to wear it on his sleeve. 
|> 
|> ... When the free market
|> expands and the bourgeoisification of China will happen, REAL
|> democratization will occur. In other words, Tianemen square was only the 
|> beginning. 
|> ...
Well ... I wonder how Chris Patten would view this matter?  There certainly
seems to be very firm resistance to it now.  The lead-in to 1997 should be
very enlightening;  presently,  it doesn't look all that great for democracy.



========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 09:00:45 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1iijjkINN1jt@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|> Jim Howe) writes:
|> |> Steve Nelson) writes:
|> |> |> Michael Doel) writes:
|> |> |> >
|> |> |> >
|> |> |> >Wrong on two counts.  First, the rich aren't the ones being hurt by the lack
|> |> |> >of school vouchers, it's the poor.
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> Please explain how a child living in poverty in an inner city is going 
|> |> |> to get a better education than he or she is currently getting because his 
|> |> |> or her parent(s) receive(s) a school voucher worth $1000.00 or even $2500.00
|> |> |> considering the cost of a good private (or public for that matter)
|> |> |> education.
|> |> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> It helps by creating a competitive market for education in the inner city.
|> |> Instead of money automatically going to the local government school,
|> |> parents will have the option of spending it elsewhere.  Some enterprising
|> |> soul(s) will create alternative schools in the hopes of attracting
|> |> the voucher money.  If a school gets a good reputation, it will attract
|> |> more students, if it doesn't, students will go elsewhere.  Clearly the
|> |> size of the voucher will make a big difference.  Most voucher plans that
|> |> I am aware of have voucher amounts which are enough to pay for a reasonable
|> |> education.  Additional money from parents, relatives, friends and 
|> |> scholarships can all be used to supplement the voucher amount.
|> |> 
|> The school Chelsea will be going to is $10,000/year.  How much of a voucher
|> would it take to give 80% of the residents of DC (or any other inner city)
|> the opportunity to attend such a school?  Probably $9.900.  Doesn't sound
|> like a solution we can live with, since we spend ~$3500 per student today --
|> and that is total funding; federal, state, and local.

The fact that some private (non-government) schools may charge $10,000 does 
not mean that all non-government schools will or do charge that much.
There are many non-government schools who charge less and also have
scholarship programs to admit those in financial need.  Also, the market
for private education is primarly targeted at those who have money, since
they are the ones who can afford to pay the tuition.  With vouchers a
new market opens up.  There is no reason why there won't be schools which
cater to various price ranges and still offer a quality education.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943