HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:42:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan6.190325.4038@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>
>You are a real hypocrit Galvanek,
>
>A.) What Bill and Hillary decide for their own children is their own
>business.
>This has NOTHING to do with the presidency, a job he hasn't even started
>yet.


Let's see if I have this straight,  in a group(s) where I have seen umpteen
hundreds of messages from people telling me that they have the right to 
take my tax money and spend it as they see fit, to teach my children anything
they see fit and I have no right to stop it - you're telling me it's not the
nation's business that the man who ran as the champion of public education
has decided to send his child to a private school...

And I'm the hypocrit?  My, that is rich Norman.

I'll tell you what, I'll make stop concerning myself with "his business"
when he, Hillary, Al, Tipper, the freak from the Children's Defense Fund
and all the clintonettes, stop supporting policies and propossing legislation
that gives them greater influence over my family's business.

Okay?  But until that happens it most assuredly is my business.

>
>B.) You will find a way to complain no matter what Clinton does. If he
>had sent
>Chelsea to a public school, you would now be confronting us with the same
>arguement as in A.) to prove Clinton has no "family values". Face it
>Paul, all

You're absolutely right on this one Norman!  I have no interest in waiting
passively to see what crumb is thrown my way, courtesy of the compassion
of the Clintons and the ever growing nipple of government.  Unless Mr.
Clinton announces tomorrow that he is refunding to me all the tax the
federal government collected from me this year, is introducing legislation
that prohibits states or local governments from collecting school taxes in
any way, shape or form; there by enabling me to make the same choice for
my children that he's made for his, anything less than that is symbolic
hypocritical lip service from a man who has no idea of what it really
means to have to cope with the problems of putting a children through a 
modern, big-city public education system.

I couldn't care less what he's got to say or plans to do about a public
education system that has already failed one of my children and promises 
the same for the other.  

PSG

Clinton/Gore in '96 "putting the Clintons first"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:20:50 GMT

In article <C0pD9K.90y@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.054326.1286@inel.gov>, whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:
>
>|>I guess that is why roughly 60% of GDP is still accounted for by Gov't. 
>|>China could well evolve to a relatively liberal market-oriented democracy.
>|>On the other hand,  it could use its economic dynamism to become an
>|>expansion-
>|>ist power.  My point is simply that they still think of themselves as Commun-
>|>ist,  and Communism is at base,  an autarkic philosophy.  Things could turn
>|>very ugly,  very fast.  We should not forget it.

And the winner for least historically accurate statement on Usenet, Jan. 1993.

>
>And at what point in the past two thousand years has China been expansionist?
>

As a short list, China has been active in foreign adventures against Tibet,
Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Russia, Formosa, India, Cambodia, Laos. 
Basically everyone in range of their troops.  Others can doubtless add more.

They are _currently_ making expansionistic noises about the Spratleys.
I assume you've heard of them.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
Neophytes discuss syntax. Amateurs discuss control. Professionals discuss data.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:32:50 GMT

In article <1il8qcINN7po@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>The "solution" libertarianism presents is exactly what we see in most third
>world nations. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

Replace the term "libertarianism" with "collectivism" in the above
sentence and you'll be totally correct.  Somalia and Bosnia being the
latest examples of where collectivism eventually leads you.

- Ted D.
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 23:37:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165341.7799@inel.gov> whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:
>In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> writes:
>

>Everyone is forgetting that the most populous country on the planet is
>both Communist and Socialist,  and gives every indication of remaining
>so.  

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.

As one commentator put it, "Russia has been debating whether or not to
have a free market for the last five years, while China has been
creating one. In the next ten years, Russia will still be debating whether or
not to have a free market and China will finally be one." 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. 

- Ted D.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20077 alt.politics.elections:24860 alt.politics.libertarian:3381 talk.politics.misc:67174
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 11 Jan 1993 23:14:45 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan11.194142.8067@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>My question is: why stop there? Why should there be a school tax or
>voucher system of any kind? Why not just forget the whole thing and let
>parents use their money to buy their kids an education on the open market,
>without the involvement of any taxing authority?

What planet do you come from?

With (very roughly since I don't have a source offhand) 25% of the school-age
children in the US living in poverty, where do you think the money will come
from?

>Maybe what we have here is an idea (universal public education) whose
>idea has come and gone. After all, the social and economic context today
>is wildly different from the period in which mandatory public education
>was first enacted.

Oh.  Have we returned to an agrarian society?  Or have we developed a need for
an even worse educated underclass?

>Some might object that the best schools will still be the most expensive,
>and that there will be talented students who will be excluded from the
>best schools simply because their parents can't pay. I can only suggest
>that we've managed to deal with this problem where post-secondary
>education is concerned (i.e., scholarships, loans, etc.). Why couldn't
>the same ideas work at the lower grades?

Because the students aren't distributed among the well off, the way they are
in colleges (for one.)   Instead, the poor are primarily concentrated into
inner city schools.  Thus, you'd need entire schools funded by your methods.
Not to mention the joy of graduating grade school with a sizeable loan.
Why don't you just propose a return to indentured servitude?

Mike Huben

Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: janvrin@IASTATE.EDU 
Subject: private schools, public schools
Keywords: clinton.. not
Reply-To: janvrin@IASTATE.EDU 
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:10:51 GMT

Points to ponder.

Albert Gore vigorously denouced the idea of school choice and vouchers.
Al Gore has not attended public schools nor has any of his children 
(to my reading).

Dan Rather also sends his kids to Sidwell.  

Clinton support of school choice only of PUBLIC SCHOOLS and opposes
vouchers for private or parochial schools.  Logically then he must 
oppose the use of Pell grants or Federally insured student loans 
at Yale, Notre Dame, and all private or parochial schools. 

One argument against school choice goes "the schools are so bad that
if we gave people a chance to leave, all would."

An interesting point.  Public schools are not failing ... in smaller
towns where the SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS SEND THEIR CHILDREN to the school.
In the city of Chicago, 65 % of the teachers send their kids to private 
school.
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:41:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.011806.3812@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:

[stuff deleted]

So far, what I've seen of the Republican voucher policy states that we should
have vouchers that allow the parent to apply the voucher to any form of
education whatsoever, including private schools of either the religious
or non-religious variety, or even to home schooling.

My question is: why stop there? Why should there be a school tax or
voucher system of any kind? Why not just forget the whole thing and let
parents use their money to buy their kids an education on the open market,
without the involvement of any taxing authority?

Maybe what we have here is an idea (universal public education) whose
idea has come and gone. After all, the social and economic context today
is wildly different from the period in which mandatory public education
was first enacted.

Some might object that the best schools will still be the most expensive,
and that there will be talented students who will be excluded from the
best schools simply because their parents can't pay. I can only suggest
that we've managed to deal with this problem where post-secondary
education is concerned (i.e., scholarships, loans, etc.). Why couldn't
the same ideas work at the lower grades?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1iijjkINN1jt@spim.mti.sgi.com> <1993Jan9.151429.10664@nmsu.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:11:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.151429.10664@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:

[stuff deleted]

	 Counter Argument 2- Note that in Jim's (I think, I'm somewhat
   confused as to who wrote what) article, the word scholarship was used.
   I went to one of the most expensive undergraduate institutions in the
   country- Bard College.  One thing that struck me is that hardly anyone
   there could afford the $23,000 tuition.  Quite a few people were
   paying less than $5,000.  If a school wants a student, they will do
   what they can to admit her...

follow up to Counter Argument 2

One of the most exclusive, expensive private schools (primary and
secondary) in the state of MS actively recruits minorities and offers
financial aid.  Imagine how much harder they would recruit with a
voucher system.



--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19935 alt.politics.elections:24808 alt.politics.libertarian:3254 talk.politics.misc:66843
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Date: 9 Jan 1993 02:37:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:

>As I recall, Clinton's position on the school-choice question is that
>he favors it within the public-school system, but does not favor the
>use of vouchers to (help) pay for a private school.
>
>So Clinton is not quite the anti-choice demon that his net attackers
>would are suggesting. Of course, regardless of his position on the
>issue, there is not now a choice policy in the DC public schools, so
>his only choice, as a parent, is public or private, and he made it.

 Wrong! As President Mr. Clinton has the choice of sending his children
to *any* public school in DC. Check it out if you don't believe me.
Strange that he couldn't find one single school that he liked....
No offense to Chelsea as she probably had no choice in the matter
and if she did then she is lucky as the millions of other school age 
kids must go to the school to which they are assigned.

>
>Don Pajerek
>
>Standard disclaimers apply.
>
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:26:34 GMT


A little off track, but this school choice thing is silly.  Where I live,
white bread suburbia, we have a few blacks from acceptable black families
and basically a private school.  We keep out the riff-raff by living in 
a community with only expensive houses.  Since we're forced to have a
public school, we make it as private as possible because we don't like
poor slobs lousing it up.

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but people with dough will find a way to send their
kids to good schools.  Public schools are mainly only a problem in poor
rural or poor inner city districts.  Once we see black inner city kids
racing for suburbian public schools, we'll have to find a new way to
keep them out, and we will, even if it means paying for private schools,
but then our public schools will have to suffer.  Too bad.  

Vouchers for public schools alleviates the burden of the community to 
provide public education.  We just tell everyone that our poor schools 
are closing, they don't have to pay school tax anymore, and they can 
choose any public school they like.  It gives communities a great
incentive to close their school, or reduce it to a single schoolroom
for show.  Can you imagine how expensive education will be when it
has to collect and distribute taxes at the state or national level?

I say privatize schools, make them compete, make the NEA face reality
to survive.  Give people who can't afford school access to loans
that can be paid back when they use their education to get a job.
I'd say it'd be amazing to see how much useless crap will be cleaned
out of curricula when people will have to pay for it directly and have
a choice.  You'd see a lot of people focussing on the three R's
in early years and a lot of specializations right in high school for
trades, business, and academic goals.  Then someone with about 10 years
of school would be ready to be a carpenter's or electrician's apprentice.
Someone else would have enough skills to work competently in an office
or do data entry.  Others would be able to pursue loftier goals requiring
college.  I like the idea of public school vouchers.  My kids go to
a private religious school.  I don't want anyone else's money to send 
them there.  I'd like my own tax money back if I can have it, but in the
meantime, competition is always better than a monopoly.

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: INAUGURAL BASH in St. Paul
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:13:11 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.191514.10107@news2.cis.umn.edu>, nirah@staff.tc.umn.edu () writes:
> INAUGURAL BASH in ST Paul!!!!
> 
> January 20th   6:30pm
> St. Paul Expo Center
> (190 North Smith Avenue)
> 
> Admission: $19.93
> 
> There will be a live band, lots of music and dancing, food, and a cash bar.
> Come out and celebrate Clinton's inauguration!
> 
> Sponsored by the 4th Congressional District DFL and the St Paul City DFL

And why, pray tell, would I or any other {l|L}ibertarian want to CELEBRATE
this event?!


-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Institutional racism in education
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:53:12 GMT
Organization: a gora

In article <1993Jan8.145527.12311@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> glovercj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.020958.28883@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:
>>>why Caucasian and not whit?
>>
>>What race of people is whit?
>
>Unfortunately for you, you can't tell sarcasm when it slams you in the face.
>You write Bla(c)k and drop the c and I write whit(e) and drop the e.
>Explained???


  Not really.  Black and Blak have the same pronounciation,
White and Whit do not.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:17:32 GMT

To all the people supporting the anti-discrimination laws,
I'd like to ask this simple question:

Let's say I am offering an apartment for rent.  Why don't i have the right
to rent it to whom I want? What right does the gov't have to interfere?
 
Think about it. 
-- 
****************************************************
*    Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!!!    *
****************************************************
*  To err is human; to forgive is not our policy!  *
*      (motto of the MIT Assassins' Guild)         *
****************************************************
* Grigory Golberg, PI        grisha@athena.mit.edu *
* (Politically Incorrect)                          *
****************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Property rights in Cuomoland (Was: Colorado Amendment2 Query)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:27:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.213048.2080@news.vanderbilt.edu> LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu (Andy Lipscomb) writes:
>>   ...     but potential higher earnings is not property.
>
>Ouch!  Another error.  At least in New York, it can be considered a marital
>asset (see the Mark Gastineau divorce case; he was ordered to pay alimony on
>money he could have earned but did not as a pro football player).  But I
>digress.

Leave it to Cuomo's court to expand the definition of "property" for the sole
purpose of allowing the state to confiscate it.  God help us if Cuomo gets on
the Supreme Court!  (For that matter, we won't even be able to say "God help
us" any more. :^)

Karl Dussik
-- 
"Martin Marietta's annual revenues will nearly double with the acquisition
of GE's operations - from 3 billion dollars in sales to almost 11 billion."
John McChesney (sp?), NPR, 11/24/92.  Your education system at work.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:25:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.210540.7484@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <Jan10.080748.71220@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  
sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> >	And an employer is not violating a homosexual's right to life  
unless he
> >slips some Anthrax virus in the guy's coffee during the interview.  Get  
real.
> 
> I find it funny to see some white, het men foam at the mouth when they
> think they're the victims of AA, and yet the rest of us should just
> learn to live with the discrimination we encounter.  "I'll raise holy
> hell if AA causes me to lose one scholarship to college, but those
> queers should just calmly accept their second-class status."

AA is government enforced discrimination. The government gives "minority"  
groups special rights. The colorado amendment did not make homosexuals  
second class (unless by second class you mean they don't have special  
discriminatory priveleges enforced by the government. In which class then  
white het men are also second class) it prevents the government from  
making another minority group the recepient of special rights. I would  
like to see the colorado amendment extended to all minority groups. Then  
we might see "equal rights for all" instead of privelges granted by the  
government depending on how politically profitable it is.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:6144 alt.society.civil-liberty:7343 talk.politics.misc:67154 alt.politics.homosexuality:9350
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:25:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan7.215948.417@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

> >Actual, its that scouts and scouters, including myself, discover that 
> >they are gay and still want to be part of the scouting movement.
> 
> Then why not create the Queer Scouts?

1) It's the wrong name for an an organization that would accept ALL boys.
2) The name "Scout" is protected by Congressional Charter to BSA and they
   have successfully defeated all alternative groups who have used it.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.rush-limbaugh