HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:32:54 GMT

Paul S Galvanek (psg+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: 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.  
: 
: I'm going to save this posting Dave, so that the day Bill Clinton names
: Mario Cuomo as the next Supreme Court justice, all the Clintonettes can
: tell us again about qualifications for the Supreme Court.
: 
: Or then again we can start now by comparing the relative qualifications
: of Republican -v- Democratic apointees.  I'd like to start with the darling
: of the left, Justice Earl Warren.  
: 
: Just how is it that a Democrat can apoint a man that had not spent a single
: day in his life as a judge, to the Supreme court?   And then we can move
: on to the subject of how, if qualifications are the only standard by which
: a Supreme Court justice gets his seat, it is that Robert Bork isn't now 
: a justice?
: 

Point of information:  when the ABA anounced that they found Thomas to be
more qualified than 80% of previous justices, they pointed out Warren and
many other excellent and equally influential justices who were not judges
or even lawyers.

Bork was absolutely the best possible person in the country to be a justice.
Period.  Number 1 on the short list.  period.

: >Whereas all of Clinton's appointments are
: >highly qualified for their jobs. 
: 
: HA!  Yeah if you consider being best buds with Hillary a qualification for
: a cabinet position.  I mean really no one in the Democratic party (let
: alone the Republican) was more qualified than Donna Shalala for HSS.
: 

Someone pointed out here that all of Clinton's cabinet are lawyers but one
or two (particularly the surgeon general being a doctor).

Dan Quayle's biggest Gaffe, IMO, was when he went before the ABA meeting
and told them that the USA needed lawyers like we need a hole in the head.

Lastly, we can count on ineffective health care reform, because the only
surefire way to reduce cost is to reduce malpractice insurance premiums.
That would go against the lawyers' lobby, which has clinton in their hip
pocket.  Not a chance.  Another campaign promise ready to be broken...

: PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 16:41:47 GMT

In article <1ifhtkINNdq6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) says:
|> 
|> >
|> >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?
|> >
|> 
|> And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
|> blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
|> had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
|> at this elite private school.  

Calm down, your ignorance is showing.
There was a breakdown in the NYT yesterday (January 6) in their story
about it.  I think it was about 15% black.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19928 alt.politics.elections:24805 talk.politics.misc:66815 alt.politics.libertarian:3242
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <82961@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.165341.7799@inel.gov> whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:
>
>|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.
>
>If you are talking about China, they are decidedly less comunistic than
>they were a few years ago.  The only question is if the reforms will
>outlive Deng.  If he can hang on a few more years they will become
>irreversible.
>Check out the market activity in the Guangdong (sp?) province near
>Hong Kong and the regions near Taiwan.  China recently opened up a
>stock market.  Decidedly uncommunistic.

Economically, China is becoming free market, and the government has privately
endorsed that policy, so it's likely that with or without Deng, private
enterprise will continue to grow.  On the human rights front, however, China
is still quite totalitarian.  Will the free enterprise system eventually
force political liberalization as well?  The Chinese government thinks that
if it can continue to raise the standard of living, which it is doing though
economic liberalization, that the political will to force political reform
will not exist in the people, that is, the average person will be content
enough if he or she is materially well off.  But the rights of the individual
will still be weak to nonexistent.  At least that's what the government has
in mind.  Are they right?  I don't know, but it is one of the most well
organized governments on earth.  Still, even the free enterprise system has
its ups and downs, and a recession will hit at one time or another, and their
economy will slow down, just like every other country's economy slows down
now and then.  Then, maybe human rights reform will be able to squeeze in
and assert itself.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19878 alt.politics.libertarian:3201
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:24:11 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan7.181329.8408@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

>	I can't give much more than an anecdote, but in my opinion it is
>not unrepressentative.  The private school I graduated from, worked to
>have 10% of the student body be disadvanteged (they didn't pay anything
>for tuition, books, and received a free breakfast and lunch).  While the
>droppout rate was higher for these students, than the other tuition paying
>students, of the ones who graduated they consistantly outperformed their
>more advantaged peers.  For example the three who were left went to:  Harvard,
>U of Penn., and some well recognized Liberal arts school (Vasser,
>Trinity...  I can't remember which).
>	This results from this class were not atypical, as no one
>commented on them at all.  Finally I should note that I never saw any of
>the poor kids in any of K-12 engage in violence.  They were much more
>concerned and patriotic towards the school than there peers.  So basically
>its a poor school environment, not a group of "bad" kids that leads the
>problems.

Anyone who thinks that the problem in the city schools is mainly a problem
with the kids should read "36 Children", by Herbert Kohl.  The problem is
with the educational establishment, primarily.  Of course, the violent and
poor environment in which they grow up is a serious contributor to the
schools' problems, but it should be seen as part of a vicious cycle of which
the schools are a part - frightened, unimaginative teachers and overgrown
administration (NYC public schools spend a mere 32 percent of their budgets
on classroom instruction) turning kids off from learning and squashing dreams
they might have of greater things than their street corner.  The city children
can and do learn, when given the chance.  But it's hard to be enthusiastic
when your teacher can't even get a complete set of textbooks, and the good
teaching equipment is locked away for safekeeping, and your teacher is
relieved just to get through another day and go home.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:35:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan6.103132.2930@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>Neither party is perfect, but to call Bill Clinton a socialist makes as
>much sense as calling Ronald Reagan a Nazi.
>

Let's see, national health insurance, government control of medical costs and 
the medical industry, government control of trade, income re-distribution 
through higher taxes on higher incomes, madatory job training and retraining
paid for by private industry, federal jobs programs to "grow the economy",
adminstration and legislative support of unions, federal regulation of hiring
practices, income taxes on health insurance benefits, etc etc etc...

Gosh I can't see anything there that would lead anyone to believe Bill
Clinton is a socialist.

I don't think he's a socialist I know he is.  I also know he's politically
wise enough to not use that word in public.  

Paul

A rose by any other name...
From: mancini@fysik.uu.se (Derrick C. Mancini)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, The New Education President
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 7 Jan 1993 15:44:34 GMT
Organization: Fysikum, Uppsala Universitet
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: usx221.fysik.uu.se

In article <elliott.49@oliafd.shel.isc-br.com>,
elliott@oliafd.shel.isc-br.com (Elliott Kleinrock) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan6.131338.15769@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
> >>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.
> 
> >The gutsy thing to do would be to send her to the Public School with the
> >highest crime rate. THAT would be gutsy.
> 
> Are you saying that it is "gutsy" to risk your daughters life,
> or that it is "gutsy" to clean up a school?  (need more Secret Service agents
> to protect her, and they would have to clean up the crime rate alot)
> 

And, to top it off, if he had sent here to the high risk school, and 
the Secret Service did its job, then the conservative critics would be
wailing and moaning about how much it cost!  I suspect the judgement to
send her to private school was based mostly on the issue of security and
making it easier for the Secret Service to do its job.  Considering how
political an animal Clinton is, I doubt he would have wasted so much
political capital just to make his daughters life a little easier.  But
we will never really know, I guess.

Derrick C. Mancini
Fysiska Institutionen  -  Uppsala Universitet
Box 530  S751 21  Uppsala  Sverige
mancini@fysik.uu.se
---------------------------------------------
"Are we having fun yet?"  -  Zippy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:48:16 GMT

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?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City, CA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:41:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.184713.4995@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>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. 
>

Please explain in detail (that means specific points, including dollar
amounts to be spent, type of vouchers issued, who is eligible to
participate, etc.), Clinton's stand on school choice (I beleive he does
support public school vouchers), or for that matter his plan on education 
in general, and state your specific objections to it, point by point.



>
>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.

The District of Columbia already has public school choice.

>
>Pat


Steve                      Roll on you BEARS!!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Carol Mosley Braun 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:33:08 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1993Jan6.080542.12702@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>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.

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.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 18:48:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.194924.16150@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
|> You're right - a $1000 or even $2500 voucher wouldn't get most children
|> access to a good education, public or private.  But look at how much some of
|> the schools are spending - the New York City public school system spent
|> $7414 per student in fiscal year '92; only 32 cents of each dollar was spent
|> on classroom instruction (teachers' salaries, books, supplies, etc.).  Give
|> every student in New York a voucher worth $7000 towards education, or even
|> $4000 or $5000, and education will get better FAST.  


I have a problem with this reasoning.  The idea seems to be to improve 
education by making it more competitive, and perhaps allowing everyone to choose
their own school would help somewhat.  But the impact will be reduced by the
fact that the location of your home restricts your choice of a school.  So the
competition is reduced to local competition, and in fact we already have that.
It's reflected in the desirability of living in certain communities and in the
housing prices.  Still, I expect that vouchers would provide for more direct
competition between nearby schools, and so could provide marginal improvements.

But the use of vouchers would make more money available for education,
thereby increasing its cost (thanks to supply and demand and a relatively
inelastic demand curve).  So won't we wind up paying more for only marginal
improvements in education?  In fact, won't the effect be to shift national 
resources into education and away from other things?  This is not necessarily bad,
but have we considered what other things we are going to be shifting the money 
away from?  Shall we shift it away from the military?  from health care?
from social security?

Furthermore, why do you think education will get better FAST when
there are so many factors other than educational quality that go into the
choice of a school?  In Texas, for example, should we expect football teams to
get better fast? :-)
From: dsnoek@terapin.com (Daniel Snoek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Inaguaral Parade
Date: 9 Jan 93 11:49:32 PST
Organization: BBS

In Bush's Parade, he had 50% of the seats up for sale to the public and had the
Virginia Military Insitute and some Indiana Guard Marching.  In Clinton's
parade he will have onlt 15% of the seats up for sale, have a Gay/Lesbian Band
and will have Elvis Inpersonators.  hmm.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19946 alt.politics.elections:24815 alt.president.clinton:1466 talk.politics.misc:66875
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The truth about Sen. Braun (was Re: PLUS: slander? Limbaugh?)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:10:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>  Following the November election, Braun took a monthlong vacation to
>>  SOUTH AFRICA; flew there on a private jet and the Concorde ($$$); 
>>  moved into a $3,300 a month penthouse apartment; bought a new Jeep
>>  and expensive clothes;
>>  AND DID ALL THIS WHILE HER CAMPAIGN WAS IN DEBT AND CAMPAIGN STAFF
>>  HAD NOT BEEN PAID.
 
mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>Candidates (unless they are millionaires or billionaires) do not pay off
>campaign debt personally, nor are they personally responsible for it.  They
>continue to raise money from their supporters and use that to pay off debt.
>That system sucks, I agree, but if you want to change it, work to change
>it, don't attack Carol Braun for playing by the same rules that every other
>political candidate plays by.

I don't like it when any candidate pulls a stunt like this.  Here in Ohio
Sen. John Glenn played the same game.  He left his failed presidential
bid from several years ago millions of dollars in debt and more or less walked
away from it.  He, too, thought he wasn't personally responsible for it (I
consider this attitude unethical and immoral).  Let's see if Braun follows
in Glenn's steps by continuing to raise money - not to pay off old debt,
but for use in future campaigns.  The sad thing is that the public doesn't
hear about all the small businesses (print shops, rental agencies, caterers,
etc.) that are left holding debt which could break their livelyhood.
There is NO excuse for any candidate who builds a war chest for the next
campaign while the last one is still in debt.  Sen. Braun should have
gotten off her butt and spent every day seeking contributions to pay
off her campaign debt before taking a 'vacation'.  Her actions have
made her an embaressment to her state and the country.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1397 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 09:29:34 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan12.030024.15132@nmsu.edu>, dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
|> In article <1isfpjINNb2@hpscit.sc.hp.com> dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan10.152555.6734@nmsu.edu>, dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
|> >
|> >|>    I don't think this will be a real problem.  I mean if you live in
|> >|> Demming, New Mexico (population 10,000 nearest other town 60 miles)
|> >|> your education won't be improved.
|> >
|> >Why not?
|> >
|> >-- 
|> >Dave Waller
|> 
|>    My reasoning was that we are dealing with a small town that is
|> surrounded by desert.  How many good teachers can possibly live there?
|> Are there really going to be enough to support 5 or 6 (or even 3 or 4)
|> schools.  If not, then what good is school choice going to do for
|> them?
|> 

You don't need to have 5 or 6 (or even 3 or 4) alternatives to make
school choice work.  All you need is the potential for one alternative.
Regardless of the size of the town, if the current schools system is
considered bad, and parents have the choice of spending their education
dollars elsewhere, some enterprising individual or group will create
an alternative school to compete with the existing school.  The concept
is no different from any other business.  If a small town has one
grocery store, nothing precludes someone from starting another store
if they feel that the existing store offers poor value.  The town may
not be able to support two stores, but the quality of the store is
likely to be much better if the possiblity of competition exists than 
if there was no possibility of a competing store being created.


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