HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:59:06 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <athos-091092150300@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.161547.3098@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
> wrote:
# # So what if my particular return doesn't go toward defense spending ?
# # Someone else's will (I presume).  If our current system is honest, it
# # ought to reasonably well reflect the spending priorities of the 
# # electorate as a whole.
# 
# So, what if Californians in general don't fund defense, should we let them
# just eat the big one should they be invaded?

They deserve what they get, don't they?  If you can't persuade them,
don't force them.  Using force instead of persuasion is the fundamental
liberal value -- don't give in to liberalism.

# # What might work even better would be a check-off proposal like Bush's
# # but you get to pick which area of government spending the CUTS are
# # going to come out of.  Would you approve of that ?
# 
# No, because there are too many people out there that think we spend too
# much money on defense, all statistics to the contrary.  We spend 19% of GNP
# on defense.  This is MUCH lower than, say, before WWII.
# --
# Rick Eames

At what point before WW2?  The 1940 defense budget was enormous, even
though we weren't at war, because we were preparing for a war.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:57:26 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <dliebman.1sc2@terapin.com>, dliebman@terapin.com (David
Liebman) wrote:
> 
> In article <athos-041092160825@kip2-43.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
> >
> >The US Constitution says that (1) you can't force me pray and (2) you can't
> >stop me from praying.  That's all Bruce is saying.  Boxer, on the other
> >hand, is saying that you CAN stop someone from praying.  That's against the
> >first amendment, unless you have another explanation?
> 
> the student would be free to go and pray before school, after school, or
> during her lunch period.  the absence of a moment of 'voluntary prayer'
> does not inhibit anyone from praying.  while it is possible that a
> student may be coerced by her teacher or principal or by what other
> children are muttering, this concern is not the most significant one.
> a 'moment of silence' is an implicit call for prayer.  this is clear
> both to the children, and, more importantly, to everyone else.
> the issue is symbolic: should the government, acting through the school,
> symbolically condone the practice of religion?  the constitution seems
> clear enough on this matter.

The point is this: if a community wants to give a moment for students to
pray, that should not be a "bad thing."  If a community, however, FORCES
students to pray, I would say that *is* a "Bad Thing."  

I don't understand the opposition to moments of silence, mentioning God at
graduations or any of that sort of thing.  I really don't.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: what _is_ bilingual education?
Date: 7 Oct 92 08:55:41 GMT
Organization: BBS

i am under the impression that when people speak of bilingual education
they are referring to two things:
-- english classes conducted by a bilingual teacher
-- other classes conducted in the student's native language _while_
   s/he is in the process of learning english.

that is to say, i am under the impression that _proponents_ of bilingual
education are referring to these two things.  does anyone object to these
provisions, and on what grounds?

regards,
dave
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Voluntary school prayer
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:20:15 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Oct8.061143.17105@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:

>Also there are those opponents of 2) who would probably not be that queasy
>about it if there were a rock-solid 100% guarantee that teachers given the
>freedom to set aside a moment for whatever would not abuse this by evolving
>to setting aside a moment for "meditation or prayer" to "silent prayer time"
>to "group prayer time where those who don't wish to participate may step
>outside" and so forth.  If anyone thinks this would not happen they have
>their head in the sand. 

What if the legislation explicitly specifies the duration of the
"moment" and the exact words the teacher is allowed to use.  For
example: "For the next minute we will be silent."  Some suitably
harsh penalty would motivate teachers and schools not to violate
this.

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Decaturville, TN
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:07:44 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct16.144329.6540@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1bktscINNl4t@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>    >Phil, I see that you and Bush are running against Congress
>    >not against Clinton. Did Clinton do that? If not the fact
>    >that some Democrats did has very little if any bearing on the
>    >matter.
>
>Eh? Oh excuse me -- you must be new around here. I don't vote, as it is
>immoral. But, it is enjoyable watching America's equivalent of Stalin
>and Hitler go at it.
>
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>


I guess I must be newer than I thought. I have not seen the discussion that
shows that voting is immoral.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: HERSCHENSOHN: Differences with Boxer on Education
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:26:47 GMT

In <dliebman.1sc2@terapin.com>, David Liebman writes:

>In article <athos-041092160825@kip2-43.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames
>>
>>The US Constitution says that (1) you can't force me pray and (2) you can't
>>stop me from praying.  That's all Bruce is saying.  Boxer, on the other
>>hand, is saying that you CAN stop someone from praying.  That's against the
>>first amendment, unless you have another explanation?

>the student would be free to go and pray before school, after school, or
>during her lunch period.  the absence of a moment of 'voluntary prayer'
>does not inhibit anyone from praying.  while it is possible that a
>student may be coerced by her teacher or principal or by what other
>children are muttering, this concern is not the most significant one.
>a 'moment of silence' is an implicit call for prayer.  this is clear
>both to the children, and, more importantly, to everyone else.
>the issue is symbolic: should the government, acting through the school,
>symbolically condone the practice of religion?  the constitution seems
>clear enough on this matter.

The ACLU and others don't want to let students use classrooms for Bible studies
during lunch hour, but they will let any other groups (including non-Christian
religious activities) use them.  In some cases, the refusal to let Christian
students freely and non-exclusively use these rooms is denying their religious
freedom.  The government should not promote OR discourage religion.  A Bible
study group should be just another campus club--no more, no less.

I disagree with the "moment of silence," but the denial of equal access to
school facilities for religious activities is even worse.

Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems realistically!
Film at 11.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Harvard, Berkeley, and ethical depravity
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 23:11:42 GMT

Actually, the way that I understand it, by a codissal in the charter of the so-called "Ivy Group," the 8 member schools agreed in 1954 that no one member would make financial concerns a distuinguishing factor in choosing one over another. Thus, they agreed to do away with all but need-based financial aid. I attended Dartmouth as an undergraduate, and this policy cost us a couple of students who opted to go to more mercenary schools such as Duke, which do hand out attractive packages to desirable students.



The policy which the other writer is referring to is "Race Norming," which in a very strange way is merit based. Much in the way that, according to a Galilean transformation, a completely inert object on the Earth's surface is, in fact, moving. Candidates are placed into bins of same-race applicants, and the best from each group is taken. I cannot say I agree with this policy, either in theory or in practise, as Bill Cosby's children, who have faced absolutely NO negative, mitigating factors in life, would

 certainly have a much, MUCH greater chance of being admitted to, say Berkeley, as the children of a Chinese or Japanese immigrant without a job. Berkeley does NOT deny this.

In a similar vein, I believe that two years ago, a student-worker in the admissions department at Georgetown Law Centre released info that the LSAT scores for Black students were, on the average, significantly lower than the student body as a whole. Rather than defend its practise, the university sanctioned the man who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.

The difference here is that Georgetown is a private U, and can do with its money and student body as it wishes, as far as I am concerned. But Berkeley, that institution here on the Left coast, is public. Thus, while Georgetown is morally wrong, but legally right, Berkeley is culpable on both counts.

Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:05:09 GMT

In article <5417@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.003010.18500@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>No, it's people saying "there's a good school over there, why
>>can't my kids go there?"
>
>OK, great. Al Gore's kids and Dan Quayle's kids go to that school over there.
>I want my kids to go there too, and at public expense.

And, that's what's being offered, yet Anderson rejects it.

>Oh, I'll only get to have SOME of the tuition funded at public expense?

Yup.  If anything short of full funding is so evil, I'm sure Anderson
will remind us of his opposition to partial funding for poor people to
go to college.  While he's at it, he'll even tell us how he's been
pushing to make sure that food stamps can only be redeemed at the govt
store.  What?  He doesn't actually have the position he claims?

>UNLESS YOU PLAN TO FULLY FUND ALL TUITIONS, VOUCHERS ARE WRONG. 

Really?  Anderson opposes Pell grants?  And student loans, and so on?

>	2) They will trash the public school system.

Too late.  It's already been destroyed by the folks who think it
should have a monopoly.  Vouchers will let some poor kids escape.
Anderson thinks that they ALL should burn.

>	3) They will be a de facto method of funding religious education,
>	   which violates the spirit of church/state separation.

I happen to believe that schools other than religious ones can teach
kids to read.  Anderson disagrees.  He'd much rather have kids who
can't read.

I want my public funding for education to go to education.  As long as
that happens, I don't care what else the kids parents get for the
money.  If they want to go to Joe Bob's school of the 3 Rs and the 4
breasts and beasts, fine.  If they want to go to Pope Fred's school,
that's fine with me too.

>case, I will fight you with everything I've got.

We've seen what Anderson wants to fight for.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: rgrodr1@pb2esac.uucp (Robert Rodriguez)
Subject: Re: WHAT indigenous people?
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:55:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.173811.5030@tandem.com> pearson_steven@tandem.com (Steven R. Pearson) writes:
>What's all this I'm hearing lately about so-called indigenous peoples?
>It's not like they { evolved into humans } here on this continent. 
>                   { were created by God }
>Heck, WASP that I am (and a wicked, oppressive male to boot), I am just

Wow, now there's something to be real proud of.  Do you need Tom Metzger's
900 number ?

>as indigenous as any Native American living today.  I was born here too!
>My ancestors came from Europe, theirs from Asia.  Our common ancestors
>probably came from Africa.
>
>Don't get me wrong; I am not denying that Europeans gave their ancesotrs
>a raw deal. Part of me is sensitive to that.  And I don't have any
>problem with them wishing to preserve their culture.  Another part of
>me says, hey, this kind of thing happens all the time.  Life is tough;
>people get conquered.  Especially if they are outnumbered and not quite
>up to date technologically.  And nothing is ever going to bring back
>"the good old days" for these folks.
>
>That being the case, why can't we focus on the future, that which *can*
>be changed.  It seems to me that the best thing would be to integrate
>Native Americans more fully into the society.  I think this would go much
>further toward restoring their dignity than trying to stir up racial guilt
>over things that none of us experienced and none of us can change.
>

Racial Guilt.  That seems to motivate alot of responses to this issue.

The reason we cannot let Columbus day pass without saying anything is
simple.  Without understanding your past, you cannot hope to determine
your future.  The children are still being taught that Columbus was a
great man who DISCOVERED America.  The simple fact is you cannot
discover a land where people already live.  Columbus was a CONQUEROR not
a discoverer.  The purpose is to educate, not to change the past.

Columbus and Cortez.  They were NOT great men, only another example
of why it is imperative to keep church and state separate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing wrong with the message, it's the messenger." -- Pat
Buchannan on David Duke

"David Duke is counting on the write-in vote, too bad none of his
supporters can write." -- Johnny Carson

My opinions are worth what you paid for 'em -- Robert Rodriguez
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing wrong with the message, it's the messenger." -- Pat
Buchannan on David Duke

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.173711.21544@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
writes:
>    >I assume you're talking about something that happened after
>    >the killer of Moscone and Milk was sentenced, in the late
>    >70s? Two police cars were burned; I'm not making any excuses
>    >for that. However, they weren't private property, so no one
>    >(possibly uninsured) person suffered as a result of that
>    >crime. IMO, that property damage isn't shit, compared to a
>    >brutal and merciless bashing. Your assertion that they are
>    >somehow on par makes me wonder just what relative values you
>    >place on people and property, Phil.
>
>The fact that you wonder about the "relative values" I place on
>people and property shows that you have either not read my posts
>or did not comprehend them.

It does seem like we're miscommunicating somehow...

>To oversimplify, people "ain't shit" without property. Destroy
>property, you destroy people.

I do believe that that's a gross oversimplification.  Certainly, it's
wrong to destroy/steal someone's property OR to harm them physically.
However, I still feel that it's much, much worse to harm someone
physically than to eliminate their property.  There's no such thing
as a "safe" assault...if my bones are broken, a blood clot can form,
break free and kill me.  In real life, you can't hit someone over the
head and knock them out and count on not doing lasting damage to them.
Any use of a weapon is potentially fatal and someone who's skilled
and strong can easily kill with his bare hands as well.

On the other hand, I could live without a lot of my property.  I've
never owned a home or business in my life:  does that mean I "aint shit"
yet?  My car and motorcycle are insured against theft.  Now, if I owned
an uninsured home or business, then removing it would threaten my life.
But only then.

>Consider the ethnic cleansing in the remants of Yugoslavia.
>
>Very few people (as of yet), relative to the entire Moslem population,
>have been murdered.
>
>The terror, horror, and great tragedy all comes the destruction of
>their property.

I'd say it was more a combination of the theft of their property and
the violence against them physically.

    don
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5925 ca.politics:8511
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Phil, a Name-caller, too?
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:53:17 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:59:48 GMT

Wading through the morass of "Gene Smith" postings regarding Claytons
recent posting on homosexuals, it has struck me how, uh, "driven" this
person is.

Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in the field,
and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of his mother (!!!) who
     ***********
says that her experience was that the scholastic level was "low"!

His mother! I.e., you are wrong because my mommy said so!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone tired of how Phil claims there is a lack of "propriety" in posting,
like how Melinda Shore calls him "Phool", and how he says I can't possibly
be taken seriously posting under the moniker "Hot Young Star", should
read stuff like this.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:46:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.010333.27031@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >No. This line of logic is extreme and immature. No, the
    >poster is not saying "too bad", he's saying he disagrees with
    >your opinion.

Prove it Patti.

Any idiot can write "extreme and immature".

Logic can NOT be "extreme", nor can logic be "immature".

Logic is either right or wrong.

Now, perhaps you'll dmonstrate something other than childish immaturity
and illustrate just EXACTLY why the logic is "extreme and immature".

This I gotta' see ...

(Of course, since such a thing is impossible the silence from Patti on
this subject will be deafening).




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5975 ca.politics:8558
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:18:56 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct8.003010.18500@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
> >I agree with June's school voucher argument: it creates two classes 
> >of people: parents and non-parents. Parents would get some tax credit 
> >for taxes they paid, but non-parents would not.
> 
> Note that June's voucher argument also applies to food stamps....
> 
> I don't see you "publically run facilities are the only schools that
> should get tax money" out there demanding that food stamps be
> redeemable only at the govt store.  You seem perfectly happy to let
> the private sector provide lots of things bought with public money.
> Why are schools different?

Andy, I think I see a bright new future government program coming...

Government restaurants.  To make sure that no one goes hungry, and
to insure that sleazy, evil PROFIT-ORIENTED sorts don't exploit
this ever present human need, the government will guarantee every
American a right to be fed.  The restaurants will, much like public
schools, meet certain minimum requirements, but we certainly aren't
going to go out of our way to satisfy all the whiners out there.

Vegetarian?  Don't like red meat and potatoes?  You want FRUIT
JUICE instead of a soft drink?  Well, you'll have to make your
arrangements, outside of the tax-funded government restaurant
system.  You want waiters that are a little more polite?  You 
resent being served food on dirty plates?  You want to eat at
HOME?  We can't make everyone happy -- but you won't mind paying
taxes to fund a restaurant you won't ever use, will you?  It's
for the COMMON GOOD!
> 
> -andy


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6092 ca.politics:8677
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:17:43 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct11.184844.26013@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <Bvw1IM.JI6@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
...
>
>For example, Singapore and Hong Kong could not be more
>different in most ways. But, in common, they both had what is called
>rampant Property Capitalism -- and economic growth that the USA has
>not seen for 150 years.
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>

Would you like to live in Hong Kong or Singapore? If not why not?

This is not meant as a love it or leave it comment. 

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer







Xref: sparky ba.politics:5956 ca.politics:8544