HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 15 Aug 92 10:28 PDT
Subject: Re: SOMALIA! New Free Fax Numbers!
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1296500285:cdp:1296500286:000:2356
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Aug 15 10:28:00 1992


From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse>
Subject: SOMALIA! New Free Fax Numbers!

/* Written  9:57 am  Aug 15, 1992 by dmorse in cdp:soc.cult.afric */
/* ---------- "SOMALIA! New Free Fax Numbers!" ---------- */
The State Dept. no. we have been faxing is "out of service."  Here are
new numbers to try, for free faxing through SUNET (this has been arranged
by Bernhard Helander of the University of Uppsala):

HJ_Cohen@f00912026476301.fax.sunet.se

   (this is to the Bureau of African Affairs of the State dept.)

Mark_Johnson@f00912026470810.fax.sunet.se

   (this is to the Bureau of East African Affairs of the State Dept.)

Herman Jay Cohen of the first no. is Assistant Secretary for African Affairs

Mark Johnson is Director of Bureau of East African Affairs

Other numbers still appearing to work are to the Secretary General of the UN
Boutros Boutros-Ghali:

Boutros_Ghali@f00912129634879.fax.sunet.se


To the Clinton Campaign HQ:  Bill_Clinton@f00915013722292.fax.sunet.se

GOOD NEWS is:  indications are that the State Dept. fax went "offline" because
of the great number of faxes concerned about Somalia.

IF YOU ARE NEW TO THIS "THREAD":  The numbers above offer FREE FAXING via
SUNET to all users of Internet and Bitnet, about the Somalia crisis--the
worst disaster in the world, where as many as 5000 people are dying each day,
and where aid has been slow in coming.

Our messages now need to emphasize, among other things, quick action in
moving food, etc., and *sustained* action (i.e., it should not slack off
if public attention moves to other things).  For example,

"We urge massive delivery of food and supplies to Somalia by all means
possible, to all ports and airports in the country (not just to the capital
Mogadishu). Millions of people are in immediate danger of starvation and
there must be no delay.

"Such massive aid must continue without interruption or lessening until the Somalian population
is out of danger."

There are many other posts on this somalian topic, of course, from which you
may get information.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

Please remember that AN EFFECTIVE FAX IS POLITE!!
Amnesty International, through years of experience, has found that a serious
polite tone will be heeded.  Threats or rudeness can damage the cause;
please avoid them.
Please see next response for additional suggestion.  Thanks to all who help on 
this.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:14929 alt.politics.elections:10695
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "vaporware" meets politics
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:20:10 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.181303.16036@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
> In article <2A8D2A9F.6694@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>>misc.activism.progressive Auto-Poster writes
>>
>>> As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O'Rourke failed to demonstrate
>>> that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days. 
>>
>>So much for the standards of justice of the hard left. Unless you can prove  
>>that you could not _possibly_ have commited the crime, you are automatically  
>>assumed to be guilty. I like that. 
>>
>>"Mr Barzilai, can you _prove_ that you were not the mastermind behind the  
>>labour union firebombings against the New York Post news stands ? The labour  
>>union shootings of Greyhound busses ? The labour union hand grenade attacks  
>>against the homes of drywallers ?"
>>
>>"... No, you can't ? Well, in that case the
>>
>>                   V E R D I C T   I S   M U R D E R
>>
>>Lets go and execute you.".
>>
> 
> 	I'm not up on the Oct Suprise, but the if The Auto-Poster's statement
> just means they didn't have an alibi - not enough to prove guilt, but usually
> used (along with plenty of other information) to help build a case for guilt.

	The Dem. committe investigating the alleged October Surprise got the
Secret Service logs for the days in question.  They proved that Mr. Bush was
not in Paris.

	(Indeed, like a private citizen could get an SR-71 without Carter's
people knowing about it.)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Somalia (was: Re: Never again. How soon we forget.)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:33:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

>In article <BsxH1u.II9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
...
> Sure, war is horrible. It *is* horrible the killing that is going on
> over there. But did you know that there are thousands of people starving
> to death in Somalia also? Did you know that because of armed conflict
> in the region, relief supplies are not getting through? And where is
> Bush and the U.S. on that one? Why aren't they raising a fuss about
> going to Somalia with U.S. / U.N. troops so as to save Somalian lives?
...

    Western aid is doing more harm then good to Somalia.

    If it were not for the relief supplies, the Somalian warlords would
    have to put an end to their feud and do something about the country's
    economy, or starve to death with the rest of the population.

    Under the present conditions, controlling a piece of the transportation
    system being used to deliver relief supplies can provide a gang
    with food, medicine, clothes, money to buy arms, etc.

    Western aid is what keep these armed parasites alive and well.
    Meanwhile, millions of other Somalians are starving to death.




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: antbh@strix.udac.uu.se (Bernhard Helander)
Subject: Re: Somalia alert: correct fax numbers
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:04:23 GMT




In my previous posting I unfortunately typed an error in the second
fax number, leaving an 'f'. The correct numbers are:

Mail for Mr James Baker should be addressed as follows: 

        James_Baker@f00912026477120.fax.sunet.se 

Mail for Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali should have this address: 

        Boutros_Ghali@f00912129634879.fax.sunet.se 

Keep on faxing!
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*                                  *                                        *
* Bernhard Helander                * Telephone: +46-18-182289 (office)      *
* Dept of Cultural Anthropology    *            +46-18-303448 (home)        *
* University of Uppsala            *                                        *
* Tradgardsgatan 18                * Fax:       +46-18-151160               *
* S-753 09 Uppsala                 *                                        *
* Sweden                           * E-mail: Bernhard.Helander@antro.uu.se  *                                  
*                                  *                                        *
*****************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15245 alt.discrimination:3925 talk.abortion:32919
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.discrimination,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 21 Aug 1992 16:13:03 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug20130211@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>I think that they tend to inflate the trauma of childbirth, automatically
>ruling it out -- I don't think they do a "thorough examination".

Please define "they" for the reading audience.

I think there exists a particular "they" who hasn't any notion whereof 
they speak but to support a stupid prejudice, too.

Be careful where you expose your foolishnesses.

There *are* 1.5 million women, or thereabouts, every year who decide that
an abortion is a better option than bearing a child.  1.5 MILLION.  I
suppose 'they' 'inflate' the trauma (actually LIVE the trauma) whereas you,
                     Roy,
wouldn't.  And 'they' don't do a 'thorough examination' whereas you,
                     Roy,
would.  Either you are just too damned omnicient to be borne, or MAYBE,
just MAYBE, those 1.5 MILLION women know something you don't.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Free elections" indeed
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:59:48 GMT


|>For now I'll leave out the details of the Sandinista death squads and
|>the torture. But I can't help but wonder just why people think the
|>election was fair when this was going on?

Claiming that you have evidence that you do not reveal is hardly a credible
tactic. If you could substantiate these claims you would have used them instead
of tales about harassing trades unionists.

The Nicaraguan elections may not have been entirely fair, however they were much
fairer than the elections in many countries that the US does not support
terrorism in. They were also fairer than those in countries the US supports,
notably those in El Salvador where the Government backed death squads were an
indisputable fact.



|>>Then the Reagan propoganda machine went
|>>into full gear spreading lies which were successful since
|>
|>So I guess Amnesty International is part of the Reagan propaganda machine.
|>
|>>many such as yourself are either stupid enough to believe them or
|>>malicious enough to spread. 
|>
|>So readers and supporters of Amnesty International are stupid and
|>malicious.

Regans claims and Amnesty's claims are completely different. If you care to read
the section on the USA you will not find it complimentary.


|>Ah yes your the lone protector of truth. Faithfully reading the Amnesty
|>International reports and filtering out the facts which should be
|>ignored.

So often people accuse others of their own flaws.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15271 misc.headlines:5846 talk.politics.misc:41253
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NAFTA WILL NOT DECREASE FOOD PRICES FOR CONSUMERS
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:47:54 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: I'd email this for a direct reply but..... :)

In article <9208212338.AA16129@poly.math.cornell.edu>, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
...who first complains that too many jobs will go south of the border, reducing
wages along with prices--and now is complaining that *not enough* jobs will go
south of the border, thus keeping prices (and wages!) high.  Go figure.

> Forty-five percent of the $5.5 billion in farm trade between the  
> U.S. and Mexico will face special quotas and other provisions for  
> 15 years, which will restrict competition and increase prices,  
> according to sources.  A spokeswoman for the U.S. trade  
> representative's office said the office had not studied the  
> possible savings to consumers in particular sectors.  "Our job is to  
> get barriers down so U.S. companies can be more competitive.   
> We can't make companies pass on savings to consumers, but that  
> would be a good benefit." 

	Well, which is it?  Does NAFTA go too far or not far enough?

> While some people criticize NAFTA for not going far enough to  
> open all sectors to free trade and lower prices, others are trying  
> to protect the industries that would be suffer under NAFTA.   
> Mark Ritchie, executive director of the Institute for Agriculture  
> and Trade Policy, criticized the elimination of U.S. restrictions on  
> Mexican cattle imports.  Ritchie predicts the U.S. would face 10  
> times more cattle shipments under NAFTA, which would send  
> cattle prices plummeting in the U.S. and harm producers of dairy  
> goods, cattle and corn. 
> 
> U.S. National Farmers Union President Lee Swenson said the NFU  
> will not pass judgment on NAFTA until all the details are  
> released.  Swenson expressed concern over the agreement's  
> impact on dairy, sugar and peanut growers, and cattle producers.   
> The current agreement allows the  U.S. to maintain tariffs on  
> orange juice, sugar, peanuts, dairy, fruits and vegetables for 10  
> to 15 years.  

	Apparently H*r*l is willing to quote anyone who has doubts about NAFTA,
whether they contradict earlier posts or not.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 22 Aug 92 08:32 PDT
Subject: Re: ADL/Hate Crime Laws
Nf-ID: #R:1992Aug2.072854.16283@usenet.ins:1097773155:cdp:1296500301:000:1171
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Aug 22 08:32:00 1992



The movie Mississippi Burning is a rewrite of history. I worked on a series of
lawsuits against the FBI in the late 1970's and early 1980's. In the course
of discovery in the litigation, we obtained several hundred thousand pages
of FBI files. These files show that the FBI spent most of its time spying
on civil rights activists and very little time protecting them from
the Klan.
   Two examples are telling. There was an FBI informant in the car from which
civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo was shot and killed. The informant did 
nothing to stop the murder.
   In Birmingham the FBI informant learned that the local police and Klan had
agreed that when a busload of integrated civil rights demonstrators arrived,
the police would vanish for ten minutes, and allow the Klan to beat up the
demonstrators. This was reported to the FBI. The FBI did nothing. The beatings
took place.
   I reviewed the FBI documents relating to these incidents myself. These and
other examples are discussed in the two books by Ward Churchill and Mark
VanderWall: "Agents of Repression" and "The COINTELPRO Papers." I assisted
in the document indexing for the latter book.

-Chip Berlet

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<LARRY.92Aug19094051@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug19.182247.23335@afit.af.mil>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:16:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.182247.23335@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

   >My, we are paranoid, aren't we?

   >If the Repubs lose the election, they'll certainly have a parcel of
   >excuses, it would appear. [ #347: the LiberalMedia camera man didn't follow
   >the script on Pat Buchanan's speech.. ]

   You mean something like [ #614: the Republican party broadcast a racist
   television commercial that had the audacity to show a Black man...]

Yeh, I see what you mean. The Willy Horton commercial was downright
tasteful compared to the nefandous evil of panning to the image of the VP
just at the crucial time when Pat Buchanan was dregging up some hateful
reference to draft dodging in his speech.

   >Would you like some cheese with your whine?

   Is the subject too dificult for you to follow?  I simply brought it up
   as a very obvious example of bias in the media.  It seems that when the
   example is too obvious to refute, you just resort to personal attacks?

Not at all. What we have here is another Liberal Conspiracy at work,
wherein the camera man (more likely the producer) was so well coached as
to know exactly when to smoothly insert Dan Quayle's image. (They're good,
aren't they?) Unless someone managed to get an advance copy of Buchanan's
speech somehow, their timing was impeccable.

Resort to personal attacks? Me? In the face of such *obvious* example of
media bias? Why would I do that, on someone who regularly provides a 
major source of entertainment for me to read (the Rush Chronicles)?

   Why not just say what most of my email has been saying?  "So what, I
   think Buchanan's speech was hypocritical..."  That really gets to the 
   heart of the matter, doesn't it?

Well, because that wasn't the comment I was posting. My comment was that
Chip seemed to be whining about some imagined example of the continuing
bias of the Liberal Media.

Have a GOOD day!

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,seattle.general
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: SWAT team kills innocent woman in No-Knock raid.
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:07:50 GMT


In article <1992Aug18.023148.8725@eskimo.celestial.com>, 
wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) said:

> > One of the advantages of restitutional justice is that it gives
> > the victims monetary incentive to bring the perpetrator to
> > justice.  [Tim Starr (no relation to wdstarr)]

> All public employees, and most private ones, are indemnified for any
> actions they take in the performance of their assigned duties.  This
> means that in the aence of a criminal conviction, the people being
> sued are not going to lose one penny!  They will get paid for all
> the time that they spend in court, and if it is more than eight
> hours a day, they will probably get overtime too!
> 
> So even if the judgement is for the plaintiff, the money is going to
> be paid by the taxpayers.  And you know who that is, YOU and ME
> baby!

One theory, of course, is that a lawsuit could result in a judgment so
high that it damn near cripples the town/city/state/whatever, with the
result that the taxpayers actually get up on their hind legs and try
to do something to force their elected officials to take steps to
ensure that it doesn't happen again.  (Of course, given the state of
American politics and society today, the most likely "steps" are ones
that put statutory caps on police-misconduct judgments rather than
ones that "handcuff" the police, sigh...)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2698 alt.rush-limbaugh:3731
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:22:47 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.202358.15204@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>   In my continuing attempt to enlighten those of you who refuse to believe
>   there is a liberal bias in the news media, let me give an example. 
>   [Examples are not given as proof of bias in all other cases.  They are
>   submitted to stand alone and to make you aware of what conservatives
>   feel is biased reporting]

>   Pat Buchanan is speaking and gets to the part where he makes a
>   "personal attack" on Clinton's draft evasion.  As soon as he started
>   into the allegation, the camera is positioned solidly on Vice President
>   Quayle--and stays there for the entire duration of the "draft dodger" 
>   segment of his speech.  I ask you (if you saw it), was this news
>   coverage, or a producer injecting his own opinion into the coverage?

>   And please don't say something like, "it was just a coincidence that he
>   happened to on camera at that time..."  It was an obvious attempt to 
>   draw attention to Quayle's own military record.

>My, we are paranoid, aren't we?

>If the Repubs lose the election, they'll certainly have a parcel of
>excuses, it would appear. [ #347: the LiberalMedia camera man didn't follow
>the script on Pat Buchanan's speech.. ]

You mean something like [ #614: the Republican party broadcast a racist
television commercial that had the audacity to show a Black man...]

>Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Is the subject too dificult for you to follow?  I simply brought it up
as a very obvious example of bias in the media.  It seems that when the
example is too obvious to refute, you just resort to personal attacks?

Why not just say what most of my email has been saying?  "So what, I
think Buchanan's speech was hypocritical..."  That really gets to the 
heart of the matter, doesn't it?


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 19:19:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU: 
 
>Also note that the public isn't entitled to know the name of this
>producer.
>
	Isn't it interesting that the Bush supporters are quite willing to
have their speakers attack Bill Clinton on an issue, but when a suggestion
is made that Dan Quayle might be a bit vunerable on the same issue, they cry
"bias?"

	I'm sure that MANY Republicans were amused that Quayle's wife was
willing to bring up issues of "draft dodging," as well - never mind that it
was on a par with David Duke's wife complaining about bigotry!

	Hypocricy, thy name is Republican!

	BTW, even if media bias DOES exist - do you really feel it is
unwarranted when applied to a president whose treatment of the media during
the Gulf War was pure censorship? If Bush didn't want the media to turn
against him, maybe he should have thought about that before deciding that
freedom of information was a liberal term with no value to his fascist
campaign!

	Actually, media bias isn't necessary. Bush and his fundie friends
are so actively promoting images of themselves as uninformed, vicious, and
sleazy that straightforward reporting is all that is necessary to convince
the intelligent voter to go for Clinton!



-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2774 alt.news-media:903