HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Expressions of majority group solidarity
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:11:57 GMT

      An interesting question:  Why can't whites wear a t-shirt that says
"White Power", when blacks are perfectly able to wear a t-shirt that says
"Black Power" without being called racist?

      For the same reason that a women's college can stay a women's college
with very little cry for change, and no legal instrument to force change. 
At the same time, a men's college cannot collect federal funding if it does not
permit women to enroll.  Explicit expressions of favoritism or preferential
treatment of majorities is illegal.  While noone is very likely to sue the 
wearer of a t-shirt that says "White Power", according to the law, it is 
both possible and justifiable.  The majority have no legal recourse to protect
their right to express their "majorityhood".  The minority (which is defined
in terms of numbers and/or relative institutional power) are able to express
their minorityhood because it is recognized that expressions of solidarity
are equated with empowerment.

Karen
From: lindenm@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Lindenmuth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:33:34 GMT
Reply-To: lindenm@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Lindenmuth)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.sex, hawk@hawk.sps.mot.com (George Hawkins) writes:
>The Bible is clear about homosexual behavior.  Yea, gays claim that people
>use the Bible just to thump gays/lesbian lifestyles, however, there is no
>misinterpretation that the Bible declares that type of lifestyle WRONG!
...babble stuff deleted...
George: The Bible is *not* clear about homosexual behavior.  The passages
about Lot and Sodomites tell of raping (male travelers) by the inhospitable
townies -- not homosexual behavior or gay lifestyles.  Do you *know*
whether Jesus was gay? Or not!? Peace. Love. Joy.

LINTY of TANKRATLAND        "What's this fuzzy white stuff?"
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 06 Jan 93 20:14 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600043:000:174
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  6 20:14:00 1993


> If you feel a horrible sense of guilt in "hording" your ill-gotten
> loot, I will be happy to let you send all your non-property to me
> to pacify your soul.
 
What a guy!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Bari/Cherney Suit v. FBI Proceeds
Keywords: environment forest
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:36:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.192649.6615@leland.Stanford.EDU> miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>In article <EcoNet.28Dec1992.2153@naughty-peahen> EcoNet via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>[From EcoNet ecotopia.news Conference]
>>On the day of the bombing -- a pipe bomb wrapped with nails
>>exploded under Bari's driver seat, shattering her pelvis and
>>leaving her with a permanent disability -- she and Cherney were
>>driving through Oakland on their way to Santa Cruz to promote
>>Redwood Summer.  Cherney's face and eyes were injured and both
>>were hospitalized.  Later that day, the Oakland police arrested
>>both of them for allegedly bombing themselves. 

I thought they were arrested for transporting the bomb with intent to use
it.

-- 
Chris Kushmerick
kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NOT LEFT NOR RIGHT BUT UPFRONT
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1993Jan8.153413.27870@vexcel.com>
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:18:56

In article <1993Jan8.153413.27870@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!copper!vexcel!dean
   From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
   Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
   Date: 8 Jan 93 15:34:13 GMT
   References: <1678600034@igc.apc.org> <C0Gy8A.D6J@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
   Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
   Lines: 21

   In article <C0Gy8A.D6J@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
   >
   >   A second point, related to the first, is, why are you against
   >material prosperity? Would you have us return to the 19th century,
   >living in hovels owned by the company that employs us, indebted to the
   >Company Store, putting our kids to work at 9 or 10 years old just to
   >earn enough to feed your family? Would you have us live at the mercy
   >of those without mercy? Can you explain why material prosperity is
   >evil, why I should guilty for wanting it? On these two points alone
   >you've lost most of your credibility. 
   >
   >Bill

   Certainly there is something between the lifestyle of the early
   industrial revolution and the consumerism of the 1990's?  It is a
   common false dichotomy to say that life must either be like it was
   once upon a time or that we must accept it as it is now. 
   -- 
   ==============================================================================
	   Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
   ==============================================================================
Complaints about consumerism go back to Roman times.  The complaint has
two aspects.

1. What the consumers consume would keep someone else from starvation.

2. The consumers are not living right.

I regard the second aspect as mere busybodyism.  If you think people
shouldn't buy something you regard as shlock, your only alternative
it to try to attract them with something you regard as better.

The first argument has some substance, but is substantially incorrect
for modern society, because poverty today doesn't mainly arise from
exploitation of people who work for too little but mainly from certain
people not having jobs at all.  There are three lines proposed for curing
these problems. (1) Get the people more qualified for jobs.  (2) Get
jobs more suited for the people.  (3) Give them money and services
according to need.  All three are used, and liberals and conservatives
argue about relative emphases.

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:48:22

Alaric Tekiahyn says:


     That's part of the problem.  All too many people - Professor
     McCarthy, for one - labor under the infantile delusion that
     the resources of our planet, and its resistance to the
     environmental damage we cause, are infinite.

We are not talking about whether the rosources of the planet are
infinite.  We are talking about whether the number it can support
with known technology is 100 million, one billion, 6 billion or
30 billion.  This is why actual numbers are relevant.  This
arrogant fool Tekiahyu thinks it is just a question of who can
make the most bombastic assertions.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:18:36 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <JMC.93Jan4212425@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
] Why does Mr. Ausman thinks the world could not sustain 6 billion
] people at the U.S. standard?  This is merely a fashionable idea
] of the literary culture.  There is no resource limitation that
] prevents even 30 billion from living at the U.S. standard.  Beyond
] that, it might be hard.


Sorry to be so blunt, but:  Bullshit.

For starters:
Where do you plan to house 30 billion people?
Where do you plan to grow all the food necessary to feed 30 billion
 people, at current U.S. standards, without clear-cutting every last
 forest in the world?  (And then what are you going to do about CO2
 build-up, after you cut down all the forests?)
What do you plan to do about all the pollution generated by 30 billion
 people living the way the average American citizen does?
What are you going to do after you exhaust all the fossil fuels on the
 planet (which will probably be in about 5 years, if you try to maintain
 current American living standards for 30 billion people)?

Remember, better than 80% of the 6 billion people currently living on
this planet live in a condition of, at best, abject poverty; at worst,
slow starvation.

Let me see, if I recall the figures correctly, the U.S. currently has
4% of the global population and consumes 58% of the world's resources...
right?  To maintain current American living standards for a population
of 30 billion, you'd have to increase the gross global product - in real
terms, not just in economists' hallucinations - by a factor of, let me
see...   right around 1500%.
That's 15 to 1.  15 times the food production.  15 times the power
generation.  And that's assuming I'm remembering that 58% correctly;
I think it may actually be higher than that.


Quite frankly, we're starting to run into some pretty catastrophic
environmental stress effects right now, with "only" 6 billion, and with
most of that 6 billion living in absolute squalor on the edge of
starvation.
30 billion people, with 95% of them living in that same edge-of-
starvation squalor?  Maybe.
30 billion people at U.S. standards?  No way, buddy.  That's *RIGHT*
out, barring quantum leaps in about a dozen different fields of
knowledge.


-- 
      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
    ......................................................................
    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 04 Jan 93 20:27 PST
Subject: Re: GREENS & CANDIDATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600004:cdp:1678600028:000:1543
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  4 20:27:00 1993


To all readers,
 
Somewhere in this discussion Genevieve said that I am only speaking
from my own opinions and not for The Greens.  I would like to affirm
her statement, and emphasize that these are only my opinions, except
when I am quoting others or The Green Program, which is still not
necessarily the opinions nor is binding upon other Greens.  We Greens
are very committed to decentralized structures, which means, among
other things, that we only speak for ourselves.
 
However, it is my goal on this conference to represent views that I
believe Greens, in general, hold.  Whenever I am discussing something
which I know to be controversial, I try to give the opinions of both
sides.  It should be noted, however, that many members of the California
Green Party have remained independent of The Greens/Green Party U.S.A.
and that their organization has not affiliated with the G/GPUSA.  And,
since all of my knowledge about the Cal GP has been through reading and
in conversations with their members, rather than in direct participation
in their decision making processes, I am much less sure as to the degree
that my opinions represent their views.
 
I am hoping all you participants in this discussion, Greens and others,
will continue post your own ideas and to challenge me, as I will challenge
you.  I am finding the interaction with all of you to be a great learning
experience.  I am certain that this type of interaction, sharing ideas
and counter ideas and gently challenging each other is very good and
healthy.
 
Peace,
Dale
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:57:53 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <JMC.93Jan4081945@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Does the experience with having socialists in power in many countries
>in this century have any relevance at all to what to do next?
>What ought present socialists to learn from it?
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

The Greens have learned that centralized authority is not the way
to egalitarian goals that were espoused by the socialists you
refer to.  This is a central message that Greens need to get out.
There are other differences (sustainability, etc.), but the
bottom-up focus of the Greens is, to me, the main lesson that
Greens have to communicate.
-- 
==============================================================================
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: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert D West)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens around the World
Date: 13 Jan 1993 01:16:41 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1993Jan12.130459.7093@sco.com> geoffg@sco.COM (Geoff Galitz) writes:
>
>
>	I thought it might be interesting to list some of the
>countries that have active Green Movements/Parties.  This is only a
>partial list.  The current list is approxmately 60 countries.
>	This is list is not in any sort of order.  
>
>
>	Finland


















>	Slovakia (ex-Chekloslovakia) [sp]








	It should definitely be noted that the "green" movements
in both Hungary and Czechoslovakia had a great deal of influence on
the fall of the communist governments in those states. Particularly
in Hungary, where the organization Danube Circle was the first
group to push for speech and assembly freedoms not so much for
an abstract desire to be "free" but so that they could protest
the obscene dam which the government proposed to construct at Gobcikovo.
They were eventually victorious in defeating the Hungarian half of
that proposal (the Czechs went ahead with it), and in so doing forced
the HUngarian government to basically reconstitute itself. But the
"democracy" in Hungary was a side-effect.

	Interesting that Geoff lists Slovakia but not the Czech Republic.
Given that it Slovakia which was resisting the reform movement and thereby
precipitated the dissolution of the country, I would have expected a stronger
Green movement in the Czech half of the nation.
From: kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick)
Subject: Re: Disgusted (W#as Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!)
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:46:24 GMT


In article <1iu4oqINNddn@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.204914.27686@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>] >In article 726755336@unix1.tcd.ie, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes:
>
>Now that's a really disgusting sight.  It's one of the most consistently
>windy locations in the Lower 48, and the whole pass is lined with windmills
>and rotors.  And on any randomly-chosen day, you can drive through the pass
>and anywhere from 50% to 80% of them will be standing idle.
>
>Why?  Because to the fat-cat JERKS who own these wind farms, the power
>they can generate - and the small amount of revenue they can get from
>selling it back to PG&E - is worth less than the tax shelter they get
>by putting these things up, leaving them idle, and taking a net operating
>loss on them.  They keep just enough of them running to keep up appearances.

This sounds unlikely.

Case one: they sell whatever power they make running all at full capacity
and make some sum X.

Case two, they run only enough to "keep up appearences" and make some
lesser amount Y.

In both cases the cost of building the wildmills is the same, Z.

In a given year the amount of depreciation of Z will be some fraction of Z,
call it D. (Say 20% for 5 year straight-line depreciation, in the 2-5th
years, 10% in the 1st and 6th years)
 
In case one, theu make (lose) X-D. 

In case two they make (lose) Y-D.

Since X>Y, they make more money (or lose less money) by running at
full capacity.

-- 
Chris Kushmerick
kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 07 Jan 93 03:49:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <C0Ep1n.5GH@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>
>And this statement that no man in history ever got rich...  You simply
>cannot be serious!  Have you really no idea how many "capitalists" built
>enormous personal wealth on the backs of immigrant labor, pitting one
>group against another and taking advantage of the huge boom in potential
>labor during the latter part of the 19th century?

Yes, zero.  You put "capitalist" in quotes for a very good reason--
because those men were not capitalists, they were robber barons,
supported by laws that looked the other way while they committed
their crimes against humanity.  A capitalist is one who gets rich
by the work of his own hands and mind, and by free trade and
negotiation with others; a man who lives for no one's sake but
his own and asks no other man to live for his.
>
>>If a worker is exploited at all, it is by those who use
>>force to reduce his options--the government that hordes public land
>>that might be used to feed him; the licensing, minimum wage,
>>and zoning laws that prevent him from going into business on
>>his own; the building codes that prevent him from finding affordable
>>shelter; laws against gambling, prostitution, and drug use that limit
>>the businesses he may choose; it is the tax collector who robs
>>half of his wealth before he can invest in in useful enterprise
>>to squander it on ineffective social programs.  It is this, not
>>the free market, that is the modern slavery.
>
>This is what happens to Libertarians when they don't get enough sleep.

Ooh, devastating logic there.  Can you tell me how any of these
hideous actions of government do anything but hurt the poor and put
up barriers to free enterprise?
-- 
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: 09 Jan 93 08:07 PST
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600048:cdp:1678600076:000:111
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  9 08:07:00 1993


> You do know that the Club of Rome admitted that "Limits" was false,
> don't you?
 
What's your point?
 
Dale
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:07:21 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1678600044@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
>
> 
>> One way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is to cut down forests and
>> dump the wood in swamps in a reducing atmosphere.
> 
>Interesting idea, but wouldn't it have been easier to avoid producing
>the CO2 in the first place.   Besides, don't you think it's a little
>arrogant of humans to wreck the ecosystems of other living things --
>and perhaps ourselves included -- to fix an ecological mess we created
>in the first place?
> 
>> If you then plant new forests, you get a net reduction of CO2.
> 
>Biodiversity is the product of many millions of years evolution.  It
>has resulted in a wonderfully marvelous diversity of life, including
>human life.  Experience has shown that humans are very very bad at
>recreating that biodiversity when they replant forests.  In fact, even
>if humans tried to recreate that biodiversity, which they very rarely
>do, it would be impossible, due to complexities which we will never
>be able to understand.
> 
>Dale

This is the fundamental problem with John McCarthy's asking to deal
with only two problems.  We can solve the CO2 problem (possibly) with
a method that makes another problem much worse.  Now if we ask him
about problems with biodiversity, what will the repercussions be for
some other issue.  Mathemeticians didn't create partial differential
equations for nothing.  Any genuine solution must look at all of the
problems together.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: THE CLASSIC FUNDI/REALOS DEBATE
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:25:51 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

>Since this Fundi/Realos is mainly an internal Green debate, I would
>be interested in what the other Greens out there think.  And, the
>rest of y'all, you're welcome to add your two bits, too.
>
>Dale

This debate closely mirrors the movement/party debate in the US Greens
is which those who want to focus on electoral politics want a moderate
Green Party that can practically win votes, while the movement poeple
aren't too excited about elections because it would require them to
compromise too much.  To the uninformed, it is this debate that gives
us the unwieldy Greens/Green Party label - inclusive of both groups.
I might add that most movement people that I know favor contesting
local elections, but nothing on a larger scale.

The fear that movement supporters have of moderate positions is that
they will get coopted into the standard process.  What good does a
few environmental rules do if the overall problem is getting worse?
Many of us view current environmental policy as essentially an
appeasement policy.  Growth is still unsustainable and while some
rivers and some air gets cleaner, our major environmental problems
are getting larger in scope, such as ozone and climate change problems.
For social justice issues, inseparable from environmental ones IMO,
disparaties in income continues to grow and education lags, ensuring
that the problem will get worse before it gets better.  Sure - short
term policies will help welfare and save a few forests, but is it
good policy to win the battles and lose the war?  I can accept
compromise that moves in what I believe to be the right direction,
but I need to keep my sights on the long-term goals.  Short term
compromises that don't move in that direction are not okay with me.
If I were to run for office, I would admit that some elements of the
program are not reasonably attainable soon and not push for them now,
but I would would not deny that they are my ideals.  I think that
a major weakness of the program is that it does not separate
short-term policy goals from long-term visions.  This makes a
confusing document, in the least.

The bottom line for me is that all Greens need to learn to work
together under one roof.  Celebration of diversity is a central
principle for us and it applies whether the celebration is easy
or not.  Creating separate organizations/parties that argue about
representation and the like is the quickest road to failure for us.
IMHO, of course.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens