HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:38:54 CDT
Originator: mccullou@sun-16.cae.wisc.edu


In article <1992Oct2.024226.21341@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.234338.15009@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
|> >egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> >
|> >>They could have surrendered.
|> >
|> >Some of them did.
|> 
|> I believe the ones in question (the ones who were buried) did not.
|> 
|> >
|> >Maybe others tried and were shot in the back as they ran towards the lines.
|> >
|> >Perhaps if the war had been honestly covered, we would have seen this on
|> >our televisions. How many cameras were on the front, operated by military
|> >people, little Kodaks and their like ? Some day, we'll know the truth. It
|> >can't be concealed forever.
|> 
|> Look at John MacArthur's _Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda In
|> the Gulf War_.  He does a very good job of ripping apart Bush's
|> reasons for going to war.
|> 
|> >
|> >Eventually, I expect that we will, and attitudes like yours will wither
|> >away. I, for one, will be happy to see a few less smug, self-righteous
|> >people rejoicing at the death of other people.
|> 
|> No, no, no.  I tend to have this idea that bad things happen during a
|> war.  That's inevitable: it's the nature of combat.  I've mentioned
|> this previously: I go by Clausewitz formulation, that war is very very
|> bad, and constraints on the violence is in some sense artifical
|> (except where political necessity requires such constraints).  He
|> emphasizes this throughout, with the aim of averting war, or at least
|> casual war.  I do not feel that the Gulf War was in any way necessary,
|> and that Bush had put blinders on us to wage it.  I also feel that
|> once the war had started, we had no real choice in the matter but to
|> conduct it as effectively as possible.

Do me a favor, tell me what practical choice we had.  Should we have let
Iraq absorb Kuwait?  Should we have continued on the ineffective policies
of the past of saying naughty boy, let me slap your wrist, oh, you're hurt,
let me make it up.  (remember China and Tietam Square massacre (sp?))  What
should we have done?  The quarantine was not working, that was being well
publicised, thanks to Jordan.  The quarantine would not have touched Hussein.
To use someone elses example, he would still be eating roast duck when most
people in his country would be fighting over water and bread.  I agree
that once it started, we had to end it, and I am glad that we managed to
so limit Allied casualties.  The air war had a little mentioned effect, it
broke the spirits of many Iraqi soldiers.  We all remember the pictures 
of surrendering soldiers.  Each soldier who surrendered was a life saved, and
yet one more person who wouldn't be shooting at Allied soldiers.

:)M^2
From: tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Guptill)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.atheism,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:42:22 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <BvHvp0.Kn0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  But note that this is nearly the same as demonstrating FOR more
>  tax funding for higher education.    I hope the students who are
>  doing this have done the numbers and have some specific suggestions
>  about how this should be paid for.


	Perhaps that's exactly the point:  education--at least through 4
years of college--should be publicly financed, IMHO.  This seems to be the
only way of insuring that all students, no matter what their economic
background may be, have an equal chance to get an education.  

-- 
|Tom Guptill           | tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu  (internet)  |
|CPU Box 277445 U of R |  "    " @db1.cc.rochester.edu (alt internet) |
|Rochester, NY 14627   |  "    " @uordbv (bitnet)                     |
|(716) 274-0156        |                                              |
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17162 alt.desert-storm:1880 alt.politics.clinton:8411
From: tom.betz@execnet.com (tom betz)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: growth of christian ident
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Quoth Cberlet regarding GROWTH OF CHRISTIAN IDENT on 09-24-92:

C >The use of deadly force against the family of Randy Weaver
C >was a tragic example of police misconduct and abuse of
C >power by government agencies. At the same time, Weaver's
C >belief in Christian Identity should not be sanitized, it is
C >a white supremacist anti-Jewish philosophy.

Chip, can you cite any solid evidence to support the claim that Randy 
Weaver was involved in the Christian Identity movement?

What I saw in the Dinardo post suggested that the Feds had attempted to 
frame Weaver by taking him to a meeting that he walked out of in disgust.

C >We must oppose both government abuse of power and racism.

No argument there... 



---
 ~ WinQwk 2.0 a#299 ~ I love my country.  I distrust its government.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Energy Policy (II)
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:29:10 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1503@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.234209.12290@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)  
>writes:
>> In article <CINDY.92Sep27152546@solan10.solan.unit.no>  
>cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>> 
>> >There's still another issue, however, and that issue is space.
>>	And there is also the question of how much space the
>>appropriate roadways consume.
>
>Actually, the piece I was discussing was completely conceptual.  The idea  
>was to brainstorm what the properties on an ideal transportation system  
>would be, completely free of any constraints, even technological.  If  
>there are no constraints, individual transportation would seem to be  
>superior to mass transportation.  But the respondents still named mass  
>transortation as the ideal solution, which perhaps says something about  
>their mindset.
>
>--
>Don McGregor
>drm@esl.com 

I think it says that most people cannot
easily switch to a no-constraint mode of though so easily.
I think the ideal transportation system without technological constraints
would be a Star Trek-type transporter.  
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17031 alt.desert-storm:1840 alt.politics.clinton:8120
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:42:26 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct1.234338.15009@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>They could have surrendered.
>
>Some of them did.

I believe the ones in question (the ones who were buried) did not.

>
>Maybe others tried and were shot in the back as they ran towards the lines.
>
>Perhaps if the war had been honestly covered, we would have seen this on
>our televisions. How many cameras were on the front, operated by military
>people, little Kodaks and their like ? Some day, we'll know the truth. It
>can't be concealed forever.

Look at John MacArthur's _Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda In
the Gulf War_.  He does a very good job of ripping apart Bush's
reasons for going to war.

>
>Eventually, I expect that we will, and attitudes like yours will wither
>away. I, for one, will be happy to see a few less smug, self-righteous
>people rejoicing at the death of other people.

No, no, no.  I tend to have this idea that bad things happen during a
war.  That's inevitable: it's the nature of combat.  I've mentioned
this previously: I go by Clausewitz formulation, that war is very very
bad, and constraints on the violence is in some sense artifical
(except where political necessity requires such constraints).  He
emphasizes this throughout, with the aim of averting war, or at least
casual war.  I do not feel that the Gulf War was in any way necessary,
and that Bush had put blinders on us to wage it.  I also feel that
once the war had started, we had no real choice in the matter but to
conduct it as effectively as possible.  That's all. 


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.164055.201@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
[Rich talks of CIA arming Iraqi's]

>well this is certainly interesting, Rich.  Mind telling us how you
>found out that the CIA was arming the Iraqis?  The press would be
>interested too.  After all, this is new information.


You should get out more Mike, this isnt new information.  Its actually quite
old.  Remember the big bad Iatohlah (yeah the spelling is way off, but
onomonpia (sp) is a great thing) in Iran?  Remember Iran Contra?  Well,
It goes to the old saying any foe of my enemy is a friend of mine.
When Iran and Iraq were in their splendid little war, we backed 
Saddam to a certain extent because we were enemies with iran and so was he.
Can anyone say Fidel Castro?  Anyhow, 
Saddam got some really good deals out of this id say.  Also there were lots of
companies who sold technology to saddam.  While this wasnt exactly 
CIA territory, some body screwed up.  


Derek H Cedillo

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There Are Two Great Tragedies In Life,
	One Is Not To Get Your Heart's Desire.
		The Other Is To Get It.
				-Bernard Shaw 
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613))
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: "Strong Family Values" (IV)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:27:18 GMT

In article <1ane92INNh0n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>
>It occurs to me that this article is a good example of something
>that I have long felt was an intellectual failure of liberalism.
>Liberals tend to identify a real social problem (e.g. lack of adequate
>health care) and then propose a plausible sounding solution (e.g.
>public health insurance). Without bothering to actually win the debate
>over whether their preferred program is actually the best (or even an
>adequate) way to address the underlying concern, they then shift the 
>terms of the discussion so that THE FAILURE TO ADOPT THEIR PROPOSED
>SOLUTION becomes identified as a social problem in itself.
>
>The article I'm responding to is far from the worst in this genre. It
>just happened to be in the right place at the right time to irritate
>me enough to provoke a response.
>
>My observations on the health care crisis are as follows. As long as
>the objective costs of providing adequate care are large compared to
>typical income levels there will be a problem. Schemes for reslicing the
>cake may change the shape of the problem and re-allocate the suffering,
>but they will not alleviate it. To resolve the problem we need a genuine
>economic recovery, so the typical person becomes wealthier, and better
>able to afford medical care, and lifes other necessities. On the medical
>front specifically, we need to bring the cost of medical technology down
>by investing in a new generation of medical equipment that will have the
>kind of design and cost advantages over present technology such as we have
>seen in the field of computers.
>
>-Steve

I usually don't agree with what you post, but you hit the nail on the
head with this one.

Also, Harel ignores the fact the medical costs did not start increasing
above the rate of inflation until the late 60s.  Medicaid/Medicare 
was what has caused all these problems, and he proposes more government
intervention to fix the problems they caused.  Sounds like a feedback
loop.


-- 
Chris Fischer (fischer@serum.clpd.KODAK.com)
They never even listen to my opinion, why would they make it policy?
"The healthy gum tissue of our liberties are being eaten away by the 
 periodontal disease of government regulation." - D.Barry
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:29:55 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct1.192613.19082@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.164055.201@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>[Rich talks of CIA arming Iraqi's]

>>well this is certainly interesting, Rich.  Mind telling us how you
>>found out that the CIA was arming the Iraqis?  The press would be
>>interested too.  After all, this is new information.

>You should get out more Mike, this isnt new information.  Its actually quite
>old.  

No Derek, it's new.

>Remember the big bad Iatohlah (yeah the spelling is way off, but
>onomonpia (sp) is a great thing) in Iran?  Remember Iran Contra?  Well,
>It goes to the old saying any foe of my enemy is a friend of mine.
>When Iran and Iraq were in their splendid little war, we backed 
>Saddam to a certain extent because we were enemies with iran and so
>was he.

This is well known, but if you had been following things closely
enough to remember how to spell Ayatollah you would probably know that
the CIA, as far as is known, wasn't involved in sending arms to Iraq.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:00:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.230412.14917@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>>Or are you suggesting that we should have stopped shooting at them
>>altogether?  In that case they could have sat there for the next year.
>
>Where would they go ?

They could have surrendered.


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17073 alt.conspiracy:10913
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:10:59 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <1992Sep28.110549.15228@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
:loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb) writes:
:
:> Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans 
:> into the American political process -- for the good of our country.  
:
:Ah, so they believe the ends justifies the means? They'll do whatever
:it takes, laws and existing regulations be damned.

Are you saying that a political organisation signing up for a commercial
usenet/mail feed is breaking the law?

:> We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century 
:> democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the 
:> internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send 
:> your comments and ideas back to us.
:
:Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political
:organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the
:people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation
:Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could
:get on the 'net so they can plot tree-spiking.

That sounds like a good idea.  It's called democracy.  Hell, we've already
got b-cpu - some of the groups you mentioned seem almost rational in
comparison.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:39:08 GMT

rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) writes:

>If some Iraqis were buried alive in the heat
>of combat, they can thank Mr. Hussein for that.

Yes... We did what was necessary to save American lives. That's why they called
this Another Cover-Up!


The PunMeister
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16971 alt.desert-storm:1825
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:00:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Sep28.021820.9274@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear) writes:
> >Spare me.  They have just as much right to blather on the net as we
> >do.

> Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information across the
> net too?

There's a big difference between posting messages espousing a political
ideology and posting messages selling a commercial product. You win a
free clue for confusing the two. 

> >And just who shall we elect to decide which printing presses are to
> >be closed down for `political' activities?

> "Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses.

Which government? 


-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: waf9851@zeus.tamu.edu (FULLER, WALTER ANDREW III)
Subject: Re: You gotta know who your friends are
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:25:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.155723.1@mdcbbs.com>, ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com) writes...
>Now, this isn't verbatum, but it is my interpetation of what I heard. Mr. Perot 
>may not be leaning to Clinton, but the above shows that he is no friend of 
>Georges.

You got that right in a big way!

Xref: sparky alt.activism:17138 alt.politics.clinton:8359
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: DEMOCRACY FOR ECONOMICS
Summary: Yes, let'd elect the Fed.
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Sep29.180608.1410@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>                           DEMOCRACY FOR ECONOMICS

In this litany of really bad ideas, based on wishful, but shockingly
ignorant thinking, I was surprised to find one (but only one) good idea:

...
>          For 
>          example, the person occupying the position now held by Alan 
>          Greenspan should be periodically and directly ELECTED on a 
>          national level.

This is a good idea.  "National Review" recommended that we elect the Fed
in their June 10th, 1991 issue.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:49:27 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Given that this outburst came from Jimmy Keegan, 
->the accurate answer is that it's one of those 
->male-inability-to-compete, lack-of-penis-size things.

why kebbie, you never complained about size before.
but, given your intimate knowledge, i guess you can
express your opinion.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3429 alt.rush-limbaugh:6224 talk.abortion:39480
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:00:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Sep28.183546.152964@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep28.162350.7937@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>> We could save some money by not funding abortion rights, I guess.
>
>Actually, no.
>
>An average of $4.40 in health and welfare costs is saved for each public
>dollar spent on family planning services.
>
>For every $1.00 spent by government to pay for abortions
>for poor women, about $4.00 is saved in public medical and welfare
>expenditures incurred as a result of the unintended birth.
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

 Yeah, and if we kill everyone, public medical and welfare expenditures 
will be zero.  That's something that I didn't expect to hear from the 
"caring" political party.

Somebody once said "Let them die then, and decrease the surplus population." 
Is this the kind of guy that pro-abortionists want to use as a role model?

Ted

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3534 alt.rush-limbaugh:6512 talk.abortion:40519
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CWA Membership (was: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Summary: There was little gender gap on Anita Hill
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:02:40 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: na
Organization: HALF, Beaverton, OR

In article <JYM.92Oct1144216@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu
(Jym Dyer) writes:
>> Two-thirds of American women did not believe Anita Hill . . .
>
>=\= I don't know where you got that one, but it contradicts the
>polls I've seen, which show an *enormous* gender gap on this
>particular issue.

And I don't know where you got that.  It was widely reported that there
were only a few points difference between men, and women, or whites and
blacks (inside or almost inside the margin of error) in the major media and
on NPR (which I remember specifically).  63 to 70 percent of the people,
even broken down by race or gender, did not believe Anita Hill and thought
Thomas should be confirmed.  You are the first I've seen say otherwise.

"The vast majority of American women, 63 percent according to the polls,
didn't believe Anita Hill and don't think sexual harassment is the most
important issue of our time."
	- Rush Limbaugh, "The Way Things Ought to Be", 1992
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner