HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re:militarism (a definition)
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:29:11 GMT
Reply-To: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: wolfone@grumpy.cc.utexas.edu

In:
>Article 33183 of alt.activism:
>From: t9114292@phillip.edu.au
Asks:
>Can anyone explain to me what the word "militarism" mean, please?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Karin
Okay, my trusty copy of Webster's New world Dictionary defines
militarism as:
   

      *militarism*- (mil'i ter iz'm) n. 1.military spirit 2.a policy of
   aggressive military preparedness.--*militarist* n. -- militaristic adj.

That's the official english definition. However, the politically correct 
(liberal pacifist version) definition seems to be:

            *militarism*- n.1.rabid love of war 2.desire to start a holocaust
    through massive buildups of weapons 3. more inflamatory remarks carefully
    gauged to get an angry reaction from any member of the military.

There are many others, usually varying from person to person. They depend
greatly on that individual's views towards the military and (if they are
professional soldiers or students of military history) what they've studied
on the subject. Example: a student of Sun Tzu's Art of War would have a very
different view from somebody who's knowledge of war comes from Berkeley
sociology courses. It all depends on your world view. Hope that clears things
up.

NOTE: My definition of political correctness is: the accepted views of a 
particular group. Therefore I name the version I am refering to before  
describing it. Examples: liberal pacifist, right-wing conservative, 
environmentalist, third industrial revolutionary, thirteenth-century liberal,
etc. I always put it in parenthesis after the phrase *politically correct*
(or something similar.) Hope this prevents any unnecessary flames.

Thank you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester               |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of  |
Politically Incorrect         |us are going to the stars." - Anonymous         |
Dissident Militarist          |"The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to  |
Third Industrial Revolutionary|keep all of our eggs."-Robert A. Heinlein       |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15633 ca.politics:7195 talk.politics.misc:42662
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Gus savage is history
Newsgroups: alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:32:17 GMT

Steve Adams writes
> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> > maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov writes:
> >: Well, Carl, you should feel a lot better then, because due to the most
> >: recent gerrymandering in Illinois, Gus Savage will *not* be returning to
> >: Washington next year.
> >:
> >: Every once in a great while, something nice actually happens. (You shoulda
> >: heard that execrable bigot whine when he lost the primary--- hee hee!)
> >
> >	I don't live anywhere near Illinois. What did he have to say?
> 
> He blamed everything on 'the Jews' and 'White Racists' and that 'real
> blacks' voted for him, but 'Uncle Tom' blacks voted for his opponant, etc,
> etc.
> 
> He called people who voted against him Nazi's.  He blamed Israel. etc.  I
> haven't heard such crap since I heard David Duke.  The two are
> interchangeable, if you disregard skin color...

Actually not quite. Gus Savage will actually go out and say on the record what  
David Duke only thinks. He has come out in favour of partioning the nation  
along racial lines, has a policy of refusing to give interviews to reporters  
whose skin color is different from his own and is a political ally of Louis  
Farrakhan. Even the Metro News called Savage "a walking embarrassment to black  
people", but the other Democrats in Congress elected him chairman of the Public  
Works Subcommittee on Economic Development.

Fortunately this particular racist is indeed history.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Who Were the "Contras" ?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:09:35 GMT

In article <9209030622.AA11136@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>"The contras have ROUTINELY attacked civilian populations. Their
>forces kidnap, torture, and murder health workers, teachers, and other
>government employees." -- Americas Watch

And this is to be deplored.

Now Harel, Americas Watch says similar things about the Sandinistas. Are
you willing to condem those abuses as well? So far you have refused which
makes it seem that you don't actually care about human rights at all, only
when it serves your purposes.

So how about it Harel? Do you care about human rights or not?

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------231 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Nicaragua: Myth versus Reality (I)
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:13:25 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <16346@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In <1992Aug25.191706.26001@vexcel.com> Dean Myerson writes:
>
>The sad thing about this fiasco was that most of the people believing that the 
>FSLN was out to do justice for their country believed these tales blindly and 
>without suspicion until... the elections.  After years of claiming that they 
>had the will of the people behind them and the only dissenters in Nicaragua 
>were CIA backed contras, the Sandinistas decided to prove their contention in 
>order to continue recieving the needed aid to finance the war.  The elections 
>taken everyone by surprise, including the CIA.  They proved that no matter what 
>you may think about the causes of the defeat, a secret ballot is the only way 
>in which popular support may be decided.  In spite of sandinista thugs bombing 
>opposition headquarters, in spite of witnessing scenes simmilar to those 
>practiced against the Cuban escoria, or the Panamanian opposition, thousands 
>lost their fears at the ballot box and voted for UNO.  Now one could argue as 
>Harel and the FSLN and say that they were really under the threat from the CIA, 
>and hence voted for UNO under pressure.  
>
>The flaw of this argument is that it underscores the capacity of the populace 
>(which now happened to be literate and educated) to reach their own political 
            ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ [coincidentally, I'm sure]

>decisions and, most of all, it ignores the fact that in spite of the million 
>dollar campaign, the Sandinistas could not convince the population that their 
>course of action was the correct one.  And a party which does not convince its 

What they couldn't convince the people was their struggle could ever be
successful against the U.S.  If they were so completely terrible, why did
they get 40% of the vote?

> option has led to the most horrendous 
>genocides in modern history and, in spite of the "romantic" historians on the 
>left, it is a tendency initiated by leninism itself.
>
The extremism demostrated in describing Sandinista rule as"the most horrendous
genocide in history" shows how out of touch you are.
>
>Edelmiro Salas

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: ASEIDEL@MIAMIU.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:40:50 GMT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

candidate defend against one charge after the other.  I want to say some-
thing in defense of LL's candidacy, against various charges I've read here,
but it should be emphasized that LL has a program of economic development,
that it's highly detailed, and (this is important with reference to some of
the charges) it includes the underdeveloped countries in its scope.
     It should be noted that LL's vice presidential running mate is the Rev.
James Bevel, a noted civil rights participant from the days of the struggles
in Birmingham, Alabama. Other noted civil rights people are in the organization
The organization (NCLC) has a long history of running black candidates for
local, state, and national office. This matter of public record ought be held
against the charges of "KKK-affiliation".
     There are numerous Jewish people in the organization, some at extremely
high levels. I know of at least one rabbi affiliated with the organization.
These facts should be held against the charge of "Neo-Nazi".
     Last, LL vociferously denounced both the invasions of Panama, and the war
against Iraq. Portraits of him as a "rabid right-winger" ought be measured
against this, and similar stands he has taken (I know Buchanan also opposed
the Iraq escapade, but other than that his stances have been obviouly pro
military involvement).
     It is not my place to speculate as to why well-intentioned people make
such charges, but it should be placed up front that LL has had a longtime
opposition to the drug-culture, whereas in the past aspects of the "new left"
have at times been sympathetic to this culture (I know this firsthand,
having lived in Ann Arbor in the 60s). Early oppositions are sometimes hard
to overcome.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:14:29 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>    A  CAS analysis of  EPA's 1992  data showed that the passenger car
>fleet would attain  an average of 35 miles  per gallon  (mpg) if every
>car  did as well as  the best car  in its class, without requiring any
>new technology or shifts to smaller  cars.

Well, surprise, surprise.  A study showed that if you have a sample of
fuel efficiencies, and change all the samples to the highest of the
samples, the average goes up.  I'm sure this will make all the
statistics journals.  :)
At last, there is some hope for Bush if he actually saved the taxpayers
some money by discontinuing such ridiculous "analysis."
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: I hate socialists and far right wingers alike.
Date: 30 Aug 92 08:14:32 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <18481.2a9faa72@levels.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
writes:

>Without the bigh business you love to hate, we'd have no decent
>communications,
>no great medicenes, pitiful technology, and generally living life as it was
>prior to the industrial revolution - terrible.

not to quibble with your seething diatribe against anti-capitalists,
but life _during_ the industrial revolution wasn't so groovy from what i
hear, and life _now_ ain't no basket of fucking peaches for MOST of the
people in the world.

oh, and to quibble with your seething diatribe against anti-capitalists:

>if everybody worked hard, we'd all be better off. But, there will always be
>those who will work the minimum they can for a given amount. These people
>would
>get exactly the same as everybody else. The hardworking would soon become
>pissed off with this. Seeing that an individual increase in work would net
>that
>worker an infinitely small increase - why bother?

because the notion of 'just compensation' was not preprogrammed into your
insignificant skull -- you learned it, just like the rest of us.

for your edification: read some anthropology.  start with the writings of
dorothy lee, a book called _freedom and culture_, in which she talks
about a number of cultures in which nobody really gave a damn who worked
for what who got so long as they all got some.

and read some ayn rand, too -- she says basically what you're saying here,
but it's important for you to learn how to speak without drooling.

>It is typical of the two extremes (left & far right) to claim that anyone not
>them is in the other extreme - you left wing shits think everyone who has a
>white collar job is a raving fascist who just loves to trample over blue
collar
>workers. Conservative scum love to claim that anyone comlaaining about the
lack
>of civil rights is a pinkovegetariancommolesbianpacifist etc. Utter crap.
>

indeed it is, but it's more your crap than anyone else's.  your view of the
world is so narrow -- i'm surprised you can find your way to the
keyboard to type in this wheezing load.

besides all that, i agree with what you have to say about the mechanisms of
capitalism that produce raving inequality.  i happen to believe that which
economic system we use is significant only to the extent that it shapes
people's beliefs and values.

just wiping your chin.

regards,
dave
From: skg3e@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Shawn K. Giese)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: STUDENT HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS CONFERENCE
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:16:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

SEEDS OF CHANGE

The Sixth National Conference of the National Student Campaign
Against Hunger and Homelessness

Hosted by the University of Virginia
October 15-18, 1992


     The Sixth Annual National Conference of the Student Campaign
Against Hunger and Homelessness will take place at the University
of Virginia this fall to serve as a national forum addressing the
issues of hunger and homelessness.  The conference is
appropriately entitled "Seeds of Change," for it will foster the
exchange of ideas and solutions concerning poverty.  By bringing
together students, faculty, community members, public figures,
and policy makers for a weekend of information sharing, students
will be able to gain an understanding of the ways to initiate
successful projects directed towards ending poverty locally,
nationally, and abroad.

     Most of the objectives and goals of the National Conference
are geared toward the participants.  Some of these goals are:
    *educating participants in the problems of hunger and
     homelessness and motivating them to develop new initiatives.
    *providing program ideas to schools in order to increase     
     work on the problems of poverty and to develop successful   
     student-community based projects.
    *facilitating skills and training to enable participants to
     become effective leaders and organizers of the next
     generation of student leaders.
    *building wide-reaching and permanent campus networks at the
     local, regional, and national levels.

     General sessions, workshops, discussions, panels and
caucuses will provide the framework for achieving these goals.

     The national campaign, guided by the belief that students
have a unique opportunity to make a difference in today's
society, works with over 500 schools to promote educational,
community action, fund raising and advocacy programs.  It is a
true partnership of students and staff working to make a
difference in the lives of the impoverished.  In addition to the
National Conference, the Campaign also sponsors the Hunger
Cleanup in the spring (the nation's largest student-run community
service event, which raises 150,000 for poverty relief efforts)
and supports Hunger and Homelessness Week in the fall.

For more information please contact Jason Titus, Vanessa Honn or
Tamsen Plume at 804/295-6310.

Or write to    Students Against Hunger and Homelessness
               P.O. Box 611, Newcomb Hall Station
               Charlottesville, VA 22904
Or finally, send electronic mail to arg5a@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU
                                    hg7m@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU

The National Outreach Co-Chair is searching for outreach coordinators for each
state (in the US).  If you are interested in applying call the above number 
and ask for Deron.

We hope to see you there.
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:14 PDT
Subject: Re: SOMALIA action materials and news
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1296500303:cdp:1296500320:000:2075
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Aug 28 05:14:00 1992


In summary, people working for somalia need to keep on top of the real facts
and make them as widely known as possible.  Ignorance and misunderstanding
have already done enough harm.
Dorothy
August 28, 1992--NPR's morning edition reports this morning that the
145,000 tons ordered by President Bush to go to Somalia will not arrive
until December.  The delay has been criticized, and others have felt the
president acted only because the Republican Convention was at hand.

The heart of the problem, however, is that that 145,000 tons cannot
be considered as supplying part of the food needed to keep millions
of Somalians from dying of starvation by Christmas.

We have been told that the need is now 60,000 tons a month, and that the
current rate of supply is 20,000 tons a month.  some additional food has
been promised by the World Food Program--a total of about 5000 tons, I believe.

It is possible that the total amount of the recent increase is sufficient,
but I cannot find hard evidence of this.  Things are lost in a swirl of
reports about bandits and so forth, and important information doesn't even
appear--such as the fact that this 145,000 ton shipment is not going out
now, and won't go out until December--a fact apparently reported only
in my newspaper and possibly the Los Angeles Times.

Having seen before that there is a tendency to confuse and blur theissue,
and tomake people think things have been done that haven't, we need to
keep asking a question like the old hamburger commercial question, "Where's
the beef?"  We need to keep asking "Where's the food?"

4 US flights into Somalia are scheduled today, taking 9 1/2 tons of beans,
rice and cooking oil.  Whether this is additional supply, or old supply
moving into a different area because US planes are available is not yet
clear.  

A second point.  US soldiers accompanying the food are unarmed, and their
commander has quite justly and reasonably said he will stop the flights if
a single soldier is killed  (these soldiers aren't volunteers, I believe).
This shows another possible pitfall.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:15692 talk.politics.misc:42889
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:29:49 EDT
From: <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
 <92243.163225SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com>

In article <1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael
Friedman) says:
>
>In article <92243.163225SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>Various brouhaha about who claims what deleted...
>
>>Here's how I see it...
>
>>Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
>
>>Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
>
>>Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...
>
>>Now here's the clincher.  The way I see it, Clinton was not lying because
>>he had already stated the criteria was bogus and was merely showing that
>>if you apply the same Bu1!$h|+ to Bush, he's even worse...
>
>Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I just love
>the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to pretend that their
>idol always tells the truth.

No, not at all.  Like the Bush Bozo that you probably are, you have missed
the point entirely.  Let me repeat it for you with proper emphasis...

Clinton says that by the same bogus criteria that he raised taxes 128 times,
George Bush raised it 327 times.  Key word here: BOGUS CRITERIA...
Does it make sense yet?  No?  Let's try it again... Clinton says standard
is crap.  Then says by same standard Bush is worse for added emphasis...
Has the little two watt bulb in your head come on yet or are you going
to act like your hero and demand that Clinton indeed DID RAISE TAXES
128 TIMES COME HELL OR HIGH WATER!

>Next thing I expect to hear is that it wasn't George Washington and
>the cherry tree but that it was really Slick Willie.

Clinton's a doof: anyone that was as sloppy as he was with his
extra-marital affairs has to be...  However, he's stayed stratospherically
above Bush in the muslinging fest as far as I've seen.  Bush has been
an absolute pond scum liar.  I am beginning to believe he really is
incapable of doing better...

What?  No good reason for to vote for Bush so I look REALLY DUMB?  Sheeshhh..

Scott


Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: attn Andy Freeman
Distibution: usa
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:30:34 GMT

Andy, I wrote up a reply to your email but accidentally deleted your
address. Could you please send it to me?

Thanks,
BRI FARENELL
FARENEBT@LOGIC.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.environment,dc.general
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Lies"Lies Work"
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 22:36:25 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <BtszEv.MnK@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>Uh, let me get this straight.  Bush starts the whole thing with the
>128 to 1 comparison.  Clinton responds with a 59 to 327 ratio.
>Someone else says the right ratio is 59? to 78.  So the end result
>is that Clinton is morally culpable, even though Bush started the
>whole thing.  Sometimes I despair of American politics...

It's simple, really - the public won't tolerate honest leadership, so the
race becomes one of comparative lying skill, upon which the outcome will be
judged.

"Catching" a liar is only meaningful to those partisan workers cynical
enough to think it matters to someone...

-- 
| "The floors  of Sobibor's gas chambers were  constructed to tilt, like the
| body of a dump truck, so that stacks of corpses slid out smoothly." [Abram
| L. Sachar.  The Redemption of the Unwanted.  New York: St. Martin's/Marek,
| 1983. p. 43]    == The Old Frog's Almanac == Vancouver Island == CANADA ==
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15772 alt.save.the.earth:1099 misc.headlines:6121 talk.politics.misc:43116 alt.politics.elections:12098 talk.environment:3452