From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:40:40 GMT

In <1ihjjdINNnu6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:


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

>>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.)

>  Decay and neglect by *which* recent administration. If I'm not mistaken 
>all of D.C.'s issues are decided by the House Of Representatives which is

No they are not, while the House has considerable financial control and
even some veto power over city laws, the school board is totally a child
of the city council. So we might assume that the decay and neglect is
that of the council, the businesses who run to wherever they will give
them tax breaks (and then bitch about the quality of the students applying
for jobs), by the parents (those that aren't working 10 hour days) who
don't attend board meetings, or bother to vote in board elections, and
that guy behind the tree.

>controlled by democrats. If he opposes the educational proposals of his
>own party then why hasn't he said so.  

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

>Since Mr. Clinton has refused to represent his views about why he chose 
>a private school we are forced to speculate. Just as you yourself have

Why are you forced to speculate? Chelsea Clinton is a private citizen,
she did not run for office, she did not ask to be scrutinized by every
media a**hole in the USA, she did not ask to have her private life
invaded, so what G**damn business is it of yours?

>when you said: 

>" 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."

>While you accuse the original poster of twisting Mr. Clinton's actions to
>support his views, you yourself are using them to poke at some un-named
>other administration. And if your statement is true about his resolve to 
>better the schools then this will be displayed by his transferring
>his child to the public system after he has changed them. (i.e. if this
>transfer to a public school doesn't happen then obviously he has failed
>at solving the educational systems problems, or hasn't even tried.) All

Please note the date on this post. Governor Clinton assumes the Presidency
in 12 days. How in hell is he supposed to have cured the nation's schools
already? From all reports he did a good job in Arkansas. But it seems
that you expect him to wave a magic wand on Jan 21 and POW, all our
problems are gone. At least wait until the 21st to bitch. BTW, do you
happen to work for someone who always wants everything yesterday? And
do you manage to give it to them yesterday?

>of this should be placed in the perspective that he ran around the country 
>for months touting himself as the REAL education president.
>                                                                

>-- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
>  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
> /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy

REB