HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:49:22 GMT

Michael Edelman writes
> Steve Davis writes:
> >  Exactly.  In my limited experience, most private schools operate on
> >principles similar to those of an insurance company.  That is, if the risk 
> >you carry is too great, you are dropped.
>
> Is your argument that this explains all the variance? Because if that's
> the case, it's a weak argument. There are also private schools that
> *specialize* in troublemakers, and those that specialize in poor students.

  No, that wasn't my argument.  I simply agreed with Mr. Starr that private  
schools who boast a higher-than-average student performance level can do so, in  
part, because of their more rigid admission/retention requirements.  However, I  
did over-generalize my statement to include all private schools, not just those  
that are promoted as academically superior alternatives to public schools.
  
> An important difference is that the parents of private school students
> actually care about their children's education. Unfortunately the poor
> parents who care about their children's education can't do anything about
> about it as they have middle-class liberals to protect them from school
> choice programs.

  That may be true in general, but it certainly wasn't the case for me.  I went  
to a private school for five of my 13 years of pre-college education.  The  
school was a small, non-religious K-12 day school that was attended primarily  
by kids of state legislators, bank presidents, and the like.  The few parents  
that did get involved were the exception, not the rule.  The remainder sent  
their children there so they wouldn't have to be involved; it was a typical  
"throw money at the problem" situation.  I suspect that this is the case for  
many private schools.

  I left this school (my decision) to go to a public high school for grades  
9-12.  At this point, I've seen no evidence that I made the wrong choice.  To  
be fair, I did have excellent teachers at the private school, but I was just as  
fortunate in the public schools that I attended.

  Hope this little discourse has been at least somewhat relevant...  :-)

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: The Abortion Issue
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:18:26 GMT

Why is it that no one wants to take on the only real issue there is
regarding abortion?
 
There is one, and only one, issue: Is abortion murder?
 
If it isn't, then there are no anti- issues that hold water, since
it becomes about as contraversial as an appendectomy.
 
If it is, then the social engineering arguments about poor mothers
are about as convincing as are arguments for putting the poor to death.
 
Perhaps people are so stuck in situational and applied ethics that they
can't spot a fundamental ethical issue any more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:53:00 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Sep14183023@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.232451.15196@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>In article <NEERI.92Sep9134509@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep8.210623.6097@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>>>
>
>>>>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>>>>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, Ed Clark
>>>>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  
>>>>
Just thought you might be interested to know that some _local_ Green Party
candidates have outpolled local LP candidates.  Since the Greens believe
that grassroots comes first, they won't have a presidential candidate
for a long time (until the grassroots is solidified), so Marrou is
safe :).

If the two major parties were the LP and the Greens, then people would
have TWO choices for real change.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:48:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

>shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>The EC provides a certain level of protection to the smaller states, but not
>*full* protection.  States like Alaska and Nevada would be totally
>insignificant in an election decided on popular vote.  With the EC, however,
>they have 6 electoral votes.  The votes of folks in large, traditionally swing
>states (like PA and IL) still have more value to a candidate, but the
>small-state voters aren't completely left out.

Well, I don't think thats such a good system.  Instead of leaving them
out, they get a token vote that really doesn't mean anything in the big
picture?  Whats 3 electoral votes compared to 25?  The big states still
overwhelm the small ones and so the interests of the highly populated
states still get more attention.  Or don't I understand this process?

Now, do all the electoral votes from one state have to go to one candidate?
Is is a winner take all situation?  Or are they distributed based on the
popular vote.  i.e., if a 3 vote state voted 1/3 for Bush, 2/3 for Clinton,
would the electorals be split accordingly, or would Clinton get them all?

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
Date: 13 Sep 92 10:48:24

In article <1992Sep13.055146.1959@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
   rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
   : In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
   :    To take the case one step futher.
   : 
   :    Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
   :    stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
   :    for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
   :    is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
   : 
   :    Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
   : 
   : I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
   : contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
   : woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.

      I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
   Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I 
   get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
   fantasy utopia.

These is a difference between just plain stone broke (perhaps by
choice) and stone broke *desparate* (usually not by choice).  Please
tell me how you intend to get back on your feet with the help of my
money...  I certainly don't want to get suckered out of my hard earned
money by a con artist (I get enough of that from the government
already, so I hope you can understand my caution.  I see from your
email address that you are most likely currently employed).  And I
couldn't care less whether or not you buy into my "libertarian fantasy
utopia" after you have been helped by it.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Clinton/Gore on foreign policy
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:11:23 GMT

Slippery Bill has had precious little to say about foreign policy, since
it's Bush's one strong point and it's not a strong factor in the election.
But we still ought to consider what a Clinton presidency would mean for
world affairs.
 
Clinton is still promising to come up with more money by shrinking defense
spending- never mind that it's *been* shrionking for 40 years. It's shrunk
by half (%GNP) since the 50s. What a Clinton presidency promises is something
akin to a Carter presidency- but without Carter's one small success in the
mideast. That is to say an extremely non-interventionist stance. And along
with that, a corresponding reaction in the rest of the world.
 
There are still a great many communists- whom the media in this country
refer to, in their puzzling way, as "conservatives"- in the ex-USSR states,
who are capable of a coup attempt. They might be tempted to try localized
coups in some states under a Clinton presidency. Iraq, still a military
power, could well try to reassert itself under a Clinton presidency, given
his wishy-washy statements about the gulf war. Syria would probably move
further into Lebanon and surrounding countries.
 
There are a lot of countries and insurgency movements which are held in
check or limited in actions by the real or implied threat of US intervention.
The US ceased being an IRA "safe house" under Reagan. I could easily see more
IRA accomodation under Clinton and a tilt away from Great Britain.
 
Whether any of this seems important to you depends on how you perceived the
Carter era, of course. ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Organization: NASA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:11:04 GMT

Bill Moore writes
> Well then parents could sue their children! How neat!  This liberal stuff is
> really great when you get into it.  Would there be a statue of limitations?
> (forgive me for not knowing this stuff - I'm new at liberal).  It's been
> almost 23 years since my son peed in the back of my brand new color TV.

  Ouch!  Was the TV turned on at the time?  If so, I hope your son didn't hit  
the high voltage box; that might have provided sufficient punishment in itself.   
I seem to remember a childhood friend learning a similar lesson about electric  
fences.  :-)
 
  Seriously, though... your post seems to indicate that you buy the  
Republicans' ad hoc distortions of Hillary Clinton's 19-year-old writings.  The  
world will not come to an end if a kid can't buy his favorite Michael Jackson  
album (or if he puts a stain on your couch :-), but it certainly might be much  
darker if he can't be protected from abusive parents.  That is the situation  
that H.C. sought to rectify-- when "family values" fail to ensure a child's  
safety.  These ideas are now part of the judicial mainstream.  But the GOP  
needed another divisive non-issue for the campaign, so they chose to tailor it  
for their purposes.

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:42:34 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>(I've heard the run-off concept defended by argument that the
>democratic system, in order to retain a veneer of legitimacy, "needs"
>to be able to display a winner who garnered a majority of the votes; I
>suggest that twiddling the democratic system in order to generate such
>a result _artificially_ instead gives the system a smell of hypocrisy
>that does more harm than good.)

No, there is a much more practical reason for the run-off.  It is a
safeguard.  Say 33% vote for liberal candidate A, 30% vote for liberal
candidate B, and 37% vote for conservative candidate C.  Without a
runoff, candidate C would win; with a runoff, candidate A would probably
win and would more closely reflect the ideology of the electorate.  In
fact, the more run-offs you have, the more "accurate" the election, but
at least one is desired to provide an adequate safeguard against a fluke
candidate winning only because the majority of voters were split among
several other better choices.
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:25:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.155643.10569@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>: The last extended conversation I got into with a Democrat was very
>: confusing indeed.  I still can't get over
>: the fact that he raged at me because I thought it was rude to belch
>: in public.  According to him, Democrats believe this is aristocratic.
>: Is this true?  It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage
>: of the vote with such a wacky belief.  If it's not true, then I wonder
>: if this Democrat is in any way representative of the party as a whole.
>: If so, I shudder.  If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing.
>: No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off
>: contact.
>: 
>: Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
>: anywhere near the Presidency.
>: 
>
>If you are a representative of the intellectual capacity of Republicans (and
>I think you may be, given the intellectually bankrupt nature of the Republican
>Platform this year), it is absolutely imperative for us to remove you bozos
>from positions of power. Can you spell "potatoe?"
>
>
>Kathy

Sheesh.

My above post was clearly based on Vicki's diatribe;
I merely substituted the word `Democrat' where she had used `Libertarian'.
Okay, I changed the alleged circumstances as well.  But the point was
to object to Vicki's logic.

The basic flaw, I believe, is shown by the following example:
	(a)  I heard that Kathy is sexually confused, in matters
	     involving goats.
	(b)  If so, I can understand why she seldom is invited to
	     the zoo.
	(c)  If not, I still wonder why anyone would spread such a
	     rumor.
	(d)  Either way, I hope I am long gone before Kathy gets anywhere
	     near any pets of mine.

True, I could have given an example regarding Republicans, perhaps objecting
that the last extended conversation I had with a Republican was confusing
because he raged when I objected to vomiting at dinner parties.  I could
have had my fictitious Republican insist that vomiting at dinner parties has
a long, proud tradition, going back to the Romans.  Then I might conclude
that whether this person represented Republicans or not, his statement makes
me dread Republican electoral victories.

The reason I chose the Democrats was that they're the one's with electoral
difficulties at the Presidential level, and this is being posted to news
groups concerning various Presidential candidates.

By the way, I will withhold conjecture on whether, had I posted on
Republicans, the responses would have been as strident and humorless.

Jack Stecher
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:58:29 GMT

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

>>>And we all know that as ME goes, so goes the nation.
>>
>>Not. :-)

For those who'll appreciate this bit of trivia, the state with the
best record of going with the winner is Delaware, voting for the
winning candidate in every election since 1952. Other bellwether states
are Missouri and Kentucky, with the majority since 1960. There may be 
others.

-ACF
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New Newsweek Poll
Date: 13 Sep 1992 19:30:53 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Sep13.155755.25329@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
|>     According to the results of a new Newsweek poll which I heard about on
|> the radio last night, Clinton has widened his lead over Bush to a 15 point
|> margin, up five points from the previous poll.  The actual numbers were
|> 53-38.

Was the poll of "registered voters" or of "likely voters." The latter have
tended to show a 5-pt lead over the past few days, and the former about 10-15
pts. over the past week.

|> 
|> Greg
|> 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pgk@pacersoft.com (Paul Kamp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:03:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacer Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.191324.4121@morrow.stanford.edu>,
GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) wrote:
> 
> Murder is the willful taking of another human life in something
> other than an act of self defense.  Thus we can not answer the
> question as to whether or not abortion is murder unless we first
> come to a consensus about what constitutes a person.  Since
> personhood involves issues of both science and religion I don't
> think it is something that we as a society will ever reach consensus
> on.
> 
> The main issue therefore becomes for me: "What is the appropriate
> role for government to play in issues on which there is no moral
> consensus?"  As a libertarian I conclude that the only appropriate
> answer is to stay the heck out of it and leave the decision to the
> individual who will bear the moral consequences of her own
> determination for the rest of her life.
> 
> As a pragmatist I also recognize that it is impossible to enforce
> laws against anything when even a small but significant minority
> does not see anything wrong about the behavior being outlawed.  This
> is one of the major reasons that the war on drugs has been a dismal
> failure and there are far more people who think that abortion is
> okay than there are people who think drug use is okay.
> 

Sounds a lot like the arguments for and against slavery here in the US.  It
also sounds like the arguments made by many here in the US against entering
WWII.  Many people could have copped out and said "personally I am opposed
to slavery (or concentration camps) but it is wrong for me to impose my
moral view that the slaves (or non aryans) are humans not property."  There
is such a large amount of the population that thinks that slavery (or
discrimination or concentration camps) is okay so perhaps we should let it
continue.  When should we apply these principles/morals and when shouldn't
we.

I find it intresting that our politicians are quick to speak in moral terms
when it suits them then they shirk from these morals when some may
disagree.  For example, President Bush's statements justifying the war with
Iraq was laced with moral imperitives.  Govenor Clinton has stated that it
is our moral duty to intervene in Bosnia.  Should we?  Why apply our
"morals" in these cases and not others?

I am not claiming that abortion is an easy issue but I would like to
understand why an expansionist view of human life would not apply to a
fetus just like it should apply to slaves and war prisoners.


Paul Kamp
Pacer Software, Inc.
Internet: pgk@pacersoft.com
AppleLink: PACER
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Sep7151900@world.std.com>
	<Sep.10.15.11.20.1992.21841@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:58:48 GMT

In article <Sep.10.15.11.20.1992.21841@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

   art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

   >In article <1992Sep7.181148.22935@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

   >   I have an alternative suggestion: why not dump both the electoral
   >   college and the run-off idea and simply declare the candidate with the
   >   most popular votes to be the winner?

   >Quite simply because the people of the state of Wyoming would have their
   >legitimate interests subordinated to the interests of, say, New Yorkers.
   >Some columnist brought up an interesting thought on this a couple weeks
   >ago.  (Sorry about the lack of refs)  He showed how 51 votes in the state
   >of Alaska could elect the President.

   Doesn't it work that way anyway?  Doesn't each state have a number of
   electoral votes based on their population?  

That's my point.  Preserve the electoral college, without it the small
states have zero protection against the big states.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Government and Religion (was Re: Republican platform)
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:14:56 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Sep2.171132.21604@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, 
bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) said:

> The correct text is:
> 
> I pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America,
> and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all.
> 
> The words "one nation, indivisible" make sense.
> The words "under god, indivsible" do not.
> 
> (Indeed, the alteration may well be viewed as unpatriotic.
> Furthermore, the insertion of a particular religious concept
> makes a mockery of the final phrase and contradicts its final word.)
> 
> I shall continue to say it that way I learned it!

And some of us shall continue to not say it at all...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame