HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Sierra Club on Herschensohn
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:18:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.122256.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu> dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
>In article <BxC3u7.JzG@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>> In article <1d6lqeINNdee@agate.berkeley.edu> map@violet.berkeley.edu (Pollen Lab;103 ESB;38108;2335707;NZ29) writes:
>>>2. The atmospheric concentration of ozone (which selectively absorbs
>>>incoming ultraviolet radiation) has been decreasing, particularly in
>>>the last 10 years or so.  
 
>>Ummmmm, I was unaware of any direct evidence of that kind.  Where did you hear
>>that? How do you explain the lack of increase in the level of UV reaching the
>>ground in light of this? 

>I recall reading that in the Southern Hemisphere (home of the
>famed hole) UV levels *have* been increasing as marked by a
>distinct increase in skin cancer rates among the Australian
>population. 

I have seen that stuff too, but it has all been either anecdotal or 
not linked to ozone depletion.  The fact that over the past 50 years
or so, sun bathing has become more and more popular, would make one 
expect to see an increase in skin cancer without regard to overall UV
levels.  The RELIABLE evidence of direct measurement of UV radiation at ground
level in the US shows a slight decrease.  I have seen no evidence of that
kind for the southern hemisphere, but that would be a lot more convincing 
than reports of increases in skin cancer.

>I've heard bits of anecdotal evidence from people who
>regularly visited Australia over time and found that they burned
>more quickly on each trip. None of this is necessarily conclusive,
>but it is not something to turn one's back on. 

Anecdotal evidence of that kind is completely worthless, particularly since
the media has been hyping the UV danger so much.

>There is panic
>mongering on the green end of the scale but the attitudes of
>people at the other end (brown?) of the environmental spectrum
>that we should completely ignore the problem is just as
>irresponsible. 

If there is no proof, then it is not irresponsible to ignore the claims of
the environmenalists.  Do you think that we "browns" like skin cancer and 
other such things?

--Brian
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The clinton Cabinet
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:18:57 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

>galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:

>>It's already begun:
>>
>>According to a Los Angeles Times story this morning, there is a quiet but 
>>heavy lobbying campaign going on by the Israeli lobby to prevent Warren 
>>Christopher from being named as Secretary of State in the Clinton 
>>Administration.
>>
>>Reason: Christopher is not perceived as a "friend of Israel."
				.
				.
				.
>>I don't know enough about Christopher to say whether he is qualified for 
>>the job. If he is, and Clinton wants him there, he should get the 
>>appointment.  If he's not, then it should go to someone else. In any 
>>case, copziness with Israel should *not* be a factor in the selection 
>>process.


>Neither should antisemitism or antagonism against Israel.  Israel is only one
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of many countries *and other lobbies* that are clamoring for Clinton's atten-
>tion at this moment.  To single out one group's lobbying as particularly in-
>appropriate at this most appropriate time suggests a particular animosity to-
>ward that group.  What's so special about Israel being in there along with 
>England, Germany, Japan, the tobacco industry, the computer chip industry,
>the US Council of Mayors, and a host of other countries, industries, and
>other groups?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I think Israel is different in that if you're not their friend, you must be
their enemy. At least, that is how _I_ perceive much of their international
stance. The words 'amoral', 'opportunistic' and 'mercenary' come to mind ...
at least, that is how I perceive the government of Israel.

I also perceive many other national governments in this fashion, to be frank.
I would not want _any_ of them lobbying the United States, and in fact it
seems obvious to me that a line should be apparent, and that if it is so hard
for individuals to distinguish between appropriate, borderline, and inappro-
-priate influence-building, especially internationally - where the lines are
fairly well drawn, geographically - then maybe _all_ nations should be kicked
out.

Note that if direct electronic democracy ever replaces representative demo-
-cracy, Political Action Committees - whether representing individuals, large
organizations, or other nations' interests disguised as regional interests -
will become obsolete, as direct advertisement through existing media to the
electorate will become far more cost-effective. Advertising will be the next
focus of influence-peddling, I'd predict.


-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Perot and United We Stand--what happens next
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:10:09 PST

A couple random thoughts on Perot and United We Stand:

Perot's agenda will be adapted by both parties. Not necessarily
verbatim, but look to see more attention than might otherwise be
paid to the "Perot agenda"  (influence from "undesirable"
quarters in government, structural reform, defecit reduction...).
19% of the popular vote represents a significant portion of the
electorate which is poised to be very influential if it plays its
cards right. And note that exit polls showed roughly 40% of the
voters had considered voting for Perot at some point in the
campaign.

Now for what United We Stand should be doing, I would say that
they should NOT become a third political party. They'll either
lose their constituency or displace whichever of the Dems and
Reps are weakest. The dynamics of the American political system
are not kind to anything but a two party system. A more useful
role would be as a citizen's lobbying group. I would envision a
series of periodical Perot-style half hour commercials on
assorted topics before the government featuring a response from
both the congressional majority and minority leaders and finally
an 800 number viewers can call to find out how to contact their
reps in congress and tell them what they think. The viewership of
the Ross Perot charts & graphs shows and the debates indicates a
thirst for something of this nature. State-by-state programs
could also be organized. If UWS remains a non-party, buying the
time would probably become cheaper since networks would be
inclined to do a "service" by showing the programming. If UWS
does *not* do this, then some other group should organize to do
so.

-dh
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9385 talk.politics.misc:58508 ba.politics:6829
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Is Brian Kane just stupid?  Or a liar?
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:37:14 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13066@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I asserted no such thing.  I posted quotes from two other authors
>who did make that assertion.  Work on your reading skills.

Reading skills? It was you who said Janet Hyde and Gene Abel gave
extremely gay-positive accounts of the child molesting problem, and
cited their statistics in attempt to prove them wrong.

You naively took Hyde's assertion that only 20% of the molestations
involved boys to mean that 20% of the molesters were homosexual.

You naively REFUSE to believe what Abel implied, and what experts
in the field (like Finkelhor, Klein, Groth, Birnbaum...) say: fixated
pedophilia is arrested psychosexual development where the abuser
narcissistically identifies with the victim out of a desire to
remain childlike himself. The fact that fixated pedophilia afflicts
men almost exclusively means that boys are the primary targets, because
the men narcissistically identify with boys much more easily than with
girls.

Still, as we've seen with the case of Father Porter, the gender of the
child is not paramount to the fixated molester.

>Stop lying about what I posted.  (Assuming that you can, stop
>lying).
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
From: malcolm@grenada.ign.island.COM (Malcolm Blanchard)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Wanted: Complete Senate Results
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:14:32 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Island Graphics, Santa Rosa, California

I never did see the complete results of the two Senate races in
California.  Does anyone have the numbers showing how the Libertarian,
Peace and Freedom, Green, etc. candidates did?  Could you post them?
Thanks.

-Malcolm Blanchard
malcolm@island.com
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dhosek@linus.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:32:18 PDT

In article <73D1TB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, jmarold@netlink.cts.com (Jeff Marold) writes:
> In light of the Republican Party's Waterloo last Tuesday, I have some 
> questions:
>      * Does Pete Wilson stand a chance for reelection?

It's likely pretty low. He's facing pressure on the left and the
right even more than Bush was. If there's a reasonably strong
contender against him, he's likely to lose. There is, however,
two years to go. Look how popular Bush was in 1990 for how
quickly times change.

>      * Will Willie Brown become the Emperor of California?

Unlikely. One of Pete Wilson's biggest successes has been in
painting a negative picture of Brown.

>      * Will Pat Robertson lead an armed rebellion of Relgious Rightists?

Not necessarily armed, but look for the religious right to become
a more than potent political force. Whether this will have
lasting impact is difficult to say. I'm inclined to believe not
since the bulk of religious right candidates have won by
concealing their views in the election. They have a great deal to
prove if they want to win reelection in many areas.

-dh
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Pat Robertson's armed rebellion (was:  CA REPUBLICAN PARTY)
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:17:46 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

jmarold@netlink.cts.com (Jeff Marold) writes:

>In light of the Republican Party's Waterloo last Tuesday, I have some 
>questions:
>     * Does Pete Wilson stand a chance for reelection?

The election is two years away.  Remember, a year ago, people
were talking about a 50-state sweep for Bush.  Everyone seems
to be counting Wilson out ... all the more reason to think that his
fortunes might change.

However, if the state's economy stays in its current doldrums, 
it will be tough for him to get reelected.  His Prop 165
is also going to be seen as a failed attempt at a power-grab.
His opponents will have a lot of cannon fodder to use against him.
He will probably face a tough challenge in the primary, probably by
an ultra-conservative.  (can you spell "Herschensohn" ....?)

>     * Will Pat Robertson lead an armed rebellion of Relgious Rightists?

Seriously ... on the Family channel yesterday, Pat and a guest
were giving financial/investment advice to callers.  (What qualifies
Pat to give investment advice, I don't know.)  They seemed
to think that the election results spelled doom.  One caller asked
about armed fortresses in the mountains.  The guest was giving
advice favoring buying gold to "head off the coming crisis."  
No kidding- these guys were getting apocalyptic.  

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9394 talk.politics.misc:58611
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: A Historic First for California
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:32:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL


	Maybe this is a bit overdue, but I'm happy to report that we
in California have sent to the Senate, for the first time in history,
two women.

	Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

	They are both liberal Democrats from the Bay Area, where I
currently live.

	Though they have not gotten along too well in the past, Dianne
Feinstein has called her and Boxer a "Cagney and Lacey" team.
Feinstein has stated that she and Boxer agree on about 90% of the
issues, but that they disagree on some things; for example, Feinstein
supports a line-item veto and a balanced-budget amendment, while Boxer
doesn't. Feinstein has been known as relatively moderate, supporting
the death penalty, for example, while Boxer is known as an
ultra-liberal.

	One person I knew wanted to vote for June Genis, on the ground
that Boxer was anti-Gulf-War, putting forth resolutions to stop the
effort to challenge Saddam early in the game. Feinstein didn't seem to
do much to stop Operation Desert Shield/Storm, however. He voted for
Boxer anyway because Herschensohn seemed like a mad dog, with his
rather vicious negative ads.

	When she won, Boxer proclaimed her victory a rejection of the
"politics of hate". In response, Herschensohn whined that it was Boxer
who was running the sleazy negative campaign, trying to make him seem
like some right-wing extremist. Why he's complaining with his
rejection of abortion and no cuts on military spending is strange.

	I had half-thought of voting for Genis, but I wanted
Herschensohn out, so I was stuck with Boxer. Ah, the joys of
winner-take-all elections. :-(
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9362 ba.politics:6753
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Defending Dahmer Wasn't Satire
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:47:46 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <Bx8CBx.4ys@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
    >In article <1992Nov2.173140.7338@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >Consider two kinds of people: (1) Those who rarely experience
    >moral outrage. (2) Those who frequently do.
    >
    >Which kind are most likely to form lynch mobs? Which kind are
    >most likely to build concentration camps and carry out
    >genocides?
    >
    >Most people can't kill unless they're outraged. If you want
    >to know where the future fascists will be coming from, here's
    >a hint: look among the people who are often morally outraged.

You are confusing anger and fear with moral outrage.

Lynch mobs are composed of people that do NOT express (or have) much
moral outrage. The sense of right & wrong in a lynch mob is clearly
low to non-existent, else they wouldn't be in the lynch mob.

Moral outrage comes from (seeing) the violation of a strongly held moral
principle.

Lynch mobs "go with the flow", as all mobs do.

The recent series of artciles in the SJMN of a Depression era lynch
mob recreates the mob mentality very well -- a large group of people
milling around will no sense of any particular emotion except perhaps
boredom seeking bloodlust.



-- 
Ah, thanks Gert, for that excellent recycling job [of Petra].

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: leighann@sybase.com (Leigh Ann Hussey)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Results???
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:21:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

Did anyone post the complete final results for California?  Would someone
please mail them to me?  Not interested in the newspapers' "With 48% of the
precincts reporting..."

Thanks,
	- Leigh Ann

----------------
Leigh Ann Hussey   
leighann@sybase.com           {sun,lll-tis,pyramid,pacbell}!sybase!leighann
"They're mine!  All mine!  And what's mine is mine!" - Daffy Duck
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Shoot the messenger
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 08:31:37 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:

> Well, the shouts of "of course the election would have turned out
> all differently if it weren't for the Liberal Media Bias" are 
> right on schedule.  Amazing, considering how if you open up most
> any media outlet's closet you will still find the cheerleading outfit
> from the Gulf War hanging up there...
> 
> When I listen to KPFA and hear them moaning about how the mainstream
> media is so conservative, and I listen to the Right and hear them
> screeching about how the mainstream media is so liberal, I figure the
> mainstream media is about on target...
> 
> jb


Also, Jack, do you ever notice how no winning candidate has *ever* given 
"the media" credit for their electoral success, only blamed them for 
their failures?
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Veracity (Was: Hersh and Seventh Veil)
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:29:17 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <athos-111192102139@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>Now that I have said that, I want to point out that this is a major, major
>difference between Conservatives and Liberals.  Not one Liberal I know
>stood behind Bush in 1988.  Instead, they declared war on him.

Then I would suggest that you increase your circle of Liberal friends. I was
greatly relieved when Bush was elected President; although I held my stomach
and voted for the G(r)eek from Mass., I was glad that Reagan was no longer
asleep at the helm. Most of my extended family are liberals, and they
were all in agreement that the long, hard winter of Reagan policies had
finally come to an end. Bush was perceived as a moderate, and I was even
going to vote for him in 1992 if his label proved true.

As it turned out, the man liked golf and cigarette-boats more than getting
something accomplished. His lack of vision deepened the recession.

But worse, his predeliction for lying [I knew he wasn't telling the truth
about Iran-Contra, but by '88 that was old news] drove him to appease
Saddam, which led to a horrible conflagration in Kuwait. He killed
200,000 Iraqis in my name, and for that he has my eternal damnation.

								MPA
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Hersh and Seventh Veil
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:15:21 GMT

In article <athos-111192102139@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>While Liberals are fully ready to tear down the country to achieve their
>goals, Conservatives are not.  Therin lies the difference.

Oh phooey Rick.  I would refer you to the discussion about the apocalyptic
talk by Pat Robertson.  I have heard a number of Bush supporters talk about
how the country is going to hell-in-a-handbasket now that Clinton has been
elected president.  This months before he has assumed power, and before he 
has made ANY appointments or policy statements (other than to announce a 
standard of ethical behavior by his appointees - something long overdue IMHO).
I voted against Bush in '88, but I hoped that things would go well under
his leadership.  Obviously, my hopes were in vain.

I also think that if our country can withstand 12 years of Reagan and
Bush at the helm, that we can withstand just about anything.  

Guido


Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Re: Elections as a football game
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.180145.6596@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.010019.91@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>    >
>    >There comes a time when some of us say, for example, "Well,
>    >Andre Marrou is the one I like the best. However, it is
>    >obvious at this point in the race he will not win. Period. I
>    >also know that, while I may think Bush & Clinton are less
>    >than adequate to be president, there are some things they
>    >will do markedly differently in office, such as select
>    >Supreme Court nominees. Since I care about this, I will put
>    >my support behind the candidate that *most matches* my
>    >views." This may not give me the smug satisfaction of some of
>    >my True Believer neighbors, but it is a much better use of my
>    >voting power. 
>
>So let me see if I have this straight -- don't vote for your preferred
>candidate because it "obvious" that they won't win. Vote the least
>objectionable of the other slimeballs because one may do less "damage"
>to what is important to you than the other.
>
>Right?

Exactly right.

Let us assume my co-workers are all ordering out lunch and what they
order will be the only option.  We will all vote for what type of food
to order.  I love Chinese food and want to vote for that, but right
before we all vote, after hearing everyone discuss all the choices,
it becomes obvious that around 20 people will be voting for pizza,
around 20 people will be voting for sandwiches, and 4 or 5 people
feel inclined to vote for Chinese or something else.  Now, if I think
sandwiches would be tolerable but pizza makes me positively ill, I would
be an idiot to sit there and vote for Chinese food.  Period.

jb
Xref: sparky ca.politics:9462 ca.environment:1028
From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Sierra Club on Herschensohn
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:51:40
Organization: Berkeley--Shaken, not Stirred
Distribution: ca
	<1992Nov7.122256.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
	<BxFLB6.1K1@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Reply-To: elm@cs.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: terrorism.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:18:41 GMT

In article <BxFLB6.1K1@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
=>I have seen that stuff too, but it has all been either anecdotal or
=>not linked to ozone depletion.  The fact that over the past 50 years
=>or so, sun bathing has become more and more popular, would make one
=>expect to see an increase in skin cancer without regard to overall
=>UV levels.  The RELIABLE evidence of direct measurement of UV
=>radiation at ground level in the US shows a slight decrease.  I have
=>seen no evidence of that kind for the southern hemisphere, but that
=>would be a lot more convincing than reports of increases in skin
=>cancer.

What about the increase in cases of cataracts among sheep in
Australia?  Or do you think that sheep have been sunbathing more often
in the past fifty years?  Cataracts can be caused by (among other
things) excessive UV.  This is not the only cause, but it's apparently
the only one which might have changed recently.

ethan
--
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
ethan miller--cs grad student   | "Anybody not wearing 2000000 sunblock's
elm@cs.berkeley.edu             |  gonna have a REALLY bad day.  GET IT?"
#include <std/disclaimer.h>     |  -- Sarah Connor, _Terminator 2_