HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:42:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.030024.15132@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>   My reasoning was that we are dealing with a small town that is
>surrounded by desert.  How many good teachers can possibly live there?
>Are there really going to be enough to support 5 or 6 (or even 3 or 4)
>schools.  If not, then what good is school choice going to do for
>them?
>
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
>       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)

Don't think in terms of formal schools.  Think in terms of educational options,
which include formal schools, home schooling, informal schools (perhaps in
people's homes), part time teachers, travelling teachers combined with
telephone/computer links, etc.

In spite of the current stifling model of education (a teacher standing in
the front of a room full of students sitting at desks neatly lined up),
education should be viewed as a myriad of options and methods.  This could
be restored by separating education and state.

                                   James Parker
                                   jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Supports Public Schools NOT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:45:30 GMT

In article <1413@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>
>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.
>

[the "he" in the above is refering to Bill Clinton]

A failure?  Just as Harry S Truman was in 1948, I guess; or maybe like 
the 1951 New York Giants.  I suppose that Clinton should resign the
Presidency now, since you think he's such a failure.

The only people who are doomed to failure before they begin are the 
ones who don't believe in themselves and don't even bother to try 
to succeed.

I am truly sorry that you appear so bitter and full of spite.

>PSG

Steve                       Roll on you BEARS!!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: caforce@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (DALE FORCE)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  8 Jan 1993 15:24 EST  

In article <1993Jan7.035850.3543@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes...
> 
>	Something nobody seems to be mentioning is that the school Chelsea
>is going to is a Friends school.  This may indicate that Clinton supports
>ideas like democracy in the classroom, creativity in school (which
>everyone claims to support but throws the windows in about 3 seconds after
>anything that would would encourage creativity is suggested), and teaching
>children to be supportive of one another.  
>	If this school is anything like most friends schools Chelsea will
>get a great education, and maybe prez. Bill will see there is a better way
>to do things.  Does anyone know if this school is still really a friend's
>school or just carries the name from 100 years ago?
> 
>--JMB
What encourages creativity? Fred Hoyle, one of the most creative astromers 
thinks that his education (by rote memorization) is the best.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19773 alt.politics.elections:24732 alt.politics.libertarian:3121 talk.politics.misc:66566
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 14:54:29 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <C0Gxry.92C@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg
(Ed Ipser) writes:

[Typical libertarian education rant omitted]

>One Democrat, at least, has recognized this, if only in terms of decisions
>in his personal life and that of his family.

What an incredibly stupid conclusion.

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.)

Let Clinton represent his own views.  Your second guessing to twist his
actions to support your views is shameful.

Mike Huben

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it
is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made
to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be
incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation
made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Thomas Paine in "The Age Of Reason".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Originator: ervan@antigone.cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:29:25 GMT


dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
|>    My reasoning was that we are dealing with a small town that is
|> surrounded by desert.  How many good teachers can possibly live there?
|> Are there really going to be enough to support 5 or 6 (or even 3 or 4)
|> schools.  If not, then what good is school choice going to do for
|> them?
|>
 
The small town where my parents live has one restaurant, a Hardee's.
It is just like all of the other Hardee's and much better than the
greasy spoon which went out of business when the city finally
granted it permission to build.  So long as is there is competition
on a national level and name brand recognition is permitted to work,
it is not necessary for there to be several competitors selling
the same product in a given market.  The threat of a new one moving
in is sufficient to maintain reasonable quality.
~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: nirah@staff.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: INAUGURAL BASH in St. Paul
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:15:14 GMT

INAUGURAL BASH in ST Paul!!!!

January 20th   6:30pm
St. Paul Expo Center
(190 North Smith Avenue)

Admission: $19.93

There will be a live band, lots of music and dancing, food, and a cash bar.
Come out and celebrate Clinton's inauguration!

Sponsored by the 4th Congressional District DFL and the St Paul City DFL

Call 222-6351 For information and reservations
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19709 alt.politics.elections:24704 alt.politics.libertarian:3067 talk.politics.misc:66428
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:56:39 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1993Jan6.103132.2930@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In<C0F7H0.6J4@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) 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?
>
	
	Guess what?  Americans with money have always had the option
	of sending their kids to private schools, and most did until
	the 60's when it became politically uncorrect.  Also, people
	had the option to send their kids to church-supported (cheaper)
	private schools, too.  It's only been recently that public
	school bashing became popular because, since the 80's, private
	schooling has once again become popular and the greedies
	who want to use them do not want to pay the (albeit high) cost
	of public education as well.

	If somebody (even the President) wants a private education
	for his child and can pay for it, why not?  It does not mean
	that person doesn't respect the only institution available
	to most other people.  Besides, I'll bet it's easier for
	the secret service to do their secret service in a small
	restricted school setting than in the large, open, crowded
	public schools, thus saving a few tax dollars.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:32:31 GMT

sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>|> Oh my... T-minus 13 days and they're already ganging up on what? 
>|> 
>|> A little girl.
>
>Aaaw, gimme a break! It has to be clear to even the dimmest wit that
>the person being ganged up on is the girl's Dad and not her; and with
>regards to what is certainly an important question.

It's all part of the pattern of attacks by the current crop of
Republicans. During the election season, George Bush campaigned
for First Lady, spotlighting Hillary on numerous occasions. Even when
he did engage his real opponent, it was indirect -- campaigning
against Jimmy Carter, young Bill Clinton, etc. Now the spotlight
is on Chelsea: where is she going to school. Surely you can bring up
earth-shattering issues that don't directly involve the women in Bill
Clinton's life? Or do you think that's a good way to "get" to him?
Is Bush's manhood still in the blind trust?

Not only that, but your "important question" is based on the most
illogical of premises: that if Clinton can send his daughter to
private school X, then he is abandoning support for public
schools. Yes, ultra-right Republicans, libertarians, etc., hate
public schools and are continually looking for some excuse to go
off on a rant about them. At least now that they're out of power,
they'll be doing it on their own time -- and Clinton's Administration
will quietly go about the business of strengthening the public schools.

I mean, some of the libertarian pipe dreams in this thread have been
amazing. "Maybe now Clinton will support vouchers." "He'll implement
school choice in his second term." "Now is the time to privatize the
school system." Look, the right-wingers have had three terms (including
one lame-duck one) to implement any one of a number of libertopias
and they didn't do it. So now that Clinton's in, they will???? There
is some serious denial going on here.
 
>|> I sincerely hope some decent 12-step programs are set up for recovering
>|> Republicans and fellow travelers. They need help.
>
>If this is any example, Democrats' wits still haven't recovered.

I stand by it.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:37:28 GMT

In article <1ii5veINNfs2@mozz.unh.edu> pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)  
writes:
> [misc.education added to newsgroups; followups trimmed somewhat]
> 
> mh: Mike Huben
> 
> mh: Federal support for public schools has clearly declined greatly over
>     the past dozen years, in a charge publicly lead by RR and GB. I
>     blame that on the influence of the Presidency.
> 
According to the Jounral of Policy Review from the end of Carter's term to  
the end of Bush's term government money spent on education has increased  
from $3800 per student to $5800 per student.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20081 alt.politics.elections:24864 alt.politics.libertarian:3386 talk.politics.misc:67181
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:18:50 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


In a previous article, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) says:

>In article <1993Jan11.194142.8067@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>My question is: why stop there? Why should there be a school tax or
>>voucher system of any kind? Why not just forget the whole thing and let
>>parents use their money to buy their kids an education on the open market,
>>without the involvement of any taxing authority?
>
>What planet do you come from?
>
Actually, I've had the same question about Mr. Huben for quite some time now.
>
[Much hooey and drivel deleted.]
>
>Mike Huben
>
>Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
>	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
>Chancellor: "Distinctly."
>	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
From: enigma@vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 18:03:37 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16c by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: enigma@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: Clinton NOT!

In <1993Jan6.080542.12702@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) writes:
>
>On, a semi-related note, I was flipping through channels tonight and ran
>across Limbaugh's infomercial, he was saying some pretty nasty things
>about Carol Mosley Braun (sp?) for abotu 20 minutes straight.  Very NASTY
>things. Prediction (I'm serious): Sen. Braun will sue Limbaugh for slander.
>
>-Chris

You're probably right.  Most liberals, and feminists in particular, have absolutely
no ability to laugh at themselves.

---
enigma@vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:20:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

Someone has yet to explain to me why Bill Clinton inherited George Bush's
title.  George Bush referred to _himself_ as "The Education President."  To
my knowledge (correct me if this isn't true), Bill Clinton never did that.
So why do some hold him to someone else's self-proclamation?

After you explain that to me then you can explain how, exactly, Chelsea going
to a private school makes him a hypocrite.

- Clinton has not stated that private schools are, in any way, "bad"

- Clinton is acting in what he considers the best interests of his child

- If he were to have sent her to a public school his detractors would have
  claimed that he not only buckled under to maintain his support, but that
  he was a poor father for not having acted in the best interests of his child

- He is paying for her education w/o vouchers

- He is using his own money to pay for her education

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.
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 11 Jan 1993 14:54:46 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu

In article 3812@umr.edu, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>Now, this is bizarre.  Here we have libertarians looking out for the
>benefit of the poor man, and democrats supporting Clinton's decision
>to send Chelsea to a private school, right or wrong.
>
>What's the value of all this?
>
>I don't know, but it sure is a lot of fun!!  :-)
>
>cpk
>-- 

What most liberals fail to understand is that conservatives have always
supported those things that improve peoples ability to succeed.

Vouchers for education allow parents to choose what is best for their
children and injects competition in a failing "socialist" education
system.  Vouchers help people succeed and will free them from government
supported suppression.


fred

_______________________________________________________________________
	Secretary of State-designate Warren Christopher lied to congress.
	Comrad Clinton lied to the American people.  Impeach Clinton.
		
    _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/  | 
   _/       _/         | The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they
  _/_/_/   _/_/_/_/    | are not shared by my employer or my friends.
 _/             _/     | However, they should be.
_/       _/_/_/_/      | Fred Seals 409-845-2298





Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19840 alt.politics.elections:24760 talk.politics.misc:66648
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 03:44:41 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan8.032231.26764@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
|> Oh my... T-minus 13 days and they're already ganging up on what? 
|> 
|> A little girl.

Aaaw, gimme a break! It has to be clear to even the dimmest wit that
the person being ganged up on is the girl's Dad and not her; and with
regards to what is certainly an important question.

|> I sincerely hope some decent 12-step programs are set up for recovering
|> Republicans and fellow travelers. They need help.

If this is any example, Democrats' wits still haven't recovered.


|> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19818 alt.politics.elections:24747 alt.politics.libertarian:3154 talk.politics.misc:66612
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:36:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.171317.15285@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>
>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.)

     Or Jack Kemp will get it passed during his first term. :-)

                                      Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)

    Building of the new .sig in progress. Please be patient.
      Sorry for the inconvenience.
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Supports Public Schools NOT
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:57:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MDL.93Jan5174651@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>
>While Bill has definetly made me eat crow on this one, and I am very
>disappointed in him, he favors public school choice.  

My god, has anyone checked the temprature of hell lately?  An honest, non-
party-line approved response to one of Bill's moves.  I'm stunned, nearly
speachless.

Nearly!

It's funny, for all my dislike of Bill Clinton it's amazing how much we have
in common.  I mean I'd like to give my son and daughter as normal a childhood
as possible, as Bill's doing for his daughter.  Unfotunately, my kids will
simply have to accept the problems of racial violence, drug abuse and bussed
in children bringing guns and knives to their elementary school instead.  

Of course if I my family home wasn't being used to by the government to 
extort money from me, maybe I could give my kids a normal childhood and
a decent education to.

Funny but this "new" democrat looks an awfully lot like the old democrats;

PSG

The rich get rich and the poor get a hand out!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:26:27 GMT

In article <1ikdg3INNidf@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>I don't recall anyone saying that he should send Chelsea to the DC public
>schools, in fact, quite the opposite. The question being asked of Clinton
>is this: Now that you understand the dilemma faced by many not-so-affluent 
>people living in school districts with lousy school systems, how can you 
>not be for giving such people the opportunity to choose between a good school 
>and a bad school, like you had?  (apologies for the poor sentence structure)
>
>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu


As I recall, Clinton's position on the school-choice question is that
he favors it within the public-school system, but does not favor the
use of vouchers to (help) pay for a private school.

So Clinton is not quite the anti-choice demon that his net attackers
would are suggesting. Of course, regardless of his position on the
issue, there is not now a choice policy in the DC public schools, so
his only choice, as a parent, is public or private, and he made it.

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. 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.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20138 alt.politics.elections:24892 alt.politics.libertarian:3442 talk.politics.misc:67384