HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjameson@atl.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:07:40
Organization: GE Advanced Technology Laboratories
Distribution: world
Reply-To: sjameson@atl.ge.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: retaxes.atl.ge.com
In-reply-to: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu's message of 6 Jan 93 17:13:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.171317.15285@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> I think this is just more of the same Republican garbage - criticize Clinton's
> personal life to distract attention from his record.  I happen to think a
> voucher system would be a great idea (provided a the voucher is for a
> substantial amount of money, like $4000 or more), and I'm sorry he turned away
> from the idea in his campaign, but seriously folks, where Chelsea Clinton goes
> to school is up to her parents and doesn't have anything to do with her
> father's performance as President.

This is something that has often been said by Clinton supporters on this issue:
that this is a "personal matter" and "politics" shouldn't enter into it.  I
don't object to Clinton sending his daughter to a private school (although I
wish he were sending her to one in Little Rock), but I do reject the idea that
one should publicly espouse, and develop national policy based on, "political"
principles which are substantially different from those principles which one
uses to guide one's personal life.  Clinton's "political" principles are going
to affect our lives, so why shouldn't they affect his and his family's?

> 
>   - Dave Borden
>     borden@m5.harvard.edu
--
Steve Jameson                 General Electric Aerospace / Martin Marietta
sjameson@atl.ge.com           Advanced Technology Laboratories
                              Moorestown, New Jersey              
****************************************************************************
**  . . . but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow    **
**  for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that   **
**  which they defend . . .                                               **
**    -- Faramir, "The Two Towers"                                        **
****************************************************************************
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 18:48:41 GMT

In article <1ildp4INN6sl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
>
>In a previous article, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:
>
>>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.
>
> Wrong! As President Mr. Clinton has the choice of sending his children
>to *any* public school in DC. Check it out if you don't believe me.
>>
>-- 
>        Wally Blume 


I did check it out, and you're right: D.C. has implemented a school-choice
plan.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1ikuulINNlkp@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:43:34 GMT

In article <1ikuulINNlkp@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> zaidioa@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Omar A. Zaidi) writes:


	   I have it from several sources that Chelsea Clinton wants to
   become an astrophysicst. Now, would someone please explain to me how
   she is going to do that when she attends the Washington DC public
   school which the white house lies within the boundary of? Given what
   I know about them, I doubt seriously if she'd have the resources there
   to pursue such a goal, much less acheive it. 

To me, this argument and the multitudes like it, merely prove the point.

	   Furthermore, studies have proven that the best indicator of a
   child's success (academic) is the economic class of his peers in the
   classroom; i.e. the students from the wealthy parts of town who attend
   the wealthy school do better academically on the whole. I think
   Clinton was applying this logic here.

I'd like to read one of those studies.  Obviously the wealthiest people
can afford to send their children to the better (for the most part) schools.

	   Also, how the hell can Chelsea's security be guaranteed when
   she is in a DC public school? If you can give me a convincing
   way that it can be, then I will personally write a letter to Clinton
   to say that he should put her in a science magnet school in the DC
   system.


Get writing.  Stephanopolous (sp?) has already stated that security
was not a factor considered (i.e. they didn't choose the private school
because they were concerned for Chelsea's safety in the public school
system).  She will be protected by the Secret Service.  Now, they may
have just said that because they thought it would look worse for them
to say, "Hey, we're scared some crack head will pull a gun on her
at recess".


	   Those that know me know that I live up to my promises.

You sound sincere enough to me.  Clinton should at least realize that
he is setting the example.  No one wants him to do less than the very
best for his child, but he needs to be willing to back that up with
policy.  I feel that most people think the status-quo ain't gonna cut it.
I know he supports public school choice and all that, but I think with
the choice he has made, he has given those that support vouchers for
public and private schools a good case - at least for trying it in D.C.
The president must and does set an example by his actions.
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:08:14 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?
>

Hypocrisy from before Day 1!

Gerald
From: KNIRI@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (Stoessel, Marcel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bill Clinton and the death penalty
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:34:38 GMT
Organization: ETH ZUERICH
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

Although it was not a big issue in the 1992 presidential campaign, I have
a question about President-elect Clinton's past position on the death
penalty.

It is my understanding that Mr Clinton signed four executions in Arkansas
since capital punishment has been reinstated in 1990.

Has Bill Clinton always been in favour of capital punishment?
Or was this part of his move to the center that he made?


Thank you.

-Marcel
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,misc.education,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:27:49 CST


In article <C0rCD9.L5z@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> 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.

Is that why Carter deregulated the airlines?

>                    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."

And some people are too busy bashing liberals to think.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:24:33 GMT

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.

For that matter, something which is adequate for one person may not be
for another.  Security needs for Chelsea are different than for the
average student.

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. 

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:41:46 GMT

In <1993Jan11.194142.8067@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.011806.3812@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:

>[stuff deleted]

>So far, what I've seen of the Republican voucher policy states that we should
>have vouchers that allow the parent to apply the voucher to any form of
>education whatsoever, including private schools of either the religious
>or non-religious variety, or even to home schooling.

>My question is: why stop there? Why should there be a school tax or
>voucher system of any kind? Why not just forget the whole thing and let
>parents use their money to buy their kids an education on the open market,
>without the involvement of any taxing authority?

Works for me, since I don't have any kids in school maybe I could get
Florence a new car. Of course, everyone else's voucher would be a few
dollars smaller.

>Don Pajerek

>Standard disclaimers apply.

REB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19712 alt.politics.elections:24707 alt.politics.libertarian:3074 alt.president.clinton:1359
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:16:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1if14eINN1k6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes...

>Well, why is it that when CLinton does it he is being "gutsy" and thinking
>only of the best interests of his daughter, but when some poor working
>class family wants to do it they are charged with racism and abandoning
>the public school system to its fate?

Probably because the average schmoe's child might be a little less likely
to attract heavily armed lunatics with "Catcher in the Rye" in their back
pockets.

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun 
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:32:39 GMT

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.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:36:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu

In article 21801@cbnews.cb.att.com, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>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?
>
>In another story, it was revealed that the Clinton family will NOT be
>going on welfare when they move to Washington. Clinton stated that this
>does not mean that he doesn't support the concept of welfare or ADC,
>just that he felt that going on welfare at this time would not be
>appropriate for his family. He attributed the current grousing to
>"...Republicans who for four years have had no plan, no vision, and
>are now resorting to ridiculous childish accusations. It's pathetic, but
>that's all they know how to do, and they're doing it."
>
>---
>Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

I hate to break the news to you Joe but Comrade Clinton has been on welfare
his entire adult life.  He has always been a ward of the state.  He has
never been employed in the private sector.

The only reason he has improved his lot from a $30,000.00 per year
government job in Arkansas to a $200,000.00 per year government job in
Washington is the success of 10 years of conservative Republican rule and
the caving in of George Bush to Democratic tax and spend ideas.

As with most Democrats Comrade Clinton has one set of rules for the
affluent and another set for the hoi polloi.  In this case the first
daughter gets a quality education at a private school at taxpayer expense
while the hoi polloi have no choice but to send their children to the
sub-standard public school for a multi-cultural, rainbow education.


fred


_____________________________________________________________________

	Visit Colorado a state where all are equal under the law.

    _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/  | 
   _/       _/         | The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they
  _/_/_/   _/_/_/_/    | are not shared by my employer or my friends.
 _/             _/     | However, they should be.
_/       _/_/_/_/      | Fred Seals 409-845-2298


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19760 alt.politics.elections:24725 alt.politics.libertarian:3107
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:58:50 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina


	Something nobody seems to be mentioning is that the school Chelsea
is going to is a Friends school.  This may indicate that Clinton supports
ideas like democracy in the classroom, creativity in school (which
everyone claims to support but throws the windows in about 3 seconds after
anything that would would encourage creativity is suggested), and teaching
children to be supportive of one another.  
	If this school is anything like most friends schools Chelsea will
get a great education, and maybe prez. Bill will see there is a better way
to do things.  Does anyone know if this school is still really a friend's
school or just carries the name from 100 years ago?

--JMB
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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:42:54 GMT

In article <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.

That depends on whether you define communism/socialism in terms of songs
sung and rhetoric spun or in terms of actions done.

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.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:08:55 GMT

In article <1ihsrvINN5d1@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}2) 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.

Support declined by what measure?

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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19637 alt.rush-limbaugh:13058