HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:30:53 GMT

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

>He put his daughter's welfare above politics.

That's not the point. The point is that Clinton is putting the welfare
of thousands of other children BELOW politics.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------108 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The truth about Sen. Braun (was Re: PLUS: slander? Limbaugh?)
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:10:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1993Jan8.194504.19175@uunet!tellab5!odgate>,
mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) wrote:

[lotsa crap deleted]

> Carol Braun is getting used to the fact that U.S. Senators are a helluva
> lot more in the media light than she was in her previous position as a
> Cook County officeholder.  Cook County officials, after a year-long, 7-day-a-
> week campaign, can take off for three weeks of vacation without being
> pilloried in the press for it.  U.S. Senators apparently can't.  Cook County
> officials can dismiss unsubstantiated, anonymous charges *which were fully
> investigated by an independent attorney and found to be groundless* without
> getting beat up for it as a representative of the "year of the women"
> (whatever *that* is; who seriously believes that increasing the number of
> women in the Senate to roughly 6% of the total membership is cause for
> celebration?)

Ah, you mean she's getting used to what she blasted her opponent for?  Uh
huh.  As to the "groundless charges"...it would be nice if she accorded
Clarence Thomas with the same degree of leeway.  
 
> 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.

Ah, but when you pay your boyfriend a HUGE amount of money (by Illinois
standards), and then personally benefit from that same money while your
workers aren't being paid, I find something "wrong" with that.  And since
she's not a Representative, but a Senator, she's not supposed to worry
about Illinois, she's supposed to worry about the COUNTRY (including me).

Read the constitution: the Senate is not another Representative body.  

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Boxer.
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20057 alt.politics.elections:24851 alt.president.clinton:1497 talk.politics.misc:67132
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:06:21 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>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.  And if it turns out to be predominantly white
>in an area of the country which has a high minority population, will they
>splash across the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that 
>Bill has chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter?  I WOULDN'T
>COUNT ON IT!

I don't remember exactly what the situation was, but I do know that this
summer, Clinton was criticized in the media for either belonging to
or playing golf at an exclusive club.  It received wide coverage.
If Chelsea went to a racist school, we would certainly hear about it.

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19698 alt.politics.elections:24702 alt.politics.libertarian:3063 alt.president.clinton:1358
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:38:31 GMT

In article <C0I0xJ.MLL@rice.edu> ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan7.050618.6306@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>|> In article <1ifv8oINNmbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:
>|> >As a voluntarist, I think Mulroney and Sapphire, who agrees
>|> >with Mulroney, are advocating infrining on my property rights
>|> >by telling me what I can and can't intercept using my own
>|> >private equipment--(or someone else's authorized for such
>|> >use). 
>|> >
>|> 
>|> 	I think it depends on what you consider to be property.  Clearly
>|> the air is public property.  Clearly the radio signal... is public.  Is
>|> the content of the radio signal public though?  I would think not, that is
>|> the whole basis of intelectual property.  Otherwise, would a station lose
>|> all rights to a show just because they broadcast it publically?
>
>My first reaction is: what about radar detectors?  I have always thought they
>should be legal under the notion that radio signals are public.
>Of course, this begs the question of what does 'content' mean in
>this context.  How can I not receive the content of something unless
>I am wholesale prevented from receiving the signal?  I.e. does it make
>any sense to say you can receive a signal but not try to understand
>it?
>
>How about this for an analogy: someone carelessly drops a copyrighted
>novel on your lawn.  Are you permitted to 'receive' it (i.e. pick
>it up) but not to read it?  It seems to me that in this case the copy
>of it is yours, but that implies nothing about the rights to the work.
>Why not the same with radio waves?  If you receive them (passively)
>the instance is yours but that doesn't give you the right to rebroadcast
>or otherwise infringe on the copyright.


	Actually your analogy of the radar detector is a good one.  I
guess to use your language yes, you have the right to receive signal but
no right to try and understand it.  The anonlogy of the copyrighted book
is also good.  When the author sells the book he is giving the possessor
of the book his permission to read it, but not to duplicate, alter,
republish, etc... it.  The person sending out radar signals is simply not
giving yourthe right to "read" his signals.  Seems perfectly legitimate to
me.  

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:59:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.080542.12702@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>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?
>> 
>
>This decision was a tough one for Clinton to make, he dissapointed his 
>supporters and gave his detractors something to point and bitch about.
>Being a supporter of Clinton, I'm a little dissapointed, but I can see
>why he made the decision, and at least I can respect him for his guts.
>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.
>But that would be too much to ask, I know.
>

I won't say it was a 'gutsy' move but I will say it was a 'slick' move.

I hope he is beginning to move toward support of provate/public voucher
system.
-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: INAUGURAL BASH in St. Paul
X-Xxdate: Thu, 7 Jan 93 17:33:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:37:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.194924.16150@m5.harvard.edu> Dave Borden,
borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu writes:
>To fellow Democrats out there:  like it or not, vouchers are going to
steadily
>gain in popularity, and it will become increasingly difficult to resist
them
>for much longer, in my opinion.  They can be done well, in ways that
will help
>the poor and the working class, or they can be done badly, in ways that
will
>hurt.  If we let the Republican leadership do it, it probably will turn
out
>to hurt the poor.  Let's do it now while we're in power and do it right.

I agree whole-heartedly. It's not that the voucher system is bad, it is
that
the specifics in the Bush proposal were bad.

One other thing should be done to ensure success---targeting. We saw the
failure
of supply-side economics. It was the fact that incentives were not
well-targeted
and, therefore, did not have the desired effect.

I propose that the government pay the voucher to the school directly so
the funds
go to their intended purpose. Otherwise, i'm afraid the funds could be
misused for
purposes other than education.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
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 19:55:55 GMT

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.

>public education.  That makes his decision to send her to a
>private school fair game.  Evidently his "commitment" wavered some
>upon being confronted with the state of the public schools in the
>nation's capital.  As a parent his decision is unassailable.  But
>as a politician, this is one instance where talking out of both
>sides of his mouth stuck even to Clinton's slick surface.  I
>expect that he will find that President's are held to a stricter
>standard than candidates.  There are a lot of people out there

Standards? standards? In this group? You jest.

>who have a strong interest in remembering just what Willie said
>and promised.  He can't make all their dreams come true.

>=Mark
>--
>----
>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
>408-756-0895                                   USA

REB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19677 alt.politics.elections:24693 alt.politics.libertarian:3048
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 1993 05:14:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


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?

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19916 alt.politics.elections:24797 alt.politics.libertarian:3229 talk.politics.misc:66785
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:50:36 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan8.151720.7366@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes:

>- Let them have the freedom to take their kid out and send him to any
>school, with a $1000 voucher that they can use however they wish
>(private, paraochial, or even home school).  Keep this proposal in
>place for at least four years.

...omitted text...

>In other words, in your mind it's "all or nothing".   Either we send
>every kid the most elite private academy available or everyone has to
>stay in the sewer together.

It's not "all or nothing"  We don't have to send everyone to the most elite,
most expensive private schools.  If we give vouchers out, they should be
sufficient to cover the cost of a _good_ private school.  A thousand dollars
won't even pay for a poor school.  What it will do is allow some parents,
who can afford maybe $3000 but not $4000, or $2000 but not $3000, to send
their children to private schools where they couldn't before.  What will it
do for the children in Harlem?  Nothing.  Give the children in Harlem vouchers
for $4000 or $5000, and they will be able to attend good schools - in fact,
the schools will come to them, and they will be able to escape the grips of
the educational establishment if they wish to.  They won't be able to go to
Exeter of Andover with it, but they will be able to go somewhere pretty good.
Give them mere $1000 vouchers, and most of them will be right where they
started, and the $1000 will go directly or indirectly into the bureaucrats'
pockets.  It will be worse than nothing.  It's a pathetic attempt on the part
of George Bush to please the Christian right (who can afford to subsidize
their private schools) while not alarming the educational establishment too
much.  The result of it is that the idea isn't taken seriously, nor should
it be, in his suggested form.  If you think a $1000 voucher is going to help
reduce poverty in the inner-city, you're fooling yourself in a major way.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19708 alt.politics.elections:24703 alt.politics.libertarian:3066
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:13:17 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

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?

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.

Clinton did succeed in raising the standards in the Arkansas public school
system; even the guy who made up the name "Slick Willie" admitted that he held
firm on education.  And The Economist, which is a pretty conservative magazine,
has praised his record on education, they think that he should make it his
emphasis as president.

I don't care where Chelsea Clinton goes to school!  I care what Bill Clinton
does as president.  (My prediction is that he'll push for vouchers during his
second term.)

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20049 alt.rush-limbaugh:13588 alt.president.clinton:1494
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Supports Public Schools NOT
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:03:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1icmsrINNpnq@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu writes:
>
>Well Comrade Clinton has announced that the first daughter will attend
>a very exclusive private school and not a public school.  One more
>example of the Democratic double standards.  The poor and middle class 
>are stuck sending their children to substandard public schools while the
>rich and powerful liberals, Comrade Clinton, Al Gore, Kennedy's get to
>send their children to the best schools.

Hey Fred, relax.  You needn't worry, because while the Clinton and Gore
kids are wasting their time learning boring old math and science and 
how to read and write, well gee our kids will get to learn about alternative
lifestyles, were to get condoms and abortions, about animal rights and 
cultural diversity.  

Heck they'll be well rounded sheep errr, people, I meant people. 
Of course they'll be dumber than a fence post but as long as they 
are in touch with how being skill-less and jobless makes them feel, well
then our taxes dollars will have been well spent.  Right?

>
>The time has come for a voucher system in public education so the working
>class can afford the best education for their children.
>

No that time came along while back!  And like I said Norman, he's a liar
and a failure before he takes office, mark my words.

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: The first promise comes undone...
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:35:56 GMT

Some months ago I offered a bet in this forum as to how long it would take before
Clinton broke his first promise. No one took the bet, and rightly so. Looks like
the first promnise has been broken even before the inauguration. Everyone in
the Clinton economic team (save the president to be, himself) is starting to 
backtrack. Oh, gee, the debt is about 8% higher than we thought. No more tax
cut. Amazing how they miscalculated so badly...given that they Democrats had the
exact same data the Republicans did. 

Next promise: Only the rich pay more taxes. I give this one until about May.

Upcoming predictions: Watch the former Soviet states. With Clinton's leadership
in the world forum, we may yet see a return to Communist leadership before his
term is up.

And isn't it odd that Clinton's new policy on Haiti is *exactly* the same as
the Bush policy he condemned earlier?

This would be an entertaining four years, if not for the fact that I expect to
lose so much in the coming inflation and higher taxes...   

  mike


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:06:06 GMT

In article <C0o48w.GKE@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan9.052429.20161@Princeton.EDU>
|>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

|>>But Ed has proved over and over again that he couldn't care less about
|>>this.  As long as there's capitalism, who cares what happens to people?
|>
|>As if double-digit economic growth were not about people?

Ah so the Loonitarian rright now claim that Bush gave double digit growth? What
in, the budget deficit?


|>But, overall, thanks to over a decade of free-market reforms, reforms
|>that the Democrats would blast as warmed-over Reaganomics, they are
|>exeriencing DOUBLE DIGIT ECONOMIC GROWTH! In the Southern provinces of
|>Guangdong and vicinity, it is becomming increasingly difficult to
|>distinguish Chinese from Hong Kongese.

Oh the Chineese are able to experience double digit growth converting a rural
peasant ecconomy to an industrialized one. Stalin managed the same. 

Extrapolating from the Chineese situation to claim that the West can forge ahead
at the same rate that China is catching up is shear stupidity. 


|>There are probably more capitalists in the Chinese Communist party
|>than in the Democratic party and certainly more belief in the ability of
|>free markets to provide for the common good.

Well it used to be the left that had a problem being appologists for communism.
Now the right seem to have caught the same disease. Personaly I would be
extreemly wary of giving over much praise unless you have accurate knowlege of
what is really going on. We never found out that Mao had killed 30 odd million
at the time (although a friend of mine remembers the bodies floating down the
river to Kowloon Harbour).

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton