HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Disgusted (W#as Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 09:58:50 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

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:
] >>WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER.
] >>The only rats I smell are people who insist on killing off nuclear power
] >>leaving us no option but to burn fossil fuels (wind, sea and solar power
] >>are still too expensive to be of any use).
] >
] Jan Steinman discussed the unequal support of certain types of energy
] but it goes even further.  Wind power generation is already economically
] competitive where its windy, espicially in the upper plains and solar
] technologies are improving extremely fast.


And the Altamont Pass comes to mind......

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.
It's almost as bad as being paid not to raise pigs.

Bluntly, my opinion on these wind farms is if the selfish, grasping
S.O.B's who own them now won't operate them, take them away and give
them to someone who will.  Invoke eminent domain and let'em take *that*
as a tax deduction instead.


Who, me?  Angry?  Pissed off at these clowns?  Disgusted at the lengths
people will go to to try to cheat their fellow man?

	You bet I am.


-- 
      "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: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:49:14 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Jan11.153306.18896@hasler.ascom.ch> steinman@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch writes:
>In article 726755336@unix1.tcd.ie, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes:
>>I can only come to the
>>following conclusion:
>>WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER.
>>The only rats I smell are people who insist on killing off nuclear power
>>leaving us no option but to burn fossil fuels (wind, sea and solar power
>>are still too expensive to be of any use).
>
Jan Steinman discussed the unequal support of certain types of energy
but it goes even further.  Wind power generation is already economically
competitive where its windy, espicially in the upper plains and solar
technologies are improving extremely fast.  The best option for more
power in the short term is to use less via efficiency retrofits.  If
we took the money we would normally spend on new power plants, and spent
it instead on efficiency, the US might not need new plants (except for
some local shortages) for up to 20 years.  I can support all of this with
statistics from independent studies.  Whatever one thinks of nuclear
power, the US simply doesn't need it now.

-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Population (was Re: Greens vs. Property Rights)
Followup-To: talk.environment
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:13:24
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1993Jan5.065509.16679@netcom.com>
	<JMC.93Jan4234717@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 5 Jan 93 07:47:17 GMT

=+= Please remember that there are both sci.environment and
talk.environment newsgroups for discussion of environmental
issues such as population, and several forums in which to
discuss the credibility of the Heritage Foundation and other
right-wing "think tanks."

=+= This newsgroup was created to discuss Green movements,
not to serve as yet another talk.environment.
    <_Jym_>
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 09 Jan 93 08:05 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600074:000:420
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  9 08:05:00 1993


>The fact is (IMHO) that pure laissez faire is lethal to itself.
>When some accumulate a large amount of wealth, they use that wealth
>to distort the market conditions to perpetuate their wealth and to
>prevent others from obtaining similar wealth.  
>
>Lee Daniel Crocker
 
Lee, you are starting to make sense.  I knew there was common ground
between Libertarians and Greens.  (Just don't want to overstate it.)
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu (David M. Pfarrer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:55:13 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
>
>	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
>(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
>anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
>rights?  Is it in the party line?
>
>Mike Arras
>arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de

NPR is slightly left of center -- only in the US could they be
considered "far left." 


          ****************************************************
          | David Pfarrer           | "Respect means, put    |
          | pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu |   yourself out"        |
          | pfarrer@harvunxw.bitnet |      - Pascal          |
          ****************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 23:18:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.044801.29570@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.185624.5328@leland.Stanford.EDU> miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>>What are property rights?
>>What is property?
>>What property is created and what property is found in nature?
>>Who produces the property which is created?
>>Is property creation a human right?
>>What is a human right?
>>Is the act of buying or selling a human right?
>>Is a green eco-system compatible with buying and selling?
>>Can humans live in a society which sees the environment as a thing
>>of beauty and life and not as a commodity to be sold to the highest
>>bidder by its owner?
>

>Property is whatever you would complain about my taking from you.
I'm tired of pollution in MY air, water, soil, and food.  Stop it
or me and my little green and yellow buddies are going to take it
away from you.  Your right to your property does not supersede my
right to my property--those things which I don't like you taking
from me.

>If your house is left open for any passer by to wander in, occupy,
>and take from, then I'll believe you don't know what property is.
This is my planet and I'm tired of you and your kind treating it as
your own personal whore.  Shape up or ship out.


>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.  Otherwise, just admit the simple fact obvious
>to anyone with a brain: the right to property is as natural and
>basic as the right to life.
>-- 
I can assure you that I feel no guilt about telling you and people who
can see beyond their own individual noses that the pollution of the 
planet--our planet--must stop, even if it means taking away your
private property.


>Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
>leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776


-- 
Complain yes; but organize!
Join the Wobblies.  Phone (415)863-WOBS


Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: doug@cdc.hp.com (Doug Sojourner)
Subject: Re: DEMOCRACY AND CONSENSUS
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:03:38 GMT
Reply-To: dsojourner@cdc.hp.com
Organization: HP California Design Center, Santa Clara, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

Dean Alaska (dean@vexcel.com) wrote:
:As Dale described, decentralization and consensus should limit this
:problem, but they will not guarantee that the threat of majority
:tyranny disappears.  The only guarantee of that is anarchy.  

Of course, even in an anarchy there is still no guarantee that that a
large group of people might not "gang up" and force their will on
others.

Doug Sojourner
dsojourner@cdc.hp.com
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Let's Discuss Biology! (was Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!)
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:18:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen,
<dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
[concerning nuclear power]
>Are you concerned that the radioactivity will create mutant life forms?

	Nothing personal, Dale, but you've just hit a sore spot with me.
It's statements like this that make me wish we had more biologists in the
Green Party/movement.  A lot more.  I wish that biologists would have been
present when the Animal Rights plank of the California Green Party platform
was written.

	The principal effect of radioactive damage to DNA in higher organisms
is to induce cancers or lethal mutations.  The chance of an organism suffering
a mutation that is not lethal, but is ecologically significant, is very small.
The less complex the organism, the more likely that you will obtain such a
mutation - but still, we're talking about a very improbable occurrence, even 
with bacteria.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
From: Alex Brozan <soap@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 05 Jan 93 14:55 PST
Subject: Re: NOT LEFT NOR RIGHT BUT UPFRONT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600013:cdp:1678600034:000:2006
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!soap    Jan  5 14:55:00 1993




I think it is reasonably clear the the Greens grew out of groups 
on the left of the political spectrum, beginning with the anti-nuke
movement in Germany and other European countries.

However, where can one now say the Greens do or should identify 
themselves?  I am a leftist, and consider myself a Green as well,
though I am not formally associated with any explicitly Green
organization.  I think that the Green movement has quite a bit
it can take from perspectives on the left, and quite a bit to avoid.  

What we have seen in recent years is numerous progressive and 
"leftist" groups all of sudden seeing the green light, if you
will.
Many groups have all of a sudden tacked on ecological concerns
to their list of "issues", often  as a n afterthought.  They often
should little genuine commitment to environmental issues and
struggles.
Their perspective does not grow out of an ecological mindset.
I think that Greens must take interdependence, ecological 
(and social) interconnectedness as their starting point, as
their grunding on which to build a political philosophy and
practice.  Then we can take what's good from the lessons of the Left and
abandon what's not.

The other problems with the historical left, in my mind are
(a) materialism, as someone already mentioned, and (b) hierarchy
and authoritarianism.

A: In my personal view, botgh Marxism and Capitalism are opposite
sides of the same materialist/consumptive coin that sees 
consumption and production as the ultimate goal and inherent
destiny of humankind.  It is this mindset we must
reject.

B: There have been groups and schools of thought on the Left that have
been ridiculously top-down and undemocratic.  We need to build on 
tradtions of non-authoritarian, cooperative, decentralized
tendencies on the "left."

For all its flaws, screwups, contradicti0ons, we as Greens
can gain much from the principles and history of that much varied,
overly broud end of the political spectrum lumped
together as the "left."


alex
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 04:02:19 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <7117@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!) writes:
] Maybe people could say why they agree or disagree with the statement:
] The environment is much more than politics and by being a political party
] concentrating on the environment leaves the party open to criticisms (and
] big problems) by leaving out all other "political" concerns (eg housing)"


Couldn't agree more.  You have no *idea* of how much resistance myself
and my small group ran into when we tried, in 1978/79, to convince the
Ecology party in England that it *really needed* to have a coherent
defense policy.

...No, I take that back.  You probably have a very *good* idea how much
resistance there was.


	- But we won out in the end!


-- 
      "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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: wurton@netcom.com (William L. Urton)
Subject: Re: SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:19:06 GMT

As an aside to the discussion on sustainable agriculture, there is a
newsgroup dedicated to this topic (alt.sustainable.agriculture), as 
well as an archive site (ftp to sunsite.unc.edu (152.2.22.81), look
under /pub/docs/sustainable_agriculture ) with lots of materials. 
-- 
Bill Urton  email: wurton@netcom.com 
3930 Broad River Rd., Apt. P-5, Columbia, SC, USA 
(803)731-5969 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Long-term leases?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:33:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.183723.26699@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington
.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>
>[...]
>I am sceptical (to put it mildly) of legislative solutions to
>anything, believe that human ownership of land should be abolished and
>replaced by long term leases [...]

     Ummmm...leased from who? Animals?
     Sorry for the sarcasm, but a leasee assumes a leaser, who must be either a
fellow human being or an entity representing many human beings. Either way, 
there is "human ownership".
     If your point is that you don't trust private ownership, may I ask if you 
trust government ownership? Remember that much of the most badly polluted land 
and worst clear-cutting can be found on government-controlled property. And if 
you consider the situation in E. Europe and the USSR...
     Please elaborate on what you meant, Paul. I'd be interested in reading 
what you have to post.

                                        Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)

    Building of the new .sig in progress. Please be patient.
      Sorry for the inconvenience.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.greens:345 alt.config:8402
From: rowanf@crc.ricoh.com (Rowan Fairgrove)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,alt.config
Subject: Re: The Purpose of alt.politics.greens
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:23:39 GMT
Reply-To: rowanf@crc.ricoh.com (Rowan Fairgrove)
Organization: RICOH California Research Center

John Ladasky wrote:

> 	Jym Dyer and Cameron Spitzer both make the excellent point that
>the purpose of alt.politics.greens is to discuss Green movement/party issues,
>not to debate things we've largely accepted already.  I agree.  Thanks, guys,
>for reminding us.

Debate!  All I see is flame wars.  I hope we can get down
to some consensus building among people who are interested
in the cause of the Greens without being tracked into dealing
with flames from people who are not interested in sharing our
purpose.

Perhaps someone would be willing to post the principles (I can't
seem to find a copy on my hard disk) and we can discuss how
to bring Green principles into actuality in our workplaces.  What
we envision for a Green future and paths we might take to get 
there.  Right livelihood, living lightly, celebrating diversity, 
preserving a planet that can support a diverse and living biosystem.

There are so many things we need to talk about and it feels to
me like there is very little time to fix a great many broken things.




Rowan Fairgrove

*****************************************
Current Book: When the Bough Breaks (Lackey & Lisle)
Current Music:  Pomegranate - Dance of the Seasons
Current Movie: Hoffa
Current Holiday:  Ides of January
Current Drink: caffe latte with Tuaca
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 15:44 PST
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Nf-ID: #R:1993Jan6.194324.13459@beaver.cs.:1812685772:cdp:1678600056:000:1009
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 15:44:00 1993


> I have directed followups to talk.environment.  It strikes me as
> inappropriate to continue a conversation of this nature in alt.politics.
> greens.  Greens have already accepted the soundness of an environmental
> stance.  I think that anyone who decides to read alt.politics.greens is 
> already aware of the fact that we are environmentalists.  To continue this
> debate within a forum whose purpose it is to inform people about Green
> policies strikes me as uninformative.

I would like to hear what the other Greens think about this.  However,
for me, the real delight of these discussions is how Greens are able
to discuss our perspective of the issues with many who do not share
our views.  It helps sharpen our thinking and helps us learn how to
relate to others beyond our movement.  This is a critical skill if
we are to truly grow.  Besides, I am not aware of hardly any other
forums where Greens can get such practice.

And, who knows, maybe we'll get some converts in the process??????

Dale
From: geoffg@sco.COM (Geoff Galitz)
Subject: Greens around the World
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:04:59 GMT



	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
	Georgia (ex-USSR)
	Sweden
	Slovenia (ex-Yugoslavia)
	Croatia (ex-Yugoslavia)
	Estonia (ex-USSR)
	Ireland
	Kamchatka (ex-USSR)
	Russia
	Azerbaijan (ex-USSR)
	Armenia (ex-USSR)
	Kazakhastan (ex-USSR)
	Mongolia
	United States of America
	United Kingdom
	Canada
	Brazil
	Australia
	Poland 
	Slovakia (ex-Chekloslovakia) [sp]
	Ukraine (ex-USSR)
	Germany
	France
	Mexico
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	(Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely,)
	power attracts the corruptable.		      Frank Herbert
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
         Geoff Galitz ** geoffg@sco.com ** or ** galitz@igc.org
                Santa Cruz, Central Coast California, US 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 09 Jan 93 19:30 PST
Subject: Re: NOT LEFT NOR RIGHT BUT UPFRONT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600013:cdp:1678600081:000:437
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  9 19:30:00 1993


> Complaints about consumerism go back to Roman times.  The complaint has
> two aspects.
 
A third complaint is that consumers consume material goods to solve
psychological needs.  Since the psychological needs are not satisfied
by material consumption, they are frustrated and only consume more.
This disfunctional behavior is not only harmful to the environment,
it also is very sad for the individual and his or her community.
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:26:50 GMT

leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:

>Food, shelter, defense, and all of the other things to which leftists
>would "entitle" everyone do not fall from heaven; they are the products
>of work.  Providing them means encouraging work, and history has shown
>that the best way to encorage work is to guarantee to each worker his
>or her exclusive right to the fruits of his/her labor.  That system is
>called Capitalism, and any other system is heartless and immoral.

The idea that Capitalism is the system that guarantees workers the
"exclusive right to the fruits of his/her labor" is astonishing, and
certainly would be a revelation to all the workers in this country that
struggled to feed their families on starvation wages and were beaten,
shot and thrown out of work by the goon squads hired by the companies
that actually owned the fruits of their labor.  Even the simplest
American history course should reveal the idiocy of suggesting that
capitalism -- at least as it is actually _practiced_ -- is anything but
heartless and immoral.  Whatever benefits/kindnesses are practiced by
corporations today were forced on them by the collective action of
workers, NOT by any inherent virtue in capitalism.

--Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400)