HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:42:04 GMT

In article <bob1.726868555@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>In <SLAGLE.93Jan12013908@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>
>>In article <MATT.93Jan11152500@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>
>>> Cheap shots like this are rather predictable, and ultimately aren't
>>> very interesting.
>
>>It's only a cheap shot if Willie doesn't try to have it both
>>ways.  But he set himself up for this one.  He made it an issue
>>by using the fact of his daughter's attendance in the public
>>school system in Arkansas as evidence of his "commitment" to
>
>Aha! But there's the rub. As Governor Clinton *he* had much to do
>with the quality of the public school system in Arkansas, and
>demonstrated his faith in it.
>
>So far, no one in the area seems ready to claim responsibility
>for the D.C. school system. One thing I'm pretty certain of,
>though, is that Governor Clinton had nothing to do with it.

       In that case, I will be the first here to blame *my* Congressmen for 
the disrepair and general shoddy condition of the D.C. school system.  (For 
those of you who care, that would be for this past term Rep. John Duncan (
R), Sen. Jim Sasser (D), and Former Sen. Albert Gore (D).)
       I needed another excuse to write letters to Congress, anyway,

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
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 08:05:51 GMT

In article <1ihg75INN52p@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}Clinton's daughter was in public schools in Arkansas.  It strikes me as
}more likely that Clinton resents the decay and neglect of public schools by
}recent administrations, and is resolved to make them better (as he did in
}Arkansas.)

What neglect?


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:20007 alt.rush-limbaugh:13532
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:46:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

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?

>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.

PSG
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: PeroT & United We Stand
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7782D47D601080D@alimac3.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 12 Jan 93 08:09:43 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:08:00 GMT

So, what do you folks think about ole Ross starting up his
"United We Stand" group the week before the inauguration? 
Personally, I love it.  It gives national politics a lot more
diversity and sparkle and will hopefully serve to remind
official DC that the people are watching.

I voted for Clinton, enthusiastically,  and I think that he has
gotten off to a good start.  However, I tend to get a little
antsy during this inauguration phase when the media treats new
presidents so sycophantically.  God what a bore.  The local
papers are full of stories about how wonderful all the
president's people are and how even their 3rd grade piano
teachers knew that they were "Destined for Greatness".   Yucch.
 (Do pols really like such puff pieces?  I mean, does Hillary
Clinton really want to see one more article about how wonderful
she was at Wellesley?  After a while doesn't she begin to
suspect that the reporters writing these pieces just want more
access?)

Now comes Perot (and his ego) to throw a monkey wrench into the
whole self congratulatory mess.  Bravo!  I have 2 immediate
feelings about this - a) maybe the media spotlight will stay on
economic issues even though the election season is over; and b)
this could be a little chaotic and I think that a little chaos
is good for the political process.  Washington needs change
badly and the Perot group applies pressure for that change.  

I think that Clinton's stringent ethics code is (at least
partly) a result of the pressure that the Perot factor brought
to bear on foreign lobbyists and government revolving door
policy.  I hope that United We Stand folks continue to lobby
for campaign reform and budget responsibility.  The Clinton
folks are savvy enough to listen to those concerns and, I hope,
respond.  But it never hurts to remind them now and then.

TerriB.
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 5 Jan 1993 12:36 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1398@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
| 
|Fact is not so long ago I never considered homosexual any different than
|anybody else.  However, fifteen years of in your face politics, more than
|a few chance encounters with the leather clad crowd in on the street 
|corners of NYC (encounters that left me wondering how anyone could behave
|like "that") insistance that some extremist groups should have access to
|the public schools so they can teach the "right way to think", Dykes on
|Bikes, Avenging Lesbians, Queer Nation and a whole list of groups that
|seem to be a bit better of economicaly and educationaly than the average
|American screaming oppression has left me pretty sick and fed up.

	I feel the same way.  My stomach rather turns when I see
Queer Nation staging kiss-ins dressed in tattered demin and leather.
I don't have anything particularly against demin and leather, but
it's not the public image I would want being presented.  

	Now, I'm probably going to get flack from some of the others
on this, but I'll say that most of the more "normal"-looking and acting
Fags won't march in the parades, and can't be distinguished in any other
way (than simply telling people about themselves).


|I assure you, despite your arguements to the contrary, the gay rights
|"movement" and a large portion of the gay community, has done more to
|fuel hate and bigotry than anything some hokey preacher in some fundy
|church could ever do intentionally.

	Yes, I would have to agree, except that I do not agree that it is
the larger portion of the Gay community that presents a negative image.
The larger portion is simply low-profile.  

	But, it's the lifestyles of these lower profile Gays that 
I think should be taught to the public.  And, it's only a small part of 
this more "normal" lifestyle which is being presented in the Rainbow
Programme and programmes like it: the Gay home/family/church life.  It is
precisely because of the bad examples of the past that they need to turn 
things around in the public eye. 

	Those bad examples surely seem to have miscoloured your perception
of what being Gay means, or do you recognise more than just the dykes on
bikes?

n Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G 
Gasdon Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gad 
n Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20033 alt.politics.elections:24838 alt.politics.libertarian:3340 talk.politics.misc:67071 misc.education:5764
From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:05:50 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire
NNTP-Posting-Host: anchor.unh.edu

[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.

Whether you think Federal ``support'' for government schools has
``clearly declined greatly'' depends on just how willing one is to be
persuaded by the folks who want more ``support.'' Looking at the actual
numbers is less convincing.

Elementary and secondary education always has been mainly a local/state
responsibility; federal funding for elementary/secondary peaked in 1980
at about 9.8% of total funding. The latest figures I found (for 1989)
have the federal fraction at 6.2%. That's a `decline', of course, but
not much of one: less than 4 cents out of each government-school dollar
spent.  It is also a decline in *share*, not absolute dollars;
local/state school spending during that period went up a *lot*, causing
at least part of the decline in the federal share. (Numbers: on
average, government schools spent $4296 per pupil in 1980, $5626 per
pupil in 1989. [constant 1990-91 dollars])

Nor are the numbers for the absolute amount of federal funding quite as
dire as Mr. Huben appears to believe.  In 1980, the Feds spent $26.1
billion on elementary/secondary schools; in 1989, $21.6 billion; in
1991 (est.), $24.4 billion.  (constant 1990-91 dollars once again.)
Any `decline' is simply a drop in the bucket when compared to the
totals. 

Mr. Huben can `blame' whomever he wants, of course.
---
All numbers come from ``The Condition of Education 1992'' published
by the National Center for Education Statistics, a division of Your
Federal Guvmint.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand                | No, no, that wasn't me!
-- University of New Hampshire |     (Anonymous)
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu          |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:39:33 GMT

In article <C07DLI.25C@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194239.16465@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>
>>Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
>>confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
>>mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
>>monolithic in their wants and desires.
>
>Based on your comment, don't you find it just a *little* ironic that it
>was *Clinton* who denounced the demands of some feminist groups as
>"bean counting"?

Yes and no.  He did say during the campaign that his cabinet would look
like America and, though the 51% female mark was not met, he did follow
through with his promise.  On the other hand, after he complained loudly
about pressure from various interest groups, he went right ahead and
met their demands.  A typical move that satisfies both sides.

>I see nothing wrong with wanting to have a cabinet with diverse
>backgrounds and experiences.  In the 1800's, a common worry
>was that the cabinet not be all Easterners, or all Northerners.
>How is that any different?

The democratic party tries to claim the moral high ground by promoting
equality and attacking prejudice yet it appears that they (Clinton)
have made the decisions regarding these appointments based upon the
sex and skin color of the participants.  This is Clinton's right, to the
victor go the spoils.  

>>If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
>>say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
>>is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
>>whether Clinton has accomplished this task.
>
>Fine.  Name two members of Clinton's cabinet that you find unsuited
>for the job.  Then name two Democrats you would find more suitable.

Don't get huffy.  I admit to you that Clinton can do as he wishes, of that
there can be no argument.  However, it is within the realm of possibility
that race or gender did play a role in the decision process.  I prefer
to wait and give these people a chance to demonstrate their abilities
or to demonstrate their agendas rather than to indict them now.

>I issued this challenge to Mr. Galvanek earlier, but he ignored it.

I doubt if there is a person reading this group who has a comprehensive
knowledge of a the appointees qualifications, including you.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:57:36 GMT

In article <1ihg75INN52p@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> ...
|> Clinton's daughter was in public schools in Arkansas.  ...

I thought I heard on NPR this morning that she went to "an exclusive private
school in Little Rock."   Are you quite sure?

========== 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.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:17:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton,soc.men
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1993Jan7.183239.12755@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> 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.

Ah, but you'll remember that she ran on ANITA HILL who only ACCUSED
Clarence Thomas.  You'll notice she had no proof, but that didn't bother
Ms. Braun.


############################################################################
Rick Eames                         Internet:      athos@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.               CompuServe:    76666,2114
My Opionions are my own.           AmericaOnline: EamesR
"The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is why he makes so many of
them."  - Lincoln

"But you know what?  There's another point that I'd like to make: it's very
possible that Adolf Hitler kept a very nice check book.  You know?  I mean,
and that's fine."  -- Barbara Boxer, Bill Press Show, KFI, 10/24/92
############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:21:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175257.17960@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.054938.27469@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>>Keywords: 
>>
>>In article <C0G55F.35u@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>]
>>]	Why is it that when the same-old-white men are picked for
>>]cabinet jobs, there is a lot less harping about "capabilities"? And I
>>Why is it that when a black CONSERVATIVE was nominated to the supreme
>>court, the same people who push quotas and affirmative action
>>and selection by race were the ones who screamed about capabilities.
>>Do I smell a whif of hypocrisy here?
>
>No, the fact is that Clarence Thomas is NOT qualified to sit on the Supreme
>Court, sexual harassment or not.  Whereas all of Clinton's appointments are
>highly qualified for their jobs.
>
>    - Dave Borden
>      borden@m5.harvard.edu

And the winner of the Academy Award for rediculous, unsupported, patently
absurd statements said with a straight face is: DAVE BORDEN!

ALL of them are HIGHLY qualified? You checked ALL of their credentials and
background? And Judge Thomas' too? Where do you find time to study?

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20078 alt.politics.elections:24861 alt.politics.libertarian:3382 talk.politics.misc:67175
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:25:00
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:15:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.181518.5884@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

> Is Clinton, because he is President, required to send his daughter to a
> public school as a way of 'sending a signal', as a 'vote of confidence'
> in the public school system? Is this the point? If so, I would suggest
> that the same obligation applies to any President, Democrat or Republican.
> Of course, none of the last four Republican Presidents have had any
> school-age children, so the point is somewhat academic...

To some extent, of course, this was a political no-win situation for
Mr. Clinton: he would have been criticized no matter what decision he
and his wife made.  (And, I have a nasty suspicion that some of the
very same people who are criticizing him for this decision would have
criticized him for the opposite decision.)

Those of us who are old enough to remember the Carter Presidency will
recall that Amy Carter did attend a public school---and that there
were editorials excoriating Carter for playing politics with his
daughter's education.

Cheap shots like this are rather predictable, and ultimately aren't
very interesting.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Clinton Advised To End Gay Military Ban Quickly
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 04:49:42 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22755; Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:49:46 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA25228; Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:49:40 -0800
X-Received: from localhost (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA14291; Sat, 9 Jan 93 04:49:40 EST for alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by localhost (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/AIXV3-SUB16) via SMTP;
	id AA25298; Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:49:42 -0500 for alt.politics.clinton.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet
X-Cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet



Friday's Los Angeles Times' said in a page 1 story [below the fold] that
Clinto is being advised to end the ban on discrimination against gays in 
the military quickly, and not to prolong the tension between activists
and military officials by establishing a commission to study the issue.
However, instead of issuing a more historic Executive Order similar to the
one issued by Harry Truman in 1948 to desegregate the military, Clinton 
will be advised to issue a 'memorandum of instruction' to the Secretary
of Defense telling him to rescind the military ban. The legal effect
would be identical to an executive order. Nothing was said about ending
discrimination based on  sexual orientation in other areas of federal
employment, such as the FBI/CIA/etc, in the LA TIMES story.

   
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735 ``D.C., April 25 1993''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:01:43 GMT

In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>Perhaps we do, in fact, live in "interesting times." If the death of
>socialism in Eastern Europe was not the end but merely the beginning
>of the end then we can expect tumultuous changes in the twilight years
>of the 20th century, a century that will go down in history as the
>most vicious and brutal to date, a century in which the state waged
>war upon its citizens in the various guises of the common good.
>What will life be like in the post-socialist 21st century?

I propose that all nations, like Singapore, adopt a national dress code.

Alan