HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:46 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <2aqVwB1w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us>, 
mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben) writes...

> 
>On the same vein as before, Reagan is the second president since LBJ to
>actually exponentially increase the powers of the office *successfully*,
>and this includes the powers to evade congressional investigative 
>committees.  
> 
>Wasn't it kind of funny how, when Clinton was first elected, and he went 
>from being an anti-bush-politician to a bush-is-alright-politician post 
>their meeting.  Hmm?  Methinks Bush told Clinton some baaaad news!
> 

There is an important point here that (along with much else) is discussed
cogently in Michael Parenti's "Democracy for the Few" (5th edition, 1987, 
St. Martin's Press).  That is, the ability to expand the powers of the
U.S. presidency is fundamentally asymmetric; it is relatively easy to expand
its powers to serve the interest of concentrated institutional (i.e. corporate)
power -- because that is already its primary function -- but difficult or
impossible to expand its powers to serve the true public interest.  E.g. it was
easy for Reagan to start the immense boondoggle of `Star Wars', but Jimmy
Carter's determined efforts as President for nuclear arms control were
effectively sabotaged by the Los Alamos and Livermore weapons labs themselves. 
(This story is told in Herbert F. York's autobiography, "Making Weapons,
Talking Peace" in the Sloan Foundation series. York was the first director of
Livermore in the fifties.)  Similarly, it is far easier to gut environmental
regulation by various appointments to the regulatory agencies than it
is to enforce regulations.

Ron Balden
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.censorship
From: froh@boi.hp.com (Robert Frohwerk)
Subject: Pittsburgh Press sold
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:02:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Keywords: newspaper monoploy 

According to the Wall St. Journal (12/31/92, p.B8), the Pittsburgh Press has 
been sold.  The Press may be remembered for the "Presumed Guilty" series on 
civil seizure awareness by Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty that found 
its way to some of these same news-groups. 

The Press, an afternoon paper, was sold by E.W. Scripps Co. to (closely held) 
Blade Communications Inc. (Toledo, OH) for $100M plus transfer of Blade's 
Monterey (Calif.) Herald to Scripps.  Blade also publishes the Post-Gazette, a 
Pittsburgh morning paper.  Both papers had been idled last May by a Teamsters 
strike, which Blade recently cleared.  The sale was challenged by the suburban 
rival Tribune-Review (Greensburg, PA), for fear that Blade would kill one of 
the two daily editions and have a monopoly on Pittsburgh's one remaining 
paper. 

This sort of thing happens all the time, business as usual.  Do any of the 
locals out in net-land expect a shift in editorial policy or is this situation 
benign?  Do we need to worry that one of the great small papers in this 
country may bite the dust? 

Just wondering,
        Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble with newspapers is that they don't know the difference between 
a bicycle accident and the death of a civilisation.  -- H.G. Wells
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
Subject: Re: Postings from _Measure_ (Remarks About misc.activism.progressive)
Organization: a gora
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:05:51 GMT

In article <Jym.7Jan1993.1711@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>
>=/= The moderators of m.a.p have tolerated quite a variety of
>perspectives, as anyone can verify by perusing the material
>therein.



  They have also spiked a number of articles.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Profiles in the News
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:22:22

MEASURE 111  December 1992

Profiles in the News:

Johnnetta B. Cole of the Clinton Transition Team.

The cluster coordinator of the President-elect Bill Clinton for
education, arts, labor and humanities is Johnnetta B. Cole, 56, since
1987 president of Spellman College in Atlanta and a member of the
board of directors of The Coca Cola Company.  She has a doctorate in
anthropology from Northwestern University.

In 1976 she was active in the Venceremos Brigade and ran the Committee
to Stop US Aggression Against Cuba.  She was also president of the
U.S. Grenada Friendship Society prior to the purge and subsequent
demise of the Communist Grenada dictatorship.

In 1980 Ms. Cole and a dozen other people who described themselves as
"long and consistently active in the Cuba Solidarity movement "met in
Havana to plan campaigns in defense of Castro's regime.  Slightly
earlier in 1979 she was found ing sponsor of the U.S. Peace Council
(USPC), the U.S. branch of the former Soviet-controlled World Peace
Council.  She was elected an officer at the USPC's second national
conference.

The same year she signed a paid advertisement in The New York Times
accusing the anti-war folk singer Joan Baez of "arrogance" and
"immoral deception" for critic izing the post-war Vietnam government
for holding thousands of political prisoners.  "Vietnam now enjoys
human rights as it has never known in history," claimed Ms.  Cole,
Angela Davis, and other co-signers.

In a paper written in that period, Ms. Cole, then 41, argued that
"while institutionalized racism reigns in the U.S., it does so no
more in Cuba.... And those who rule this country know also that when
a people develops a firm anti-racist and anti-capitalist ideology and
practice at home, this same ideology becomes a cornerstone of their
international practice."
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: NAVSTAR and the START Treaty
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:21:03 GMT
Organization: Specialix Inc.

Kerry Miller <ASTINGSH%KSUVM.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> writes:


>She also discusses "enhanced radiation-reduced blast" weapons, also known
>as "neutron bombs," as part of the strategic arms arsenal.  How times change
>-- nowadays we call them "depleted-uranium shells" and use them as
>"conventional" or "tactical" devices.

Depleted uranium shells are *NOT* nuclear weapons!  They do not explode,
and they release *NO* radioactivity!  Depleted uranium is a very heavy
metal, so a bullet made from it can penetrate through tank armor.
They are mainly used by the GAU-8/A 30mm gun on the A-10 aircraft and
on the Navy Phalanx CIWS (used to shoot down missiles before they hit
a ship).

A neutron or enhanced radiation nuclear weapon produced very
little blast, but lots of neutron radiation.

Sorry to post something so technical here, but I couldn't let such an
inaccurate statement pass by.
From: orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: The Fraudulent Concern over ``Political Correctness"
Date: 5 Jan 1993 20:07 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <JMC.93Jan5191018@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes...
>Your grumbling about the influence of the Committee on the Present
>Danger, Heritage Foundation and Jeane Kirkpatrick on the Reagan and
>Bush administrations is illegitimate.  Reagan was elected President of
>the United States and was entitled to go for advice to whomever he
>pleased.  Now the Democrats have the presidency and are unlikely to
>ask the Heritage Foundation for advice.  They will probably ask the
>Brookings Institution, etc.  They are unlikely to go so far left as to
>ask the Institute for Policy Studies for much advice, let alone Noam
>Chomsky.  Too bad for you.
>--

Well, John, I judge that it was not only bad for me but bad for
at least 95 percent of the population of the U.S..  But the point
under discussion was how disingenuous it was for U.S. rightwingers
to whine about `political correctness' when they've had everything
entirely their own way for the last 12 years in an outright class
war of the rich against everyone else.  And the stories of courageous
underground resistance (rather like the movie "Red Dawn") in the face of the
awesome powers of the Modern Language Association rampaging unchecked across
the face of the United States -- what absurdities. 
You seem to have effectively conceded this point.

[BTW, I have few illusions about the Democratic party.
The Democratic party is the other wing of the single real party in the U.S. --
the Business/Property party. The Brookings Institute is a "moderate
conservative" think tank. FYI, Brookings is discussed in an essay in "Power
Structure Research" edited by G. Wiliam Domhoff, circa 1980.] 

Ron Balden
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: The Fraudulent Concern over ``Political Correctness"
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:15 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <JMC.93Jan4213527@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes...
>So, Russell Jacoby is wrong.  All we have is flat assertions like
> 
>     Yet it is not difficult to demonstrate that the active and
>     committed conservatives far outnumber the miscellaneous
>     radicals and leftists.
> 
> 
>Would you claim this of Usenet postings?
> 
How much actual *power* do these Usenet posters have, John?
Usenetters have the freedom to *say* what they please, whereas
the powerful have the freedom to *do* what they please.  
Perhaps you failed to notice that the Committee On the Present Danger/
American Enterprise Institute/Heritage Foundation/etc. crowd of ideological
front men (and women -- we must not forget Jeane Kirkpatrick) operated
virtually as the policy planning department of the Reagan/Bush
Administrations.   It is true that these people do not, to my 
knowledge, post regularly on Usenet.

>It is not true of the official media of Stanford University.
>Was the student's description of the orientation program wrong?
> 
>Anyway, underdogism proves nothing anyway.  Those who believe
>in the flat earth, if there actually are any, are underdogs
>and are wrong.  Those who believe in the many worlds interpretation
>of quantum mechanics are underdogs, but I think they are right.
> 
An understanding of the actual power structure of society proves
a great deal about who is being oppressed by whom; your examples
involving purely intellectual issues are false analogies.
I read recently (it may have been in Susan Faludi's "Backlash",
but I'm not certain) of a poll which asked the question of
both men and women, "what is your greatest fear of the opposite
sex?"  For men's fear of women, it was "being laughed at".  For 
women's fear of men, it was "being raped, beaten, murdered".  There is
obviously some asymmetry in these fears. 

Ron Balden


Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Fraudulent Concern over ``Political Correctness"
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<5JAN199317154010@erich.triumf.ca>
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:10:18

Your grumbling about the influence of the Committee on the Present
Danger, Heritage Foundation and Jeane Kirkpatrick on the Reagan and
Bush administrations is illegitimate.  Reagan was elected President of
the United States and was entitled to go for advice to whomever he
pleased.  Now the Democrats have the presidency and are unlikely to
ask the Heritage Foundation for advice.  They will probably ask the
Brookings Institution, etc.  They are unlikely to go so far left as to
ask the Institute for Policy Studies for much advice, let alone Noam
Chomsky.  Too bad for you.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: CONFERENCE:  Study War No More
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:12:23 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

>   George Bush is finally on his way out.  The next six months will be our
>best opportunity so far to get out our message about demilitarizing
>education and converting our universities.  Bill Clinton's election is
>bound to effect some positive change.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't be so sure about that.  Did you ever notice that every major war in this century
was started under and pursued by a Democrat:  Wilson ("He kept us out of war") in WWI,
Roosevelt and Truman in WWII, Truman in Korea, (JFK bungled Cuba like a child), Johnson
in Viet Nam.  Next to these, the Reagan Bush military actions were scout picnics.  What
makes you think it will be any different with Clinton?

Well, good luck in your efforts, but I'm not holding my breath. I guess peace conferences
are in again.  I suppose the steamy smell of sleeping bags on dorm floors and the sight of
beards and tie die shirts will be like a return to paradise for many.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Fraudulent Concern over ``Political Correctness"
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.93Jan5191018@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <5JAN199320073893@erich.triumf.ca>
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:33:41

In article <5JAN199320073893@erich.triumf.ca> orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON) writes:

   In article <JMC.93Jan5191018@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes...
   >Your grumbling about the influence of the Committee on the Present
   >Danger, Heritage Foundation and Jeane Kirkpatrick on the Reagan and
   >Bush administrations is illegitimate.  Reagan was elected President of
   >the United States and was entitled to go for advice to whomever he
   >pleased.  Now the Democrats have the presidency and are unlikely to
   >ask the Heritage Foundation for advice.  They will probably ask the
   >Brookings Institution, etc.  They are unlikely to go so far left as to
   >ask the Institute for Policy Studies for much advice, let alone Noam
   >Chomsky.  Too bad for you.
   >--

   Well, John, I judge that it was not only bad for me but bad for
   at least 95 percent of the population of the U.S..  But the point
   under discussion was how disingenuous it was for U.S. rightwingers
   to whine about `political correctness' when they've had everything
   entirely their own way for the last 12 years in an outright class
   war of the rich against everyone else.  And the stories of courageous
   underground resistance (rather like the movie "Red Dawn") in the face of the
   awesome powers of the Modern Language Association rampaging unchecked across
   the face of the United States -- what absurdities. 
   You seem to have effectively conceded this point.

   [BTW, I have few illusions about the Democratic party.
   The Democratic party is the other wing of the single real party in the U.S. --
   the Business/Property party. The Brookings Institute is a "moderate
   conservative" think tank. FYI, Brookings is discussed in an essay in "Power
   Structure Research" edited by G. Wiliam Domhoff, circa 1980.] 

   Ron Balden

I figured Brookings wouldn't be left enough for you.  I can see why
you say the rightwingers had it all their own way for 12 years.  You
regard the Democrats as just another branch of the same party, so
that when the Democrats in Congress fought with Reagan, to you it
was just shadow boxing.  Not to me.  We conservatives lost quite
a few.

When you say that the Reagan Administration was bad for 95 percent
of the population, you are suggesting that it was bad for everyone
with an income of less than $100,000 per year.  What harm did Reagan
do to the people making $95,000 per year?  (That 5 percent make over
$100K comes from the Statistical Abstract of the United States).
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Fraudulent Concern over ``Political Correctness"
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:35:27

So, Russell Jacoby is wrong.  All we have is flat assertions like

     Yet it is not difficult to demonstrate that the active and
     committed conservatives far outnumber the miscellaneous
     radicals and leftists.


Would you claim this of Usenet postings?

It is not true of the official media of Stanford University.
Was the student's description of the orientation program wrong?

Anyway, underdogism proves nothing anyway.  Those who believe
in the flat earth, if there actually are any, are underdogs
and are wrong.  Those who believe in the many worlds interpretation
of quantum mechanics are underdogs, but I think they are right.

Why did you bother to type it in?  You're no worse by yourself.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Postings from _Measure_
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:28:00


The University Centers for Rational Alternatives (UCRA) is an
organization of sc holars who are dedicated to the pursuit of
knowledge and who realize that dedication in the promotion and defense
of academic freedom and integrity.  The organization was co-founded in
1968 by Professors Sidney Hook and Miro Todorovich for their
like-minded colleagues. The forum for its discussions is the journal
MEASURE.  The UCRA office is at 570 7th Avenue, Suite 1007, New York,
NY 10018, phone (212) 391-2396. Membership dues is $25 per year, and
contributions in any amount are always welcome.

                  * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *

By the way, neither _Measure_ nor UCRA are committed to the views
expressed by individual authors.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Fraudulent Concern over ``Political Correctness"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:30:11 GMT

In article <5JAN199317154010@erich.triumf.ca> orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON) writes:
>I read recently (it may have been in Susan Faludi's "Backlash",
>but I'm not certain) of a poll which asked the question of
>both men and women, "what is your greatest fear of the opposite
>sex?"  For men's fear of women, it was "being laughed at".  For 
>women's fear of men, it was "being raped, beaten, murdered".  There is
>obviously some asymmetry in these fears. 

It may have more to do with societal attitudes that discourage expression of
fear from men than it has to do with actual danger, though, since men are
more frequently beaten and murdered than women.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: aquilanm@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano )
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: RESOURCE: Contacting Clinton's Cabinet
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:48:05 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


Does anyone out there know who Clinton has appointed to be the new head of
the Agency for International Development? (If he has?)
This is an issue I have been trying to follow, but it just doesn't show up
in the news.

Thanks, 

Mark Aquilano
aquilanm@gas.uug.arizona.edu
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: NAVSTAR and the START Treaty
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:52:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <C0IJv4.70D@specialix.com> jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer) writes:
]Kerry Miller <ASTINGSH%KSUVM.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> writes:
]
]
]>She also discusses "enhanced radiation-reduced blast" weapons, also known
]>as "neutron bombs," as part of the strategic arms arsenal.  How times change
]>-- nowadays we call them "depleted-uranium shells" and use them as
]>"conventional" or "tactical" devices.
]
]Depleted uranium shells are *NOT* nuclear weapons!  They do not explode,
]and they release *NO* radioactivity!  Depleted uranium is a very heavy

Hmm... wonder what the "depleted" means..... 

]metal, so a bullet made from it can penetrate through tank armor.
]They are mainly used by the GAU-8/A 30mm gun on the A-10 aircraft and
]on the Navy Phalanx CIWS (used to shoot down missiles before they hit
]a ship).
]
]A neutron or enhanced radiation nuclear weapon produced very
]little blast, but lots of neutron radiation.

Shhhh!!! They'll think that Star Trek VI is a Pentagon project! :)
 
]Sorry to post something so technical here, but I couldn't let such an
]inaccurate statement pass by.

No need. If some people would bother to look things up or do a simple
bit of math they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot all the time.

People wonder why the "progressive" movement is not so popular amongst 
those in technical fields (or those who merely browse in such fields.)


-- 
Patrick Chester           |---------------------------------------------------| 
Politically Incorrect     |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep|
Future Lunar Colonist     |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein               |
Another Damn Exception    |"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are |
claypigeon                |  going to the stars." Robert A. Heinlein          |
Many other stupid titles  |---------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Postings from _Measure_
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:01:41

My next 5 postings constitute the 1992 December issue (No. 111) of
_Measure_, a newsletter published by the University Centers for
Rational Alternatives (UCRA) headquartered in New York.  They
should really be put in a newsgroup misc.activism.moderate,
corresponding to the left wing misc.activism. progressive.
I haven't time to establish such a newsgroup but would be
glad to help someone else do so.  Future issues of _Measure_
will be electronically available as a start on its content.

UCRA was founded in 1968 by Sidney Hook, then Professor of Philosophy
at New York University for the defense of academic freedom and
integrity from the threats to the same perceived at that time.
Its articles tend to be about academic freedom and integrity.

Needless to say, I am not committed to agree with all the five
authors say.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d