HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 7 Jan 1993 05:32:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu



In article <1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>>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 99% WASP, 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!
 
In a previous article, niepornt@bird.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) says:

>It's typical of talk.politics.misc, but still awfully stupid, for people
>to make a prediction about what is going to happen and then go off on a
>tirade as if that prediction has already come true.
>
>Rarely, however, do I get the satisfaction of pointing out right away
>that the prediction is completely wrong.
>
>The New York Times published *TODAY* the breakdown of the school.  And,
>no, it is *not* 99% WASP.  It is something like 17% black, 5% asian, and
>3% hispanic.  Or something like that; this is from memory.

It's not the figures you post, but the spin you put on them.

Ooooooooo! 17 + 5 + 3 = 25% minority representation.  Did that great basteon
of journalism, The New York Times, also give the minority breakdown of the
DC public schools?  NO!  The only reason they gave the 25% figure was to leave 
the misled American electorate with the impression that this elitist school
had a diverse population similiar to the DC public schools.  I just wonder
if Chelsea, a product of the Arkansas public school system, will suffer more 
by being thrust into an environment consisting of students her same age who
have been much better prepared in their earlier education.  But don't
worry, Chelsea will soon be back in school in Arkansas -

                            IN FOUR YEARS!

She'll be better off anyhow taking driver's ed in rural Arkansas instead of 
riding in DC traffic.  {:^)

-- 
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!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dmb@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (David M. Brumley)
Subject: Re: double standards
Organization: University of Louisiana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:48:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.115332.12719@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
   In article <C0pB81.6tC@inews.Intel.COM>, ighosh@frx715.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG) writes:
   > 
   >  Dan Quayle : Its ok for my daughter to have the right to choose but
   >               abortion is illegal for your daughter.
   > 
   >  Bill Clinton : My daughter should have the right to choose between  
   >                 public and private schools but children of ordinary
   >                 folks (those who will get vouchers) dont have that right.
   > 
   >  Surprise, surprise. 

   Children of wealthy parents have the right to choose between  
   a '73 Dodge Dart and a '93 BMW but children of ordinary
   folks (those who will get vouchers) don't have that right.

   Therefor there should be vouchers for the poor to buy BMWs.

Okay, let me get this straight.

'73 Dodge Dart = public school education
'93 BMW = $10,000/yr private school education

Substituting into the above paragraph:

  Children of wealthy parents have the right to choose between a [public
  school education] and a [$10,000/yr private school education] but
  children of ordinary folks (those who will get vouchers) don't have
  that right. 

  Therefore there should be vouchers for the poor to buy [$10,000/yr private
  school education]s.

Well, it looks like you screwed up somewhere because I don't hear 
anyone calling for vouchers so that the poor can send their children
to a $10,000/yr private school like our ever so idealistic
president-elect.  What many people are calling for however is an end
to the government education monopoly which is preventing the free
market from providing superior quality education for those who need it
most: poor and middle class Americans.  

\begin{idealism}
In the absence of government monopoly, I expect the proliferation of
private schools (which will be foremost ACCOUNTABLE to parents and
students), followed by a renaissance in "American Education".  What
would these schools look like?  What would "education" mean in such an
open system?  By what standards would schools be measured?  I don't
know.  But we should not let fear of the uncertainties stop us from
trying to improve the lives of our children.  
\end{idealism}

   >  So, the two parties are'nt that different after all. Like the 
   >  communists in the former Soviet Union, they believe in having one
   >  standards for the Party elite and another one for the common people.

   Since when is buying something which you can afford on the free market
   become part of the "Party elite"?

Since education ceased to be a "free market".

   >  I'm happy that I supported Perot who was totally defeated.
   >  At least, my conscience is clear.

What a coincidence.  Me too.

I think I'm going to reprogram all my function keys with the string
"I TOLD YOU SO."

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24866 talk.politics.misc:67195 tx.politics:8187 misc.legal:22378
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:43:25 GMT
 <1993Jan7.184341.24169@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan7.184341.24169@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:

> In article <1993Jan7.140514.9595@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> >In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
> >that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.
> 
> The same media, no doubt, that published story after story about his
> "character problems" and unelectability during the primary season.

DURING THE PRIMARY - when they wanted someone else.  It was very convenient of
them to completely forget all of that after he won the primary.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:52:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <C0I4uG.7Ar@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>The % of conservative media doesn't matter ....

Of course it does.

If there are 3 Demons for every Repube, then there are roughly 3 times
as many stories slanted to the left as to the right, assuming that
Democratic correspondants are about as productive as Republican ones.

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:10:33 GMT

In article <168C37506.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>I am for a line-item veto that requires a simple majority on a
>roll-call vote to override each separate line-item vetoed.  This allows
>the President to force each pork-barrel item to stand on its own.  The

Although I am against a true line-item veto, the proposal above (refered to
as "enhanced recision") is one that I would support.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Certain old men prefer to rise at dawn, taking a cold bath and a long
walk with an empty stomach and otherwise mortifying the flesh.  They
then point with pride to these practices as the cause of their sturdy
health and ripe years; the truth being that they are hearty and old,
not because of their habits, but in spite of them.  The reason we find
only robust persons doing this thing is that it has killed all the
others who have tried it.
		-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24865 talk.politics.misc:67194 tx.politics:8186 misc.legal:22377
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:34:15 GMT
 <C0GGHI.C1J@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <C0GGHI.C1J@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
> >stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.
> 
> 	Jim, you are disproof of this theory. (-:

Not really.  I voted for Bush.

> >  He got
> >4 votes out of 10 and won (with a very willing and cooperative news media's
> >help.)
> 
> 	It's media that tells you to blame the media. Funny. You listen.
> You repeat. Add thought to your repertiore, Mr. Bunker.

What media is doing that?  Most of them are falling all over themselves to
explain why it is ok for him to break his promises.  Have you read some of
the Wall Street Journal editorials on Clinton and his transition?  It seems
almost like their hero has won.  He can do no wrong.  They try to convince
us that Clinton will not do some of the stupid, counterproductive things
that he promised to do during the campaign.  Has there been ANY media
criticism of the huge gas tax proposals by his advisers?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:30:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.184341.24169@eff.org>
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.140514.9595@rpp386>
>	jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>>In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
>>that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.

>The same media, no doubt, that published story after story about his
>"character problems" and unelectability during the primary season.

They may not have backed Clinton from the beginning, but the media wanted to
retaliate against Bush for 1988.  Once Clinton was nominated, and helping
him would hurt Bush, his press coverage became much more favorable.

Incidents I remember from the spring: the media reports claims that Clinton
had an affair.  The Clinton campaign response is to accuse Bush of having an
affair.  The chairman of the Democratic party admits that they are launching
an investigation to dig up dirt on Bush.  And the media accuses Bush of
negative campaigning.


--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:34:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.101940.9187@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>As to Perot treating the voters as intelligent, I don't think so.  He
>pretended to treat the voters as intelligent.  He, as a salesman, sold
>the idea of no-frills campaigning as "treating the voters as intelligent."

	I can see that you have opinions. I'll accept this as but one
example. I'll grant you your right to it. This is America, after all.

>But I don't think ranting "the deficit, the deficit"  "It's bad, it's
>bad" really counts as talking intelligently.

	I would, however, disagree with this statement, which I assume
is offered as factual, not opinion. I can't agree that a book, and 
many TV spots, which covered far more than just the deficit, could
be summarized thusly.

>For all that talk about those flip charts, how many voters had *any*
>idea what Perot was talking about, or can remember at this point in time
>what Perot said?

	What does this have to do with your opinion that Perot offered
nothing intelligent? It would seem, in fact, to imply that intelligent
information was offered, but that the public couldn't ingest all or most
it, or keep it down, once ingested.
	If you want to back up the opinion (Perot offered no intelligent
info), please utilize his book. I would think that would be the place to
start. Whether or not an idea or info is intelligent certainly can't be
judged by the comprehension of the idea or info, nor by retension of same.
If you were simply stating opinions only- nevermind me. (-:

 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:15:19 GMT

In <1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:


>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 99% WASP, 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!

Then try another channel. I've seen no end of criticism of the Clinton's
decision (remember? there are two parents involved), although it strikes
me as rather assinine. Chelsea did not run for office, or hadn't you
noticed? At least her name was not on any of the ballots in my area. She
is reported to be very bright, so why should she be sacrificed on some
political altar of your choosing? Frankly, from all I see in the press
here and in test score reports the D.C. schools are pretty dismal. Not
to mention teachers having to releive 14 year old from 9mm pistols.

Regardless of what you or I happen to think about Clinton, his daughter
and her education are none of our business.

>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REB

>       1996 election countdown - 1399 more days         | These pontifications 
> until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@bird.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:18:18 GMT

In article <1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>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 99% WASP, 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's typical of talk.politics.misc, but still awfully stupid, for people
to make a prediction about what is going to happen and then go off on a
tirade as if that prediction has already come true.

Rarely, however, do I get the satisfaction of pointing out right away
that the prediction is completely wrong.

The New York Times published *TODAY* the breakdown of the school.  And,
no, it is *not* 99% WASP.  It is something like 17% black, 5% asian, and
3% hispanic.  Or something like that; this is from memory.

>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!

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:43:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.140514.9595@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
>that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.

The same media, no doubt, that published story after story about his
"character problems" and unelectability during the primary season.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: CLINTON: Clinton phone conversation with Russian President
Date: 5 Jan 1993 00:46:52 -0500
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu


Posted by the Office of the President-elect
Posted: January 04, 1993


Transcript of George Stephanopoulos Daily Press Briefing
concerning Clinton phone conversation with Russian President
Boris Yeltsin:

                         Little Rock, AR
                         January 4, 1993


President-elect Clinton had a phone conversation this morning with
President Yeltsin. It was a very good conversation. It lasted about
twenty minutes. 

He congratulated Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on their historic
achievement in the START Treaty. He also pledged to do everything
he could to get early ratification of this treaty.

They both authorized for Mr. Kozyrev and Secretary of State
designate Warren Christopher to begin discussions as soon as
possible on setting up a bilateral dialogue on START and other
issues and also on setting up plans for an early meeting between
Yeltsin and Clinton.

Yeltsin also indicated that he supported the U.S. position on
Yugoslavia.





Distribution:
  Clinton News >internet:c-news-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Foreign >internet:c-foreign-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Volunteers >internet:clinton-volunteers@campaign92.org

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24713 talk.politics.misc:66464
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:29:34 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>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 99% WASP, 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!

Today's NYT did a small piece on the school, including ethnic
breakdown.  I don't have the article in front of me, but I recall
figures of around 17% black, 3% or 7% asian, and 7% or 3% hispanic (I
remember the asian and hispanic figures adding up to 10%).  I believe
the school also offers minority scholarships, etc.

     


--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:59:21 GMT

In article <C0r8Ft.Mpr@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>In article <C0I4uG.7Ar@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>The % of conservative media doesn't matter ....
>
>Of course it does.
>
>If there are 3 Demons for every Repube, then there are roughly 3 times
>as many stories slanted to the left as to the right, assuming that
>Democratic correspondants are about as productive as Republican ones.

Assuming that correspondents slant their stories at all.  All evidence
indicates that the media is so concerned with "objectivity" that they'll
print out-and-out lies without calling them such to get "both sides of
the story," cf. George Bush's repeated claims about the 128 tax raises.

At any rate, what is your proposed solution?  A sort of Americans With 
Political Disabilities Act to get more Republicans into the media?

Followups out of misc.legal, as the legal content of this thread disappeared
weeks ago.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24701 talk.politics.misc:66410