HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:53:41 GMT

In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> writes:

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

Everyone is forgetting that the most populous country on the planet is
both Communist and Socialist,  and gives every indication of remaining
so.  At the last party congress,  the delegates closed by singing the
"Internationale" (a great tune).  I really do think they're serious.


========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton,soc.men
From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun 
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:41:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.183239.12755@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <C0GMz8.4AA@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>Ha, what a joke.  CMB is in most of the serious papers in the country (maybe
>>buried in the back, but still there), and all Rush did was have a field day
>>with all she's accused of.  Besides the trip to South Africa, while her 
>>campaign workers don't get paid, she took along her boyfriend (who's been
>                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^
>>accused of sexual harassment), who was being paid $15,000 a month as her
> *******^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>campaign manager. The last thing she wants to do is call more attention to
>>her little games, she's a disgrace to the "Year of the Woman", and probably 
>>one of the least qualified people ever elected to the Senate.
>
>Key word.

Absolutely correct! "Accused" the the key word. Clarence Thomas was only
"accused" of sexual harassment, yet we have been barraged with this
accusation as if it were FACT for over a year. 

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. String the guy up.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:14:29 GMT

In article <1iijjkINN1jt@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com
(Mike Polen) writes: 
>Jim Howe) writes:
>|> Steve Nelson) writes:
>|> |> Michael Doel) writes:
     (some stuff deleted)
>|> 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.
>|> 
>The school Chelsea will be going to is $10,000/year.  How much of a voucher
>would it take to give 80% of the residents of DC (or any other inner city)
>the opportunity to attend such a school?  Probably $9.900.  Doesn't sound
>like a solution we can live with, since we spend ~$3500 per student today --
>and that is total funding; federal, state, and local.
>-- 
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

        Counter-argument 1-  I assume that the school Chelsea is going
to is one of the best in the area (if not the country); after all she
will be the daughter of the president.  I don't think anyone claimed
that vouchers will enable everyone to go to the best school in the
area, just that it will let people go to a better school than they
are...

      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 think 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...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:48:18 GMT
	<1455@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.

In article <1455@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) babbles:
>Tell me why the Clintons have the right to expect their child to be free 
>from physical harm while at school and I don't?
>
>PSG
>

	Tell me why the Clintons have the right to expect Secret Service
protection and you don't.

--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:17:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.183728.9432@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>In article <1ii5veINNfs2@mozz.unh.edu> pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)  
>writes:
>> [misc.education added to newsgroups; followups trimmed somewhat]

>> mh: Mike Huben

>> mh: Federal support for public schools has clearly declined greatly over
>>     the past dozen years, in a charge publicly lead by RR and GB. I
>>     blame that on the influence of the Presidency.

>According to the Jounral of Policy Review from the end of Carter's term to  
>the end of Bush's term government money spent on education has increased  
>from $3800 per student to $5800 per student.

This is going to continue as long as bureaucrats run things.  The liberals
are thoroughly set in their ways that only a government bureaucracy can
get anything done.  They are so concerned about perceived unfairness and
inequity that they feel it absolutely necessary to see that no one can
accomplish more than anyone else, except where the one accomplishing is
"disadvantaged."
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:56:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.231506.21605@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.182627.9859@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>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.
>>

[etc]

>>
>>
>>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.
>

The question has to do with the use of public funds to help support an
institution of religion. Your statement that the Constitution simply
forbids a national religion is an interpretation that is not necessarily
shared by everyone, including some SC justices.

>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.
>

Yes, I oppose public money going to religious schools.

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

The same way competition can help generally: by allowing parents to
pull their kids out of bad schools and put them into better ones. Even
within the public school system, some schools are better than others,
and a choice system would put pressure on the bottom-dwellers to improve
or shut down.

>--JMB


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19834 alt.politics.elections:24757 alt.politics.libertarian:3165 talk.politics.misc:66632
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:58:28 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Jim Howe) writes:
|> Steve Nelson) writes:
|> |> 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.
|> 
The school Chelsea will be going to is $10,000/year.  How much of a voucher
would it take to give 80% of the residents of DC (or any other inner city)
the opportunity to attend such a school?  Probably $9.900.  Doesn't sound
like a solution we can live with, since we spend ~$3500 per student today --
and that is total funding; federal, state, and local.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:18:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1ifeptINNicv@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>I'm not surpised that the Republicans are attempting to make an issue
>of this.  Didn't they learn in the last election that people are tired
>of divisive tactics?  I have nothing against *anyone* sending their children
>to private schools if they can afford it.  I just don't want to pay for it
>from funds from the US Treasury.
>

Your first mistake is assuming that Republicans are making the fuss, they
are but many parents who want a decent education for their kids are and
aren't satisfied with the junk that public school system is churning out
are the ones that making an issue out of it.

The second mistake is not realizing that to many of us that are disgusted 
with the quality, or lack of, of the education, the lack of input we have 
and the outright social and political indoctrination that takes place in
public schools, would love to be able to send our kids to private schools
For many of us, however, we can't afford it because of the outrages tax
rates we pay to support the public system.

So try this on for size...

I  have nothing against *anyone* sending their children to a public school,
if they choose to.  I just don't want my income and property being taxed
to pay for it.  Once againg the liberal assumption is that only the government
is capable of providing certain things and that it's the responsibilities
of the government to provide what the private sector already provides at
a better price with better quality.  Therefore it's assumed that we should
tolerate the threats of siezure of our property and money to pay for something
we don't want. 


PSG

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20106 alt.politics.elections:24875 talk.politics.misc:67267 alt.politics.libertarian:3411
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:06:59 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan11.234816.14110@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:

|In article <90187@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>
|>I believe that rising standards of living lead to demands for greater
|>political freedoms.  If the government gives in to the demands then the
|>change will be peacefull, otherwise it will be violent.
|>
|>South Korea and Taiwan are two recent examples.
|>
|	Wouldn't Singapore be a counter-example?
Singapore is an example of the middle class demanding reform and the
government not giving it.  That makes it an example for the second case,
not really a counter-example.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:10:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

>>>	all special interest groups.  His decision to send the first
>>>	daughter to a private school is just his latest example of say
>>>	one thing and do another.
>>So, consider me an ignoramus if you must, but what promise did Clinton break
>>by sending his daughter to a private school?
>He did not break any promises that I know of, although it is hard to 
>remember all the promises he made.  What he did do is show that his
>populist retoric is just retoric.

He did this... how?  How is sending his daughter to private school a proof
that "his populist rhetoric is just rhetoric?"  I don't remember the promises
either.  Did Clinton give the impression that public schools are good enough
for everyone, even the rich?  (This sounds familiar, but i honestly don't
remember that well.  I just remember that i disagreed w/ vouchers...)  If this
is the case then it would appear, superficially, that there he might have been
spouting rhetoric.  But again, "good enough" isn't the only reason that those
who can afford to do so will send their kids to school.  Safety for the kid
would be my prime concern were i in his shoes.  In that case sending the kid
to private school is like having a bullet-proof car in my eyes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:00:35 GMT

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?

Why in the world should Chelsea Clinton sacrifice her life on the alter of
political correctness in the decrepit public school systems merely because
she is the daughter of a socialist.

For all we know, she is a red-blooded closet Republican who believes in the
re-privatization of the public "education" system. Don't punish Chelsea for
Bill's sins.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:29:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.052429.20161@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <C0KFJJ.Evp@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>In fact, China is in the second decade of economic liberalization that would
>>make Democrats cringe. They are setting their markets loose and, as a result,
>>experiencing double-digit economic growth.
>
>>Oh, sure, they insist on calling it "market socialism" but the fact is that
>>China has acheived, module a few limp, bloody bodies in Tien an Men, what
>>has eluded Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union: a successful transition from
>>socialism to captialism.
>
>>The main difference, of course, is that China is still a dictatorship and not
>>a democracy.
>
>But Ed has proved over and over again that he couldn't care less about
>this.  As long as there's capitalism, who cares what happens to people?

As if double-digit economic growth were not about people?

>I mean, sure they shoot people for exercising free speech, but hey, they
>aren't spending as much money on public schools as the US is.  They must
>be great.

My, my, my, aren't we a litle testy today?

That's right. China is an evil dictatorship which crushes uppity students
under APC treads.

But, overall, thanks to over a decade of free-market reforms, reforms
that the Democrats would blast as warmed-over Reaganomics, they are
exeriencing DOUBLE DIGIT ECONOMIC GROWTH! In the Southern provinces of
Guangdong and vicinity, it is becomming increasingly difficult to
distinguish Chinese from Hong Kongese.

There are probably more capitalists in the Chinese Communist party
than in the Democratic party and certainly more belief in the ability of
free markets to provide for the common good.

Of course, socialists like Nieporent would like to pretend that we
have to choose between a free press and a free economy, as if America
had never had both. The Democats would like to pretend that we have to
suffer the welfare state so that we can speak freely about how corrupt
the welfare state is.

Bullshit! America can do better. America can have both economic AND
personal freedom. Its had it before, it will have it again.
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 9 Jan 1993 01:29:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) says:

>In article <1993Jan6.103132.2930@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In<C0F7H0.6J4@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>>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?
>>
>	
>	Guess what?  Americans with money have always had the option
>	of sending their kids to private schools, and most did until
>	the 60's when it became politically uncorrect.  Also, people
>	had the option to send their kids to church-supported (cheaper)
>	private schools, too.  It's only been recently that public
>	school bashing became popular because, since the 80's, private
>	schooling has once again become popular and the greedies
>	who want to use them do not want to pay the (albeit high) cost
>	of public education as well.
>
>	If somebody (even the President) wants a private education
>	for his child and can pay for it, why not?  It does not mean
>	that person doesn't respect the only institution available
>	to most other people.  Besides, I'll bet it's easier for
>	the secret service to do their secret service in a small
>	restricted school setting than in the large, open, crowded
>	public schools, thus saving a few tax dollars.
>
>
>
>
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.
 
-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.