From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:07:49 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan8.183854.15291@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
|> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> >Really? Nobody's forcing HIM to do a damn thing for Chelsea other than
|> >make the best judgement as regards her education. All he is being told that
|> >if he truly wants to be a man of the people, he should give every other
|> >parent in that situation a chance to make a similar choice for THEIR kids.
|> 
|> Since when have you Republicans become so Socialist? Clinton is sending
|> his daughter to that private school because he can afford to. This is
|> independent of the argument as to whether we should undermine the
|> public school system by allowing people like Clinton to withdraw tax
|> dollars from it. Do you really not see this?

Thanks for trying to make a serious argument about the **ideas**
involved instead of indulging in mindless nonsense about "ganging 
up on Chelsea..."

As for Republicans becoming Socialists, think about it a little longer, and
you might see that this is an attempt to dismantle one of the effects of
the socialization of education (such as decay) by introducing an element of
competition to it. Call it "managed competition" if you like. Hardly a 
socialist notion, I would think.

|> 
|> >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)
|> 
|> "Now that you understand the dilemma..." Oh please. Like I said, you're
|> suffering from delusions. Clinton is not coming around to your side, 

Never said he was. Just hoping that he would if asked politely, with some
appeal to his populist instincts as well... Though the evidence is that to
get something from Clinton, it is best to snarl at him and wait for him to try
and please you :-).

|> whatever that is. He knows full well how to properly support and reform
|> a public school system, and that doesn't include dismantling it

School choice wouldn't necessarily dismantle public schools in totality. The
bad ones would go under, for sure. But then, shouldn't they? Who do they help
by staying alive? Their students? Nope. If they go under, at least those that
are forced to go to them will never be able to have to be forced to go to them
again.

|> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton,soc.men