HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyt@nyxfer.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: ANNC:M.L.King Day Rally:Jobs & Just
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:33:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:wRoVwB1w165w@nyxfer.uucp:544892622:000:1206
Nf-From: nyxfer.uucp!nyt    Jan  4 17:33:00 1993


Subject: ANNC:M.L.King Day Rally:Jobs & Justice NYC
From: nyxfer!nyt (NY Transfer News)


 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit


                       RALLY AGAINST RACISM

                     MONDAY JANUARY 18  4-6pm
                 Herald Square 34th St. & 6th Ave

                        SPEAKERS AND MUSIC

 Join the rally against racism on Martin Luther King's birthday.
                  Let's stand together to say: 

        NY needs Jobs, Healthcare, Housing, and Education.
           Stop Racist Violence, Stop Police Brutality

                   Stop attacks on immigrants
                Stop attacks on Lesbians and Gays
                 Stop nazi attacks on synagogues
             Unity in the fight for Jobs and Justice

         Sponsored by the Movement for a Peoples Assembly
                   for info call (212) 633-6646




+ This article may not be re-sold or repackaged as part of any +
+ commercial "product."   FREE distribution only is permitted. +
+             For distribution information, contact:           +
+ NY Transfer News Collective    *  Direct Modem: 718-448-2358 +
+ All the News that Doesn't Fit  *  Internet: nyxfer@panix.com +
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:42:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.224754.19814@hellgate.utah.edu> thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu
@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) writes:

>
>If you can't back up your assertions with fact (especially when
>referring to the intentions of another poster), then I insist that
>you withdraw them.
...
>
>Every libertarian I know wants parents to have the power to decide
>over matters regarding their children.  You're ducking the question.
>You've erected this straw man that libertarians somehow want to live
>in a world devoid of interdependency between individuals.
>
>Until you can show that this idea is indeed put forth by libertarians,
>and specifically Mr. Crocke, I don't think the topic is served by tearing
>down yet another straw man that you want to erect.
>
>  Rich Thomson

Peace, Mr. T. The debate, such as it is, has to do with the theoretic
underpinnings of libertarianism.  Somehow I get the impression that
your interest in such matters is minimal.  At any rate you don't seem
to understand a word of the discussion.

Maybe you'd do better examining the _ideological_ roots of your faith.
But that's for another occasion.

Norman Miller
Xref: sparky alt.activism:20469 talk.politics.misc:67338 alt.philosophy.objectivism:591
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Society and the Individual: The Sociological Gambit :-)
Keywords: libertarianism, objectivism, anthropology, sociology
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:51:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <lewchuk.726855513@therien>, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes...
>One of the fundamental statements I see in Objectivism is valuing yourself
>above others.

	Actually, that is a simplistic way of phrasing it.  Objectivism
tells you to hold your (rational) happiness as the standard of your life.
That way, your life is an end-it-itself, not simply a means to the ends
of others.  In practice, you will at times be a means to the ends
of others by participating in trades of values (but in doing so you will
still be acting for your own purposes.)  People who are only a means to
the ends of others are basically slaves.


Premises:
>a) I value myself above others
>b) I am a government employee (for some "I")
>----
>Conclusions:
>1) I am in control of some part of the police/military/courts (by b)
>2) To obtain things like rulings in their favor, or "look the other way" or
>   whatever, people would pay me a bit, for some "me" in the government. (by 1)
>3) I would have no real reason not to occasionally accept bribes (a,2).

	Yes, you would have reasons not to accept bribes.  If you were
an objectivist, you would want to _earn_ your keep.  Objectivism strongly
promotes self-responsibility.  Accepting bribes is not an example of
self-responsible behavior.

	You are leaving out a key feature of objectivism.  It boots nothing
to attack only HALF a philosophy.


>In some sense, they would have to morally
>value others above personal gain in order to function effectively.

	No, because your job would be to secure individual rights.
Your personal gain would be tied to performing your job well.


>  Strangely
>enough, government can only function well when its members are totally
>selfless, which contradicts selfishness.  The more selfish the people in
>government, the less use it is to citizens since it becomes more dictatorial.

	Notice how it was governments that were based on selfless philosophy
that ended up being the most dictatorial.  Any conjectures for why that may
be so?


>However I still have an (irrational) personal bias against anyone who can't
>see the practicality of socialism in a community: that is, the community
>taking in resources (voluntarily of course, you are free to not join) and
>doling them out according to need (or even want).

	I have no problem with voluntary socialism in the sense that I
am perfectly willing to let you try to make it work.  However, I believe
that you will find that your society will attract the lazy and even
encourage laziness.  Why work when the food is free?  I doubt your society
would last long.  (You are welcome to try to prove me wrong.)


>					Michael Lewchuk
>					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: Has Bush Gone Mad?
Summary: Really?  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:09:12 GMT

In article <1ii3t3INNr0t@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)                    writes...
>In article <1ihqn8INNsrj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
>>My guess is that G. Bush wants to get the US into such as mess
>>that Clinton will never be able to recover. Somalia/Iraq will
>>be Clinton's Vietnam and in four years the Republicans will say
>>"I told you that the Dem's can't doit - elect us!" or

>If Clinton fucks up with the military anywhere, he'll have only
>himself to blame.  Bush is leaving him nothing that can't be
>handled.

You mean like Iraq? A situation that Bush (by proof of this latest action)
hasn't been able to resolve even after killing about 300,000 people.
	Or Somalia, an action that has no clear objective or plan?
> 
>Don McGregor             | "Adventure without risk is Disneyland."
>mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|       --Douglas Coupland

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.drugs,soc.history,talk.politics.misc
From: orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: REDBAITING on the nets...
Date: 4 Jan 1993 18:28 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1i2iatINNd2o@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes [my ellipsis]...
> 
>But professor Hofstader's views to the contrary, conspiracies do 
>exist. Whether one refers to the ruling elites as the "ruling class"
>as the Marxists do, the "power elite" following C. Wright Mills, ...
> ... The bottom line 
>however is that these people exist, they exercise illegitimate control
>over our instutional life and they need to be stopped. Attacks on
>"right-wing conspiracy theories" is just another form of baiting, equally
>as destructive to the processes of reason as those Hank attacks.
> 

As an addendum to Steve Crocker's comments, I draw readers attention to
G. William Domhoff's essay, "Phyllis Schafly, Reverend McBirnie,
Dan Smoot, and Me" in his collection "The Higher Circles"
(circa 1971 -- the names in the actual essay title may be permuted).
Domhoff, a sociologist following in the tradition of C. Wright Mills,
has done much valuable research on the actual power structure of the
United States.  (If you think, as I used to, that sociologists are
all morons rehashing the obvious, you should read Domhoff.)
 In this essay, Domhoff  discusses the similarities and
differences between his views and those of the right-wingers
named in the title.  One of the virtues of the "individualistic"
right-wingers is that -- unlike the "pluralist" sociologists
who basically serve as ideological front men -- the right-wingers
are at least aware that there *is* a ruling elite.  Domhoff, in
commenting on Hofstader, notes that one could with equal justice apply the
psychological pejorative "compulsive" (i.e. obession with trivia) to much
conventional sociological research.  Furthermore, he notes that
"paranoids", although not understanding their own motivations,
may be quite good at searching out and understanding the 
power politics of others.

Ron Balden

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:31:33 MST
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Utah, SLC, UT

In article <1993Jan11.151525.4408@starbase.trincoll.edu>
	nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>You [Lee Crocke], on the other hand, are trying something a good deal more
>radical, freeing human beings from their dependence on one another, thus
>aiming at a new biology among other things.

Please quote me the passage where Mr. Crocke asserted this?  I don't
remember him saying anything like this at all.  What libertarians want
to eliminate is the element of _force_ in human relationships.  I
don't know of a single person (libertarian or otherwise) who wants to
live in a world where human beings are free "from their dependence on
one another".  After all, isn't that what spousal relationships are
all about?  (Well, OK, there is this eugenecist I saw on TV that seems
to advocate removal of all spousal relationships, but he doesn't
qualify as libertarian in any sense of the word.)

						-- Rich
-- 
		    Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Internet: thomson@asylum.cs.utah.edu		Rich Thomson
IRC: _Rich_					PEXt Programmer
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: ddw2@quads.uchicago.edu (der Reaper-Dave Wang)
Subject: Usurping the Powers of SGs Everywhere - Formula
Keywords: activism
Reply-To: ddw2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:26:29 GMT

What you have to do to start this is to form a coalition of all the student
        groups on campus.  Though this sounds like a daunting task, it can be
        done if it is phrased correctly.  Essentially, what you do is to start
        a student groupon from each of the UPC-
        Committees... this person has no other power or responsibility other
        than submit the minutes of the various UPC-Committees to the Board to
        inform EVERYONE what each and every student-group is doing.

In our school, the Student Government distributes the finances    

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:19:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.144230.24440@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>Maybe you'd do better examining the _ideological_ roots of your faith.
                                                                 ^^^^^
     This term is inaccurate, as libertarianism is not a faith, but a 
political and economic movement.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:25:37 MST
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Utah, SLC, UT

In article <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov>
	lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	OK, let's see you:
>
>	Start your own airline. [...]
>	Start your own resort. [...]
>	These examples can readily be multiplied; I have to question
>the seriousness of anyone who claims it's simple to start a business,
>especially a big one.

You conveniently provide examples of businesses that require large
amounts of capital to form instantaneously.  Noone is suggesting that
Joe Six-Pack is going to be able to walk off his current job and build
a new IBM, lock, stock and barrel in a single day.

You're missing the point.

Sam Walton started out in business by selling lemonade at a street
corner.  He built his business incrementally until he became one of
the richest men in the USA.  To suggest that Sam Walton go out and buy
all of his stores on the first day he decided to go into business for
himself would be ludicrous.  However, to suggest that by starting
small noone can build their own resort, airline, etc., is just as
ludicrous.

						-- Rich
-- 
		    Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Internet: thomson@asylum.cs.utah.edu		Rich Thomson
IRC: _Rich_					PEXt Programmer
From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:04:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.194750.8943@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

>In article <ARCHER.726.726859196@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Arche
>r) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan12.144230.24440@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trin
>coll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>>>Maybe you'd do better examining the _ideological_ roots of your faith.
>>                                                                 ^^^^^
>>     This term is inaccurate, as libertarianism is not a faith, but a
>>political and economic movement.

>Gadzooks!  Coulda fooled me.

>nm

I respectfully submit that we have wandered FAR beyond the scope of this 
newgroup and that this particular thread should rest in peace.
From: orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: The Fraudulent Concern over ``Political Correctness"
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:00 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) commenting on
my posting [my ** emphasis]
>... 
>It may have more to do with societal attitudes that discourage expression of
>fear from men than it has to do with actual danger, though, since **men are
>more frequently beaten and murdered than women.**
>
Not by women, though.  You missed the point rather egregiously, Ken.
Read it again.

Ron Balden
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Letter to The Times
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:24:11

MEASURE 111 December 1992

The following is a slightly emended version of a letter recently sent
to, but not printed by, The New York Times.


Dear Sir:

Students are not dogs to be house-broken: they are minds to be
enlightened. Columbia University's orientation program confuses the
two activities. Ostensibly for freshmen, but designed to "continue
through their four years" and to permeate "every aspect of student
life" (New York Times, 9/9/92) it is an exercise in disguised
bias-indoctrination in presumably "correct" attitudes masquerading as
edu cation.

Education is not indoctrination. It is not training in "proper
values." Character formation is at best a by-product of education. We
may hope that a broadened intellectual perspective will make an
individual a decent human being. But there is no guarantee. Witness
the Nazi years of Martin Heidegger.

Everybody seems to agree that a college education has an instrumental
function: technical training in skills to gain a good income and
character training in values to make a good citizen. And discussion
about education focuses on what skills should be imparted and what
values should be stress. So a college is seen as an advanced trade
school and finishing school. Its function is to supply needed s kills
and to prevent anti-social behavior or--more simply--job training and
crime prevention.

I disagree. For over 40 years of teaching philosophy, I have fought
against this view. I have always believed that an education had to be
intrinsically valuable whether it proved useful or not. Learning
serves the sense of wonder--curiosity for its own sake. And
satisfaction of that curiosity is its own reward. An education is
essentially an opening awareness of unexpected vistas, new panoramas
of possibilities to be enjoyed, analyzed and comprehended. Its social
utility is a secondary matter. Anyone who does not understand that
misses the point. There is a kind of truth, obscured by wit, in
Evelyn Waugh's remark that it would be "very wicked" for a teacher to
prepare a student for the modern world. I trust that I have never
done so.

Sincerely,

Willard Hutcheon
Adjunct Lecturer in Philosophy
CUNY, City College ##
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Postings from _Measure_ (Remarks About misc.activism.progressive)
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:11:28
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 4 Jan 93 08:01:41 GMT

> They should really be put in a newsgroup
> misc.activism.moderate, corresponding to the left
> wing misc.activism.progressive.

=\= Actually, the "progressive" keyword in the newsgroup name
was chosen specifically to encourage material from a variety
of perspectives, not just those that could be pigeonholed as
"left wing."

=/= The moderators of m.a.p have tolerated quite a variety of
perspectives, as anyone can verify by perusing the material
therein.

=\= At any rate, as a resource that could be shared by
activists, those postings certainly qualify for alt.activism.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Re: NAVSTAR and the START Treaty
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:58:03 GMT

]In article <C0IJv4.70D@specialix.com] jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer) writes:

]Depleted uranium shells are *NOT* nuclear weapons!  They do not explode,

Correct.  Kerry definitely had that one wrong.

]and they release *NO* radioactivity!  Depleted uranium is a very heavy
]metal, so a bullet made from it can penetrate through tank armor.
]They are mainly used by the GAU-8/A 30mm gun on the A-10 aircraft and
]on the Navy Phalanx CIWS (used to shoot down missiles before they hit
]a ship).
]Sorry to post something so technical here, but I couldn't let such an
]inaccurate statement pass by.

Hmmm .. what am I missing here?  According to my CRC handbook, natural
uranium is 99% U238.  So depleted uranium is essentially U238.  CRC
says U238 is radioactive, with a half-life of 4.5E9 years, about 10 times
that of U235.  It decays by alpha emission and fission, with approximately
the same particle energies as U235.  Its gamma emissions are about 35%
as energetic as U235.  So it's very roughly 1/10'th as "radioactive"
as U235.  Is this the NRC's new definition for "not radioactive?"

Rich
From: fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Profiles in the News
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:26:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <JMC.93Jan4002222@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>MEASURE 111  December 1992
>
>Profiles in the News:
>
>Johnnetta B. Cole of the Clinton Transition Team.
>
>The cluster coordinator of the President-elect Bill Clinton for
>education, arts, labor and humanities is Johnnetta B. Cole, 56, since
>1987 president of Spellman College in Atlanta and a member of the
>board of directors of The Coca Cola Company.  She has a doctorate in
>anthropology from Northwestern University.
>
>In 1976 she was active in the Venceremos Brigade and ran the Committee
>to Stop US Aggression Against Cuba.  She was also president of the
>U.S. Grenada Friendship Society prior to the purge and subsequent
>demise of the Communist Grenada dictatorship.

I had no idea that the rule of the PRG in Grenada was a Communist
dictatorship; but what do I know, I'm not a mathematician at
Stanford, just a Caribbeanist.

>
>In 1980 Ms. Cole and a dozen other people who described themselves as
>"long and consistently active in the Cuba Solidarity movement "met in
>Havana to plan campaigns in defense of Castro's regime.  Slightly
>earlier in 1979 she was found ing sponsor of the U.S. Peace Council
>(USPC), the U.S. branch of the former Soviet-controlled World Peace
>Council.  She was elected an officer at the USPC's second national
>conference.
>
>The same year she signed a paid advertisement in The New York Times
>accusing the anti-war folk singer Joan Baez of "arrogance" and
>"immoral deception" for critic izing the post-war Vietnam government
>for holding thousands of political prisoners.  "Vietnam now enjoys
>human rights as it has never known in history," claimed Ms.  Cole,
>Angela Davis, and other co-signers.
>
>In a paper written in that period, Ms. Cole, then 41, argued that
>"while institutionalized racism reigns in the U.S., it does so no
>more in Cuba.... And those who rule this country know also that when
>a people develops a firm anti-racist and anti-capitalist ideology and
>practice at home, this same ideology becomes a cornerstone of their
>international practice."
>--
What's this for?

-- 
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;                      
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu