HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 20 Jan 93 07:01 PST
Subject: Re: INDIGENOUS ENVIRO PERSPECTIVES
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600078:cdp:1678600142:000:2091
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 20 07:01:00 1993


>|>Don't you think it is a little dishonest of you to be giving a summary of
>|>a report, and then add your own embellishment without clearly marking
>|>which comments are yours and which come from the report.
>| 
>|Yes.  This is why I immediately posted the correction when I was
>|informed of it.
>
>You don't get it do you.
>
>The dishonesty is not that you added incorrect data to someone else's
>report, but that you added the data at all.
>
>Are you saying that if no one had caught you in your little discression
>then it would have been alright?
>
> Mark.Wilson
 
Let's bring a little sanity to this discussion of my "embellishing" the
original INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES report by stating that
area affected by the Hydro-Quebec James Bay Project was the "size of
France".
 
When I was preparing the excerpts from the report, there were a number
of land sizes mentioned, but none mentioned the "size of France".  I
shortened this detail by simply saying "size of France", because this
was the term that was widely used by the activists who were opposing
the James Bay Dam when I was involved about 18 months ago.  This seemed
like a perfectly honest and appropriate thing to do.
 
After I posted the excerpts from the report, one of the original
organizers of the opposition to the James Bay Dam emailed me that
the "size of France" reference was not correct and he regretted
his role repeating this inaccuracy.  He indicated this phrase might
have originally been quoted by the Cree Indians whose actual land
was to be flooded.
 
Actually, he said the affected area is the "size of California" and
not the "size of France".  It turns out that the "size of California"
is 158,706 square miles while the "size of France" is 210,026 square
miles.  The difference between these two sizes is less than 25%, which
hardly seems as an egregious an error as you indicate.
 
Dale
 
PS  On the subject of dishonesty, don't you think it is a little
dishonest of you to discredit a report by claiming it does not have
a "shred" of evidence without reading it or checking the sources?
From: pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (P.Owens,C20,3492)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Idiots of the World, Unite!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 13:58:32 GMT
Organization: Daresbury Laboratory, UK
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: nnsx.dl.ac.uk

bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>   Am I missing something or do all enviromentalists hate humanity? I
>get the impression that the greens would prefer this planet to be
>devoid of intelligent life; they are certainly doing their part at
>least. What exactly are you objecting to anyway, your diatribes seem
>pretty vague.

Youve got it the wrong way around. Greens want to make sure the planet
remains capable of supporting intelligent life. 

Though judging by the way we seem to be running the place there doesnt
seem to be much evidence that intelligent life exists :-)

---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@daresbury.ac.uk 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,ba.transportation,sci.environment
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:17:55 GMT

   There was a very interesting article on European gas taxes this
morning (1/22) in the San Francisco Chronicle.  I don't have it with me
as I type this, but my memory is that its main points were:

   *  The pump price of gas in Western European countries is $2.00 to
      $5.00 a gallon due to high gas taxes.

   *  Most people, including most people who choose to drive their    
      personal automobiles, either accept or actually support these 
      gas taxes because they are used to support public transit and
      other government programs which benefit the community.

   *  The high gas taxes have greatly encouraged the development
      of public transit in these countries not only by providing
      funds to subsidize it but by providing a disincentive to drive
      a personal auto.
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:17 PST
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600108:cdp:1678600164:000:712
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 24 07:17:00 1993


>> In a bartering system, a pound of rice has a constant value in
>> relation to what it gets traded for.
>
>This isn't true.  Rice could easily change in value, even in a barter
>economy.  For example, people's preferences could change.  If couscous
>became more popular and people started eating more of it and less rice,
>then rice would be less valuable in relation to what it gets traded for.
 
These are good points, however one of the reasons Greens promote barter
systems is that they will more closely link a workers time and labor
to the value of the product produced, rather than whims of financiers
and futures markets (or governments) very far away over which the laborer 
nearly no control.
 
Dale
From: chu@pit.bear.com (Arnold Chu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Outer space exploration
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:14:25 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


Space exploration, I preceives to be an extension of the Renaissance assertion
of man's control on the material world.  Perhaps the deep ecologists are not
comfortable with that?

Space exploration is also tied in with our impluse to explore, and reach into 
the unknown.  Thus, watching the Moon landing may be the closest thing to a 
spiritual experience for most North Americans ( next to the national 
anthem in the ball park ;-> ).

I have toyed with the questions some time ago.  I find the possibilities for
material benefits quite questionable.  ( just think of fuel needed to land 
ore safely ).  However, I think it may be justified on inspirational grounds.  

Another major problem confront humankind today is just learning to live with
our differences and memories.  I don't believe arranging material rewards and
penalties is sufficient to bring out the best qualities of humankind.  But our 
BEST is surely needed to get along with each other, and with the other species.
Exciting world scale projects, such as space exploration, can perhaps serves as
a means to bring the various strands of humanity together.
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Outer space resources
Date: 25 Jan 1993 01:05:29 GMT
Organization: Caltech; Pasadena, California, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

In a recent article Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>> My basic view is that the Greens should do what I think the 
>> government should do with regards to space: get out of the way, please.
>>
>> Patrick Chester
> 
>This is my view, too.  But let's be fair and remember that *ALL* space
>activity up to 1974 was the sole activity of the government.  (The private/
>public partnership of COMSAT aside.)  Even today, the bulk of space activity
>is government sponsored: spy satellites, star wars, weather satellites,
>Space stations and shuttles, ICMB Nukes, Patriot rockets, and so on.

Commercial activities in space are a relatively small but growing sector of
the "space industry".  The US government has gotten out of the business of
launching commercial payloads, leaving the door open for private companies
to take over.  There has been strong growth in the field of smallsats and
launchers.  Large private projects, such as Motorola's Iridium project, are
on the drawing boards for later this decade.  While government activities
will continue to make up the bulk of the space industry for the next few
decades, at least, commercial activities have certainly grown.

Also {slight nitpicking here}, be careful about what you lump into the
space program.  Patriot rockets are certainly *not* considered a space
activity: they are ground-based missile interceptors.  It's akin to
calling Scuds part of space activity.  ICBM's are also borderline "space
activity", at best.

>In my opinion the cost of the space program, especially the government
>sponsored space program, has been a net loss to society.

Not being a Green, may I ask if this opinion is commonly held among Greens?
I'd like to know what the reasons are behind this opinion (I didn't see any
supporting evidence with this opinion in the post).  It's not a flame; I'm
just trying to understand other opinions on the subject.


-- 
Jeff Foust                        Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   			   	 jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov
 	  Final score of the Interstellar Space		Deep Space 9
	  Station Championship Softball Game:		Babylon    5
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:48 PST
Subject: Re: Intentional Communities
Nf-ID: #R:MACRAKIS.93Jan18165551@lakatos.o:1004870044:cdp:1678600156:000:1288
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 22 09:48:00 1993


I have a friend who is a long time Green and even longer activist in the
intentional communities movement who claims the defining characterist
of intentional communities is their ability to select who can join.

I am having real difficulties coming to terms with this concept, being
a product of the 60s and successful desegregation efforts.

However, there are points to be made here.  For instance, inner city
activists are "marching on crack houses" to throw the drug dealers out.
Wouldn't it be empowering for the community to be able to determine who
they let in and purchase homes and businesses in the first place to
avoid being taken over by crack dealers?

This concept can be expanded to other communities as well.  A rural
intentional community where everyone agreed to live simply and to
grow as much of their own food as possible would very likely want to
exclude someone whose goal was to build an ostentatious vacation house
and have loud parties.

Clearly there are important issues of discrimination here, but the point
is that discrimination can work both ways.  In fact, many blacks have
felt that the desegregation efforts of the sixties were only intended
to alleviate white guilt and not bring equality.  Or worse, to rob them
of their rich cultural heritage.

Dale
From: spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LAW SUITS, REMEDIES AND TOXICS
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:55:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:


>I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but I am wondering what
>type of political system you think Greens should be promoting.

I don't think the Greens should be promoting political systems.
They should be promoting toxic cleanups, pollution prevention,
etc.
-- 

===========================================================================
Michael Spencer            |      2640 Borregas
spencer@cats.ucsc.edu      |      Aptos, CA   95003
===========================================================================
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:08 PST
Subject: BEING CO-OPTED
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1678600159:000:2647
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 22 21:08:00 1993


I just read the piece on Al Gore with quite a bit of fascination.  I
would very much like to believe that he had a conversion experience
while nursing Al the Third in the hospital.  But, if that were true,
would that indicate some mental instability on his part, especially
considering the vast change between the old and the "supposed" new Al?
 
But, enough of the rhetorial questions.  It seems like the primary
thing that we can learn from this article is how Greens and 
progressives can be co-opted.  I am kind of interested in hearing
what experiences other folks have had in being "co-opted".
 
But first, a definition.  What does it mean to be "co-opted"?
 
     I think the basic definition is when another individual or
   organization takes over your issue and claims it for their own.
 
This is not necessarily a bad thing.  For instance, we are running
a Green Candidate for Virginia Assembly.  One of his main issues is
to oppose the death penalty.  Well, in a way, we may be co-opting this
issue from another organization, Virginians Against State Killing (VASK),
whose only goal is to oppose the death penalty, who may have co-opted it
from another group and on and on.  I don't consider this necessarily to
be a bad thing, as long as both organizations working on the issue are
principle with each other and give appropriate credit where it is due.
In fact, I would say that the goal of the campaign against the death
penalty is for all, including the Republicans and Democrats in the Va.
Assembly to co-opt this issue as their own.
 
There is another type of "co-option" which I consider to be very unethical.
This is where an organization or an individual takes the work of another
organization or individual and claims it for their own to enhance their own
political image, fundraising ability, or otherwise build themselves up.
This can either take the form of one environmental organization working off
the efforts of another environmental organization where both parties are
concerned about the same goals.  Or, it can take the form of a politician
claiming to be concerned about an issue for his own benefit, when he actually
is a fraud.  While the first type of co-option, that of two organizations
working on the same goal, but one getting the credit, may seem more
acceptable, they both seem wrong to me.
 
After this kind of a boring introduction to the subject of co-option, I
was wondering what experiences Greens have had with being co-opted, and
what lessons are there to learn from those experiences.
 
One of the things one hears a lot when hanging out with The Greens is how
we are always being co-opted.
 
Dale
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: East Timor
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:06:24 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1678600123@igc.apc.org> gmarcus@igc.apc.org (Genevieve Grafe Marcus -- Ph.D.) writes:
>
>But, Dale, where is the word "Green" in this topic?  %:-)
>
>Genevieve

Since  Indonesia  contains the world's second largest rain forest and their
government   has   shown   scant   disregard  for  it  I  guess  what  this
dictatorship gets up to is of great importance to greens everywhere.

Indonesia's  main  exports  include  oil, gas, hardwood, plywood, palm oil,
coffee,  coal,  copper,  tin,  gold,  bauxite  and magnesium. None of these
look  like  environmentally  friendly  goods  now do they? They are ripping
down  the  rain  forest  at  an  enormous  rate  and  in  many cases the US
government  is  backing them. The bauxite mining in Irian Jaya (West Papua)
is  a  good  example. In that region many people have been forcibly removed
from the rain forest to make way for the mining companies.

Ok,  I  saw  the  smiley,  but  I  just  wanted  people  to  know  that the
Indonesian   government   is   a   new   colonial  power  and  not  a  very
environmentally friendly one at that.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@btcs.bt.co.uk

    JOE, taxi driver: Unemployment will rise and sooner or later the
    masses will revolt against it. There'll be civil disorder and the
    further breakdown of civil society. The end result I hope will be
    the triumph of the people over capitalism. I also wouldn't mind
    if a few more people used taxis this year - '92 was rotten.

(Taken from "Hopes and Fears" in The Guardian, December 31st 1992, a
section which looked at what people saw 1993 bringing)
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:47 PST
Subject: Re: BOTTLE BILL
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600145:cdp:1678600155:000:531
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 22 09:47:00 1993


>The studies I have heard of (see Garbage for a good overview) tend to
>suggest that the return rate increase per unit cost of the program is
>lower for bottle deposits than for, say, kerbside recycling.

Paul,

I am not following you.  I thought you were saying that you don't think
Bottle Bills are a good thing, but this seems to say that you do --
or at least is less expensive than curbside recycling.  What is your
position?

Dale

PS  I will try to upload a more complete article on bottle bills in
the next couple of days.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: pbrewer@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Philip Brewer)
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:05:33 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

> In a bartering system, a pound of rice has a constant value in
> relation to what it gets traded for.

This isn't true.  Rice could easily change in value, even in a barter
economy.  For example, people's preferences could change.  If couscous
became more popular and people started eating more of it and less rice,
then rice would be less valuable in relation to what it gets traded for.

Other examples: a improvement in rice harvesting technology that sharply
increased the quantity of rice available would make it worth less.  A
disease that cut the rice harvest one year would make it worth more.

-- 
Philip Brewer                   pbrewer@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Motorola Urbana Design Center   ...!uiucuxc!udc!pbrewer
Mia urino sendrogspuras.  Jen atestilo!  ^Cu mi pli bone laboras nun?
From: mysti@sierra.sybase.com (Mysti Rubert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 19 Jan 93 00:17:40 GMT

In article <mq6r63k@SantaFe.edu>, moore@kiowa.santafe.edu (Cris Moore) writes:

|> Let's use this list to discuss the GREENS - what we are,
|> and how we should organize.  If your message has nothing to do
|> with the Greens as a movement or an organization, please send it
|> somewhere else.

This sounds like you want an entire news net devoted to procedure
discussions.  If that is the intent of this group, I shall unsubscribe
immediately (if I want to hear process arguments, I can attend weekly
meetings at work!).

I should think the Green movement only has relevance because of what
it's trying to do.  And to know what you want to do, you have to know why.
Very few of the current theories of how to keep the planet alive have
concensus backing, and therefore they should be relevant here, should
they not?

Confusedly,

-- 
========================
Mysti Rubert, Oaktown, California

"It's not the men in my life, but the life in my men."  Mae West
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: moore@zuni.santafe.edu (Cris Moore)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 23:51:40 GMT
Organization: Santa Fe Institute

Dale writes "the poor are hurt the most by a gas tax, but 
should we be encouraging behavior like long commutes?"

Trying to change people's behavior with a tax is useless unless they
have a choice.  The poor are "encouraged" to commute long distances
by lack of good jobs in their area, and lack of affordable housing
in the area where the jobs are.  The price of gas is part of this,
but only a part; raising the price won't change anything unless
we also create some real options for people.

The poor have been hardest hit by pollution, sprawling developments,
land speculation, and everything else about our society that Greens
want to change.  
Should they be hit _again_ by our _solutions_ to these problems?
That's a double whammy they don't deserve.

I think it's incumbent on Greens, even if (or especially if) this
distinguishes us from stereotypical environmentalists, to find solutions
that are both environmentally and economically just; and for the
burden of the solution to fall on those who have benefitted most
from the problem.

- Cris Moore, NM Greens
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:28:14 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Jan27.083105.7496@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.194757.21810@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>}The true, total nonhypocrite for decentralization is not a Libertarian,
>}but an anarchist.
>
>This is not a necessary distinction.  Those libertarians who believe in
>a minimal State think it a necessary evil.  They wouldn't even believe in
>that much statism if they thought it were unnecessary, as I do.

Which imples that such Libertarians are willing to makes compromises
for pragmatic reasons.
>
>The existence of government, if only for national
>}defense, police and courts still implies a compromise.  You may not be
>}submitting to taxes, but you are still submitting to a central
>}authority.  
>
>History and theory teach that no State is necessary for there to be defense
>against foreign invasion, domestic crime, or courts of law.

Such examples do exist, but history does not tell us how well they would
apply to current conditions.  If certain ethics (also subject to debate)
had a widw consensus, then a central state could be avoided.  
>
>They also teach us that gas taxes are unnecessary for there to be conservation
>of gas.  All that is needed is for its price to rise as a function of its
>rising scarcity.

Depends on what cause leads to the necessity of conservation.  If scarcity
is the only reason, you may be right.  Scarcity does not deal with
externalities on a longer time scale.
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================