HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 9 Oct 1992 20:57:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct9.013258.6779@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

> Allow me to give
>y'all a lesson in Biology 101. When a baby is conceived, his/her
>genetic blueprint is formed. He (or she) is unique, and so are his/her
>characteristics -- big feet, blue eyes, brown hair, pug nose, et
>cetera. Before conception, that doesn't exist. Millions of sperm with
>millions of blueprints and millions of ovums with millions of
>blueprints are floating in their respective ovaries and vesicles. When
>the two are brought together, they form the blueprint for an
>INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
>terminated. 

Yep, your right. So what?
>
>When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
>terminated... because one was never made in the first place!

Yep, your right. So what?

>Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.

I understand it quite clearly. What I fail to see is why this
is of significance. Care to demonstrate why it is of significance?

>---------------------------------------------
>William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

Eric
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: "Prioritizing Education"
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:12:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.160240.23675@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>The Decline of America: "Prioritizing Education"
>
>
>  ************************************************************
>  Ratio of average teacher salary to per capita gross domestic
>                   product (GDP), 1988-90(30)
>  ************************************************************
>
>                MAXIMUM SALARY  STARTING SALARY
>                (RATIO TO PER    (RATIO TO PER
>COUNTRY          CAPITA GDP)      CAPITA GDP)
>
>Switzerland          2.97            1.69
>Austria              2.60            0.98
>Canada               2.22            1.10
>Japan                2.21            0.75
>Germany              2.19            1.37
>United Kingdom       2.05            0.95
>Australia            1.60            1.09
>United States        1.58            0.94
>
>******************************************************************
>Source: American Federation of Teachers.
>******************************************************************

meaningless statistic. This seems to be implying that higher teacher pay
is a good thing and automatically leads to better education. The fact is
that private schools are generally attributed with providing better 
education than public schools and they pay their teachers significantly
less than public school teachers.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: The Decline of Barzilai: Short-Term Profit over Long-Term Good (II)
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: Organization
Distribution: usa 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:58:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.035938.8591@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>
>Percentage of urban passenger trips made by automobile or
> public transportation, selected countries, 1978-87:(43)
>
>COUNTRY          AUTO    PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
>
>United States     82               3
>Germany           48              11
>France            47              11
>United Kingdom    45              19
>Netherlands       45               5
>Sweden            36              11

  Once again Harel cooks the books by using only "selected countries",
and not defining "public transportation".

>$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  

  Why the commercial advertising?

-- 
  the relevant guy

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:12:17

Several surveys have shown that future journalists are mainly liberal
before they ever enter journalism school.  Students of conservative
inclination tend to choose other professions.

In a class of 20 in my daughter's first year of journalism school
there was not one who had voted for Bush.

All that can be done is for the public to recognize the bias and
to exhort the journalists to be more fair than they are and to
criticize them when they are unfair.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3660 alt.rush-limbaugh:6895 talk.politics.misc:50380
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:43:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ILS

In article <JMC.92Oct7111217@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
(John McCarthy) writes:
> 
> Several surveys have shown that future journalists are mainly liberal
> before they ever enter journalism school.  Students of conservative
> inclination tend to choose other professions.
> 
> In a class of 20 in my daughter's first year of journalism school
> there was not one who had voted for Bush.
> 
> All that can be done is for the public to recognize the bias and
> to exhort the journalists to be more fair than they are and to
> criticize them when they are unfair.
> 

Well here we go again,

there is no doubt that most reporters are probably liberal.  But to prove
bias there are two other things you need;

1.  These liberals must control the content of the news
2.  There bias's msut effect the content of the news.

On the first point one must show that it is the journalists that control
the content of the news and that other groups can not effect the content of
the news.

Most stations are owned by large corporations, political parties, spin
doctors, lobby groups, unions, and alot of other institutions have an
influence on the content of the news, for example Lee Atwater was able to
play the press very well in '88 while Dukakias did a terrible job.

On the second point it is possible that even if most reporters are
Democratic they won't let it effect their work.  As an analogy I can point
to DARP,  DARPA gives millions of dollars a year to academics to do
military research,  millions goes to university research teams which
contain mostely Liberal Democrats on their staffs,  I have never heard of
DARPA complaining about bias or recking in the research they obtain. 
Rather Liberals are able to work professionally on projects that they may
still not agree with.

Dan Rather is usually pointed out as an example of press bias;  Rahter is a
memeber of the Republican party,  yet professionally he sees his job to be
different then his party.

Just because most reporters are Democrats does not mean that bias is in the
news,  just as the fact that most scientists are Liberal does not effect
the quality of weapons they develope.
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Viet Nam
Date: 9 Oct 1992 23:46:16 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Oct9.204516.20059@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

>> Simple question.  Why did the U.S. enter the Viet Nam war?

=o= No simple answer.  I can, however, recommend one single,
invaluable source:  _The_Pentagon_Papers_.  These were some
classified Pentagon documents that the _New_York_Times_
published against the U.S. Government's wishes.  There is
no better resource than this.

> We entered Vietnam to stop the Communists from taking over
> Southeast Asia.  And it was a just war.

=o= Not according to the Pentagon's own documents.  Sorry,
you're just regurgitating government propaganda.  The *real*
story is in _The_Pentagon_Papers_.
    <_Jym_>
__
What we need is a good strategic thinker, and we don't have one.
                -- A White House official, 1989.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:37:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.152824.11911@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

[Clinton is not a "liberal"...]

>Dream on!  How many non-liberals do you know of who lead anti-American, 
>anti-war protests,

	What's "anti-Americanism"? Is "anti-Americanism" simply not
sounding like a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society?

	He seriously disagreed with the war. What is the _right_ thing
to do about it? And why are you not flaying Pat Buchanan alive for
opposing the Gulf War? It is unpatriotic to criticize wars, right?

are in favor of abortion on-demand,

	And why is that supposed to be bad? Is abortion OK if it is
_not_ demanded? If it is, let's say, commanded? I may note that the
Bible (a universal textbook, right?) supports abortion-on-command in
Numbers 5.

promise to 
>raise taxes $150 billion,

	Government has to be paid for. Or do you wish to give up
Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs? The
military? Law enforcement? Roads? Airports?

promise to raise subsistence gifts $200 
>billion,

	Huh?

pick a running mate who believes that the automobile is the 
>most dangerous weapon on the earth, etc.

	What did Al Gore actually _state_?

	Actually cars are a rather troublesome albatross in some ways.

	Here in the USA, oil has to be imported to fuel them,
accidents cost $130 billion/year, 45,000 people die in car accidents a
year (the leading cause of death for those under 44), they are a
leading cause of smog problems in major cities, and so forth. I have a
relative who moved out of LA because the smog there would aggravate
his asthma.

	Buses, trains, and even airliners are actually safer than
cars, and buses and trains sometimes use a _lot_ less energy per
distance traveled. Trains can also travel between cities faster than
any flat-road vehicles (cars, trucks, buses) -- the French run their
TGV, which can run as fast as 180 mph, while the fastest Amtrak trains
can run at 125 mph.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:27:58 GMT


I am having trouble quoting text still, but I would like to say that
I for one support your views the a fetus is indeed a living child,
and that adoption is an acceptable alternative.

just putting my my $.02 here.


Simon
From: wbg@mtek.com (W. Brewster Gillett)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Reply-To: brew@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 23:16:05 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
>>choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
>>until they are fully ready for children.  I mean, in all the arguements that
>>concept always gets lost.  And some folks think you just beamed down from a UFO
>>when you bring it up.
>>
>>Simon


>Well, Simon, you did!!  What if the couples not ready for chiildren for
>10 years or so?  There goes the honeymoon!!!  Besides you seem to  
>discount what many psychologist, psychiatrist and clergy think is an
>essential part on the marital relationship.

>CRS

Ditto on the "Simon, you did!!", CR. Sounds like SImon isn't likely to get
any dates in San Antonio or anywhere else anytime soon. Not likely to pass
his genes along, either! :-)

"The statement that an embryo is a human being is precisely the same as
stating that an acorn is an oak tree. Neither statement represents objective
fact and neither statement is an "argument". They are simply religious
positions."   -- author unknown --


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
brew@mtek.com
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3613 alt.rush-limbaugh:6780 talk.politics.misc:50096
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:24:23
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<JMC.92Oct7144925@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 7 Oct 92 14:49:25

In article <JMC.92Oct7144925@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

> I've got $50 that says the New Republic has or will endorse Clinton.

I won't bet against you on that.  They haven't endorsed anyone yet,
but yes, if they do, then it almost certainly will be Clinton.  It
isn't a liberal magazine, but then, Clinton isn't a liberal candidate.

One of the editors of _The New Republic_ was actually quite explicit
about that; he said that he would vote for Clinton, but that Clinton
would be the first Democrat he had voted for in more than a decade,
and that this was precisely because Clinton was not a liberal.


--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3605 alt.rush-limbaugh:6751 talk.politics.misc:50025
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 7 Oct 1992 18:52:20 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John McCarthy) writes:
|> Several surveys have shown that future journalists are mainly liberal
|> before they ever enter journalism school.  Students of conservative
|> inclination tend to choose other professions.
|> 
|> In a class of 20 in my daughter's first year of journalism school
|> there was not one who had voted for Bush.
|> 
|> All that can be done is for the public to recognize the bias and
|> to exhort the journalists to be more fair than they are and to
|> criticize them when they are unfair.
|> 
Funny.  My son has a B of Journalism, UT Austin, 1990.  He reported
that most of his classmates were very conservative.  Of course
he reported that most of the schools was, also.

Bush could wish that the election was held in any department of
the University of Texas.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:06:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <1069@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>I find it astonishing that some of you still doubt that there is a
>liberal bias in the media.  Even members of the liberal media have
>noticed the bias towards Clinton; Gary Trudeau and the "New Republic"
>among others have commented on it.

Yes, there is a liberal bias in the media.
There is ALSO a conservative bias in the media.

The media is biased.  One just has to be able to recognize it.

-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:01:51 GMT

In article <1069@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>I find it astonishing that some of you still doubt that there is a
>liberal bias in the media.  
> [etc]

An acquaintance of mine advanced a theory (I'm not sure if it was
his or he had passed it on from somewhere) about the "liberal bias"
in the media.

Basically, that universities graduate a great number of Journalism 
majors every year, a number far exceeding the number of jobs.  This 
large labor pool allows media corporations to obtain "new" 
professionals at low cost, and that this "cost factor" has a tendency 
to keep the median age of journalists low.

I think most of us would agree that "liberal idealism" is a more
common trait of the younger set (college students and recent grads)
than amongst the population at large.  Since journalists are 
theorized here to be relatively youthful, a "liberal" bias is to
be expected since there has been less time for "youthful optimism" 
to dissipate.


I expressly DO NOT advance support for this theory.  Obviously,
it could be trivially disproven should the demographic assumptions
about the journalism profession be incorrect.  Some may also argue
the validity of the youth-liberalism connection, especially those
who passed though these years during the Reagan administration.

In any event, I thought it an interesting idea, and post it here
just to cause trouble  :^)

I do not mean to condescend the younger (or liberal) readers with 
any of this.  In my personal experience, I have noticed a shift 
toward conservatism as age advances.  This may have more to do 
with child-rearing and the attendent responsibilities than anything 
else.  I freely admit that in my own case, concern for the welfare 
of strangers is not as acute as it was before my wife and I 
produced dependents of our own.

> [lots deleted]

Steven, I most definitely agree with your philosophical position
on this "bias".  I say let them editorialize all they want, but 
it is irresponsible (at best) for them to present such as "news".

I am less concerned, however, with "liberal" media bias than I 
am about their apparent allegiance to the established political 
parties.

Ask any Libertarian  :^)  [ or is that  :^( ]

Dave
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3762 alt.politics.elections:16085 talk.politics.misc:50868
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:55:13 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1aturaINNtg@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
(Steve Davis) writes:
|stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>I find it astonishing that some of you still doubt that there is a
|>liberal bias in the media.  
|
|Point 1: There is no law that says the media should not be biased.

Agreed.  I've never said or suggested otherwise.  And it is a good thing,
because it is impossible for humans to be unbiased.

|Point 2: "The Media" is not a monolithic establishment.

Agreed.  Again, I never said or suggested otherwise.

|Point 3: "The Media" is composed of human beings, all of whom have
|         personal biases.

Agreed.  And this is why the media is biased to the left of center in the
U.S. because the members of the media are predominately to the left of
center, as been repeatedly pointed out and documented in these groups.[1]

|Point 4: For every example of Liberal bias, there is also an example
|         of bias in another direction.

Wrong.  This question has been studied.[2]  While you can certainly find
examples of conservative bias, they are in the minority.

|>Even members of the liberal media have
|>noticed the bias towards Clinton; Gary Trudeau and the "New Republic"
|>among others have commented on it.
|
|You are correct in pointing out that "New Republic" is an example of
|the liberal media.  It is one of several advocacy journals in America.
|
|In short: Who cares?  If you think the press is to liberal, then
|create a conservative newsmagazine or broadcast station and begin
|advocating your own political philosophy.  This is, after all,
|America.

There already journals and magazines advocating a wide range of view
points.  That's fine . . . I have no problem with that.  In fact I think it
is good.  What worries me is what is called "news" by the major media.  It
is said to be unbiased, and apparently more than a few people believe that.
The media isn't simply biased to the left, but that is the predominate
bias.  I'm not asking that the media be unbiased, but simply that they be
honest about their biases, and that people be aware of those biases.

"As the science editor of "Time" I would freely admit that on this issue we
have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy."
	- Charles Alexander, at a 1989 conference on the environment.

"Clearly the networks have made that decision now, where you'd have to call it
advocacy."
	- Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, talking about environmental reporting.

[1] "And That's the Way It Isn't: a reference guide to media bias", by L.
B. Bozell III & B. H.  Baker, 1990.

[2] ibid.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Kuwait
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:20:32

For those who supprted the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait offering the
argument that Kuwait was less democratic than Iraq.

	CAIRO, Egypt (UPI) -- The Kuwait government of Crown Prince and Prime
Minister Sheikh Saad Al Sabah resigned Wednesday, one day after
opposition candidates scored a sweeping victory in the country's first
post-liberation parliamentary elections, Kuwait and Cairo radio
reported.
	Al Sabah's government submitted its resignation to the Emir, Sheikh
Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah, who then asked it to serve as a caretaker
government pending the formation of a new cabinet in about two weeks.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: TRADE NEWS: Media Invents Mexican "Support" for NAFTA
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:53:19 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

In article <1992Oct9.235531.19261@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>    At this point, an objective of the EC and US could be to come
>    CLOSE..TO completing the talks .. before the end of the year.
>    Such an announcement would allow both sides to promote the
>    agreement without having to release potentially unpopular details
>    before the election [..] 

Reality once again intrudes on misc.activism.progressive.  The agreement
has been completed and initialed.  I understand someone has put up the
text of the document on a WAIS server. Support for NAFTA is a centerpiece
of the Bush campaign, and Clinton has tepidly endorsed it after waffling
and fence-straddling and double-talking, like he does on every issue
that might offend someone.


-- 
Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc