HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:25:55 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1993Jan8.184846.21795@walter.bellcore.com> nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
>
>I have a problem with this reasoning.  The idea seems to be to improve 
>education by making it more competitive, and perhaps allowing
>everyone to choose 
>their own school would help somewhat.  But the impact will be reduced by the
>fact that the location of your home restricts your choice of a school.  So the
>competition is reduced to local competition, and in fact we already have that.
>It's reflected in the desirability of living in certain communities and in the
>housing prices.  Still, I expect that vouchers would provide for more direct
>competition between nearby schools, and so could provide marginal improvements.
   I don't think this will be a real problem.  I mean if you live in
Demming, New Mexico (population 10,000 nearest other town 60 miles)
your education won't be improved.  However, we were talking about
inner cities education.  (Actually maybe there should be some talk
about how the public school system is failing the residents of New
Mexico.  I am a graduate instructor at New Mexico State; one of our
more popular classes is Algebra I.  Now only are people graduating
high school with no basic idea of algebra, but most people can't even
pass the course when they take it...)  Most cities already have magnet
schools which take the "cream of the crop" from the city.  Since they
cover a whole city, for most students they are not a local school...
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton and the death penalty
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:17:10 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1993Jan6.203438.4264@bernina.ethz.ch> KNIRI@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (Stoessel, Marcel) writes:
>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?

Depends on how you define "always".  I don't know about his beliefs during
his pre-school and grade-school eras, but there was a newspaper article in
the Catholic Herald in which his philosophy professor at Georgetown Univer-
sity said Clinton had discussed things like the death penalty then and was
in favor of it then.

>Or was this part of his move to the center that he made?

Again, I don't know how far right or left of center he was before he attended
the university.  It seems to be escaping the ideologues on the net that Bill
is *not* an ideologue but a pragmatist.  His cabinet appointments have both
conservative and liberal ideologues screaming, too, because he did not choose
ideologues but pragmatists.

The ideologues of the Democratic Party got control of it and lost a whole
string of elections.  Finally a small group of pragmatists got control (by
winning elections), and the Democratic Party won a national election just at
the same time the pragmatists of the Republican Party gave control to their
ideologues.  It will be interesting to see how many elections the Republican
ideologues will lose before the pragmatists of the Republican Party gather
enough strength to regain control.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Other sports exist only to keep you occupied until baseball season comes |
| around again."					- Dave Barry	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:39:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

In article <1iuj5eINN94s@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu writes:
>>- He is using his own money to pay for her education
>	Right on one wrong on another.  The money he is using is
>	taxpayre money.  Comrade Clinton has never held a real job
>	he has always been employed by the government.

I knew someone would do this, i just knew it.  I almost qualified the above
statement, but then didn't because i assumed that people would see the
difference between a taxpayer based salary and a taxpayer paid for education.
I was wrong.

>>I just don't understand why so many people choose to pick nits like this.
>>Especially when it's a non-issue.  All of the above has been said before,
>>but it doesn't seem to have been heard.
>	all special interest groups.  His decision to send the first
>	daughter to a private school is just his latest example of say
>	one thing and do another.

So, consider me an ignoramus if you must, but what promise did Clinton break
by sending his daughter to a private school?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: n3884@cray.com (Peter Palmer,#Rich Franta)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that
Reply-To: n3884@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:34:42 CST

In article 6903@kadsma.kodak.com, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>
>I personally am impressed that Clinton was able to make a decision like
>this that manages to offend just about everyone.
>

Good observation.  I totally missed the precedent.
---


--------------------------------------------------
Pete Palmer (n3884@cray.com)
--------------------------------------------------

Anyone who has considerably meditated on man, by profession or vocation,
is led to feel nostalgia for the primates.  -Camus

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:35:17 GMT
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore

In article <MERRITT.93Jan9150013@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>At the moment doesn't P.R. of China have one of the fastest, if not the fastest
>growing economies? Once a larger portion of the population get's some
>money in their pockets and an itch to spend it, there may be some political
>reform.

In fact, what you are suggesting is already happening in Korea and
Taiwan, two Asian states which had previously been dictatorships or
nominal democracies.

Moreover, unlike the US, China is actively devolving power from the central
government to the provinces which could ultimately mean a federal form of
government, like the US used to be before the New Deal.

But I would not assume that deomcracy will come to China in some inexorable
fashion and certainly not until well after the Communists have secured places
of power within the new capitalist economy. Those boys aren't dummies.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:47:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C0GMz8.4AA@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>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.
> 

Qualifications?  Wake up man, she's a woman and that's all she needs
to be considered qualified for the Democrats.

PSG

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?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:53:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.182627.9859@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
}I tend to agree with Clinton's position, mainly because the idea of
}using public money to pay for a private education opens up a real
}can of worms with regard to questions such as separation of church
}and state, etc.

Why only support the separation clause of the 1st amendment?  Why not the
rest of the Bill of Rights, which would preclude state schooling?  See the
9th and 10th amendments on this.

Besides, the State already supports religious schools at the level of Higher
Education.  Is this unconstitutional?

I suspect that even a limited form of competition,
}with only the public schools, would still many of the positive
}effects claimed by the choice advocates.

Your suspicions have been disproven.

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
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: CO BOYCOTT ORDINANCE IN C
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

-> Newsgroups:
-> alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.po
-> From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
-> Subject: CO Boycott ordinance in Chicago
-> Message-ID: <C0LwI8.Mq6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
-> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:46:56 GMT
->
-> Alderman Mary Ann Smith of Chicago's 48th Ward is sponsoring a
-> Chicago ordinanc which would severely restrict official City business
-> with the State of Colorado. We Gay-Rights types from the Windy City
-> are excited about this and are hoping that this ordinance will pass.
-> Ald. Smith has been a consistent supporter of Gay Rights in her
-> community and in the Chicago area.
-> Let the boycott spread.
-> Lost Boy


I believe that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have also shown
support for the boycott by restricting their business in that beautiful
but screwy-minded state.
                                
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Transfer Station BBS (510) 837-4610 & 837-5591 (V.32bis both lines)|
| Danville, California, USA. 400+ MB Files & FREE public Internet Access |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:32:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.031344.8871@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.221638.12860@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = john@anasazi.com writes:
>>>] = (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>>or race is more important than any other criteria is rightly subject
>>>to such criticism. Note that Clinton ONLY interviewed women for some
>>>jobs - for gender preference reasons.
>>
>>As has been asked before...why not outrage over the last 200+ years of
>>nominating WHITE MALES?  Are you saying that wasn't the ultimate in race
>>selection?
>
>
>	What the hell is wrong with "WHITE MALES" anyway?  Is there
>	some reason someone without melanin can't make a good justice?

	Justice?  I suggest an examination of this country's history
for the last 200 years or so, since most of it happened under white
male rule.  Examine the day to day lives of those who happened not be
be white or female, and then look at the big picture of how the
governement effected them. Then perhaps examine just how long it took
(as well as how much blood had to be spilled) for those same people to
finally be accorded "equal" status with white males in this country.
Add it all up, and and the very least it justifies a certain amount of
suspicious in those of us who happen not to be white or male.


>	Is there some reason you are so obsessed by race that you 
>	find it a valid selection criterion?
>

	I think you are confusing vigilance with obsession. When a
group of people is finally granted hard-won rights, rights which
should have been their anyway on the grounds that they are human
beings, they tend to be more than a little vigilant about making sure
not one of these rights is lost or compromised.  When you've been
double-crossed, and just plain knocked around for a while, you tend to
be rather feirce about protected those rights you have won.




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 20:27:19 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

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'm confused about all these claims about Clinton's alleged hypocrisy.

Are you saying that Clinton claimed that today's urban public school
systems were adequate?  I must have missed that.  

I thought he was saying that the public schools were already in trouble,
and that education vouchers would completely destroy them.  I thought
he campaigned to improve the quality of all schools.

So I don't find it in the least hypocritical that he didn't
consider Washington public schools as appropriate for his
daughter as a private school.  The fact that Chelsea's
social life would be undergoing an upheaval anyway as a result
of living in a virtual fishbowl only strengthens the decision.

If Clinton had put Chelsea in public school, he would
have been sacrificing her to make a symbolic political
statement.  




-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19828 alt.politics.elections:24753 alt.president.clinton:1402
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: The truth about Sen. Braun (was Re: PLUS: slander? Limbaugh?)
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:27:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <uR1ZwB8w164w@jwt.UUCP> bbs-aphelps@jwt.UUCP (Austin Phelps) writes:

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

|> This is what you get when you elect someone who runs soley on a demagogic
|> platform.  What an embaressment to the 'year of the woman'.   {:^)

|What about Democrats?

I consider Democrats to be an embaressment any time of the year.  ;^)
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:46:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <5JAN199312365488@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor) writes:
>
>	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?

What I recognize is that despite what you or I may think the "low-profile
majority" is like, it's not them leading the push for programs like these
I suspect that this unseen majority is not terribly interested in having 
their sexual practices flaunted in public - they don't engaging in outing.
I supsect most of them respect the rights of parents in they same way they 
expect their rights to be respect by others.

The fact is that when it comes to gay rights legislative initiatives it
is the Dykes on Bike, Queer Nation, Avenging lesbians leather clad crowd
that drives these issues and it is they that want to control the content
of these programs.  I supsect that the overwhelming majority of the
low profile gays are like the majority of Americans and not of the politically
confrontational ilk and it is not they that the parents will have to deal
with.

PSG


>
>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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:28:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.222202.27215@unet.net.com> steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
>In article <DOEL.93Jan6134049@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>>
>>
>>Wrong on two counts.  First, the rich aren't the ones being hurt by the lack
>>of school vouchers, it's the poor.
>
>
>Please explain how a child living in poverty in an inner city is going 
>to get a better education than he or she is currently getting because his 
>or her parent(s) receive(s) a school voucher worth $1000.00 or even $2500.00
>considering the cost of a good private (or public for that matter)
>education.
>
Well, since you asked, a good private school in my area charges about
$4000.  A crappy public school gets $7500.  Yeah, yeah, special ed kids,
I know.  A parochial school gets about $1300 for elementary and $2000 for
high school.  In Philadelphia, many non-Catholics are willing to pay
such a reasonable price because the quality is there.  I'd say if you gave
people the choice, even if they couldn't afford $350 a month for a good
$4000 private school, they might be willing to pay $125 a month.  If I were
living in poverty in the inner city, and my kid had a choice between an
inner city public school and a private or parochial shool, I'd find any
way possible to keep him out of the public school.  It's the idea that
people feel that it someone else's duty to provide their kids with a
quality education that keeps them down.  Get the parents paying each month
and I'll bet you'll start seeing some involved parents out there.

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:36:37 GMT

Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
: 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.  

Why is he NOT qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?  You made the statement,
now back it up.  I'll point to years' worth of experience at EEOC and one
or two as a judge as experience.  I'll also point to the ABA, which did indeed
review his qualifications and found him to be in the top 20% of all SC
justices in terms of qualification...

: Whereas all of Clinton's appointments are
: highly qualified for their jobs.  Some of them were selected over others
: because of race or gender, which is too bad, but they are all regarded as
: highly qualified individuals nevertheless.  The nine supreme court justices
: are supposed to be the very best, most experienced, greatest jurists in the
: nation.  

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we have plenty of Justices in history that
weren't even lawyers or judges.  Hardly makes them the very best, most
experienced, greatest, whatever...

: Clarence Thomas is not any of those things by any stretch of the
: imagination.  But now he's a dictator for life, and it's a real shame.  But
: I don't blame Clarence Thomas for that - I blame George Bush; it's one of
: the worst things he did as president, and that's saying a great deal indeed.
: 

It's also a fallacy that Thomas was picked just because he would vote against
abortion.  Gee, a _tad_ of experience with labor law might have had a _tad_
to do with his appointment...

:     - Dave Borden
:       borden@m5.harvard.edu
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 18:41:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.054326.1286@inel.gov>, whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:

|>I guess that is why roughly 60% of GDP is still accounted for by Gov't. 
|>China could well evolve to a relatively liberal market-oriented democracy.
|>On the other hand,  it could use its economic dynamism to become an
|>expansion-
|>ist power.  My point is simply that they still think of themselves as Commun-
|>ist,  and Communism is at base,  an autarkic philosophy.  Things could turn
|>very ugly,  very fast.  We should not forget it.

And at what point in the past two thousand years has China been expansionist?

The only major hassle has been over Tibet which if the West was being honest
about it was detached from China by the British.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19710 alt.politics.elections:24705 alt.politics.libertarian:3072
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:40:38 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

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?

Considering how Clinton has been hedging on the rest of his campaign
stands, I'm not surprised.

Yesterday's paper noted how Clinton has said that the cap on income subject
to the social security cap needs to be raised and that the age of eligibility
will also have to be raised in order to secure the future of social security.

During the campaign he said that the fund was in great shape and would need
no intervention.

BTW, I agree with both of these changes (if we are going to keep it),
I just wonder why Clinton has put off making these hard choices until
after the voting is done.

Clinton was also recently quoted as saying that raising the gas tax might
be a good idea.  During the campaign he ripped Tsongas for bringing up a
gas tax.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20017 alt.politics.libertarian:3318