From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:33:19 GMT

In article <1ikjsdINNog7@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> rww@mugwump.cl.msu.edu (Richard W. Wiggins) writes:
>In article <-y!388#@rpi.edu> root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
>> >You might advocate excellent highways but fly across the country
>> >because you can afford it.  Remember that Chelsea is a separate
>day have had a lot of input into this decision.
>> 
>> Now, you're talking Apples and oranges... get a better arguement than that..
>> 
>> ---------------------------------
>> J.R. Ordon
>
>Ah, can't grapple with an analogy, so just dismiss it. 

OK then, Your analogy is bunk because the Airline Industry cannot get to
the destinations my car can, so the 2 modes of transportation are NOT
equal. On the other hand the Public ---> private school responsiblities
equal, they can address equal topics.

DISMISSED.....



>Your spelling is as good as your rhetoric.  The point is that the

Gee, I'm the product of Public schools, if you think my spelling is
so bad, maybe if I went to private school I'd be a better speller.
Oh, of course, I forgot you liberals are perfect!!

>Clintons are a family who want the best for their daughter
>and at the same time he is a President-elect who understands
>that a voucher system is an excuse for destroying public 
>education in this country. 

Wrong!! It's to make Public education better, if they can't compete
with private schools with all the funding they get, then I hope the system
is destroyed!
 
>
>Try another analogy: do you think someone who supports soup 
>kitchens for the poor is hypocritical if he ever eats at a
>nice restaurant?
>

 Are you comparing soup kitchens with Public Education???
Yeah, That comparison is about right!!  All the more reason for
School choice.

>Face it -- you refuse to look at the Clintons as a real human 
>family who face personal choices as well as political goals.
>You're out to attack Bill Clinton whenever you see an opening.

No, I just point out Hypocrisy when I see it...

>Chelsea did attend a public school in Arkansas.  Her visibility
>is much higher and the choices are much starker in DC.  Clinton

Didn't bother Amy Carter did it? 

>If you were President tomorrow with a teenage child who needed
>to pick a school for winter semester, what would you do?  Be

First of all, I wouldn't rip her out of School in mid-year,
I know of several friends of mine who were moving out of town
and if at all possible let their kids finish up the year, if they
could find someone to act as guardian, Bill shouldn't have a problem
with that..

>honest.  I would not call you a hypocrite if you made such a 
>choice, while still pushing for a voucher system.  Indeed, 
>Lamar Alexander, Bush's Secy of Education, had to defend his
>sending of kids to private schools while advocating improvements
>in public schools.  The difference is that Bush gave lip service
>to being the  'education President' while really having no vision
>whatever for improving schools, public or private.

I'm no fan of Bush's attempts with the voucher system, you're right it
was lip service.

The reason I'm in favor of School Choice is that groups like the NEA,
stand in the way of real progress in Public schools. They protect 
imcompetent teachers and are against even PUBLIC school choice.
Before you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, my
brother and sister-in-law are teachers and they confirm my
allegations. I think "tenure" is the biggest joke in education.
You have commit a felony to get terminated. Name another profession
that practices this.

>
>If I had school aged kids I'd want to send them to excellent
>public schools.  If that wasn't possible I'd scrape to send
>them to private schools.  At the same time I support removal
>of the property tax as the method for funding public schools,
>as it reinforces inequities.  I do think some measure of choice
>is a good thing, but I don't support a voucher system that allows
>taxpayer money to pay for parochial schools.

So it's the Religion thing that bothers you, OK, how about
Non-Religous private schools??

>
>If you want to attack Clinton's positions on education, get
>yourself some better arguments.  For instance, read today's
>New York Times op ed page, where someone from the American

I wouldn't read the Times if I got it for free, this is the same
paper that referred to the current economic growth as the "Clinton"
recovery, yeah, no liberal bias in the media, give it to me later...

>Enterprise Institute makes some cogent points questioning the
>assumptions underlying Clinton's education policy.  It's possible
>to offer a principled alternative view on education policy but
>this sophomoric attack on a very understandable personal choice
>doesn't cut the mustard.
>
>As to whether Clinton is 'rich' -- yes, he wants to raise income
>taxes on couples with incomes > 200K.  As President he will, for
>the first time, barely qualify for that income range.  And if he
>raises taxes for that bracket, he personally will lose out as a
>result.  Will you give him any credit for consistency there?

Some, but it only proves that "cares" more, a requirement of a True
liberal


-------------------------------
J.R. Ordon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality