HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:47:32 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
              11 Sep 1992 14:06:27 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

As I recall, Chicago attempted to create a community-based educational
system.  There were two results that I know of:
1) the NEA sued
2) after a year, people who had served on the community boards were
   so fed up that they were going to the media and saying things
   like, "nobody in their right mind would want this position."

Apparently, the primary difficulty was that every time the community
gave any input, the teachers' union either refused to implement it
or went back to court over control issues.

However, these are only my impressions, since my connection to the
Chicago public schools is limited to afternoon talk show hosts'
interviews of community board members and such, and the occasional
article in the Tribune.

Personally, I admire the idea of community-based schools, as I
understand it.  It does not appear to have worked in the current
climate, and my impression is that it requires a different attitude
toward control of the public schools that is difficult to implement
due to the problems referred to above.

Input from Chicagoans would be much appreciated.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:17:21 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: It's always the money

>Really?  Then ELIMINATING the NEA is just a minor thing.  If the money
>wasn't important, it wouldn't be protected so vehemently.
>
>        hey, to me (and hence to just about everyone) $.64 ain't
>        a whole lot.  i mean, you might still be able to find some
>        penny candy for that much, but its getting rare.  however,
>        to a large number of galleries and museums, it means the
>        difference between solvency and bankrupcy.  and for a large

Also funded are local/regional symphony orchestras, opera companies,
acting troops, and ballet companies.  These have doubled, tripled or
quadrupled in number since the origin of the NEA.
    todddddddddd
>
>        brni
>-andy

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "It is not enough to be
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   Hungarian.  One must also
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    have talent." - UNKNOWN
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:45:19 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
              14 Sep 1992 14:03:08 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Jimbo:

You miss the point.  Everything may well be going just fine, but if
*you* think you *deserve* a better life and can't get it, that is
not a sign of low self-esteem.

By the same token, everything may well be going absolutely wrong,
but the principle still applies.  It is the failure to accept life
for what it is, and the selfish insistence that it should be better,
coupled with the notion that if it doesn't *get* any better then
life isn't fair and isn't worth living--*that* is where self-esteem
really comes into play.

A high opinion of one's self is rarely either realistic or shared by
others.  Deal with it.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:54:02 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: clinton and college

Missy J:
>I was just listening to Bill Clinton on CSPAN.  He suggests that *everybody*
>should be sent to 2-year college or trade school so they can get
>"good jobs, not dead end jobs."
>
>That sure sounds great.  Then something occurred to me.  If *everybody*
>gets a good job, who's going to do all the crummy jobs?  What happens
>when everybody is a manager and nobody is a service worker?

Well, I can't speak for Clinton, but the idea seems reasonable to me.
First, by trying to increase the use of two-year colleges and trade schools
he's addressing (1) the needs of folks who don't want or necessarily need a
traditional 4-yr degree; and (2) the country's need for a variety of
"kinds" of workers.  A 2-yr college or trade school isn't going to train
lots of managers -- it's going to train technicians and service workers.
These are important "pieces" of the economic structure.  Increasingly,
folks working in these kinds of jobs need training -- they can't just take
personal typing in high school and become an administrative assistant or
executive secretary.  And four-year colleges are not (and, I would argue,
should not) be in the business of providing that kind of training.  Without
a "middle tier" of educational offerings, we wind up in the untenable
position of either (1) ignoring a big group of people and a big piece of
the economy or (2) expanding the mission of 4-year programs to the point of
destruction.

>Or does Bill think that *every* job is a good job?  (Clearly not, or
>the dichotomy makes no sense.)  So, what *is* a good job, what *is*
>a dead-end job, and why shouldn't both be done by *somebody*?

Well, if I were defining them, I'd say that dead-end jobs have two
characteristics:  they provide less than a liveable wage for a family, and
they provide no opportunity for economic growth.  I would include in this
category your basic fast-food job.  I find it hard to imagine that offering
everyone a variety of choices for post high-school training will really
mean fewer people to flip burgers, do janitorial work, etc.

BTW, if what I've read (mostly in TNR) is correct, Clinton has been
thinking about and studying the general issue of "what to do with folks
after high school" for a long time.  His ideas may be wrongheaded, but they
weren't cooked up overnight for the sake of votes.  If that makes any
difference :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:37:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

I have read a couple of things which I can't document.  One was awhile ago,
and I can't remember where:  the U.S. has a higher percentage of administrators
to teachers than most other countries.

Another I read was in the NYT the other day.  There was an article to the
effect that there are a lot of people around at least New York but I think it
meant the rest of the country, who wanted to teach but who can't get jobs
because their degrees aren't in education and the boards won't hire them
on a regular basis.  One of the board people said that the reason for this
was "they may know their subject really well, but they might not be able
to control a classroom full of kids or know what to do when one kid can't
or maybe won't learn."  I think she does have a point, but I don't really
think that's something you have to take a whole lot of educational theory
to learn.  Also it has been my personal experience that the education majors
I knew just did not have that much on the ball compared to other (history,
economics, polly sigh, etc., majors.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:50:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject: Re: read my lips: I have family values

It appears that one would have to consider the following questions when
discussing the privatization of education.  Why, what is the rationale,
for privatization in the first place?  Is this a fad or are there sound
reasons for choosing this option.  Remember, that education is not a right
in the United States but is a state requirement to insure the appropriate
socialization of its citizenry.

Nonetheless, if one designs the privatization program around dispersing
the funds to the schools directly, one must decide what parameters are
required to control the competition.  In other words, what sorts of
'things' does one wish to see in the proposal?  Who reads the proposal?
How does one guarantee 'quality' in a competitive environment?  This last
question is based on the notion that some unscrupulous competitor may place
the 'profit motive' before all else in the race for funding.

If one were to design the privatization program around the granting of monies
to the consumer one would have to consider whether the consumer possessed
'perfect information' in order to make an appropriate decision as to where
to send their child.  Would a less educated, less literate, less experienced
person be placed at the mercy of either an unscrupulous provider or the
better educated, more literate and more experienced consumer?

Anyway these are some questions which I feel need discussion.
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: real solutions for real problems
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:38:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

fred:
>I have a hard time believing that we cannot have spotted owls and the
>timber industry at the same time. I am very afraid that if bush is
>re-elected the next step will be to remove park designations for vast
>tracks of land in alaska and open them up to the timber and oil
>industries. This would be a tremendous mistake with irreversible
>consequences for the wildlife in this area. It would be more efficient
>to improve methods for farming forests that are already under cultivation.

Thanks for being able to see through the rhetoric, and for giving me a
chance to get on one of my favorite soapboxes :)  For those interested, let
me just point out a few things.  First, if what I've seen on the news and
read in various journals is correct, timber production in the Pacific
Northwest has been increasing and jobs decreasing for quite some time (much
like coal here).  One of the biggest areas of job loss has been in lumber
mills -- and that, in part, because we can only sell raw logs to Japan.
Second, nobody ever mentions the jobs being lost in the salmon industry as
a consequence of timber practice (cut trees -> erosion -> siltation of
spawning streams -> kill the baby salmon).  Third, although some extremist
groups really *do* think the issue is about owls, most of the conservation
biology community recognizes that the real issue is preserving old-growth
forests as intact ecosystems.  The owls are an indicator species -- their
decline tells us something about the overall health of the system.

Finally, with something like only 10% of U.S. old-growth forest in this
region left intact, one must wonder what the timber industry plans on doing
for jobs once all the trees are gone.

I know!  I'll get everyone in the country to donate to me, personally, a
small portion of their tax dollars.  *I'll* buy the forest!

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:27:52 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              8 Sep 1992 11:28:39 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.IN DIANA.EDU>

On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:28:39 GMT jimmy donal wales said:
>K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
>>Without getting theoretical -- not that I can -- it seems to me that
>>one can easily define harmful without the knowledge of whether it
>>is bad but the reverse is not always easily done.
>
>Just for the record, I equate the two.  Harmful, bad.  Bad, harmful.
>Additional questions that must be answered, though: of harm to whom?
>bad for whom?
>
>I don't see how something harmless could be bad.  And I don't see
>how anything bad could be harmless.

Intent?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:31:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: the once and future king

Liese, how come your account is different now?

I would like Perot to stay out of politics, and if he wants to use his money
he should run a new totally integrated computer/telephone/satellite network
to facilitate the sort of political movement that he has been talking about
but will never be the leader of (how's that for run-on sentences?).

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:53:44 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      the zionist mouthpiece clinton coming after your kids with an axe

tsch.
great posts this week, you all.  right.
i feel sick.
the only way to deal with it is to ignore the really bizarro ones.
notice the amount of mail i've been sending.
um, robert, kerry, and you other paragons of joy and hopefulness?
i don't suppose you have something else to occupy your time...like
jobs?
or maybe the "elect lt. col. bo gritz" campaign?
or working on the staff of the "criminal politics journal:  your inside
guide to the trilateral zionist plot to destroy american morality"?

until some semblance of order is restored, count me out.  much to
your relief, i refuse to be a party to this kind of hatemongering and
subversion of intelligent discourse.
thus remaining,
                                 --anneliese lorson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 12:28:34 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>It appears that one would have to consider the following questions when
>discussing the privatization of education.  Why, what is the rationale,
>for privatization in the first place?

The public monopoly doesn't provide the benefits we're paying for.

>Remember, that education is not a right in the United States but is a
>state requirement to insure the appropriate socialization of its citizenry.

"Appropriate socialization"?

Try again.

>Nonetheless, if one designs the privatization program around dispersing
>the funds to the schools directly, one must decide what parameters are
>required to control the competition.

No, one must decide what one wants to buy and pay for that.

>In other words, what sorts of
>'things' does one wish to see in the proposal?  Who reads the proposal?

What proposal?  The privatization proposal?  Everyone who contributes
to the fund gets to read; that's how we do things in a democracy.  The
education proposal for a given school?  The parents, among others.

Who shouldn't be allowed to pay for a proposal they're paying for?

>How does one guarantee 'quality' in a competitive environment?

Since we're not getting quality from the current environment....

>This last question is based on the notion that some unscrupulous
>competitor may place the 'profit motive' before all else in the race
>for funding.

That's a nice description of the public system.  If you don't like
that, why should they be given a monopoly?

>If one were to design the privatization program around the granting of monies
>to the consumer one would have to consider whether the consumer possessed
>'perfect information' in order to make an appropriate decision as to where
>to send their child.  Would a less educated, less literate, less experienced
>person be placed at the mercy of either an unscrupulous provider or the
>better educated, more literate and more experienced consumer?

Sure, we need to protect people who might screw up, so we're going to
screw up everyone; that's a much more fair system.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:33:38 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              12 Sep 1992 12:27:29 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFOR D.EDU>

On Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:27:29 -0700 Andy Freeman said:
>
>(1) is basically the voucher proposal.  Parents get a slip of paper
>that an education provider can turn in to get cash.  Said parents pick
>the provider.  The public schools don't want private providers to be
>able to turn in those vouchers.

Which is either because they believe private schools actually do better,
real or imagined, or that the money drained away from the kitty that
normally would have been anted up will make things even worse.  Since
it's been asserted on the list that private schools don't actually
do better, then someone needs to let the public people know, but
I have a feeling they'd claim the latter reason no matter what they
really believed...

>Why?  I've no objection to kid-specific voucher amounts, or giving
>rich parents smaller vouchers, but why shouldn't we let parents pay
>extra for steak?

Because there seems to be a perception by many that no one should be
allowed to eat steak when others have only hamburger, worse yet:
nothing.  Now if that's true (pardon my bringing religion up here),
then let's see those who feel that way practice what they preach.

>For example, the voucher amount could depend on end-of-previous-year
>test scores; lower scores get more money.  Bad schools wouldn't get
>repeat biz because their students would be sucked away.

Lower scores get more money?  Hmmmm. I'll bet there's going to be some
real competition amongst the schools to figure out a way to get negative
scores on tests to increase their funding.

I'm betting those who will admit as much (in academic circles) will feel
like the "better" teachers will get sucked away as well.  Almost as if
the "best" students, teachers, and money will all go away and make it
impossible to climb out of the hole.  Sort of like "it takes money to
make money"...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:18:49 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: French & EC

 *** Resending note of 09/15/92 10:53

 >  Why are you (or ya'll in the vernacular) against EC?  Unity of economy etc.
 >could lead to greater unity throughout world.(Excuse my Utopian sendtiments.)
 >And thus to decrease in war and general misery in world...
 >Martin

 Economic unity ( eventual single currency ) = partial loss of sovereignty.
 Partial loss of sovereignty                 = 1st step to political unity.
 Political unity                             = more powerful government.
 Power                                       = corruption.

 War and misery will not cease as a result of unification, only the terms
 used to refer to them.  War will become "ethnic struggles" and misery will
 become "government control".

 Most of us probably prefer city regulation as opposed to state, then state
 as opposed to federal.  The reason for this is that the closer government is
 to the people, the more control they have of it and the less chance of
 abuse of power.  Wouldn't the same hold true on a worldwide basis?  I think
 so.  Big government loses touch with the people and eventually the people
 become an obstacle to that government.

 I am not advocating what many ludicrously call *isolationism*.  Cooperation
 among independent nations is in everyone's best interest.  Relinquishing
 economic and/or political sovereignty is not.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:11:06 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

I assume you are responding to my post regarding cutting
nails and fingers.  It would have been nice if you would have
answered my specific points and then raise those of your
own.  My point was that there is no easy way of knowing
what is bad but it is easy to determine what is harmful.

> The harm involved in doing what is "bad" is not always readily apparent.
> How do we decide whether there are unforseen harmful consequences to
> any given activity?  It would be nice to have the long-term perspective
> that a proper application of Richard's scheme implies, but it is not
> realistic to assume that we do.

But that is a logistic problem and does not invalidate
the principle.  At any rate the problem you are mentioning
exists equally even if we agreed that "that which is bad
is harmful."

> Suppose I can lie without anyone getting hurt?  Is it then not "bad"
> to lie?

If that can be done (meaning lying without anyone getting hurt)
then I guess it is OK.  But you have to be a bit careful.  The
fact that I just said that, of and in itself is harmful.  We should
not excuse lying.  So I hope you would not confuse the harm that
is caused by my saying that lying without anybody getting hurt is
OK.

It is not bad to lie if no one gets hurt.  Say my name is not KAT.
**If** no one is hurt by this lie, then what I did was not bad.

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 09:15:34 GMT
From:         james p mc bride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      RE: Teenage rave.

On Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:46:00 EST linda said:
>
>>>hey, what is "rave" music??
>
>
>>Rave music is ultra-dance music. Deee-lite is probably the closest
>

Rave music is extremely loud, repetitive dance music with a very heavy
bass beat, usually listened to in the intimate surroundings of a large
warehouse.  One of the essential accroutements for making sense of this
music is the drug Dunstan mentioned, 'E', short for ecstacy.

>oh no sounds like revenge of disco

Somehow, I can't see John Travolta getting down and boogieing to this, or
indeed, a Rave version of Car Wash, being released.

Dunstan, let the rave go ahead, but only if the organisers agree to fund
a large portion of the security costs.

>have a nice wkend guys!

I second that motion!!

>
>-linda



james p mc bride
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:38:34 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> You are, of course, free to interpret it any way you like, but Constitutional
> scholars will have you for breakfast.

> --Missy P 2 B

And since there are none of *those* "Constitutional scholars" on this
list I got in the last logic while you got in the last word.  No wait
a minute I got in both the last logic *and* the last word.    :-)

BTW: it wasn't a pure interpretation, I thought I used some amount
of reasoning/logic with it.

--KAT

p.s. What was that called, Jamie, appealing to the (higher) authority?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU