HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Private vs. public education
Summary: Moderate rubutals to extreme positions
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:37:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <5Tg3PB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
	(deleted)
>
>By the way, I find it passing strange that private schools do a better job
>BY FAR with MUCH less money than what the public schools spend.  It kind of
>shows you that money is not the real answer; the real answer is HOW that money
>is spent.  Another large part is the discipline demanded from a student in a
>private institution.
>
	There are several reasons while (some) private get by with less money
per student:
	1. 	The power to select and the power to expel students,  so the 
		high cost/low reward students can be excluded.

	2.	Not all "special needs" must be met.

	3.	Lots of off-budget items.

	4.	Less administrative overhead and amortized capital expense.

	5.	They pay their faculty less.
		

	(deleted)
>
(from Barry Shein):
>> All you are going to create is more corruption and abuse, all of a
>> sudden educational programs and responsibility and administrators
>> won't be reviewable under some sort of "sanctity" cry. I can just see
>> the govt auditors demanding some church school's books to see if
>> voucher funds weren't used illegally, improperly, or fraudulently,
>> hah!
>
>Wrong.  You just like that large government, huh?  Government has to oversee
>everything in your mind.  Consider that the paying customers can readily judge
>whether their money is buying the kind of education they expect.  If they
>don't like the product, they can shop elsewhere, thank you.  No big deal.
>
	I think goverment should oversee it,  given that we are talking
about goverment payments to these institutions.  If the "customer" doesn't
want goverment "interference",  they can pass on the subsidy.



-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Flat taxes
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:39:29 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>You're oversimplifying.

	Of COURSE I'm oversimplifying...  (like DA!)

	If it *were* in any way simple there would have been a revolt
to make 1776 look like a weenie roast.

	As a thought-experiment starting point, though, it ain't
half-bad.  I'm not an economist nor a tax-law expert...  I'm
sure though, that if the grass roots support were there (and esp
if the people in power knew their fate were in the balance) that
they could come up with a more fair, greatly simplified system.

BBC
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:09:40 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep01.160920.13443@kronos.com> richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>Once again, I say that I think economics is a horrible, unconscionable
>>reason to go to war.  If we don't live by ideals, then we deserve to die.
>
>There are two facts which I learned about history (admittedly, never
>my best subject):
>
>	1)  Virtually all wars ever fought were on religious or
>	    economic grounds; and
>	2)  War is horrible and unconscionable.
>
>Do you see any conflict with these statements?
>
>(I'd put a smiley here, but it's the reality.  Ideology really has little
>to do with war, aside from an incidental correlation with religion.)
>
That's the sad truth, but good people can still try to prevent it.  Maybe
someday we'll succeed.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Private vs. public education
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:30:51 GMT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

> Hey, look, I understand how dwindling congregations have put a strap
> on religious coffers. But please don't try to weasel an argument which
> takes education dollars out of the tax funds to make up the
> difference.

What's the problem with that?  After all, there'll be less students to teach
thereby costing less money.  They'll still be getting their average $5,000 per
student for each student they're teaching.

By the way, I find it passing strange that private schools do a better job
BY FAR with MUCH less money than what the public schools spend.  It kind of
shows you that money is not the real answer; the real answer is HOW that money
is spent.  Another large part is the discipline demanded from a student in a
private institution.

> No, the best answer is for parents to get off their butts and get
> involved in the school system if they don't like it.

Parents should be involved in their children's education even if they DO like
what is being taught and how.  Children thrive when the parents are involved.
No argument here.

> All you are going to create is more corruption and abuse, all of a
> sudden educational programs and responsibility and administrators
> won't be reviewable under some sort of "sanctity" cry. I can just see
> the govt auditors demanding some church school's books to see if
> voucher funds weren't used illegally, improperly, or fraudulently,
> hah!

Wrong.  You just like that large government, huh?  Government has to oversee
everything in your mind.  Consider that the paying customers can readily judge
whether their money is buying the kind of education they expect.  If they
don't like the product, they can shop elsewhere, thank you.  No big deal.

> If parents can't be bothered to be involved in their kids' education
> handing it all over to a zillion religious denominations won't fix
> things. It will make things worse.

You can't just say that without backing it up.  How do you know that handing
education over to a "zillion religious denominations" will make things worse?
What, will it make it worse than what we have now; soaring drop-out rates,
illiterate children being promoted to the next grade without a grasp of the
previous grade, and ever increasing school budgets?  All this under what we
have now.

Change.  Everyone wants change.  LET'S MAKE _THIS_ CHANGE!

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Subject: Re: Corporate Tax Ballot Question
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:23:05 GMT

richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:

>rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>>It may be regressive, but in this case so what?  It's a tax on something
>>that can be variously regarded as a luxury, a health risk, or 
>>discretionary behavior.    In any event, if people don't want to pay
>>the cigarette tax, they can stop smoking and spend the money on
>>something better.

>Ron, I'm surprised at that response:  you should understand fully why
>it is that cigarette smoking is more popular among the poor and under-
>educated than among the wealthy and powerful.

>	a)  Nicotine is perhaps the world's most addictive drug
>	b)  The companies which promote it are economically and
>	    politically powerful enough to block most efforts to
>	    restrict their distribution
>	c)  It's easiest to target market segments which are the
>	    most disenfranchised
>	d)  Youth who aren't given enough adult attention will tend
>	    to experiment with new things, and will tend to enforce
>	    uniformity of behavior among peers

>Smoking, like Republicanism, is most popular these days among the young
>and the under-educated.  ;-)  So that's basically my argument as to why
>cigarette taxes are regressive:  smoking by the young tends not to be
>as voluntary as it may appear to those of us who have never smoked.

>I'll vote for this ballot question, but I certainly won't campaign for it.

>-rich
>P.S.  I have the benefit of a personal perspective.  My boyfriend has
>	been addicted to heroin, cocaine, nicotine, and a few other drugs.
>	By far, nicotine is the hardest to kick, according to him.
>	There's no substitute like methadone to make the transition
>	easier, either.



It was easy to quit for me! The first 2 weeks in intensive care took the
edge off!!!  Of course I don't reccommend heart attacks to quit smoking..
especially not at 36.

Charlie


-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@chiechan.mro4.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Germany's Successful Social Programs
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:56:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.152125.1077@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	I noticed some of you out there like to bring up Germany's
>'successful' government sponsored social programs.  Here is an article
>in the New York Times September 3,1992;
>	"In Rostock, Asylum-Seekers Lived in Powder Keg"
>  ROSTOCK, Germany, Aug. 30-
>Werner Matula was not surprised last week when rightist youths
>firebombed a hostel for foreign refugees seeking asylum in Germany.
>Like many people in this rust-bucket port on the Baltic Sea, he
>was expecting it.
>  Since German unity in October 1990, Rostock has fallen on hard
>times.  Soaring unemployment, a devastated local economy, unresponsive
>government and a scoial structure struggling through the transition
>from Communism to capitalism turned this city into a powder keg
>long before the first firebomb smashed into the drab 10-story hotel
>in the Lichtenhagen neighborhood. The presence of asylum-seekers only
>increased the volatility.
>......


>  Government officials estimate that more than 500,000 asylum-seekers
>will come to Germany this year, almost double last year's total. Most
>are drawn by Germany's affluence and its generous social system, which
>pays them a monthly average of $357 a person while they wait for their
>cases to be decided. The vast majority are found to be economic rather
>than political refugees and are sent away. But the process can take
>years.

International law and treaties require this.  The US is breaking international
law by turning away Haitian boats and forcing Haitian refugees to
return without a hearing.  Germany should be credited with living
up to its commitments in international treaties unlike the US.

>	If you leave food out you attract roaches.  The government
>left its crackers out and attracts thousands of $357/month roaches.
>Is this the social system you espouse?
>
>P.S. If you think the U.S. should emulate Germany's policies, how do you
>plan on plugging their leaks?

Have you looked at the level of violence in American cities these
days.  Americans firebombed most every Korean American business in
Los Angeles a few months ago...what is America's excuse.  Germany
can say that most of these Neo-Nazi youth were brought up in
a closed totalitarian xenophobic state called East Germany where
they were hardly ever exposed to a foreigner...and it perhaps will
take some time to re-educate them.

The president of the United States has violated international
treaties turning back Haitian refugees, and his political platform
calls for erecting a barrier across the Rio Grande...it seems you
already have a candidate for the fascism you want to espouse.

Gerald

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:41:17 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: murph@buscard.fidonet.org's message of 28 Aug 92 20:38:12 GMT

In article <DuH9PB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:

>As the tax code is now, tax breaks for the wealthy are necessary if you expect
>these same wealthy people to provide the jobs that everyone else needs.  Of
>course, some of the breaks are absurd but by and large the breaks offer
>incentive to do good with the money as in deducting contributions to
>charitable endeavors.

	Still spewing that supply side nonsense, hunh?  It was voodoo
twelve years ago and it hasn't improved with age.  You'd think you'd
learn from experience.  Tax cuts and deficit spending (both public
and private) fueled the great DEMAND PUSH growth of the early '80s.
The same tax breaks are still on the books, for the most part,
certainly the wealthy have been pretty well served by the tax policy
of the past twelve years.  Yet the economic stagnation and decline
continue apace, WHY?  Re-investment hasn't increased and free trade
will just encourage more jobs to move abroad.
	As far as charity, I, and someone else, have already pointed
out that in fraction of income AND in absolute amount the poor and
middle class give much more than the wealthy.  Second, human dignity
should not have to depend on charity - it is something everyone is
ENTITLED to regardless of their ability to produce.  Why should the
ability to produce be the measure of a human being, its not very
important and it is dehumanizing.  People have a lot more important
qualities than their capacity for production, besides its not even
capacity that's judged but how much of that capacity one can
achieve within an amoral market system.

					--Jeff Turner

Xref: sparky ne.politics:2239 ne.general:2431 talk.politics.misc:43587
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOICE-MAIL FOR THE HOMELESS AND POOR
Date: 3 Sep 1992 17:27:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

Dave Borden, borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
> not having a phone is definitely a real obstacle to
>finding gainful employment. ...  And it would probably be
>inexpensive and easy to provide - my voice-mail is only $6 a month, and
>some of that is the phone company's profit.

A great idea, but my cop-out is this:  the system would probably have
to provide each person with a separate phone number (not one of those
god-awful touch-tone receptionists), or else it would be a turnoff to
prospective employers.  That means a pretty hefty phone bill, probably
on the order of the $6 per month per line you mentioned.  And the equip-
ment to run the system could run into the thousands of dollars, especially
if it supports the DID (direct inward-dial) capability I mentioned.

How does one launch an effort like this, unless the money's there?  The
government is unlikely to pick up the tab for a project like this, these
days.

A lot of businesses which sell this kind of service, like Mailboxes
Etc., would probably not appreciate the loss of business such a system
would cause.  But hey, I'd love to work on setting it up if someone can
put up say $25,000 seed money...  ;-)

-rich
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2242 ne.general:2432 talk.politics.misc:43622
From: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOICE-MAIL FOR THE HOMELESS AND POOR
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:09:28 GMT
Reply-To: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Group 101, MIT Lincoln Lab.
Originator: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)


In article <1992Sep03.172734.58308@kronos.com>, richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
|> Dave Borden, borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
|> > not having a phone is definitely a real obstacle to
|> >finding gainful employment. ...  And it would probably be
|> >inexpensive and easy to provide - my voice-mail is only $6 a month, and
|> >some of that is the phone company's profit.
|> 
|> A great idea, but my cop-out is this:  the system would probably have
|> to provide each person with a separate phone number (not one of those
|> god-awful touch-tone receptionists), or else it would be a turnoff to
|> prospective employers.  That means a pretty hefty phone bill, probably
|> on the order of the $6 per month per line you mentioned.  And the equip-
|> ment to run the system could run into the thousands of dollars, especially
|> if it supports the DID (direct inward-dial) capability I mentioned.
|> 

   The system NPR described did work like this...all the caller got was a
message recorded by the recipient that sounds just like an everyday
answering machine.

-- 
Dr. Marty Ryba             |	Generation X:
Group 101 - Radars 'R Us   |
MIT Lincoln Laboratory     |  Too young to be cynical,
ryba@ll.mit.edu            |		too old to be optimistic.
From: pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu (David M. Pfarrer)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:16:21 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <BZS.92Sep2201456@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>Perhaps because their [other west. democracies] populations 
>are a lot more homogeneous and the
>problems lie elsewhere in heterogenous situations?
>
>Look at Germany right now, start some strong immigration and wham-o,
>problems. Not that that argues against immigration, just that it's not
>as simple as you present.

Certainly my one paragraph post was a simplification -- how many
aren't (ok, end of whining). I have no argument w/ the explanation
above (i.e., the root of much violence comes from having heterogenous
societies.  So in Germany, France, England recent immigrants are often
the targets of violence (leaving aside the various motives for that
violence, be they based on perceived race, cultural, or class
differences); my point related to gun control -- in none of those
countries are people assaulting each other or killing each other w/
guns in anything approaching the numbers we do.  

>
>In London, eg, the problem is plastique and other high explosives
>(pemex?), not guns per se. I am sure it is illegal, however. Would you
>say that the gunshot deaths in Northern Ireland are measured in
>"double digits"?
>
Nope, probably triple -- but I'd be surprised if they're as high as
the yearly death toll in whichever of our cities is currently violent
crime capital (DC?).

People do kill people, but they do so more frequently and w/ greater
efficiency when they have easy access to guns -- and I mostly mean
hand guns.


          ****************************************************
          | David Pfarrer           | "Respect means, put    |
          | pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu |   yourself out"        |
          | pfarrer@harvunxw.bitnet |      - Pascal          |
          ****************************************************
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:15:46 GMT
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c
Organization: The World


From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
>A common oversite to think of the importance of oil from a region
>only in terms of how much the US itself consumes.
>
>How important is the health of the Japanese economy (the worlds 2nd largest)
>to the working of the world's largest economy?
>
>I think the Japanese do qualify as being "SO vital" to the US. Don't you?

But that just begs the original point, obviously Japan (as well as the
US) did without both Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil for several months and I
don't remember any major disaster.

It really depends on how dire you believe the options are. If you're
out to avoid some discomfort, yes, Japan is important. If you're
fighting for your life, much less so.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:01:23 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>This situation has nothing to due with wills , since now you are
>postulating the lack of one. I believe that you will also find that this
>happens regularly with persons living together ...

Why should I have to have a will???  To continue ...

> This is not discrimination
>by sexual preference since it applies regardless of the sexual preferences
>or relationships of the individuals.  ...
> Your will , if it is written properly, can leave
>everthing to a complete stranger and withstand any effort to contest.

You're overlooking two very important things:  (a) judges and juries
are often biased against the same-sex partner of the deceased, and (b)
married couples need not have a will in order to obtain the legal
equivalent.  A third, less-significant thing is that wills are hard to
draft, can be costly, and must be updated periodically.  Personally, I
find them to be distasteful and rather foreign to the day-to-day affairs
of my present life.  In short, they are not familiar territory, and the
language bewilders me.

Why should a gay couple have to visit an attorney every couple of years,
shelling out a couple hundred dollars at a time, when a married straight
couple has absolutely no similar requirement?

-rich
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Organization: The World
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:15:26 GMT


From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
>> You don't build a society by sending everyone off in their own
>> direction to do their own thing. Sorry, we got to learn to get along
>> in this boat, not to each demand our own boat.
>
>No.  What you seem to want is to build YOUR society where everyone thinks
>like you do.  This is a free country where people are free to think whatever
>they want.  If people want their own boats, it's not Barry Shein's place to
>tell them they can't have them.  Because Barry Shein tells people that they
>have to appreciate everyone else's culture and morals doesn't make it so.

Hey, look, I understand how dwindling congregations have put a strap
on religious coffers. But please don't try to weasel an argument which
takes education dollars out of the tax funds to make up the
difference.

I for one am not fooled.

>The best answer is to issue the vouchers and let people make up their own
>minds.  If they are happy to toss their voucher into the public pool for the
>public education, more power to them.  If they feel they can get a better
>education elsewhere, they should be able to pursue it without being penalized
>for it by having to pay for that alternative education AND the public one as
>well!

No, the best answer is for parents to get off their butts and get
involved in the school system if they don't like it.

All you are going to create is more corruption and abuse, all of a
sudden educational programs and responsibility and administrators
won't be reviewable under some sort of "sanctity" cry. I can just see
the govt auditors demanding some church school's books to see if
voucher funds weren't used illegally, improperly, or fraudulently,
hah!

If parents can't be bothered to be involved in their kids' education
handing it all over to a zillion religious denominations won't fix
things. It will make things worse.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc