HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:43:13 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      school choice revisited

Hi, y'all.  I know we've been over this topic a little bit already; now
that school choice is part of both campaigns, I wanted to bounce some ideas
around.  Excuse the length :)

As Brett's clippings verify, both Bush and Clinton have school choice plans
.  I've been following some of Al Shanker's commentary; he's raised a
couple points that argue against both plans.  Because Bush's plan includes
choice among private and public schools, a couple arguments apply only to
his plan.  They are (1) private schools actually don't perform any better
than public schools when family background is taken into account (this
comes from the National Education Assessment statistcs); and (2) according
to Shanker, the most likely outcome of parents using vouchers to help
defray the cost of private education is simply an increase in the cost of
that education.

Shanker further presented a case against choice among public schools --
this obviously applies to both Bush and Clinton.  He pointed out that, for
the most part, choice among public schools will be exercised *within*
school districts (mostly because of problems of access, I think).  The
problem here is that all the schools within a district are "run" by a
single supervisory board (the school district).  He argued that this type
of management structure *decreases* opportunities for diversification among
schools within a district.  He backed this idea using the analogy of the
owner of multiple franchises -- he claimed that such an owner would benefit
more from having several mediocre places of business than from having a
single really good place (does this analogy work?  anyone?).  He concluded
that choice without a restructuring of the education management system just
wouldn't do the things it's supposed to do.

I thought of another reason why choice might not be such a great idea.
Others have probably figured this out, but I don't recall hearing it
anywhere.  In my experience, and from what I've read, community support is
one of the most critical elements in a school's success or failure.  It
seems clear to me that choice, if really exercised, would erode the base of
community support for a school.  I'd attend a lot fewer PTO meetings and do
a lot less volunteer work if I had to drive 20 miles to get to the school
my child attended.  If my daughter were in school elsewhere, I'd have no
reason to help out at the neighborhood school down the street.  Assuming
that my attitude were representative, then both the neighborhood school and
the school my child actually attended would suffer.

Does that make any sense?  What do y'all think?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:01:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Erratum

peter:

i do not think that people will take kindly to having the
national language changed to Danish.  you may wish to back
away from this statement.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:15:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS

Carl:

>Aside from blood transfusions, I think that the way to defeat Aids
>is to encourage people to discontinue a promiscuous lifestyle and to
>make abstinence in vogue.  As for education, since sex ed has been
>introduced into the schools the rate of diseases and teen pregnancies
>have increased.

Good point.  The only hesitation I have in making this argument myself is that
the rise in disease and pregnancies could also be coorelated to societal
factors.  In other words, they would have increased faster in the absence of
sex ed.  If that were the case, the response would be more sex ed, not less.
While I don't necessarily believe that to be the case, that's how an opponent
would argue it.

Of course, if this argument were true, it would greatly strengthen my own
arguments against sex ed.  Any ideas, anyone?

>Carl------+

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:17:35 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      More on olympics

And while I'm at it:
Is anyone else kind of miffed that the U.S. Postal Service forked over
$10 million to be a sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Team?
So THAT'S what they're doing with all those profits.



Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:19:33 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing the govt

> From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>> From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>> On what did you base your opinion?  If you want absolute equality
>> (fairness?) then maybe you would like to institute a head-tax (where
>> everyone would pay a flat sum, period).  And to be really really fair,
>> do you think we should tax income or wealth?  I mean if I have a $100,000
>> diamond ring and if the US Military is protecting my life and property,
>> then shouldn't I reimburse the government for the protection that they
>> are providing for my diamond ring?

> My opinion is based on the radical idea that the government should treat all
> people as equally as possible; it should not implement a discriminatory tax
> code.

OK, good.  At least we agree that what constitutes "fair" is
an opinion rather than a verifiable/provable fact/concept.
I just happen to believee that a progressive tax is more fair.

> A head tax isn't fair since it taxes a larger percentage of a poor family's
> income than a rich family's. Percentage terms seem to be the fairest measure,
> since that results in an equally significant portion of each person's income
> being confiscated.

"Seems" to be the fairest, right?  It is not self-evident to me
that a head tax is less "fair" than a uniform % tax.

> You paid taxes on the ring when you earned the $100,000 dollars that paid for
> it.  Assuming a 10% tax (I wish :>) that ring really cost $110k(almost)
> -- the other 10k went for taxes.

First of all, I am glad that you did not question my assertion that
wealth needs protection and that that protection costs money.

However, if I buy $100 in banana and eat it right then, the banana
would no longer require protection from the US military.  On the
other hand "diamond are forever," right?  It needs protection every year.
So where is the fairness in not taxing the property/wealth?



>--KAT

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:40:19 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: Course for T. Kidd: History 530: Research & Methodology

Dear listmembers:

>  The JohnsoN/OlsoN campaign would like to reaffirm it's commitment
>to the importance of history in discussions of politics.  While the
>role of Secretary of History has been downplayed in recent administrations,
>we intend treat that cabinet position with all of the consideration
>that is its due.

We wish to ask our opponents about their ultimate purpose in restructuring
the list bureaucracy.  First we read that they wish to establish a logic
czar; now we see a clear statement of intent to increase the discretionary
power of the secretariat of history.  If their intent is to increase the
size and oversight of the list bureaucracy, we must ask: why?  Surely they
do not wish to place into the hands of a few listmembers the power to
regulate activities that are rightfully reserved to individual members.
But what other motive can they have?  Although we may have our suspicions,
we will not follow our opponents' lead in purporting to explain those
motives to the list membership.  We have far too much respect for the
membership to resort to such tactics.

We eagerly await our opponents' reply.  We are sure it will open new realms
for real discussion of the issues that so concern us all.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:53:42 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      KAT scratching :)

Hi, y'all.
KAT, my apologies.  I didn't respond directly to your post because I
would've said what linda said.

I really hesitate to guess what's in Quayle's mind :)  but I'll take a shot
at it.  His response is consistent with his beliefs -- at this time --
because abortion is still legal.  I suspect he might change his position
were he et al. successful in making abortion illegal.

So, I think I understand your question, but don't think he's necessarily
being hypocritical -- or at least, I can't draw that conclusion from this
particular example.

Kerry
(scratch, scratch -- are you purring yet??)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re:      Re: more on SS#'s, Missy/MacPhil
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: bit
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:46:49 GMT

In article <POLITICS%92072113232168@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET> writes:
>>The only place I haven't had any luck when push came right down to shove is
>>the local supermarket -- they require SSN's on checks and simply refuse to
>>take the check if you won't include the SSN.
>>
>I have a friend (well, virtual friend on a local BBS) who had similar
>problems.  His solution, after arguing unsuccessfully with the clerk, was
>to include a *bogus* SSN on his check.  The clerk doesn't know if it is
>his real SSN or not.  A cool trick is to put a different bogus SSN on
>the checks each time you buy; they rarely check these things.
>
>There was a discussion about SSNs, their use and abuse.  (I thought it
>was on this list, but may have been on the local BBS.)  There is a
>series of numbers that are recognized by Social Security as bogus but
>are legal to use in such cases.  If memory serves, if the first three
>digits are in the range 980 to 990, then they have not been assigned
>by SocSec to anybody and are free to be used to befuddle your merchants.
>(The first three digits of your SSN indicate the region of the country
>where you were born.)

Not quite -- the three-digit prefix indicates where you were living when you
got your SSN.  Otherwise, how could I have a number starting with 453 when
I'm a native of Kentucky (which is 400-405, or in that range)?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:00:11 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

Carl:

Well, I wouldn't support a system that would be so sloppy as to allow
disgruntled teenagers to haul their parents into court every time they felt
like it (lord, my own parents would have been in *big* trouble!).  And I
recognize that sometimes parents get busted unfairly under the current
system.  So I guess where we are is something like this:  Both systems (the
current one and some alternative that gives more rights to kids) have
advantages and disadvantages.  You think (if I'm getting this right): (1)
the current system's advantages outweigh its disadvantages and (2) any new
system would add disadvantages but provide no new advantages.  My
perspective for now (it's certainly not carved in stone yet) is that (1)
the advantages of the current system *may* outweigh its disadvantages, but
not by much; therefore, (2) I'm willing to consider alternatives that may
provide a stronger balance of advantages over disadvantages.

I guess my position is still a bit equivocal:  I certainly don't want to
have to get permission to send my child to private school -- or to keep her
in public school, or whatever.  At the same time, though, I have problems
with the idea of "the sanctity of the family" -- I don't see any particular
reason why a combination of two biological parents plus 2.4 (or however
many) kids is "sacred" simply because it exists.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, btw.
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:55:17 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!

I know of an instance where the type of worst-case scenario
that has been mentioned has already happened in another
type situation.

A couple that are friends with my parents were strict with
their children.  They had curfews, restrictions as to with
whom they could go out with and where--the typical parental
regulations.

Their oldest daughter found these rules too much and left home.
She came back later and got in a fight with her mother.  At
the daughter's instigation, the fight got physical.  The
mother defended herself and her daughter got bruised.

With the bruise as evidence, the daughter called the police,
claiming that her mother had abused her.

Nothing but a big headache and mess resulted from this action,
but this is the type of thing that would occur too frequently
should a law like that pass.

This would help congest our legal system, which is already
overworked.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:14:49 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      A New Conservative Movement?

Two interesting columns appeared in newspapers today, both from
columnists I can't usually stomach, both on a topic that surprised me
but which has apparently been making the rounds inside the Beltway.
George Will suggests that the Dump Quayle movement has got the picture
all wrong. Instead, they should be urging Bush to step down and let
someone else run. And A.M. Rosenthal (of "Out of My Mind" fame)
agrees.
Both report on William Bennett's less than enthusiastic prognosis for
the Bush campaign. Says Will, "Bennett, who refused to become
co-chairman of Bush's campaign... said Bush should 'have a conversation
with himself' beginning with this question: 'Do I really want to do
this?'"  "What is the difference between John Gotti and George Bush?"
Will asks. Gotti has at least one conviction.

"Bush ... uses words like audible confetti. For example, when Ross Perot
was a threat, Bush's people eviscerated him as emotionally unstable,
anti-constitutional, a potential tyrant and actual ignoramus. When Perot
withdrew, Bush's people promptly praised him as "wise" and "courageous."
To them, words mean nothing because nothing means anything--nothin, that
is, except power, or more precisely, office."

Suppose Bush were to bow out and go fishing. Will notes that "the
Clinton-Gore bandwagon would be eclipsed until after the Republican
convention ends Aug. 20. That convention would be transformed from a
meaningless ratifying instrument... into a deliberative, deciding body.
Argument--perhaps even though--would break out."
Instead, in the actual world, "The vapidity of the administration and
its name-caling presidential campaign are in indistinguishable when
Marlin Fitzwater is trotted out to denounce Al Gore as "Mr. Sell-Out
America."

Rosenthal adds (along with some well-chosen words about the Perot
campaign, which I will leave you to discover for yourselves if so
motivated), "Few Democrats believe [Bush] will suddenly become a doer,
thinker, orator and fighter. As they become more committed to Gov.
Clinton, it will become harder for Mr. Bush to convince them. No
Democrats, no Bush re-election. Meanwhile more Republicans see him as a
loser, and say so. The longer their fear lives, the more likely it
fulfills itself."

It would be interesting, as Rosenthal says, to find out how many GOP
delegates would, in a secret ballot, prefer a Kemp/Dole ticket to
Bush/Quayle (he meant Elizabeth).

A closing note:

Economic news is fairly grim. Growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.4%
last quarter, and Bush's scrambling to put a happy face on the news will
not play well across the country. Guesses by most economists seem to be
that we will emerge from the worst of the mire by the end of the year.
But that's much too late for Republicans. Let me now add a rider to my
prediction for November: barring some highly significant, spectacular
event, expect to see Republicans in local and Congressional races
scurrying to distance themselves from the President.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:12:25 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: telephone (kinda')
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              24 Jul 1992 12:02:38 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:02:38 -0400 Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet said:
> A Tulsa doctor's wife had a heart attack several days ago.  While he
> performed CPR, he dialed 911.  So far, so good.  The trouble was, he kept
> getting a busy signal.  His wife died.
>
> Southwestern Bell attributed the problem to over 318,000 callers trying to
> get Garth Brooks concert tickets.  Needless to say, the doctor is not
> pleased.  Where does the responsibility lie in this case?  Does the doctor
> go after 911, Southwestern Bell, Garth Brooks or the concert promoter?

What about the fans clogging the lines?  Together, they may have the
deepest pocket(s)...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:08:54 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      More on health care

Our campus recently set up a system to distribute news to users who
have access to the campus CBX (which is just about everybody).  In
addition to campus news and an "electronic village" they distribute
national and international news distributed courtesy of USA Today
(The Sesame Street of national newspapers).  These two came by today.

MOST WOULD PAY FOR UNINSURED:
   A recent poll of New Jersey residents finds that 90% say they
would be willing to pay from $10 to $100 to provide health care to
the state's 800,000 residents who can't afford it. Those most
likely to lack insurance were urban dwellers ages 18-29.

LESS COSTLY APPROACH URGED:
   Giving all pregnant women antibiotics would be cheaper than
treating the effects of chlamydia, says Judith Lovchik of the
University of Maryland. Lovchik found screening and treating
infected women in one group saved $228 per patient in post-birth
expenses, but giving antibiotics to all saved $2,728 per patient.
The disease can cause premature or low-birth weight babies.

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "You're young, you've got
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   your health;  what do you
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    want a job for?" - GROENIG
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:30:13 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war

Hello brni,

I do understand where you are coming from with the anti-American rallies
in different countries, I have seen them.  However, it seems a 'push-me-
pull-you' situation where the Three Stooges media will display anti-American
rallies in Germany in one scene and people lining up at American embassies
to try to assertain visas trying to get into this country, not to mention
the illegal entrys from Mexico, Haiti, China (mainly students), etc., yet
I am aware of the protests.

I am reminded of an incident that an NBC reporter related during the Iranian
hostage crisis, when the streets were full of ranting and raving Iranians
chanting the usual anti-Ameican slogans, and after the cameras were went off
one of the members of the raving crowd asking the reporter where he could
get an American visa.

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU