HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:04:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.075320.347@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.182627.9859@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>}I tend to agree with Clinton's position, mainly because the idea of
>}using public money to pay for a private education opens up a real
>}can of worms with regard to questions such as separation of church
>}and state, etc.

>Why only support the separation clause of the 1st amendment?  Why not the
>rest of the Bill of Rights, which would preclude state schooling?  See the
>9th and 10th amendments on this.

Which negates only *federal* schooling, not all public schooling.

Nevertheless, it isn't at all clear that this *would* violate the
separation of church and state.  As long as religious schools are simply
treated the same as all other private schools, I don't see that it *is*
a violation of church and state.

>Besides, the State already supports religious schools at the level of Higher
>Education.  Is this unconstitutional?

It might be.  In what way do they do it?  If you're talking about
college scholarships which can be used at religious universities, as
well as private or public ones, probably not, as I was talking about above.  

>I suspect that even a limited form of competition,
>}with only the public schools, would still many of the positive
>}effects claimed by the choice advocates.

>Your suspicions have been disproven.

Prove it.  

*I* suspect that full choice would have neither the major benefits 
claimed by advocates nor the major harms claimed by critics.

-- 
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.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 18:15:18 GMT

In article <1il9p7INN465@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>But in this case we have a very powerful public official who has a large 
>influence on U.S. education policy who has chosen to use that influence to
>try to thwart efforts to make these same alternatives available to the 
>majority of American families.  It reeks of hypocrisy.
>

Let me try and get this straight:

1) Bill Clinton believes that the public-education system should be
   retained and strengthened;

2) Bill Clinton opposes the creation of vouchers which can be used to
   help pay for a private education, but supports a policy of choice
   within the public schools;

3) Bill Clinton has decided to use his own money to send his child to
   a private school;

THEREFORE,

4) Bill Clinton is a hypocrite.


Is Clinton, because he is President, required to send his daughter to a
public school as a way of 'sending a signal', as a 'vote of confidence'
in the public school system? Is this the point? If so, I would suggest
that the same obligation applies to any President, Democrat or Republican.
Of course, none of the last four Republican Presidents have had any
school-age children, so the point is somewhat academic...

Or is the problem that fact that Clinton has not supported a voucher
plan that would allow parents to use the voucher to help pay for a
private school? Is this the poster's point? In other words, since
Bill Clinton can afford, as President, to send his daughter to a
private school, he is therefore obliged to 'make this option available
to the majority of American families'?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rsteiger@denver.cba.du.edu
Subject: Clinton and his propaganda
Organization: University of Denver
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:35:27 GMT


I wonder, has anybody read the latest book on Clinton which is on sale in  
the finer grocery stores such as Safeway and King Soopers? I know these  
stores aren't EVERYWHERE, however, I was wondering if such obvious  
propaganda and pro Clinton fairy-tale biographies had reached all across  
the continent. More importantly, who the hell would believe all that crap?
--
..............................	Robert Todd Steigerwald ............
				rsetiger@denver.cba.du.edu
				NeXTmail Preferred
				Yes, some of us own the good stuff
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:47:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1iitb9INN64f@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> Srinivas Sunder,
>sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu writes:
>>(joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>|> Oh my... T-minus 13 days and they're already ganging up on what? 
>>|> 
>>|> A little girl.
>>
>>Aaaw, gimme a break! It has to be clear to even the dimmest wit that
>>the person being ganged up on is the girl's Dad and not her; and with
>>regards to what is certainly an important question.
>
>Excuse me Mr. Sunder, the target may be the president-elect, but the
>result of the decision does concern Chelsea. The fact is that Repubs
>are trying to force Clinton into making a pointless symbolic gesture
>at the expense of his daughter. I wouldn't do that to my child...

NO, NO, NO!!! You JUST DON'T GET IT! 

Excuse the caps, but this nonsense about Repubs attacking Chelsea
and other idiocies has been repeated several times.

His decision to send Chelsea to private school is *not* a problem, and I
challenge you to come up with a single Republican who has suggested that
Clinton has to send Chelsea to public school.

The issue is one of hypocrisy and Clinton's stand on school choice for
lower and middle income Americans. While he himself exercised a choice, he is
unwilling to give parents of limited means vouchers for both public and private
schools.  This effectively denies choice to many parents and locks them
into inferior schools, damaging the future of these kids, and having a
significant long-term cost to our society. 

>Would you? The fact is that the DC public education system is
>abysmal. Clinton could count on the Arkansas system because he

"The fact is that the DC public education system is abysmal."

Well said.

Now, do you favor school choice for the residents of the District of Columbia?
If not, then you are condomning them (by your own words) to an abysmal system.
Why would you do that to children?

The DC council is run by Democrats. The House, which administrates the District,
is run by Democrats. This Democrat-run school system has been a abomination for years.
Let's see those Democrats fix the DC schools.
School choice would help, the costs could be less than our current funnelling
of ever-more dollars into the public school monopoly.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:37:12 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1idpqvINN845@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes...
> 
>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?
> 

Ok, everyone that has a brain think about this for a minute.  Clinton
sent his daughter to public school his whole time as Governer of Arkansas.
So, he comes to Washington as the President of the United States, and he
decides not to send his daughter to a public school. WHY? 
NOT, because he couldn't find a decent enough public school around Washington
and it's suburbs (or at least not any worse than the ones in Little Rock).
As he stated before he made the decision, he wanted to "make sure that this
new life as President will be as less disruptive of his daughter's life as
possible".  Obviously, sending his daughter to a private school makes it 
possible to control her environment much more so than if she went to a public 
school.  The last child of a president in modern times that went to public
school was Amy Carter, and it was pretty uncomfortable for her, after 3
years she ended up going to a private school in the last year of Carter's 
presidency.  

This decision was a tough one for Clinton to make, he dissapointed his 
supporters and gave his detractors something to point and bitch about.
Being a supporter of Clinton, I'm a little dissapointed, but I can see
why he made the decision, and at least I can respect him for his guts.
He put his daughter's welfare above politics.  All you Clinton bashers
who claim that he always does things just to "get votes" or "please
everyone" should at least admit that this was gutsy thing to do.
But that would be too much to ask, I know.


On, a semi-related note, I was flipping through channels tonight and ran
across Limbaugh's infomercial, he was saying some pretty nasty things
about Carol Mosley Braun (sp?) for abotu 20 minutes straight.  Very NASTY
things. Prediction (I'm serious): Sen. Braun will sue Limbaugh for slander.

-Chris


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: The New Education President
X-Xxdate: Wed, 6 Jan 93 12:59:40 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:03:25 GMT

In article <1441@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Gutsy?  You've got to be joking.  The issue of whether his daughters life
>would be disrupted is absolutely meaningless!  The only real issue is why
>does the president the claims to "put people first" believes only elitist
>scumbags with money, like he, Hillary and Al, are the only parents that
have
>the right to make the same choice for their children.

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.
The fact is that the DC public schools are terrible, and it would make it
harder
for the secret service to protect Chelsea. I would have no respect for
the man
if he sacrificed his child to make a stupid symbolic gesture to keep anal
retentive politicos happy. Furthermore, this decision in no way
conclusively
determines the nature of his efforts on the education front. If you
believe
that, you need a course in deductive logic.

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
of your arguements are mere pouting and whining with
no real basis in fact. You keep
telling us what he will do in office as if you have some kind of crystal
ball.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa	 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:45:24 GMT

In <1it2lmINN6fi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>
[ bandwidth saved ]

>Now you have it.  Since Bill Clinton has implicitly recognized that the
>public school system does not always meet a family's needs (to put it
>charitably) it is morally incumbent on him, since he is a very influential
>public official, to do what he can to make alternatives available to the
>rest of us.
>>
 Item 1: Inauguration takes place Jan. 20, 1993 (it hasen't happened yet)

 Item 2: You seem to believe that the voucher system is the only way to
	fix the school system.

 Item 3: President-elect Clinton does not seem to believe that the
	voucher system is the only way.

 Item 4: Chelsea did not run for public office - her education is, to
	put it bluntly, none of our damn business.

 Item 5: Since when does a difference of opinion constitute hypocrisy?

In short, wait till he gets his feet under the desk before you all
start saying what a lousy job he's doing. If you realized just how
stupid all this carping and bitching makes you look, you'd wait. Its
only a little over a week to go, kidddies, then you can have at him.

REB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: susan@pulsar.dull-domain (Susan Einbinder)
Subject: Inauguration question
Reply-To: susan@pulsar.dull-domain
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:39:58 GMT

Does anyone know if the networks (or PBS) plan to broadcast the entire inaugural
proceedings or do I have to get cable to see Maya Angelou?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:16:38 GMT

> = john@anasazi.com writes:
>] = (Terrance Heath) writes:

>]	Why is it that when the same-old-white men are picked for
>]cabinet jobs, there is a lot less harping about "capabilities"? And I

>Why is it that when a black CONSERVATIVE was nominated to the supreme
>court, the same people who push quotas and affirmative action
>and selection by race were the ones who screamed about capabilities.
>Do I smell a whif of hypocrisy here?

You've gotta be kidding.  It's as consistent as you can get.  "Quota"
people should've LOVED Thomas' nomination without question.  THAT would
be "hypocrisy".

Recognizing his lack of experience and suspect attitude toward women is
as responsible as you can get.

Do you want to reword your comment?

>No, it is because a president who says from the start that gender
>or race is more important than any other criteria is rightly subject
>to such criticism. Note that Clinton ONLY interviewed women for some
>jobs - for gender preference reasons.

As has been asked before...why not outrage over the last 200+ years of
nominating WHITE MALES?  Are you saying that wasn't the ultimate in race
selection?

You're the hypocrite.

>>	For some time now, the face of political power in this country
>>has been white and male. We're used to it, so some of us are a lot
>>less likely to question it I suppose.

>Ah, this tired old argument.

I notice no answer.  Don't be afraid.

>Hey, anyone who lives in a big city or watches national news is quite
>used to seeing black, hispanic and female faces in position of considerable
>responsibility.

In presidential administrations?  Another non-answer.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington)
Subject: Cost of Schools (was Re: Why can't the liberals just admit...)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:07:29 GMT

There's an interesting article in this week's TNR (Mr. Justice Scalia on
the cover) about the cost of public schools and private alternatives.  The
main subject is the proposed "Edison project", which will allegedly build
lots of for-profit private schools.  Tuition is to be about $5500/yr, alleged
to be the average public school per-student spending (I think the estimate
has been moved up now to $6200 or so), with 1/4 of the total tuition revenue
forgone as scholarships.

Public-school advocates have expressed some fear that these schools might
outcompete public schools in a socially deleterious way, by siphoning off
the stronger students and leaving them with the dregs.  The author, a public
school teacher (and former TNR staffer), argues that there is no such
threat from Edison because Edison can't compete in price and quality with
the existing private and parochial schools, which already pose this threat.

The reason for this, she says, is that Edison has no capital stock (unlike
the existing private and parochial schools, which generally have donated 
buildings and are often endowed) and thus must raise gezillions
to build buildings for all these schools.  She says it's too much to get from
banks, so it has to be from investors, who will want a big return.  Her
estimate (which she claims Whittle, Edison's head, roughly confirmed in an
interview) is that Edison will have only $2900 per student to spend.  They
are already talking about "small class size is good" being a myth, as they
will have 40-person classes (as opposed to typical 25 in public schools).

A sidebar mentions another project which is running some of Baltimore's high
schools with the city's existing capital stock.

My limited experience is that private schools like the very good one I went
to succeed by having better teachers.  To some extent this is because of
barriers to entry in the public school system -- a bright graduate of a
liberal-arts school can try out teaching in a private school without going
through the teacher-training hoops.  It seems to be getting better, but in 
1981, when I graduated from Ammherst, I knew of only one classmate who had
any interest in attacking those hoops, but lots who made good prep school
teachers while they "found themselves" in ages 21-25.

Dave MB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:50:38 GMT

In article <1il8qcINN7po@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.174047.735@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>It is the whole notion that all kids regardless of desire
>>or parents' acceptance of responsibility are entitled.
>
>You sicken me.  Children should be entitled to proper nurturing: food,
>shelter, education, care.  This is the biggest failure of libertarianism,
>in my opinion, that it has no experience handling the simple biological fact
>that people are born as less than full, autonomous economic units.  The
>"solution" libertarianism presents is exactly what we see in most third
>world nations.

Would you have parent/child relationships governed by the state and not by
familial love?  I find the state a poor, uncaring parent, and forcing parents
to treat children certain ways precludes them from doing so in ways that they
perceive as better but different.

I support strong families, and the best way to strengthen families is to 
empower them to make their own decisions without the meddling of politicians
and bureucrats.

                                         James Parker
                                         jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:50:21 GMT



"Its all over for the political ruling class!"

So declared Umberto Bassi of the Italian Leagues. Could he be right?

When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, the establishment reluctantly
hailed it as the end of the cold war. But was it the end or merely the
beginning of the end? Socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and then
the Soviet Union with a resounding thud. Yet it survives in the West
if only barely.

Socialism with a drooling face. It seems to be confronting us more
clearly every day. The chronic US deficit is but one symptom of a much
larger disease, the slow and painfully agonizing death of the welfare
state.  Already, socialist paradises such as Sweden are feeling the
strain while nations such as Italy are on the verge of bankruptcy.

All the while, the electorate is becomming more hostile to the
political class; while 95% of US congressmen who ran were reelected,
term limits passed in every single state where they were on the ballot
by astoundingly wide margins. Many demographers are quitly warning
that the generation coming of age today may be the most cynical in
recorded history toward the established political system. Bill Clinton
ran and won on the theme that he was not like the tax-and-spend Bush
Republicans but that he was not a tax-and-spend Democrat, either.

Perhaps we do, in fact, live in "interesting times." If the death of
socialism in Eastern Europe was not the end but merely the beginning
of the end then we can expect tumultuous changes in the twilight years
of the 20th century, a century that will go down in history as the
most vicious and brutal to date, a century in which the state waged
war upon its citizens in the various guises of the common good.

But what comes next? If it is all over for the political class, are we
simply going to get a new ruling class? Will the political class manage
to drag the world economy down with them? Or are we on the verge of a new
age of peace and prosperity as governments return to more modest roles
in society?

What will life be like in the post-socialist 21st century?



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20140 alt.politics.elections:24894 alt.politics.libertarian:3449 talk.politics.misc:67400
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
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? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:11:33 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan9.210653.11042@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

> 	'fraid not Dave.  Your not legally allowed to tape songs off the
> radio.  That's a violation of the owners copyright.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your legal knowledge
on this point is out of date.  Private use rules.  (Of course, it's still
illegal for the original poster to sell the tapes to his friends.)
-- 

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...
From: cjk@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pamela Cho Publishes Private Email
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:28:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan8.182603.11865@rigel.econ.uga.edu> hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:

>  She's apparently new around here; most people seem to feel
>  that usenet etiquette requires permission for the publishing
>  of private email.  See news.announce.newusers for a discussion
>  of such things.
>  
>  Whether you think this or not, you should probably consider
>  that your mail to her will be published without your permission.
>  
>  Wayne
>

The only reason I respond via e-mail vs. Posting is that I think the rest
of the readers wouldn't be interested in what I had to say.  I would never
send private e-mail on a topic being discussed publicly that couldn't stand 
up to public scrutinty.

cjk@netcom.com