HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Elections and school choice (was: RE: Liberal v. Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.education
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 17 Aug 92 03:29:31 GMT

Patrick Sugent writes
>  Actually, I also agree with Mr. Edman that the Democrats
> (under Clinton) would probably support this plan if it
> weren't for the _very strong_ political forces in favor
> of the status quo.   This assertion has certainly been
> supported in the editorial pages of the WSJ, if nowhere
> else.

Well, I'm not quite so sure of that. I consider education to be the worst  
problem facing the US today. The abysmal failure of the american educational  
system on the primary and secondary level will still be felt when budget or  
trade deficits will be long forgotten memories. And the educational  
establishment under the control of the NEA, the AFT, teachers colleges and  
their various auxilliaries has been the road block for any meaningful reform  
(i.e. any reform having any point c) beyond a) hire more educationists and b)  
pay them more). So when almost a year ago I saw a Clinton speech to the NEA in  
which he promised that he would be their man in Washington, that was one of the  
two events which changed my attitude towards him from benevolent neutrality to  
opposition. (The other one was that he took on Robert Reich as his economic  
advisor). Since then it has been one single long love affair between Clinton  
and the education establishment. The NEA voted to endorse Clinton with 82% of  
its votes - the highest ever. AFT president Al Shanker urged his union to fight  
tooth and nail for Clinton with such emotion that he came to the verge of  
tears. I'm afraid that if Clinton is elected the status quo will have scored  
another victory and all hopes of improvement in education will have to be  
postponed for at least another four years.

>  Oh my, did I just start _another_ school choice thread?
> :-) 

I'm afraid we have. :-)

But then, I've always considered the opposition to school choice part of the  
soft underbelly of the other side. So the more discussion there is on this  
subject, the better.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:28:40 GMT

In article <5924@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>BTW, I believe an unbiased examination of government policies would show
>that the government is quite hostile to capital accumulation.  In fact
>rich people end up getting rich despite the active opposition of government.
>You are arguing that rich people should pay to support this active opposition.

Let's see it.  And let's see if you yourself can make it from
poor to rich if you can't pay for education, health, and various other
sundries.


--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11325 misc.education:3204
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.education
Subject: Re: American schools (was: Liberal v. Conservative)
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:23:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <00714452905@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>From article <2A947681.18330@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman):

			......................

>> Giving the current educational system more money is like giving a heroin addict
>> another shot, because "he _really_ needs it _so_ badly". It might make him shut
>> up for a few days (the heroin addict - the educational establishment is
>> faster), but it does not solve his problems. As a matter of fact nothing will
>> until he gets off the habit and giving him more money just delays that.
>
>I agree with you. Unfortunately, at the moment our kids are stuck in this
>public school system. You propose zapping the money used to educate them.
>What happens to these kids next? Do you see this as causing widespread
>public support for eliminating public education and replacing it with a
>voucher system?

Those who believe in quality education will use their vouchers to establish
quality schools.  Those who think the current garbage is good enough will
use their vouchers at the current schools.  They do not educate anyway.

>I don't see it. What I see is that people with two Cadillacs in their
>garages won't care what happens to the public school -- and this includes
>(sad to say) most school board members. They'll never vote for any system
>which takes money out of their pocket and gives it to "those" kids on an
>equal basis.

The guy with two cadillacs is not in that great a shape either.  There are
very few academic private schools in the country outside of a few major
cities.

>If the public is going to insist upon incarcerating its kids in these
>prisons we call "schools", at least give the system enough funds so that
>these can be well-run prisons.

I agree with the assessment.  But if we ran them as prisons, leaving 
learning to be obtained from libraries, etc., we could cut the costs
greatly.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:49:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.114027.3020@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.151553.29003@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>dumps.  Paul Portney, and American economist, guesses that the costs of
>the 1990 Clean Air Act may be $29 billion to $36 billion a year, in exchange
>for benefits worthy anything from $6 billion to $25 billion."
>
>  -  The rest of the article is quite good and can be located in the
>August 8th issue.
>
> 
>Pat
> 
>-- 
>Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
>sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
>(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke

A study by the American Lung Assoc determined that air pollution has a
health cost of between $11.8 and $82 billion/year.  Many cost/benefit
studies of environmental degradation are skewed against cleanup because
they don't include externalities.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11068 misc.education:3175
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Text File of Party Platforms?-
From: shirk@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:21:00 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

Are there electronic copies of the Republican and Democratic party
platforms in circulation at an ftp site or something?  If so would
somebody please tell me where I could find a copy?  Or better yet, post
it to this newsgroup!  I'm sure that others besides myself would
be interested in reading the substance of each party after watching them
both put on their shows.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: M22614@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: test
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:50:17 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

this is just a test
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10609 alt.politics.bush:1642 alt.politics.clinton:1978 alt.politics.marrou:791 talk.politics.misc:39807
From: heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I want to see the 1992 Platforms
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:58:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA

In article <1992Aug14.200424.25063@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu
(tom) writes:
>now that the Republican Party is almost ready to release their 1992
>Platform, and the Democratic Platform has been available for a while,
>how about posting them to the net? 


[This is *not* the complete text of the Republican platform, but rather
 an article from the _New_York_Times_ (as printed in the _San_Francisco_
 Chronicle_ on August 14, 1992) which discusses portions of the platform.
 Reproduced without permission.]



	     GOP Swings Rightward In Adopting Platform


Houston  --  Republicans yesterday adopted a party platform embracing
a degree of social and religious conservatism that at times goes beyond
the stands taken by President Bush.

The most obvious example is support for a constitutional amendment
that would completely outlaw abortion.  Although Bush would permit 
legal abortions when pregnancies were the result of rape or incest,
the platform calls for prohibiting such exceptions.

The platform also repudiates the tax increases Bush signed two years ago.
And it calls for building a fence along the Mexican border to keep out
undocumented immigrants, a proposal that many Mexican and U.S. Hispanics
have sharply criticized in the past.

After approving the platform, the delegates tried to reach out to 
abortion-rights supporters with a separate resolution stating, "We
respect the honest differences of opinion of those Republicans who
debate our positions on important issues and look forward to working
with them toward Republican victories in November."

The conservatives clearly controlled the reins in Houston this week,
and a few Republicans said they feared that the party was risking defeat
in the election by being so rigid.

Richard M. Rosenbaum, a national committee member from New York, said he
was "deeply troubled" because he thought some of the conservative planks
would cost Bush votes in New York and elsewhere.

During the four days of drafting, a few conservative proposals -- such as
a plank opposing favorable trade status for China -- were rejected on the
ground that they ran counter to Bush's policies.  But the defeats for the
conservatives were few and far between.

In the area of education, for example, the platform opposes birth-control
counseling or the distribution of condoms in schools, and it advocates
voluntary prayer and the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in 
classrooms.

The document supports access to school property for Bible clubs, home
schooling and government tuition subsidies for students in private and
parochial schools.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GOP Convention:  How is it playing?
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:20:55 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton) writes:
: 
: I have my own opinion about the impact of the GOP convention on the
: populace, but I live in the Bay Area so what do *I* know about "America"?
: 
: I'd like to know what *you* think--but more importantly I'd like to know
: what you've been hearing "around".  How is this going over?

LA being LA, I may be further from America than you, but...

a co-worker reported that every woman in this group was outraged
by Buchannon's speach, and several quite seriously decided to
vote Dem after it.  My wife almost went throught the roof during
Mrs. Quayles speach, and was indignant that the only woman
commentator on the panel was a Rep. congresswoman.  Having decided
to vote Dem before the convention started, and being a political
cynic, much of what has been said has repulsed me.  Buchannon
and Gingrich (sp?) were scary.  I didn't listen to Pat Robertson,
but his mere presence bothered me.  Mrs. Quayles speach was
rather offensive, but not from outer space.  What has amazed me
is Barbara Bush's involvement.  From her statements on abortion
to her in-your-face interview to her speach, she is making herself
a real player of the political game.  She's savvy, and so far
people believe in her.  But, being a cynic, I can't help but
think that she has consulted or been advized by "handlers", and
that it is all calculated.  Especially with all of the double-talk
Pres. Bush has been doing ( [heavy paraphrasing] "I'm solidly
pro-life...this platform does not necessarily reflect my views on
abortion" "There are going to be some new faces around here when I'm
re-elected... my cabinet is doing a great job, none of them will be fired"),
I do believe that Barb is participating in this double-talk.  The
purpose being to "let" people who want to vote for Bush (or want
to vote for Clinton) believe that Pres. Bush shares their position
on these and other topics.  What does Bush *really* believe?  I
dunno.  Does Clinton *really* believe in the stands that he has
taken?  Probably no more than Bush does - but I like the company
he keeps better!  Also, it is clear to me that Pres. Bush would
have no more success dealing with Congress the next 4 yrs than
he has in the first.

--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
From: gownder@husc9.harvard.edu (Joseph Gownder)
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:59:07 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <2A8D24CF.5887@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes
>> And this right-wing faction seems so much more comfortable fighting
>> social trends (controlling the womb, alienating homosexuals, stagnating
>							       ^^^^^^^^^^
>> public schooling) rather than stressing whatever ideals (if they can
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> be called that) they support.
>
>Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have a  
>workable, fundamental solution to the dismal state of education. The Democrats  
>- ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite happy to defend the  
>status quo indefinitely.
>
>	Carl Edman


Now that's a laughable notion.  While I admit that the Democratic Party
has, in the past, pandered to teachers unions by rolling back qualification
requirements, Clinton (and advisor Robert Reich) has made education a 
high priority.  School choice -- the Republican plan -- is not without
some merit, but I ask, how do the Republicans expect to improve education
in the country if they are unwilling to FUND it?  $600m for head start
sounds nice, but it's a drop in the bucket.  I suspect that if we are
going to allow equal opportunity and educate children in the inner city
to the point where they can compete with, say, Japanese schoolchildren, 
we're going to have to pump billions of dollars into the system.

Case in point: Pete Wilson wants to CUT $1b from the California state
education budget.  Yes, one billion dollars.  I wonder what that will
do to public education in California?

Education should be sacrosanct.  But the Republicans must also realize that
in order to educate under-privileged children, we must give them tools to
overcome some of the social problems facing them and their "families."This
means more counselling in schools, more social workers, and education 
about sex, AIDS, and pregnancy prevention.  How can we promote "family 
values" in this country when more than half of our 13 year-olds are having
sex... and while many of them are having children out of wedlock because
there is no sex education?  You decide.

- J. P. 
Harvard University '93
gownder@husc9.harvard.edu
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:37:51 GMT
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes
> And this right-wing faction seems so much more comfortable fighting
> social trends (controlling the womb, alienating homosexuals, stagnating
							       ^^^^^^^^^^
> public schooling) rather than stressing whatever ideals (if they can
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> be called that) they support.

Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have a  
workable, fundamental solution to the dismal state of education. The Democrats  
- ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite happy to defend the  
status quo indefinitely.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,bit.listserv.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Organization: The Lab Rats
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:17:43 GMT

In article <16jlgaINN3cs@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

}did locate the following list of the top seven syndicated newpaper
}columnists.

}    George Will [Conservative]
}    James Kilpatrick [Conservative]
}    David Broder [Moderate]
}    Ellen Goodman[Liberal]
}    Mike Royko[Moderate]
}    William Safire[Conservative]
}    William Buckley[Conservative]
}[Average circulation 17.1 milllion each]
}[Source Featurank research, Texas]

just out of curiousity,

what kind of circulation does Dave Barry [libertarian/Anarchist] get?
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mcs4041@zeus.tamu.edu (SHARAT SHEKHAR
Subject: Sen Gramm's Bile-Inducing Speech
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:19:00 GMT

     As an international student here at Texas A & M Univ, I have absolutely 
nothing of cosmic significance at stake in this presidential election. I was, 
however outraged at Sen. Phil Gramm's tasteless keynote speech at the Repub-
lican National Convention at Houston on the 18th of August. I am specifically
referring to his statement that, Quote "...in any hut in any village on
this planet, one world leader is honored and loved above all others.
Spoken in a thousand dialects. His name is still George Bush" Unquote.
     Come on !!! This is the most egregious kind of right wing garbage that
the Republican party is notorious for spewing out in nauseating amounts. 
Let me assure anyone obtuse enough to beleive this nonsense (and beleive me, 
this campus has a plethora of smug uncritical Republicans who would quite 
fit the description) that there are several millions of "Third World Hut-
Dwellers" who couldnt give a damn if your president jumped off the Washinton 
Monument and smashed his thick skull.
     Moreover, for the Republican administration to be taking such a large
chunk of the credit for the downfall of communism in the Soviet Union is
as ridiculous as Boris Yeltsin taking credit for making George Bush
finally concentrate on domestic economic issues.
     It is inappropriate for a respected senator to make such absurd statements
even at as partisan a forum as his party's Convention. Yes, Dr Gramm is an 
economist of some repute and Yes, his Deficit Reduction plan with Sen. Rudmann 
was a good idea that regrettably, was winked at by both Congress and the White 
House. But he should desist from talking about remote villages on this planet.
He'd probably end up with lockjaw if he tried to pronounce their names.

					- Sharat Shekhar.
================================================================================
	"Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on Sundays"
			- Woody Allen in "Getting Even"
================================================================================
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gore Stages Environmental Show Trials
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:02:59 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Aug18.142231.29347@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert) writes:
>it grow.  I think your scientist is rigging his experiments to not reflect
>the real interactive conditions on earth.
  He's not *my* scientist.  He is a scientist who has published oh about
  300 more articles than your Albert Gore has on this topic.  Those were
  in referreed journals, too - not in an unedited book like Gore's.

>Here's an interesting fact (source: Nature, 1982)
>warming melts 3% of the Greenland ice cap, enough fresh water will go into
>the Northern Atlantic to halt convection between cool surface water and warm
>deep water.  That water is the main heat source for Scandanavia, which would
>become uninhabitable.  When are we going to wake up and realize that we are
>heading, at great speed, towards environmental catastrophe.

Wow!  A quote from 1982.  If you would have just gone back 10 more years you'd
see the same people claiming the world would end due to global ice age caused
by us horrible humans.

Read "The heated debate: Greenhouse predictions vs. climate reality" by
Dr. Robert Bolling, Director of the Office of Climatology at the
University of Arizona.  Note: it was published in 1991 - not 1982.
He is very evenhanded on the topic and does not take a position on whether
man made pollution is leading to global climate change.  He does however
document the one-sided press coverage of the research findings and theory.
You are left with a good deal of skepticism about global warming.
The article you trashed made the same point - that Gore is not out to
find out the truth.  He is out to gain political capital from making
this issue seem so dire and clearcut.  It is neither.

Incidentally, most of the "warming" if you care to call it that, took
place before 1938, which was BEFORE the carbon dioxide buildup you are
so terrified of.  Care to address the facts instead of blithering about
some speculation in a magazine from 1982?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:26:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.171202.624386@locus.com> joel@locus.com (Joel Lilienkamp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.144328.6560@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>                      I *disfavor* the way the nuclear power
>>industry has been needlessly strangled.
>
>On the other hand, the nuclear industry has been handed liability
>limitation on a silver platter.  If you favor market approaches,
>let's remove these limits so that the nuclear industry has to
>put up full liability insurance or bond obtained in a free market.
>My guess is that will strangle the industry as well.

No other industry has unlimited liability.  (GM's liability is limited
to its assets.)  Why should the nuke industry be any different?

There's no way to buy an infinite amount of insurance.  Why should the
nuke industry have to have that much insurance when no other industry
does?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat)
Subject:  Quayles look familiar?
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:03:47 GMT


Heard on NPR, forget exactly who made this observation:

Dan and Marilyn Quayle really look like they belong together as a
couple; there's something very familiar about them...  but what?  Just
why is it that they look so right together?

Answer: it's because Dan looks JUST like Princess Di and Marilyn looks
JUST like Prince Charles!  (It's true, look closely).

;-)

Kris Popat
MIT Rm. E15-355   Cambridge MA  02139
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections