HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 05 Jan 93 16:54 PST
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600010:cdp:1678600035:000:2481
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  5 16:54:00 1993


From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen>
Subject: PLEASE SIGN IN!

From geoffg@sco.COM Tue Jan  5 15:50:22 1993
Received: from relay1.UU.NET by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.52 )
	id AA05959; Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:50:17 PST
Received: from sco.sco.COM by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA24685; Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:48:05 -0500
Received: from scoho.sco.COM by sco.sco.COM
	id aa09831; Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:48:00 PST
To: dmcmillen@igc.apc.org
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Cc: 
From: Geoff Galitz <geoffg@sco.COM>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:48:13 PST
Message-Id:  <9301051548.aa15030@scoho.sco.COM>
Status: RO


	I'm Geoff Galitz.  I've been involved with the Green Party
since mid 1991 here in our Santa Cruz local.  I have been to four
state conventions as a delegate or alternate delegate, and also
provided support to the Monterey local during the last convention
which they hosted.
	I am the coordiniator of the Computer Services Group here,
which so far really means playing with databases, running reports,
reading newgroups, and staying up really, really late. 
	              
	I read this newsgroup from my little cubicle in the Santa Cruz
Operation (a UNIX manufacturer).  I also write in my freetime, and am
an Associate Editor for a local literary magazine called the Porter
Gulch Review (this is more of a fun project, in other words, I don't
get paid).


	Hmmm... maybe we should change the subject line to "Greens
Anonymous"  :)


	Santa Cruz is one of the "greener" communities, which means we
have a large membership (about 6000 in a county 200,000).  This also
works against us in that many of the Democrats and other parties we
are trying so hard to work with are so similar to us, that we are
finding it difficult to getting our foot in the door.



cheers

Geoff Galitz
Computer Services Coordinator
Green Party of Santa Cruz County



-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why don't you ask them?  You'll probably get just as a fanciful answer
from them, as our Bible gives us."   
	- Bishop Juan de Acosta on the origin of the Native Americans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
         Geoff Galitz ** geoffg@sco.com ** or ** galitz@igc.org
                      Santa Cruz, California, US 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:35:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1678600074@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>>The fact is (IMHO) that pure laissez faire is lethal to itself...
>> [ and other Socialist nonsense ]
>>
>>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.)

I don't know how you're tracking attributions, but I never said such
a hideous thing.  Please take better care in quoting.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 06 Jan 93 15:47 PST
Subject: Re: Maintaining an bottom-up opposition
Nf-ID: #R:1993Jan6.184032.11035@beaver.cs.:-912376169:cdp:1678600039:000:1411
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  6 15:47:00 1993


Paul,

I am very sympathetic to your points about the troubles of maintaining
a "bottom-up" organization or to continue a movement with "true believers"
after parts of the movement become mainstream.  It is clear that that this
is a tension internally within The Greens.  However, I would say that most
people see it as a healthly tension at this point.

I do, however, believe that there are still many, many opportunities for
instituting grassroots reform in this country.  In fact, many of the
things that we are advocating, which are considered by some to be
radical, have become mainstream in other countries.

Our earlier discussion about proportional representation shows an
excellent way to institutionalize a commitment the grassroots.  Other
possibilities might be national initiatives, referendums and recall.
(My state, Virginia, does not have citizen initiatives, a problem which
often frustrates me.)

On the issues, just look at how our country (the supposed bastian of
democracy) compares with other "modern" countries in terms of:
education, infant mortality, health, recycling, public transportation,
and so on.

Then, there is also the issue of racial and women's justice.  Personally,
I am willing to put up with "the system" as long as it implements incremental
improvements.  But, in the famous words of Petra Kelly, when it come to
matters of life and death, that's another matter.

Dale
From: ausman@ocf.berkeley.edu (James Ausman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: local control
Date: 9 Jan 1993 04:46:22 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: planecrash.berkeley.edu

Hello all Greens and Friends out there!

There is a topic related to Green ideas that I have thought about
quite a bit and discussed with other Greens with no satisfaction.
I doubt if you all will be able to calm my fears, but I would like
to talk about it and try! ;-)

The issue is that of local control.  The Green party believes in local,
grass roots political orginization.  My experience is that this works
best, as well.  But what do we do about other localities that are
behaving in ways we do not like?  Take Nazi Germany for example.  Would
the appropriate response to do nothing?  Or for a problem closer to 
home, what about The South in the pre Civil Rights Law days.  Do we have
a responsibility or right to tell other communities how to conduct their
affairs?  If so, how do we decide when to intervene and when not to?

Jim Ausman
-- 
	Where there is a lower class I am in it.  Where there is a criminal
	element I am of it.  Where there is a soul in prison I am not free.
					-E.V. Debs
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 05 Jan 93 20:42 PST
Subject: GREENS AND NON-VIOLENCE
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1678600036:000:568
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  5 20:42:00 1993


It has really been great to see so many Greens and others on this
conference.  It is clearly serving a useful purpose.

On the green.general conference on econet (a network that is hooked
into USENET run by The Institute for Global Communications, IGC), I
was trying to get some discussion going about the Green Value of
Non-Violence.  Since this conference has hosted such lively
discussion, I thought it would be interesting to see how the 
discussion might flow over here.

See the next posting for some questions about non-violence and
some ideas to ponder.

Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra)
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Organization: Pandora Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:32:32 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


Hi - I'm Mitra, I've been involved in Green politics since 1981 or so,
first in England - and now in California.  I'm one of the moderators of
the Green groups on EcoNet. 

I'm involved with the International Working Group of the Greens US/Green
Party, mainly in the area of electronic networking. I was the founder of
GreenNet, Europe's network for the progressive community.

- Mitra
mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: NOT LEFT NOR RIGHT BUT UPFRONT
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:58:29 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1678600013@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
>
>Greens have a slogan: "We are neither right nor left, but upfront."
> 
>When I recently said in this discussion I consider myself a leftist,
>some in The Greens may feel that enough to disqualify me.  Others, on
>the other hand, would feel that Greens really are a part of the left.
>Fortunately, the vast majority of us are broad enough in our thinking
>(Note key value: "respect for diversity"), to acknowledge the validity
>of both approaches.  In fact, we have members who have come to The Greens
>from both a strong Libertarian background as well as from various groups
>on the left including the Democratic Socialists and Socialist Labor Party.
>Most of the rest of us probably just came into The Greens because we simply
>were so disgusted with the politics-as-usual coming from the two existing
>parties.
> 
>Having given this background, I would like to start a discussion about
>what people think about "the left", "the right", or possible third
>approaches.  How do you identify which ideas come from the left or the
>right?  What might be the benefits or drawbacks of each?  Why do you
>think people are so prone to choose sides to do ideological battle?
>Is there a better way?
> 
>It is my sincere desire that this will be principled and thoughtful
>discussion.  Let's try to understand each other before responding,
>and avoid knee-jerk reactions and flaming.
> 
>So, what d'y'all think?
> 
>Dale

My personal view is that the Greens were born from the left but 
disassociate from it due to its long-term connection with centralized
control.  Decentralization, community control, etc., are central to
Green strategies so the connection to the left is problematic.  Many
left-wing journals completely ignore the Greens.  The phrase
"grassroots" is one of the most abused terms used in politics, to me.
Everyone claims it and very few actually adhere to it. 

I think there is another part of it.  Both the left and the right
traditionally idolize consumption and a materialisic lifestyle.
The concept fo sustainable development and lifestyles is not a
part of traditional left ideas. 

-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:00:37 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Jan5.062428.28101@netcom.com> 74170.3676@compuserve.com writes:
>[As before, posted for my wife until she gets news posting access.]
>
>Dale McMillen (dmcmillen@igc.apc.org) wrote:
>
>I could go on, but I fear that no one would want to read a long,
>detailed rebuttal.  I suspect that most of those reading this
>newsgroup see through your statements, in any case.  To those
>readers, I simply say: Mr. McMillen does not represent all Greens. 
>Please do not judge us by his postings.  

I think that no individual represents all Greens.  Both Dale and
Karen repressent themselves.  This debate has gone on for quite
awhile within the Greens in the US but has died down recently.
I am more of a newcomer but while it is true that the national
Green organization moved to the left in some areas, it was a very
democratic process.  It took years to put the program together,
involved people from around the country, and was finalized at a
national gathering in Colorado.  All Greens had plenty of
opportunity to participate.  The Greens started out with a more
"new age", inward looking, perspective and has evolved since
those early beginnings.  I have seen letters by people who used
to claim thet the national organization was taken over the the
Left Greens who have decided otherwise now.  I don't know that
it is appropriate to post from the Bulletin here, but I can get
such a reference if someone is interested in it.

It does seem that there are parts of the program that Karen does
not like, which is not surprising since no document will ever
satsify all people in a large group, especially one as diverse
as the Greens.  Since Karen has posted here I assume she is still
involved with some Greens.  I would like to here what alternatives
she would suggest for the parts of the program that she doesn't
like.  Since the Greens have always believed in a consensus process,
I hope we can work on these differences, emphasize the agreements
rather than the disagreements, and stay civil about it.
>
>Karen Lofstrom
>--
>cliftonr@netcom.com     Home: +1 808 521 9073  Work: +1 808 625 3234
>Clifton Royston, Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
>"Some lives are like that." - attributed to Mark. Gooley


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Candidate Accountability
Summary: transfers power downwards
Keywords: binding none-of-the-above
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:19:25 GMT
Reply-To: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us

In article <1993Jan05.221559.19474@sco.com>, geoffg@sco.COM (Geoff Galitz) writes:
>In article <?, sorry> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
[1]
>>  In this way, the candidate is
>>subject to additional accountability to the Green Party...  [JJL]

[2]
>  Secondly,
>instituting NOTA on the party level is a statement.
>	That statement says that the Green Party has heard that people
>want a NOTA option on the general ballots, and we are responding, and
>will push for it on the general election level... [GG]

There's a third reason for binding NOTA, and IMO it's the most important:
it would hold the party elites accountable to their voters.

In conventional party politics, a group of elites decides
on a small number of primary candidates(1).  Party members who are dissatisfied
with all of them have no choices but to abstain or to "hold their nose" and
vote for the least offensive one.  With binding NOTA on all primary office
races, the voters could always tell the party elites to try again, essentially
vetoing their decision.  Thus, binding NOTA transfers political power from the
elites to the grassroots.

Clearly, it is for this reason that the idea horrifies the elites of the big
parties and is therefore outside the bounds of acceptable discussion in the
mass media.  I believe this is why Ralph Nader's presidential campaign was so completely ignored by the major media and most of the self-styled "alternative"
media in 1992, despite his excellent name recognition and favorable impression
with the public.  Binding NOTA was central to his proposals for political reform.
(Don'tcha love neat explanations?)


Cameron Spitzer in San Jose, Ca.
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: Re: Long-term leases?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:42:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Steven M Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
:      If your point is that you don't trust private ownership, may I ask if you 
: trust government ownership? Remember that much of the most badly polluted land 
: and worst clear-cutting can be found on government-controlled property. And if 
: you consider the situation in E. Europe and the USSR...

It's hard to imagine worse clearcutting than that performed by the Plum 
Creek timber mining company on their own land. Government ownership is
frought with problems, but unlike private owners, the government is 
legally obligated to manage land according to negotiated legislated 
standards which derive at least partially from public input. 

In E. Europe and the USSR, of course, there was no public input. 

While I don't trust the government any more than I trust unknown private
citizens, I feel that community interests can influence the government more
than it can private citizens.

cheers,
scott smay
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:51:48 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Jan04.075132.9679@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:
>>In article <1678600006@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>>
>>>1. In this world where the vast majority of people live in abject poverty,
>>>wealth beyond what one needs to take care of one's self and family is
>>>immoral.
>
>In this world where the education, health, and infrastructure to create
>economic prosperity are given only to a few, and where scientific
>progress and economic growth benefit all, _not_ producing as much
>wealth as one is capable of is immoral.
>
>Food, shelter, defense, and all of the other things to which leftists
>would "entitle" everyone do not fall from heaven; they are the products
>of work.  Providing them means encouraging work, and history has shown
>that the best way to encorage work is to guarantee to each worker his
>or her exclusive right to the fruits of his/her labor.  That system is
>called Capitalism, and any other system is heartless and immoral.
>
>-- 
>Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
>leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776

The history of capitalistic development, in its present form, in the 
world is that more development and more production has been
followed with more disparity in income and consumption in most
countries.  This is happening in the US right now and it is
happening in the supposed Mexican miracle right now.  Capitalism
is clearly the best system for maximizing production, but is that
the only goal?
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 21:54 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600064:000:477
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 21:54:00 1993


> Corporations, unions, religious organizations, schools, Capitalism, Socialism,
> etc. ALL these things are AMORAL.  People are moral or immoral.
> 
> This Capitalist society is currently helping starving people in lots of
> places. It is also standing by while people starve in other places. It is
> WE THE PEOPLE that make the difference.
> 
> Dave
 
Is it primarily WE THE PEOPLE as individuals or WE THE PEOPLE as a society
that make the difference -- good or bad?
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: 74170.3696@compuserve.com
Organization: t.b, t.p.d, & a.d
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:34:07 GMT

[Posted for Karen]

In message <181647.8848@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

> Remember that non-industrialized societies had stable populations
> until their culture was pushed out of the way by western society. 
> Many people claim that the resulting population jump was due to
> medical advances but there is no proof of this.  It may just be
> a coincidence.  There is some proof that populations are stable
> when people are secure in their society, and that populations
> explode when that security is removed.

Excuse me, Dean, but some correction is required.  Pre-industrial
societies did not necessarily have stable populations -- I've read
that China went through a number of population surges and crashes -
- nor were their populations limited by cultural security, whatever
that is.  In many cases, their populations were limited by war,
famine, and disease.  In some cases, populations were limited by
celibacy, late marriage, polyandry, birth control, and infanticide.
(Various means, various places.)  

It is difficult to generalize about the effects of contact with
Western society upon "native" populations.  Different places,
different histories.  

In Polynesia, populations generally crashed after first contact. 
Microbes.  Populations began to grow again some hundred years ago. 
In Tonga, the Polynesian kingdom where I did my anthropological
fieldwork, population was growing at some 3% per year (figure from
memory; perhaps not completely accurate), a very high rate of
population growth.  The Tongans were overcropping their land,
overfishing their coastal waters, and immigrating at great rates. 
IMO, growth was fueled by cultural beliefs about the value of
children that survived from pre-Christian days.  

Population had grown much more slowly in pre-contact times, when it
had been limited by endemic warfare, disease and periodic famines. 
I lived through a hurricane, famine, and drought in one remote
village.  We survived on Red Cross relief rice, which is certainly
a modern innovation.  In the old days, some of us would have
starved.  My genealogical studies in the village also indicated a
much higher rate of infant and child mortality in previous
generations; modern medicine and sanitation had guaranteed that
many more children would survive.  

Karen Lofstrom

--
cliftonr@netcom.com     Home: +1 808 521 9073  Work: +1 808 625 3234
Clifton Royston, Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
"Some lives are like that." - attributed to Mark. Gooley
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: Population
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:49:03 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan8152058@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I would like to see John Ladasky's napkin calculation.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

	You've seen it.  Twice.  I posted it to sci.enivronment about three
weeks ago.  You responded to that posting.  I posted it again over here
on alt.politics.greens.  You responded to that posting as well.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: doug@cdc.hp.com (Doug Sojourner)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:31:12 GMT
Reply-To: dsojourner@cdc.hp.com
Organization: HP California Design Center, Santa Clara, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

Lee Crocker (leecr@microsoft.com) wrote:
:>In article <1678600006@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
:>>
:>>1. In this world where the vast majority of people live in abject poverty,
:>>wealth beyond what one needs to take care of one's self and family is
:>>immoral.
:
:In this world where the education, health, and infrastructure to create
:economic prosperity are given only to a few, and where scientific
:progress and economic growth benefit all, _not_ producing as much
:wealth as one is capable of is immoral.

Producing wealth and possessing it are different things - part of the
argument against excess wealth is that the people who end up with it
are often NOT the ones who produce it.

Also, it is not clear that "scientific progress and economic growth
benefit all", since not all people have equal (or sometimes any) access
to these things.

Doug Sojourner

dsojourner@cdc.hp.com