HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Nugent       )
Subject: Clinton appointees
Summary: clinton appointees
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:48:19 GMT

In relation to the discussion about Sally Ride as technology coordinator
for the Clinton transition team, I heard on the news this morning that
Clinton has appointed Ron Brown (currently head of the Dem. Natl. Comm.)
as Commerce chair.  Is Brown at all qualified for this spot?  I think he
was a lawyer at one time, but with the supposed potential changes in the
Commerce Dept. and with it gaining more importance under Clinton, I would
think he would want someone very qualified.  And this sounds too much like
a politically motivated "thank you" appointment.  Now to be head of the DNC
probably means you aren't some complete idiot, but there's a big difference
between head of DNC and head of the Commerce Dept.  So if this is
politically motivated, how does this reflect on the rest of Clinton's
appointments???

-- 
AD ASTRA PER ARDUA
Tom Nugent	voice:(217)328-0994	e-mail:tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Lunar science bill
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 18 Dec 92  11:27:06

The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act will be structured in such a way that
the safeguards you request will be in place.
 
There will be multiple contractors in place to return data to the government. 
This bill will authorize the process of the USA pruchasing data from the
private sector.
 
No contractor will be allowed to "up" the price of the data, based on cost
overruns. If a single contractor should not be able to perform thie end of the 
contract, they would simply be excluded from the  program, and not be
considered a qualified bidder for future acqusitions of survey data.
 
We cannot place the money in escrow; however, we can construct the bill in the 
manner of other multi-year acquistions. Congress generally does pay for its
future committments; there are exceptions, but these are high cost,
controversial programs. This will be a relatively short, bi-partisan program
with clear national interests.
 
 
We do appreciate your input - you have voiced many concerns we discussed in
the earlier stages of drafting the proposal. Would you care to help in the
effort to get us back to the moon by passing the Lunar Resources Data Purchase 
Act?

--- Maximus 2.00
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: space policy
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:26:37
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Dec12.040853.152000@zeus.calpoly.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu's message of 12 Dec 92 04:08:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.040853.152000@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Dec8121311@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >
   >Any opinions on what effect having Sally Ride as
   >science, space and technology co-ordinator will
   >have on Clinton's space policy??? 
   >
   Is this real or speculation.  I've not heard anything about Ride being
   part of Clinton's administration.

It's real: not administration, the "transition team". I think there
are 3-5 teams each focusing on personnel and policies of some area
(eg economy, foreign affairs etc). At least according to the papers
Sally Ride heads up the transition team on science, technology and
space.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Clinton appointees
Date: 13 Dec 92 14:11:08 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992

The appointment of Ron Brown as Commerce secretary will work just fine, thank 
you. Maybe he will clear out some of the dead wood from their Space
office.....

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Clinton appointees
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:23:29 GMT

In article <Bz64oK.Fo2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Nugent       ) writes:
>In relation to the discussion about Sally Ride as technology coordinator
>for the Clinton transition team, I heard on the news this morning that
>Clinton has appointed Ron Brown (currently head of the Dem. Natl. Comm.)
>as Commerce chair.  Is Brown at all qualified for this spot?  I think he
>was a lawyer at one time, but with the supposed potential changes in the
>Commerce Dept. and with it gaining more importance under Clinton, I would
>think he would want someone very qualified.  And this sounds too much like
>a politically motivated "thank you" appointment.  Now to be head of the DNC
>probably means you aren't some complete idiot, but there's a big difference
>between head of DNC and head of the Commerce Dept.  So if this is
>politically motivated, how does this reflect on the rest of Clinton's
>appointments???

Ron Brown is a lawyer who has represented Idi Amimn of Uganda, Pappa Doc
Duvalier of Haiti, the Sultan of Oman, Chrysler Corp, and the Chase Manhattan 
Bank among others. He's a high power lobbyist with, obviously, heavy political 
connections. It's a payoff.

Gary
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: 
Distribution: usa, world,world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:12:02 GMT

> In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
> |> 
> |>  	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
> |> 	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
> |> 	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
> |> 	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
> 
How about, "If we want to avoid the fate of the dinosaurs, at some time in the
future (never mind that it might not be in OUR lifetimes), then we better
get something up there that can track every asteroid, and comet.  Better yet,
we better build something that can deflect one of these at some time in the
future."

The fact that this implies space science, and a good launch system, and several
other things is secondary.  This is the long term human survival approach.
Note:  It works VERY well with people who have small children, or who are
thinking about having children.  (I know, I have a small child, and I think
about the long term survival of the race in conjunction with thinking about her
growing up, and having kids of her own.)

			John.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New Moon race (was Re: NASA town meetings)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:18:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1g809fINNgfg@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>You missed the point, or ignored the question. Unless you think
>we have unlimited resources to do everything we'd like to do
>(and we don't), we have to prioritize, doing some things now and
>some later...

The issue is not priorities, but *planning*.

If you are planning to go back to the Moon in a decade or two, there
are preliminaries that ought to start *now*, like geochemical mapping
of the Moon.  If there is even a reasonable chance that you will want
to go back to the Moon in a decade or two, some of those things should
be started now.  They don't cost billions, but they do take time.

They are also good science, well worthwhile in their own right.  When
will we be going to Mars?  Do you think Mars Observer is a waste of
money because we're not going to Mars right away?

>...fine. Present a convincing argument for it.  I'd like
>to see us return to the moon.  But NASA nad the space community
>has never done a convincing job of telling me why we should spend
>several billion on that instead of on a number of other alternatives.

Why must those alternatives exclude any attention to the Moon?  It's
been nearly a quarter of a century since *any* science mission flew
to the Moon.  It's not as if we understood the Moon all that well;
there are still lots of unanswered questions there.  Why should the
Moon -- the nearest celestial object, potentially of great long-term
significance to space activity -- be completely shut out?

Note that, for example, we now have better *maps* of Venus and Mars
than of the Moon.

>The US made a mistake in the 60s. We should have developed a better
>space infrastructure (shuttle, station) before going to the moon.
>Then going to the moon wouldn't have been such a one-shot thing.

However, it wouldn't have happened yet.  I'm not sure we'd be ahead,
overall.  The money was there for going to the Moon, and *only* for
going to the Moon.  Support for manned spaceflight was otherwise
quite weak.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: kditto@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimborly Ditto)
Subject: International Space Exploration
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 16:43:43 GMT


Greetings!

I am a PhD student in political science and will be presenting a paper on
the above subject on March 4, 1993.  

I am a new reader to this group, and probably missed a lot of discussion
that might have been relavent (sp??) to my paper.  If anyone could send me
information on things such as the return to the moon bill, or anything
else that might be pertinent to my paper, or sources for such information
I would be greatly appreciative.  The lib. at my home university is not
the best in the world, and is lacking on such sources.

Just for your info, the paper is a study in International Space
Exploration and the role the United Nations has/had in creating a regime
for the field.  Covered in the paper are all the treaties and agreements
that pertain to ISE, both UN and non-UN.

The final section is a prospectus on what is necessary to strengthen the
regime, to keep the drive for ISE alive.  THis might provide an
interesting discussion on this newsgroup.

E-mail replies are encouraged, so as not to take up unnecessary bandwith. 
Thank you in advance for your help.

--Kimborly A. Ditto

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: NASA policy
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:00:47 GMT

In article <Bz0H8A.IwD@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)  
writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.172030.28536@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu  
(Joe Cain) writes:
> >... If you did not
> >want to fund the space station over the next 30 years, what would be
> >your priorities for alternate use of the some $180 billion dollars
> >estimated to go into this project over this period?
> 
> Why bother?  What matters are Congress's priorities, not yours.  That
> money would *not* go into science, engineering, or the space program,
> to any great extent.
> 
> Bear in mind, also, that "$180 billion" is propaganda.  As a part of
> the US federal budget, spread over 30 years, that's tiny.
> -- 


Example of the above: the FY1992 budget.  As usual an amendment was proposed to  
kill station.  Where did that money get shifted to?  Out of the $2B only about  
$100M were left within NASA (give or take $20M).  Out of those 100, 10 to 15  
were left as _shut down_ costs for station.  End result only $90M (about 5%,  
maybe 10%) went to other NASA projects.

I'm hoping my memory serves right (no flames please) the point is that very  
little of what would come out of SSF went to NASA, most was intended to go to  
HUD and to a special Veteran's hospital project.  If you think these are  
worthier causes than SSF, no problem, but _please_ do not think that the money  
was going back to NASA.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
From: jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: space policy
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:08:53 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <STEINLY.92Dec8121311@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>Any opinions on what effect having Sally Ride as
>science, space and technology co-ordinator will
>have on Clinton's space policy??? 
>
Is this real or speculation.  I've not heard anything about Ride being
part of Clinton's administration.



/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
|                                                               |
|    Slogans of two generations:  1972:  Question Authority!    |
|                                 1992:  Why Ask Why?           |
From: cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Is Zionism a form of racism?
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:54:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1483500305:cdp:1483500310:000:1701
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cpr    Dec 12 05:54:00 1992



The story  in the beginning of this conference has been published in the
Israeli newspaper Hadashot 14. Sept. 1990 i0.
It was writeen in Hebrew by a racially pure Jew, a bona fide Israeli
citizen with full credetials from the Rabbinate.
It is of course a fiction-story, as anybody would recognize. But it
alas reflects the reality. Many non-Jews who arrived to Israel from the
Soviet Union were expelled from Israel after it was found that they
were not Jews but Christians who got 'Jews'-certificates to get out
from the Soviet Union. I am not even speaking of those hundreds of
thousands of non-Jews who are actually native of the country now called
Israel and who are prohibited by the force of the gun to return to
their homeland. 

Such refusal is contrary to:
The Human Rights Charter
The International Convention for the Abolition of all Forms of racial
   Districimination
The International Convent of Civil and Political Rights
United Nations Resolutions
and basic decency.

The Center for Policy Research is concerned with issues of justice, peace
and concentrates on the Zionist-Palestinian conflict. It works on the
base of principles such as the:
1. Respect for an stregthening of international law as tool for peace
2. The solution of the Palestine question on the base of UN resolutions
3. Unequivocal opposition to all forms of racial discrimination

I urge those who feel compelled to give vent to their anger, to
verify facts and point to possible mistakes in our contributions.
Any such constructive comments are highly welcome.
We are searching for the truth as condition for justice.

E Davidsson, born in Palestine 1941
(parents from Germany, Jews expelled from their homeland)
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Hamas
Date: 13 Dec 1992 07:57:32 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article 12736@colorado.edu, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>  And, it should be added, Jews were a 60%+ majority in
>the part allocated to Israel 

About 55%.  The usual figure ignores the Negev bedouin.

>- which did *not* include Jerusalem (and
>Jerusalem c. 1948 was roughly 70% Jewish).  

The international enclave of Jerusalem had marginally fewer 
than 50% Jews.

>So the partition was quite fair.

About twice as much land (with more than twice the average
economic value) per Jew as per Arab.  If a little circle was
drawn around each Arab house and the remainder was given to the
Jewish State, the latter would have been 100% Jewish and so
even fairer, according to your logic. 

>     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 

Brendan.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: waleed@hardy.u.washington.edu ()
Subject: Re: Is Zionism a form of racism?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.175348.1@v2.cgu.mcc.ac.uk> zzaaskk@v2.cgu.mcc.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.012504.16648@nysernet.org>, astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein) writes:
>> To even ask the question is to reveal oneself as a racist.
>> 
>> To post that fictional propaganda is to confirm that racism.
>> -- 
>> Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org
>
>..............Racism.....Terrorist..........anti-semit. 
>..............Anti-semite...Terrorist..................Racist
>Terrorist.....................racist.....................antisemit.....
> Terrorist --- terrorist..... terrorist......
>
>
>
>What ever I said in between the words must be true I have used enough of the
>words terrorist/racist/anti-semite. Gosh I must be a genius.
>
>Kamie

Probably Kamie is playing a dummy when she mumbles out or writes down some
dots ..... and assumes that she proved a point about relevance between
terrorism and racism. For those who are open minded out there. Let's
review what is racism.....In every respect, racism is the discrimination
against a group of poeple on bases of color, social status, opinion etc..
On the one hand, the Palestinean people has been subject to racism as
the Israelis oppressed them on the bases of their right to defend their
land....The only reason they are oppressed by the Israelis is solely
because they are fighting to sustain what's left of their land...hence the
Israelis are being racist as they discriminate against the original
inhabitants of that land. On the other hand, the Zionist movement declared
it's intention to eliminate the Palestinean people from the "land of Israel".
This was first spelled out Herzell who said " we want a land with no
people to a people with no land". Israeli ex prime minister Yitzhak Shamir
also made a similar statement " Our intention is to get rid of the
Palestinean people" 1987. Israeli acts of deporting Palestineans are just
other forms of racism against a people whose only claim is to sustain
their land.
What Kamie jot down does not prove anything except that she can't support
a claim. So she writes down some dots . Very stupid, isn't it.
May be some open minded people can read my article to see how Zionism is
one form of racism since it discriminates against people on the bases of
their claim of land.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000)
Subject: Re: Targetting civilians
Organization: LC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:14:36 GMT

In article <4675@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>>What is wrong with believing in the principles of Islam, Ron?  Your
>>suggestion that we should be carbon copies (or brainwashed) by
>>Islamic doctrine only promotes your ignorance and bigotry. 
>
>I mean, of course, that jle and I do not hold the exact same
>thoughts concerning Islamic doctrine as do millions of other
>people.  We are not carbon copies even if we express similar
>feelings and perspectives.  (Hey, at least we have the courage
>whereas so many others are afraid of expressing it - for fear
>of being stereotyped by you and others.)  I didn't mean to
>suggest that belief in pure Islamic doctrine means being brainwashed!
>
>Anisa

You said it all sister,  thanks.

jle

>
>	"So if you see me acting strangely, don't be surprised ..."
>
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Targetting civilians
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:44:57 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <42520@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> revans@euclid.ucsd.edu (Ron Evans) writes:
>
>	Two devotees of Islamic fundamentalism who often
>	act in concert are presenting us here with
>	divergent views.  Which is correct? Were the Scud attacks 
>	consistent with Islamic principles or not?  I think
>	Israelis would like to have a better understanding of the
>	codes they will be subject to once Hamas turns
>	Palestine into an Islamic state.


What is wrong with believing in the principles of Islam, Ron?  Your
suggestion that we should be carbon copies (or brainwashed) by
Islamic doctrine only promotes your ignorance and bigotry.  (Hey,
I guess its no secret by now that you dispise Islam.)  Second point -
about the Scuds, I already mentioned that in the prior posting.  It
only proved how sincere Saddam Hussein was to liberate Palestine.
Thirdly, Israelis just have a better excuse to suppress Islam in the
Occupied Territories by using Hamas as their example.  They have a
good enough understanding of their own fundamentalism to not allow an
Islamic or Palestinian state to exist.

Anisa
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians (fwd)
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:32:06 GMT
	<1992Dec18.211147.16575@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu's message of 18 Dec 92 21:11:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.211147.16575@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>
> In article <1gtbv7INNnf8@mizar.usc.edu> srose@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Rose) writes:
>
> # Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians is wrong, for at least three
> # reasons.
> # 1. It is illegal (according to Israeli, as well as international
> # law).
>
  Since the Israeli Supreme court allowed it, you are an idiot if
> you think it is illegal according to Israeli law.

Mr. Makowsky, we all know you are the mother of all idiots -- but do you
*have* to demonstrate it again and again?  For your information, the
Israeli Supreme Court allowed the deportation to take place without
ruling on its legality.  It set a date about a month from now for
arguments on that issue.

> As to international
> law, it is only illegal if you assume the FALSE interpretation of the
> fourth geneva concention that all deportations are illegal.

Article 49 of the 1949 (Fourth) Geneva Convention on the Protection
of War Victims states, among other things:

  Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
  protected persons [i.e., inhabitants of occupied territory -- YA]
  from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or
  to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited
  regardless of motive.

I can see how easily this can be FALSELY interpreted.  Good to know that
you have the CORRECT interpretation in your pocket.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
arens@isi.edu