HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:49:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
}
}The fact is that Repubs
}are trying to force Clinton into making a pointless symbolic gesture
}at the expense of his daughter.

'Tisn't the GOP trying that.  Why does the latest Washington Monthly, a
Democratic-leaning publication, have an article titled "Why Chelsea Clinton
Should Attend Public School"?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 13:57:50 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan6.222202.27215@unet.net.com>, steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
|> In article <DOEL.93Jan6134049@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >Wrong on two counts.  First, the rich aren't the ones being hurt by the lack
|> >of school vouchers, it's the poor.
|> 
|> 
|> Please explain how a child living in poverty in an inner city is going 
|> to get a better education than he or she is currently getting because his 
|> or her parent(s) receive(s) a school voucher worth $1000.00 or even $2500.00
|> considering the cost of a good private (or public for that matter)
|> education.
|> 

It helps by creating a competitive market for education in the inner city.
Instead of money automatically going to the local government school,
parents will have the option of spending it elsewhere.  Some enterprising
soul(s) will create alternative schools in the hopes of attracting
the voucher money.  If a school gets a good reputation, it will attract
more students, if it doesn't, students will go elsewhere.  Clearly the
size of the voucher will make a big difference.  Most voucher plans that
I am aware of have voucher amounts which are enough to pay for a reasonable
education.  Additional money from parents, relatives, friends and 
scholarships can all be used to supplement the voucher amount.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:13:49 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City, CA

In article <1ihm4eINNb5b@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname writes:
>
>
>From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.
>

It's very difficult for people to develop equal abilities when their
opportunities to develop those abilities is horribly unequal.

>Wow Mike you make a real good Democrate.  Comrade Clinton would probably
>love this solution.  We should however extend it to all things: the
>poor get Social Security the rich don't, the poor get socialized health
>care the rich don't, the poor get food stamps and free housing the
>rich don't,

Exactly.  Why give the privledged things that they don't need?


>the Democrats get everyone on the dole and we have to keep
>electing them to survive.
>

The Democrats try to give people the opportunity to get out of poverty
and become productive citizens, but some people don't want to give up
any portion of their precious subsidies or resources to help.

I guess it depends on what type vision one has for the future of the
United States.  If one believes in social Darwinism, then a declining middle
class and an upward redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the 
wealthy (by increasing overall middle class tax rates (read: total tax 
burden which includes federal, state, local, sales, social security, 
property and all other taxes) and lowering overall tax rates on the wealthy 
and providing the wealthy with large handouts via huge government/military 
programs and subsidies, and giving them a virtual license to steal by 
eliminating almost all oversight of the S & L, Banking, other important 
industries) wouldn't trouble one.

But, if one believes that the United States should have a strong middle
class and be a country where a child's opportunity to get a good education 
and to succeed in life, is a right and not a privledge, and should not be 
determined by the accident of who its parents are and what their socio-
economic status might be, then the trends over the past quarter century 
might cause one some concern.


>fred
>
>


Steve                       Roll on you Bears!!!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19780 alt.politics.homosexuality:9120
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:35:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.042433.14402@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.162406.21151@midway.uchicago.edu> dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>>>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.
>
>>Actually, no.  I haven't heard anyone saying that Clinton should change his
>>decision, just that his decision was hypocritical.  Considering the same
>>Federal government (particularly Congress) that he expects to reform education
>>has been managing the DC school system, and the mutual admiration society 
>>between Clinton and the public school teachers unions, calling it anything but
>>hypocritical is beyond me.  No reason he should change, though.  It's not as 
>>though he's a stranger to hypocrisy.
>
>Of course, calling it hypocritical is just *wrong.*
>
>Clinton NEVER said that private schools are bad, or that public schools are
>good enough.  If he did, then he'd be a hypocrite.
>
>He said that vouchers would make the situation worse.  Right or wrong,
>(I think he's wrong), that doesn't make him hypocritical.
>
>Even if he *did* say that public schools were good enough, though, that
>wouldn't make him a hypocrite.  For instance, I think that the bus is
>good enough for anyone who needs transportation to work.  I don't think
>anyone *needs* a Mercedes.  That doesn't mean it wouldn't be more convenient 
>to own one, though.
>

Please.  This is politics we're talking about.  Clinton made any number of
speeches on the centrality of the public school system to American education.
The "educational reform" parts of his platform are straight out of 
the NEA.  For all practical purposes, he's bought and paid for by the public
school lobbies.  Any _hint_ that the public schools are good enough for the
proles but not good enough for his daughter is hypocritical.  Not that his
decision on Chelsea was hypocritical, but that his prior stance was.

>
>As an aside, Congress does not "manage" the DC school system.  It funds it,
>partly, but the school board runs it.  And anyway, the real problem with
>many inner-city schools is the government-caused drug-war violence. 
>

As the constitution stands, Congress has final responsibility for running the 
District of Columbia.  It's stands, glowing, as a beautiful example of 
their competence.  If they are not, in fact, "managing" the school system,
that's not an excuse, that's an indictment.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
They cut, I hack.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: matt@cray.com (Matthew Marchese)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:18:38 CST

In article <1993Jan11.172851.19675@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.232102.6843@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.175257.17960@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>
>>>No, the fact is that Clarence Thomas is NOT qualified to sit on the Supreme
>>>Court, sexual harassment or not.  Whereas all of Clinton's appointments are
>>>highly qualified for their jobs.
>>>
>>>    - Dave Borden
>>>      borden@m5.harvard.edu
>>
>>And the winner of the Academy Award for rediculous, unsupported, patently
>>absurd statements said with a straight face is: DAVE BORDEN!
>>
>>ALL of them are HIGHLY qualified? You checked ALL of their credentials and
>>background? And Judge Thomas' too? Where do you find time to study?
>
>More will follow on Thomas, in a later post,  But as for Clinton's
>appointments, here they are, since you asked:  (I'm missing Babbitt,
>and maybe others of the last few appointments.  But most of them are here.)
>
>
[.....]
>
> NAME:                           Alice M. Rivlin
>
> DEPUTY DIRECTOR DESIGNEE FOR:   Office of Management and Budget
>
> EDUCATION:                      Bryn Mawr College (1952)
>                                 Ph.D Econ., Radcliffe College  (1958)
>
>      Alice M. Rivlin is Hirst Professor of Pubic Policy at George
                                             ^
> Mason University and a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at The
> Brookings Institution (on leave).
>
Oh, I hope this is a typo.....:)

*******************************************************************************
*  "Don't just sit there like a bump on a log!..ROCK! ROCK!!" - Daffy Duck    *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealed to me through the medium of my pet   *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19930 alt.politics.libertarian:3248
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 9 Jan 1993 01:12:44 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

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.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: RE: CO BOYCOTT ORDINANCE
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:04:00 GMT
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591

-> From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
-> Date: 10 Jan 93 20:55:42 GMT
-> Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh

-> I've seen reports in the last two weeks, from CBS, NBC, CNN, and
-> several major newspapers, all saying that the boycott is a major
-> flop.  Colorado resorts are reporting record numbers of visitors from
-> not only Hollywood but nearly every part of the country.  Heck I know
-> several people that are going out of their way to find and purchase
-> product made in Colorado.
->
-> PSG


Why oh why, Paul, do you insist on being so silly?  As usual, you begin
your post by being honest, and then it just turns into assholism.  Why?
Why the hell would anyone GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to buy Colorado stuff?  Is
it really worth it to them?  Do they really have to buy stuff to show
that they are fools?  My guess is that those around them know that they
are fools without them having to go out and buy stuff which merely
increases their respective levels of foolishness.
                                              
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Transfer Station BBS (510) 837-4610 & 837-5591 (V.32bis both lines)|
| Danville, California, USA. 400+ MB Files & FREE public Internet Access |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:55:16 GMT

In article <C0G55F.35u@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194239.16465@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>
>>Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
>>confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
>>mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
>>monolithic in their wants and desires.
>>
>>If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
>>say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
>>is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
>>whether Clinton has accomplished this task.
>
>
>	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
>said "a lot less", not that there is no harping at all. Is it because
>the faces of power are darker than before, or perhaps were a bit more
>lipstick, that our confidence in their abilities is just a bit shaken?

I think it has more to do with someone assuming the thrones of power without
apparently working they're way up the ladder.  No one questioned Colin
Powell's abilities.  No one can question that Ron Brown is the
quintessential Washington Insider and has worked his way up the power
structure.  Nor Elizabeth Dole or Jean Kirpatrick.
	But when someone leaps from the bottom to the top, of course their
qualifications are called into question.  Look at Judge Souter and the
questions surrounding his confirmation as to his qualifications as a jurist
and scholar in order to sit on the Supreme Court.
	And he wasn't Black or female.

[deleted stuff]
>-- 
>"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
>			-Joseph Beam_
>Terrance Heath 
>heath@athena.cs.uga.edu


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: homosexuals in the military
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:02:33 GMT

Attn:  Galvanek, Moore, et al.

There's an interesting article on homosexuals in the military in
the Washington Post, Nov. 30 1992, p. A1.  Here are some selected
quotes:

	... Canada's military leadership concluded there was *no
	credible basis* for continuing the ban [on homosexuals]
	and last month agreed to drop it...

	"We would not have been able to prove that it [homosexuality]
	had that deleterious effect on cohesion and morale that
	everyone talked about," said Daniel E. Munro, a retired
	brigadier general who serves as director general for
	personnel policy in the Canadian Forces.  "Basically,
	we realized that we didn't have the evidentiary foundation...
	It just wasn't there, I mean, you can't use the old
	cohesion and morale arguments just based on folklore.
	You have to be able to prove this stuff."

	...

	[Undermining fighting prowess] does not appear to
	have happened in Israel, where gay men and lesbians can
	serve openly and whose army is widely considered among
	the best in the world.

Prediction:  Moore will ignore this.  Galvanek will retort with
an insult about the effectiveness of the Canadian military. 
Others will say, "But the Bible says ..."

Jeff Shallit
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19735 alt.politics.homosexuality:9068 alt.rush-limbaugh:13166 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11747 alt.politics.bush:15627
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:10 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1411@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
| 
|What I recognize is that despite what you or I may think the "low-profile
|majority" is like, it's not them leading the push for programs like these
|I suspect that this unseen majority is not terribly interested in having 
|their sexual practices flaunted in public - they don't engaging in outing.
|I supsect most of them respect the rights of parents in they same way they 
|expect their rights to be respect by others.

	Yes.  Most of them don't approve of teaching values in school, 
while they do approve of including Gay family units in social studies.
They are selective, of course.  They don't want exclusively bad images of
Gay culture shown.  One can see why.  Most of us see a difference, though,
in teaching values and teaching facts (even when those facts may foster
the independent formation of values).

n Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G 
Gasdon Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gad 
n Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20058 alt.president.clinton:1498
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:57:57 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) 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?
>>

Clinton has never spoken against private education.  He simply does
not believe that government should be paying for private education
through vouchers. (Although the government already pays for quite
a lot of private education ... just ask the folks at Stanford.)
There are some leaders of private education that don't want vouchers
either.  There is nothing inconsistent about having Chelsea attend
a private school.  Bush, who speaks out against national health
insurance as "socialized medicine", uses Bethesda Naval Hospital- 
I don't think that's inconsistent either.

Us "plebes" don't have the security concerns that the President's daughter
does.  Heck, even their cat gets assualted.  I think that there are
other reasons for choosing a public school besides the quality
of education in this case.  


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: University of North Carolina
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:15:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.182627.9859@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1ikdg3INNidf@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>
>>I don't recall anyone saying that he should send Chelsea to the DC public
>>schools, in fact, quite the opposite. The question being asked of Clinton
>>is this: Now that you understand the dilemma faced by many not-so-affluent 
>>people living in school districts with lousy school systems, how can you 
>>not be for giving such people the opportunity to choose between a good school 
>>and a bad school, like you had?  (apologies for the poor sentence structure)
>>
>>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
>
>
>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.
>
>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. 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.
>
>
>Don Pajerek
>
>Standard disclaimers apply.

	I few questions for you regarding the opposition to school choice
with regard to religious schools.

1)  Why do you think this "opens a can of worms".  If the govt, allowed
any school.... then that isn't descriminating against religion.  The
constitution never says the govt, will have nothing to do with churches,
just that there won't be a national one.

2)  Do you personally oppose money going to religious schools.  The reason
I ask, is that many people assume that lots of people oppose this, though
I meet very few who themselves do.

3)  How does choice between public schools help the situation at all?

--JMB
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:21:27 GMT
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University

Over the past 50 years:

Per capita spending on students in public schools has steadily increased (when	adjusted for inflation);
Teacher's salaries have increased similarly;
Class size has decreased.

Now we're told that reason student performance has steadily decreased since the 	60s is that we're not spending enough, teachers are underpaid, and classes are
too big.
 
We're also told that we need "new" methodologies, teching styles, materials and
what have you. No one is suggesting we return to the very successful methods
of the 50s and before. That would be to admit that the revolutionary methods of
the 60s and beyond were failures.

Any finally, when some suggest that perhaps the public schools have become self-serving
and perhaps need some competition, we're told that it's not in the students best
interests. 

Frankly, I'm puzzled.

   --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton,soc.men,talk.politics.misc