HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gelinas@merit.edu (Joe Gelinas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Candidate Accountability
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:44:15 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: merit.edu

ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:

>	Assuming that one can stand to wait for the end of an elected offi-
>cial's term, there are two options available to the Green Party.  The first
>option is available to any political party; when the primary rolls around,
>run a candidate in opposition to the incumbent.  If there is no candidate
>strong enough to challenge the incumbent, then most political parties would
>be stuck.  The GPOC, however, has one additional option that no other party
>currently posesses in its bylaws; it's called "none of the above" (NOTA).
>If we don't have a competitive candidate to unseat the incumbent, we can
>still remove the incumbent in the primary.  In this way, the candidate is
>subject to additional accountability to the Green Party.  A candidate who
>wishes to run with the Greens would have a much harder time abandoning
>their original constituency for some other group.
  
So the incumbent doesn't run as a Green.  Instead s/he runs in the 
General Election as an Independent, with the same support that got 
hir elected in the first place.  

>	There's another use for NOTA that was demonstrated in the 1992
>election season.  Several people in the Los Angeles area entered races for
>various partisan seats on behalf of the Green Party.  However, it was dis-
>covered before the primary that one of these contestants was a disgruntled
>member of another party who had simply registered a few dozen of his friends
>with the Greens, and got them to sign his petition to enter the race as a
>Green.  The local Greens found out about this intruder, but no one within 
>the group felt prepared to run against him.  Thus, the group successfully
>waged a NOTA campaign against him.  In this way, a candidate who did not
>represent the Greens was prevented from running on their behalf.
  
Since the candidate didn't have enough support to win the General Election,
the loss of the Primary didn't have much effect.  Or so it seems from this
distance.  
 
In all of this discussion, it must be remembered that Primaries are 
intra-party contests.  Local rules (and economic realities) may make
it harder for independent candidates to get elected, but they seldom
make it impossible for the candidate to campaign.

                   Joseph L. Gelinas, Jr.
            gelinas@merit.edu    gelinas@umich.edu
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:50:17 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Followup-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <1678600074@igc.apc.org>, dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
|> 
|> >The fact is (IMHO) that pure laissez faire is lethal to itself.
|> >When some accumulate a large amount of wealth, they use that wealth
|> >to distort the market conditions to perpetuate their wealth and to
|> >prevent others from obtaining similar wealth.  
|> >
|> >Lee Daniel Crocker
|>  
|> Lee, you are starting to make sense.  I knew there was common ground
|> between Libertarians and Greens.  (Just don't want to overstate it.)
|>  
|> Dale


sorry - but what does "laissez faire" mean?

Michael


NB: follow-up set to my mail account
    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:37:23 GMT

I'm Paul Barton-Davis. I get paid as a systems and research programmer
here in the CS dept. at the University of Washington. Elsewhere, I
grow a significant proportion of my own food, cycle, read and run too
little and am currently rebuilding a small 1916 Seattle house into
something vaguely resembling an "Integral Urban House".

I'm not yet a US Citizen, although my application is in the mail,
which prevents me from being a member of any US political party. I was
involved with the Ecology Party in the UK since the 1979 election in
which Thatcher was elected (I was 16 at the time), and continue to
keep a watchful eye on the Greens everywhere. I read Green Letter when
I can get to it, as many anti-environmentalist magazines and journals
as I can find, and talk.environment. 

My favorite green-ish writers and thinkers include Wendel Berry,
Langdon Winner, Jerry Mander, Theodore Rosak, Witold Rybzcynski (sp?)
and Dean Alaska. I greatly admire the work of the New Alchemy
Institute. 

I am sceptical (to put it mildly) of legislative solutions to
anything, believe that human ownership of land should be abolished and
replaced by long term leases, and am moderately sensitive to the
ideas of "deep ecology", even though I believe that a similar approach
is possible whilst maintaining a "human centered" philosophy.

I try to take John McCarthy seriously, although this gets difficult at times.

-- paul
-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:48:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.200819.17425@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <C0r8Ft.Mpr@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>
>>If there are 3 Demons for every Repube, then there are roughly 3 times
>>as many stories slanted to the left as to the right, assuming that
>>Democratic correspondants are about as productive as Republican ones.
>
>The hidden term in your syllogism cannot be assumed. In this case, the
>hidden term is the proposition "Journalists invariably slant stories to
>fit their political beliefs."
>
>Yet journalists in this country, for the most part, are indoctrinated to
>strive to be unbiased, or at least fair, and I know countless examples of
>journalists in which this indoctrination took.

       For what it's worth, my mother's been a newspaper journalist for over 
thirty years and her opinion is that news is slanted intentionally much more 
often now than it was when she started.  She's been involved in more than 
one confrontation with the local editorial staff when she said should wouldn'
t be the proper "spin" on a news story.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:19:40 GMT

In article <3JAN199318013732@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R. Sparks) writes:
>In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>> The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
>> stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.  He got
>> 4 votes out of 10 and won (with a very willing and cooperative news media's
>> help.)

>So was the Bush campaign.  The only campaign that even tried to treat
>the voter as intelligent was Perot's.  He was the one who talked about
>the economy.  He was the one who brought the election on track, by
>talking about real issues like the economy.  The professional campaign
>managers eschewed this kind of politics because they figured the
>voters would go to sleep.  He may have changed campaign history.  By
>showing the professional "guns for hire" that politicians hire to run
>their campaigns every 2-4-6 years that charts and graphs DO keep the
>voters attention.  BTW, I'm one who thought that Ross Perot would not
>have made a good President (even though, as a protest, I voted for
>him).  What he did do was provide a public service to this country
>that will affect it for decades.  === Al Sparks

Well, I won't argue with the idea that a third party candidate is good
for democracy, though I will note that neither Teddy Roosevelt nor
George Wallace (the two biggest third party candidates) had much lasting
impact.

As to Perot treating the voters as intelligent, I don't think so.  He
pretended to treat the voters as intelligent.  He, as a salesman, sold
the idea of no-frills campaigning as "treating the voters as intelligent."

But I don't think ranting "the deficit, the deficit"  "It's bad, it's
bad" really counts as talking intelligently.

For all that talk about those flip charts, how many voters had *any*
idea what Perot was talking about, or can remember at this point in time
what Perot said?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24891 talk.politics.misc:67380 misc.legal:22423
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:17:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan12.200819.17425@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

|In article <C0r8Ft.Mpr@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:

|>If there are 3 Demons for every Repube, then there are roughly 3 times
|>as many stories slanted to the left as to the right, assuming that
|>Democratic correspondants are about as productive as Republican ones.

|The hidden term in your syllogism cannot be assumed. In this case, the
|hidden term is the proposition "Journalists invariably slant stories to
|fit their political beliefs."

|Yet journalists in this country, for the most part, are indoctrinated to
|strive to be unbiased, or at least fair, and I know countless examples of
|journalists in which this indoctrination took.

That may be the party line.  But my experience has been that few bother
to follow it once they leave school.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24733 talk.politics.misc:66571
From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:20:11 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire
NNTP-Posting-Host: anchor.unh.edu

rm: Richard A. Mulac

rm: And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased
    media, which blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at
    some obscure club which had no minority members, will give us a
    breakdown of the student population at this elite private school.
    And if it turns out to be 99% WASP, will they splash across the
    front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that Bill has
    chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter? I WOULDN'T
    COUNT ON IT!

At least in this morning's Boston Globe, the Sidwell Friends school
was claimed to have considerably less than 99% Wasp content. I don't
recall the actual numbers, but indeed a breakdown was given.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand                | No, no, that wasn't me!
-- University of New Hampshire |     (Anonymous)
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu          |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: double standards
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:53:32 CST


In article <C0pB81.6tC@inews.Intel.COM>, ighosh@frx715.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG) writes:
> 
>  Dan Quayle : Its ok for my daughter to have the right to choose but
>               abortion is illegal for your daughter.
> 
>  Bill Clinton : My daughter should have the right to choose between  
>                 public and private schools but children of ordinary
>                 folks (those who will get vouchers) dont have that right.
> 
>  Surprise, surprise. 

Children of wealthy parents have the right to choose between  
a '73 Dodge Dart and a '93 BMW but children of ordinary
folks (those who will get vouchers) don't have that right.

Therefor there should be vouchers for the poor to buy BMWs.

>  So, the two parties are'nt that different after all. Like the 
>  communists in the former Soviet Union, they believe in having one
>  standards for the Party elite and another one for the common people.

Since when is buying something which you can afford on the free market
become part of the "Party elite"?

>  I'm happy that I supported Perot who was totally defeated.
>  At least, my conscience is clear.
> 
>  Indy.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:05:14 GMT

In article <C0GGHI.C1J@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>	It's media that tells you to blame the media. Funny. You listen.
>You repeat. Add thought to your repertiore, Mr. Bunker.

When polled, 3 times as many journalists identified themselves as
Democrats than as Republicans.  Perhaps you should add being informed
to your repertiore ...

In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.  I
remember when people were still amazed that the week after the election
the media started putting out =good= news about the economy.  I've since
noticed that there is no more good news being published.  Why?  Because
too many people caught on to how the media is manipulating the nation.
So, they are manipulating it again - this time so we don't see that
Bush was right about the economy being in recovery.  Clever, eh?

[ The exact value was, as I recall 43% to 14%, Democrats over Republicans. ]
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:55:56 GMT

In article <90254@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>|Yet journalists in this country, for the most part, are indoctrinated to
>|strive to be unbiased, or at least fair, and I know countless examples of
>|journalists in which this indoctrination took.
>
>That may be the party line.  But my experience has been that few bother
>to follow it once they leave school.

That may be a function of the particular newspaper or magazine you worked
on. Which one was it?


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:12:53 GMT

In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
>stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.

	Jim, you are disproof of this theory. (-:

>  He got
>4 votes out of 10 and won (with a very willing and cooperative news media's
>help.)

	It's media that tells you to blame the media. Funny. You listen.
You repeat. Add thought to your repertiore, Mr. Bunker.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: Re: Manipulative media
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:49:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
>that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.  I
>remember when people were still amazed that the week after the election
>the media started putting out =good= news about the economy.  

This morning on one of the morning shows, (sorry - forget which one,)
they spent about 10 minutes trying to convince us all that we really
want a new gas tax.  They had a guy interviewing random people at a
stoplight and saying "See, Americans WANT a nice big new 75 cent gas
tax."  He gave lots of evidence with pretty graphs showing how great a
gas tax would be at reducing the deficit, but what was noticably
lacking in the presentation was any mention of SPENDING CUTS.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a gas tax, it's easy
to see how obviously manipulative the media tries to be.

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:08:19 GMT

In article <C0r8Ft.Mpr@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:

>If there are 3 Demons for every Repube, then there are roughly 3 times
>as many stories slanted to the left as to the right, assuming that
>Democratic correspondants are about as productive as Republican ones.

The hidden term in your syllogism cannot be assumed. In this case, the
hidden term is the proposition "Journalists invariably slant stories to
fit their political beliefs."

Yet journalists in this country, for the most part, are indoctrinated to
strive to be unbiased, or at least fair, and I know countless examples of
journalists in which this indoctrination took.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:10:39 GMT

In <n2nhs*ny1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <C0GGHI.C1J@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

>> In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
>> >stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.
>> 
>> 	Jim, you are disproof of this theory. (-:

>Not really.  I voted for Bush.

Which just goes to show that people who don't get sarcasm, even when
it's plainly marked with smilies, a prone to vote for Bush.  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:00:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.220432.10589@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.192934.4549@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>>
>>>And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
>>>blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
>>>had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
>>>at this elite private school.  And if it turns out to be 99% WASP, will they
>>>splash across the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that 
>>>Bill has chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter?  I WOULDN'T
>>>COUNT ON IT!
>>
>>Today's NYT did a small piece on the school, including ethnic
>>breakdown.  I don't have the article in front of me, but I recall
>>figures of around 17% black, 3% or 7% asian, and 7% or 3% hispanic (I
>>remember the asian and hispanic figures adding up to 10%).  I believe
>>the school also offers minority scholarships, etc.
>>
>
>What is the breakdown for D.C. Look at the local population and compare
>it's ethnic makeup to the schools to see if it is similar.

Oh, it's not similar at all.  D.C.'s, what?, 80% minority (I don't
know where Sidwell Friends is located).  I'm just amused (as usual) by
Mr.  Mulac's assertions, 'sall.


--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24728 talk.politics.misc:66530